SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (3736)9/8/2004 6:35:57 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 7936
 
Its interesting that reviews of the records by different people or organizations, don't just come up with wildly different conclusions (that's to be expected in the current partisan atmosphere) but actually come up with very different "facts".

It is clear that Bush earned more points for service then he needed over his entire enlistment. Its also clear that he recieved an honorable discharge in 1973. The last day he was paid for guard duty was The last day he was paid for Guard duty was July 30, 1973.

According to MSNBC

"He was placed on inactive Guard duty six months before his commitment ended at his request because he was starting Harvard Business School. He was honorably discharged."

msnbc.msn.com

The main controversy was about whether Bush reguarly attended drills in Alabama. From the same story -

"Bill Calhoun, 69, of Atlanta, was a lieutenant colonel at Dannelly Air National Guard Base near Montgomery at the same Bush was posted there. Calhoun, whose name was supplied to The Associated Press by a Republican close to Bush, told the AP that Bush showed up for drills with the the 187th TAC Recon Group on at least six occasions.

Bush and Calhoun had been trained as fighter pilots, and Calhoun said the two would swap "war stories" and even eat lunch together on base.

“He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it,” Calhoun said. “... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time, and he left at the end of the day.”

''I see no evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that document, he should have fulfilled his obligation."

Bush's ARF retirement summary shows that he placed on Inactive Status" as of September 15, 1973. So it would seem that he was not required to finish out his full enlistment. This would make sense considering the fact that he already had the points required for his full enlistment and because even people without the points required where being let go at the time. It was easy for pilots to get out of the service in 1973 because there were too many pilots both active and reserve/guard. When Vietnam started winding down a lot of the active pilots tried to get guard or reserve slots, others active or not had to "fly desks" and for the most part were no longer needed by the military.

Also see
foxnews.com
and

"On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

nationalreview.com

washtimes.com

shotinthedark.info

New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)

Newly released records reflect payments and credits for Air National Guard service meeting minimum requirements, despite a six-month gap.
factcheck.org

Timeline of Bush's service from AP via MSNBC

Jan. 19, 1968
Bush completes Air Force officer qualifications test in New Haven, Conn., while attending Yale University.

May 27, 1968
Walter B. Staudt, commander of the Texas National Guard, interviews Bush and recommends he be accepted for pilot training. Bush’s application for enlistment in the Guard is approved.

June 1968
Bush receives bachelor of arts degree from Yale.

July 12, 1968
A three-member Federal Recognition Examining Board reports Bush is qualified for promotion to 2nd Lieutenant in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron.

July 14, 1968
Bush attends basic military training in San Antonio.

Aug. 25, 1968
Completes basic military training.

Nov. 26, 1968 - Dec. 2, 1969
Attends undergraduate pilot training with the 3559th Student Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Ga. He is trained to fly standard Air Force aircraft, including the T-31, T-37, and T-39.

Dec. 29, 1969 - Jan. 20, 1970
Trainee, 111th Squadron, Ellington Air Force Base, near Houston.

Jan. 11, 1970
Assigned flying duty as a pilot of F-102 fighter interceptors, 111th Squadron at Ellington.

Aug. 24, 1970
Three-member board recommends 2nd Lt. Bush for promotion to first lieutenant. Bush later receives the promotion.

1971
Participates in drills and alerts at Ellington. Begins work for Houston-based agricultural company.

May 1972
Bush asks for and receives permission to continue his duties in Alabama while he works as political director on the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, a friend of his father. Loses flight credentials after missing physical exam.

Sept. 6, 1972
Bush’s request for a three-month transfer to 187th TAC Recon Group, Montgomery, Ala. is approved so he can work as political director for a Senate campaign.

November 1972
Bush returns to his unit at Ellington in Texas.

May-July 1973
Participates in non-flying drills at Ellington. Works at inner-city poverty program earlier in the year.

Sept. 18, 1973
Bush receives permission to transfer to reserve status and is placed on inactive guard duty about six months before six-year commitment ends. Attends Harvard Business School in the fall.

Oct. 1, 1973
Receives honorable discharge



To: tejek who wrote (3736)9/8/2004 7:18:33 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7936
 
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



To: tejek who wrote (3736)9/8/2004 7:25:46 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 7936
 
DOC23.gif is an ENLISTMENT CONTRACT. If this proves Bush was disciplined then EVERY member of the TANG was similarly disciplined. I tentatively take back my earlier assessment of this blog's integrity. Though again, in fairness, it may be that this blog is merely posting this excerpt from another site. The "impression" that one poster had that this was not a standard document was, in fact, wrong. If I were not so damn lazy I would gather all of the nonsense I have seen posted on this subject and make my own website showing how this information is being deliberately or ignorantly (or a bit of both) misrepresented to paint an incorrect picture. But I suspect that those who wish to see Bush canned would not bother to visit, or would not bother to critically examine this evidence. There is nothing here that cannot be refuted by someone knowledgeable. The good airman who interpreted this in the first place may well be simply misinformed. Even the best pilot (and make no mistake I respect anyone with the balls to drive a sky buggy) is not necessarily informed about administrative things. OTOH, this airman may also be simply trying to create a BS story. My gut feeling is the former, but either way, again, it is wrong.

When someone gets REAL proof that Bush was UNSAT (He was probably not AWOL and DEFINITELY not a deserter - he couldn't possibly be.) please forward it to straypooch@yahoo.com. So far, everything I have seen points to only one screw-up - his failure to obtain a physical - which is definitely irresponsible and for which he was quite correctly administratively disqualified from flight status. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with his record so far. The comment on his discharge form that states that he had remaining time on his obligation is, again, a standard comment. Someone called the language "astonishingly unammbiguous." It is. It should be. Any reserve soldier I discharged into the IRR after they completed the active portion of their reserve duty had the same statement. Any active duty soldier who is honorably discharged has the same statement. Any member (and this could well include Bush) who takes an "early out" will have that statement. It simply means that a member has been moved from active status to inactive status with a remaining obligation. If you take a three year active duty hitch today, your DD 214 will have a similar statement on it when you leave three years from now. It will state that you have completed three years of your eight-year obligation. And for the five following years you will have no duty to perform (except keeping your records up to date). All of this damning evidence is simply routine statements taken out of context or badly misinterpretted data. When I see terms like "punishment orders" (no such thing)and "disciplinary unit" (for control group) thrown around I have to laugh. I have said to this point in my conversations (on other sites) that it looked like Bush was at least a pretty crappy unit member. This ARF retirement point form has modified my view. It looks like Bush was pretty active after all. It just looks like he blew it as an officer on a hugely important point - flight qualification. If he intended to be an AF Officer, I wouldn't have given him three years after that - certainly not past the next promotion board. But in all other areas, this AWOL nonsense is just that. btw, he could have missed EVERY drill and not been AWOL. Summer camp was another issue. But I am boring you. That's because this is just so much dull administrative blather. Sensationalist interpretation makes it sexy. Too bad that so far it is all wrong.
Posted by: Stray Pooch at February 9, 2004 09:02 PM | PERMALINK

calpundit.com

ou and the retired "Lt Col" are in left field. "ARF" is the Air Reserve Forces, which nowadays is referred to as "ARC" for Air Reserve Component.

Teh Guard is a fedreally recognized state militia. This goes back to the Dick Act in the early 1900's. the federal Gov't wanted a way to ensure that in future wars (after lessons learned from the Civil War and SPanish-American War) that it would have control over teh various state militias (each state had many). The Federal Gov't promised to pay and equip those units (generally) as long as the State recruited and trained tehm to federal standards.

The first form that you have is his ponits statement for 1 year, which begins on a date called the "retirement/retention" date. It shows all of the points he earned for that time period. IN order to remain a "satisfactory participant", one must complete at least 50 points per year. Bush did this for every year, according to the document.

As to why it's an "ARF" document, that goes back to the first paragraph that I wrote. Although the Guard is a State force, it can be called into federal service (obviously). Not only does the Federal Gov't pay the salaries of guradsmen on active duty, but it also pays for the retirements of those members. Thepoints statemetn is merely an annual form we all get each year showing what ARPC (Air Reserve Personnel Center) beleives we should have that year in terms of points. If there's a mistake, that is the time to find and correct it.

As to "ARF" being a "disciplinary unit", that is completely untrue. There is no such thing. Members who separate automoatically have their records transferred to ARPC in Denver, CO. This is standard procedure for the Air Guard,although it may be different for the Army Guard, as the Army Guard maintains files on individuals in the "In-Active National Guard". The ANG does not have this, although on the reserve (federal) side, there is the IRR (also in the other services), and basically these are members who've completed their service obligation, but have not fulfilled their initial 8 year commitment (ALL enlistments into teh US Military are for a period of 8 years -- teh first 2, 3, 4 ,5 or 6 are in an "active status -- even for the Guard and reserve -- after that "active status, your records are sent to the appropriate reserve command, and basically you're a name on a list in case more bodies are needed inan emaergency. There is no erquirement to show up to drill. Again, teh Army Guard is the only componment that keeps its members records for this type of service).

As to being "AWOL" or having "deserted" his guard duty, this is not possible.

As guardsmen beliong to their respective states, they are goverend by USC Title 32. Federal (active duty and reserve) troops are governed by USC Title 10. Only those goverened by Title 10 can be "Article 15'd" or punished in anyway by the UCMJ. The States may have something similar rfor their Guard forces, but in some States (at least in NJ, I beleive), there is no equivalent, as the courts there ruled it unconstitutional. The bottom line is even IF he was not there, he could not be court-martialed the way some are saying it.

As to his absence, it is not uncommon to miss "drill", and make them up at a later date (we call this a "RUTA" in my unit. You're still paid for the weekend drill of whatever period the drill actually took place, but you may not do the drill for a few days toa few weeks. In any case, you HAVE to be paid with the drill money for the one you missed, as that's teh only place the State gets it money and authorizations to pay people.

As far as the Alabama drill, and some pilots not seeinghim, that's not surprising either. As an unqualified pilot only there to do equivalent training, the unit was not about to transition him into the RF-4C's which the Al unit flew. This ebing the case, there was absolutely no reason for Bush to report to the flying squadron. He would've been assigned an admin job/additional duty type job at teh higher HQ, in this case the 187th Tactical Recon Group.

As a 17 year veteran of the US Army, NJ Army Guard, NJ Air Guard and now the USAF, I can say FACTUALLY that he was not "AWOL", his records are complete, there was no "disciplinary unit" and it's quite reasonable for active pilots in the Alabama squadron to have NOT seen him. Lastly, for thsoe of you who think his paperwork may have been "Scrubbed", here's a little information abut that. As a guardsmen, he should have duplicate records - records maintained with the TXANG and also records at ARPC. For someone to "scrub them" would mean that they would need access to two different locations, and both would have to be done exactly. That's a stretch, on the one hand, and secondly, the mere insinuation is an unfair accusation of the integrity of the men and women (mostly civil servants) who work at ARPC.
Posted by: Bob at February 18, 2004 05:03 AM | PERMALINK

calpundit.com