I have been asked to post this by Lanya at the Three Dead Horses Saloon debategate.com Do forgive me,. but this is a lengthy post. It is a refutation of this blog entry, which she posted there. First, some background on myself. I spent twenty years in the United States Army, the bulk of which was spent in Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status. I have worked as a training NCO in a CFP Tier 1-A unit as well as doing USR preparation, finance clerk work and many other administrative duties. I have found several incorrect interpretations of these documents. In the interest of fairness, I must say that I cannot be absolutely certain of the interpretation of Texas NG rules. But the documentation you have provided is easily understood - and it completely disproves what you would have it prove. At its worst interpretation, it simply leaves no answer. I should point out that I have been dealing with these issues for a while and there is one important definition I must make: Control Group. That is a generic term that refers to units like this "ARF" unit. In the Army Reserve, this is called the IRR or "Individual Ready Reserve." But everyone calls it "the control group". You mentioned very much in passing that it was used "among other things" for disciplinary purposes. Strictly speaking that is not true; Control Groups are only administrative. But even in the less legal sense there are NUMEROUS reasons for being in a control group. I spent a few years in the control group myself, as a Delayed Entry Program soldier and as an IRR member during a voluntary break in service. It is pure supposition to assume (and we in the military know how to spell that word) that Bush was "ARF'd" for "disciplinary" reasons. Having made that clear as mud let me proceed to post my refutation. (I will not edit this from its original intent, so if I say something which seems out of place, please excuse me. Even I don't have THAT much stamina!) Lastly, do forgive me if I post something beyond a reasonable limit. I intend no breech of etiquette, but you have invited comment and I have been asked to respond. Also, CAPS are for emphasis. Excuse my loudness! POST FOLLOWS: (comments enclosed in
[ ] brackets are excerpts from your original blog.)
[ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.]
Untrue. Being placed in a control group is not disciplinary. It is simply what happens when you are not serving in an active status for ANY reason. And many people in control group status attend drills and receive credit from individual units. Which leads us to the big "mystery".
[In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, ]
ROFLMAO!!!! It is ABUNDANTLY clear what the points are for. There is ONLY one way to get TWO POINTS PER DAY. That is DRILL ATTENDANCE (though for clarity it should be pointed out that one can attend an alternate drill individually - like doing admin work for the unit). If you work a day of ACTIVE DUTY it is only worth ONE point (and one day's pay). EVERY SINGLE ENTRY ON THIS FORM is for a drill period except three periods in may where he performed 9 days of active duty. (Those days also correspond to points.) So the great "mystery" here is solved. George Bush performed drill duty (or alternate drill duty) on these days except the nine days of AD. To the point, THIS CARD IS PROOF OF HIS DUTY PERFORMANCE. It is acceptable proof of retirement points.
Let's examine his Training Year 1973 (TY 73):
In the first quarter (military years start in October) Bush received 12 points for drill performance. That is perfect. Apparently, he drilled extra in November to make up for December. This is entirely appropriate and very frequently done to accomodate holiday plans. TY731Q - PERFECT.
In the second quarter, Bush received 12 points for drill performance - perfect. He did them all in January. That is a little unusual, but so long as all of the periods in question fall in the same quarter that is legal. It is also unusual, though again legal, that he crammed his drills into four-day periods. Actually, that MIGHT be a little less than kosher because I thought that the MAX time period for a drill was a MUTA-6 (three full days) but that may be only for full units. I expect commanders have some discretion for individuals. Also, since this was still in a "wartime" period (though obviously not actively so by then) such rules may have been more flexible. Nevertheless, Bush's TY73-2Q is also PERFECT.
Third Quarter: Bush received 8 drill points and 9 active duty points. Where is the other Drill period? Must have missed one, eh? NOPE. But I'll save that for next quarter. So he had two drills for that quarter, with a "summer camp" period thrown in. (Again, the standard unit Annual Training (AT) period is fourteen days but individual soldiers can and do perform alternate duties and frequently split the time up to accomodate civilian employment or personal needs. This is at the discretuion of the commander.) So, TY73-3Q is not perfect, UNLESS . .
Fourth Quarter. There is no recorded performance of duty during this period. Got that bastard now!!! TY73-4Q Crash and Burn!! Umm, not quite . . .
Look at that TNG form. Note the EXTREMELY important date called Anniversary Retirement Date: 27 May 68. Well, right off I know this is wrong. Huh? Well the correct retirement date is actually 26 May. PERIOD. No year and NOT 27 May. WTF is Pooch talking about? Well this is another admin type's pet peeve. The clerk who prepared this form made a very common error - two in fact - in this block. He put a year on the date. This is ONLY supposed to be a month and a day. And this date will always be ONE DAY BEFORE your original enlistment date. It is the day of the year on which YOUR PERSONAL RETIREMENT YEAR ends. In the reserves today it is called the RYE (Retirement Year End) date. It is the day BEFORE your enlistment date because a year goes from 1 Jan to 31 Dec - not 1 Jan to 1 Jan. (Get it? Bush's retirement year went from 27 May to 26 May EACH YEAR.) Don't believe me? Look at those lines on the bottom of the form in pencil. Each year just like it belongs there. Whaddaya know? The reason the computer form cuts off in May is because MAY 27th STARTED A NEW YEAR!!!!! And guess what? Click on that link for the next year's form and we have, yet again, PROOF that Bush DID serve both inactive and active duty time for the remainder of that TY. In other words, this "damning" evidence is anything but. It is CLEAR PROOF THAT BUSH WAS SERVING ON DUTY (and gittin' paid) DURING THAT TIME!
Now let's look at the retirement year as a whole. A reservist/guardsmen is required to obtain 50 points to make a "good" year. During this year (or at least the period from October - May that we see documented) Bush obtained 9 AD points, 32 drill points (for a total of 41) and also (as every guardsman or reservist) 15 points for membership (freebies, they all get 'em.). This gives Bush 56 total points for a good year. In fact, since we do not know what Bush had during the FIRST half of this year it is very likely more. (Why is this not on the other form? See below.)
It is sheer fabrication - and I think maliciously - to make the patently false statement that control group is a "disciplinary" unit. The specious logic that is is disciplinary "because you can be called up to active duty" is ridiculous. ANY Guard or Reserve unit could be and can be called to Active Federal Service in a crisis. And individual reservists can be called from their units to fulfill special needs (such as the need for a critically short job field or "MOS"). So I guess ALL guard.reserve units are disciplinary. Clearly, there is a complete lack of knowledge of the military - at least certainly of admin procedures - in the analysis of this information.
There is also a simple misunderstanding of a basic reality of military - and general - life, to wit, the TNG form. Now, though technically all such forms should be reasonably standard (because these are the "proof" of points for retirement and pay purposes) they can vary from unit to unit. Also, remember that in the early '70's computer technology was nothing like it is today. The fact that information on one form is not recorded onto another proves absolutely nothing. To apply Achem's Razor, the most simple explanation for this computer form information not being recorded on the pen and ink form is that someone FORGOT TO DO IT. I once took a PT test and somebody lost the form. When it came time to be evaluated that year I had no PT test! (This is huge for a soldier.) So I had to rush right out and take one, though I protested the whole time. I was highly pissed! Now, to the rest of the world, it was as good as if I had NEVER taken a PT test at all. Had I been running for President of the local Physical Fitness club my rivals would have said "Why, this man never took a PT test! SLACKER! SHIRKER!! UNFIT FAT AND WOBBLY ONE!!! And in the case of the first two charges they would have been wrong. :D People lose records, fail to update records, make errors on records and generally screw up records CONSTANTLY in the military. Try resolving a records error issue through the Army Board of Corrections. It takes YEARS, literally, because there is such a backlog of errors. The simple fact that some clerk failed to make an annual entry at the end of 1973 or couldn't find that form among the thousands of other sheets of paper could explain this huge "mystery."
Bottom line: These forms are ABSOLUTELY proof that Bush served honorably during that period of time. Those who have tried, repeatedly, to skew and misrepresent these forms as anything else are WRONG - maybe maliciously, possibly ignorantly. But they are nonetheless wrong.
calpundit.com |
