Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ARPC tacked 6 extra mon onto Bush's Guard commitment - if not for AWOL ?.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 11:33 AM
Original message
ARPC tacked 6 extra mon onto Bush's Guard commitment - if not for AWOL ?.
What was it for -Why was it added - Are folks wrong to look at the Bush record and say the 6 months punishment looks like it was for AWOL?

And given the above why are the 9 not screaming AWOL Bush in their speeches?



http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671

The initial page I examined is a chronological listing of Bush's service record. This document charts active duty days served from the time of his enlistment. His first year, a period of extensive training, young Bush is credited with serving 226 days. In his second year in the Guard, Bush is shown to have logged a total of 313 days. After Bush got his wings in June 1970 until May 1971, he is credited with a total of 46 days of active duty. From May 1971 to May 1972, he logged 22 days of active duty.
Then something happened. From May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1973 -- a period of twelve months -- there are no days shown, though Bush should have logged at least thirty-six days service (a weekend per month in addition to two weeks at camp). <snip>

On May 24, 1972, Bush had applied for a transfer from the Texas Air National Guard to Montgomery, Alabama. ..But Bush never received orders for the 9921st in Alabama. Such decisions were under the jurisdiction of the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado, and the Center disallowed the transfer. The Director of Personnel Resources at the Denver headquarters noted in his rejection that Bush had a "Military Service Obligation until 26 May 1974." As an "obligated reservist," Bush was ineligible to serve his time in what amounted to a paper unit with few responsibilities. <snip>

In his annual evaluation report, Bush's two supervising officers, Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, made it clear that Bush had "not been observed at" his Texas unit "during the period of report" -- the twelve month period from May 1972 through the end of April 1973.<snip>


Although his instructions clearly directed Bush to report to Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed on the dates of "7-8 October 0730-1600, and 4-5 November 0730-1600," he never did. In interviews conducted with the Boston Globe earlier this year, both General Turnipseed and his former administration officer, Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Lott, said that Bush never put in an appearance. <snip>

There are no dates of service for 1973 mentioned in Bush's "Chronological Service Listing." Bush's long absence from the records comes to an end one week after he failed to comply with an order to attend "Annual Active Duty Training" starting at the end of May 1973. He then began serving irregularly with his unit. Nothing indicates in the records that he ever made up the time he missed.
Early in September 1973, Bush submitted a request seeking to be discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and to be transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center. This transfer to the inactive reserves would effectively end any requirements to attend monthly drills. The request -- despite Bush's record -- was approved. That fall Bush enrolled in Harvard Business School.


Bush's unsatisfactory attendance could have resulted in being ordered to active duty for a period up to two years -- including a tour in Vietnam. Lieutenant Bush would have been aware of this as he had signed a statement which listed the penalties for poor attendance and unsatisfactory participation. Bush could also have faced a general court martial. But this was unlikely as it would have also meant dragging in the two officers who had signed off on his annual evaluation.

Going after officers in this way would have been outside the norm. Most often an officer would be subject to career damaging letters of reprimand and poor Officers Effectiveness Ratings. These types of punishment would often result in the resignation of the officer. In Bush's case, as someone who still had a commitment for time not served, he could have been brought back and made to do drills. But this would have been a further embarrassment to the service as it would have made it semi-public that a Lieutenant Colonel and squadron commander had let one of his subordinates go missing for a year.

For the Guard, for the ranking officers involved and for Lieutenant Bush the easiest and quietest thing to do was adding time onto his commitment and placing that time in the inactive reserves.
<snip>

...from the Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver Colorado ...official summary of Bush's military service, I found something that was not mentioned in Bush's records from the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia. When Bush enlisted his commitment ran until May 26, 1974. This was the separation date shown on all documents as late as October 1973, when Bush was transferred to the inactive reserves at Denver, Colorado. But the date of final separation shown on the official summary from Denver, is November 21, 1974. The ARPC had tacked an extra six months on to Bush's commitment.

Bush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills -- in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job. <snip>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grannylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. And where is the so-called Liberal media on this issue? I have typed my
fingers to the bone to all the major (and some minor) media outlets about this; I think it deserves at least as much coverage as Clinton's dodging the draft...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I have also - but no one says anything - on CNN they tell the guest to
Edited on Thu Jan-08-04 11:45 AM by papau
drop it because "you don't have proof" - and they shut down discussion of his record which is the proof.

Our US media protects Bush - our not right wing GOP controlled US media - they just act like they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. 1st Lt Bush?
Are promotions handled differently in the Guard than in Active?

If I remember correctly, 2nd Lt to 1st Lt was almost automatic. It was based on time (6 months) in grade and a favorable OER (Officer Effectiveness Report). 1st Lt to Captain was also automatic: time in grade 12 months and a favorable OER.

But after all that "time in grade" and almost five (?) years of service, Dubya was still a 1st Lt? Am I wrong about this?

Papau...you've done a lot of research...can you enlighten me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. All I have says 1st LT - nothing higher - so where is "Captain"?
The base had 2 seater trainers - I suspect that Bush never flew solo.

Plus there is a book out by a buddy in the unit that suggests that in his "drug" period he managed to damage a plane on landing -

both of which - either of which - could haved killed Captain.

But FOIA request do not turn up a promotion discussion.

Not to say that the records have been cleaned - but it looks odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Two questions
What's the name of the book? Do you know?

Second, I think the "retirement" as 1st LT is very, very telling to ex Airdales..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Glad to help - now if Dean/Clark/etc could make it part of stand. speech
Edited on Thu Jan-08-04 03:24 PM by papau
For the crashed jet reference
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm


There are PR releases that celebrate his graduation from Combat crew training school, which imply he flew solo but nothing in record.

Bush's Guard files prove that he did not volunteer for overseas duty as he implied during Campaign 2000. Instead, Guard records show that as a F-102 pilot in the National Guard, and opted out and left his Volunteer Sheet's "Area Preferences, Overseas Areas" blank.






Best single source for everything that the media has ignored
http://www.awolbush.com /


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Is this the only reference to the crashed jet?
As he well knew, I had already heard all of it through the media grapevine. "You missed one," I said. "You crashed a jet while you were in the National Guard because you were drunk."

He spread his hands. "That's easy," he said. "Where's the plane?" Game over. He spun around and headed off.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. yes - it is the only reference to it that I know about - just one book
Edited on Thu Jan-08-04 07:17 PM by papau
Again it is a "first person" gossip statement - God only knows if you can get to base maintenance records - and given the lack of paper in Bush's record, those records along with who flew may be "missing" also. Contacting the speaker may bring detail as to the "media" he is referring to.

But yes - if you are working a 2 source rule - this tidbit fails that criteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-04 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. thanks for the kick
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-04 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 24th 2014, 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC