Rusted Sky

Nice analysis. But, with all do respect, it seems irrelevant without a legal analysis. The prohibition against absence without leave under military law is not based on points. It appears Bush did not appear for duty for six straight months during 72. Most importantly though, it does not appear he had any authority to take this hiatus. If those facts are true, how is that not AWOL? Sure looks like it. His superiors failure to charge him and allow him to make up the time after-the-fact does not exonerate him. Under military law one is guilty of AWOL upon commission of the offense. After-the-fact approval of the leave is not a defense. Not trying to be snarky, but those are my thoughts.

Basically, you're dodging. Please try to answer the following questions:

Where's your analysis of 1972?

How is missing months of duty not "AWOL"?

Why are these "Air Reserve Force" points? Now why would GWB be accumulating "Air Reserve Force" points?

Jerry,

I think this is fascinating. I really appreciate your providing your perspective on this, but I think you would have to admit you're looking at it with a presumption of innocence on Bush's part.

But there's so little information available, I wonder if you would consider, just as a thought experiment, looking at it with your expertise, and a presumption of guilt. People do each other favors all the time, especially when somebody's Dad is Ambassador to the UN, and I'm just wondering if there might be some of that at work here.

I don't know much about military paperwork, but you say "You basically got ONE unexcused drill weekend per year" or you risked being sent to Inactive Reserve, but isn't that exactly what Bush's DD-214 equivalent signifies in "31. Reason and authority for discharge"? Isn't he being sent to Inactive Reserve?

How common would it be for a Guardsman to have 6 consecutive months of ZERO service? Under what circumstances would a CO allow one of his men to go 6 months with no drills? Why didn't you list the gap between April and October '72? Was that just a common occurrence?

Is it possible that Bush DID skip out, but came around as the Blount campaign wound down, used his connections to get a CO to overlook 6 months of absence, and served additional drills between Oct '72 and May '73, avoiding Inactive Reserve (and the threat, real or imagined, of activation) through string-pulling by the family?

From what I'm reading, a fighter pilot MOS came with a 6-year enlistment, but Bush is being released from his obligation 8 to 12 months short of that (which length is authoritative -- "Length this service" or "Total service for pay purposes"?). The "Remarks" section goes into more detail on this...Why the discrepancy?

Is it unusual that the Signature of Person Being Discharged is "Not Available for Signature"? When my father retired from the Army Reserve, there was a fair amount of paperwork and a ceremony to boot (he was in for 20-25 years). I'm pretty certain he signed his own papers.

What's with all the strikethroughs and the "INDEF" (presumably for "INDEFINITE") in "5. Term of Enlistment"? Can you make out what the original clerk was signifying?

If you were the President, and these questions were raised, what documents would you release to just make the issue go away forever? Are these pay-stub records the best documentation that is likely to exist, or would there be other records you would expect to provide a clearer exoneration?

There's a perception that Bush is very selectively releasing paperwork, and that there should be records that "he performed at X place for X hours on X dates"; what are those records? What else is typically in those that might explain why the Bush team won't authorize their release, if they otherwise completely exonerate Bush?

I understand your frustration with the reception over at CalPundit, but from my perspective, I have a hard time understanding why the administration wouldn't just open up his full service record, unless there's something embarrassing (or worse) in there.

If you'd like to, your perspective could help people understand this whole story a lot better, but you have to be willing to look at the raw data from more than one angle.

Frank:

Question for you - why should I look on it with the presumption he's guilty?

BTW, I did when I first looked at the points. Holes? Yeah, a couple. Then I looked closer, spotted UTA weekends that were out of place and obviously makeup.

We had people who were out six to eight months in the unit. You fill out their 40As in advance, get the commander to sign them, and it's no biggie. They're accounted for in the paperwork, and that's all that matters. They make up their time later. It's not a big thing, it's not an unusual thing. It's certainly not a career-killer, and it's nothing to get bent out of shape over.

Re the strikethroughs - that's normal. This was gotten under the Freedom of Information Act, but in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, pretty much anything but the name should be marked out. So his service number, weight, marital status, dependents, height got blacked out.

Re the early out - remember this was when VietNam was winding down, and there was a decided surplus of pilots coming back. Plus, the F-102 was being phased out - and he didn't have enough time remaining to justify training him in another aircraft. Why not free up his slot for someone with more seniority coming back from VietNam, especially when he applied for an Early Out?

Re #5 - the Indefinite - that's usual for officers. Their term of service when they're commissioned IS indefinite. When he enlisted, he signed a 6 year contract, but when he got commissioned, that turned into 'Indef'.

Re the lack of signature - that's not unusual at all. It's not like he's enlisting! I'll bet he's got a nice framed certificate on his wall somewhere stating he was 'Honorably Discharged' though.

As far as I'm concerned, his NGB-22 was good enough for me. The points records? Icing on the cake. All the other stuff? You're looking at fluff on the icing. But then, as I said, I dealt with this stuff and know what it means. To someone determined to find fault with it, he could have everything up to and including a certificate signed by the then AF Chief Of Staff, and that wouldn't be good enough.

Hope this helps!

J.

Kop:

Legal analysis? Huh? I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet. I WAS a Personnel Specialist - and this stuff's clear. I handled it year in and year out. If GWB was excused to go to another station, then he's covered. He wasn't AWOL, at the very WORST he was unexcused - and I don't think he was.

See my comment to Frank above about gaps. If it's arranged, it's okay. If it's excused, it's okay. If it's unexcused, then it can later be changed to an excused absence by the commander, only the member can't make up the points. AWOL doesn't come into it unless he is put on active duty and fails to report - which is not the situation.

J.

Jerry,

Why should you look at it from more than one angle? Because perspective begets wisdom. You're not likely to notice any inconsistencies in the White House release if you can't look at it objectively.

What about Bush's early release? Was it the equivalent of a student deferment so he could attend business school? Was it common in your experience for people to be released from service early for school?

What about that "Indefinite" term of enlistment?

Finally, given that the administration isn't going to just provide 1LT Bush's personnel file, are the DD-214 and the points summary the best refutation of the claim Bush didn't fulfill his service? Would there be other records that you would want released if you were similarly accused?

I'm trying to look at this from more than one angle -- that's why I'm discussing it with you.

Franak -

Refresh this page, I added some things in my comments to you above, regarding the Early Out and the Indef, and some other bits. I also took out the snarky ending, and I apologize for that.

Are you familiar with the saying "There's a right way, a wrong way, and an Army way?" I'm going with the military interpretation of these things, not with a political slant one way or another. You start slapping in slants, and you end up with a free-for-all of battling interpretations.

In the end, there's only the military interpretation.

Give me a file, blank out the name, don't tell me the affiliation of the person, and I'll do my best to give you what I see as that person's history. And what I see here is someone who served and did his time. If you showed me the NGB-22 with everything blanked out but the 'honorable' up at the top, I'd say they had an honorable discharge. Show me a points listing with the dates, and I'll give you my best interpretation of it.

Politics don't enter into it. I hope this helps.

J.

Jerry,

Thanks for the follow-up; if I'd known there was more coming, I wouldn't have followed up myself.

Joe:

See the comments above.

The Air Reserve Force is made up of the various Air National Guards and the Air Force Reserve. For accounting purposes, they keep track of the points towards retirement. I was in the AF Reserve, but I have Air Reserve Force points. It ain't a biggie.

J.

Frank -

Not a problem! And I've got to hit the hay, it's after midnight here and I ain't as young as I used to be. I'm getting so ancient and decrepit I need at LEAST 5 hours of sleep a night! (lol)

J.

Jerry,

Sleep well, and thanks for the insights. I went back and read your "Bush wasn't AWOL post" after reading this story, and it left me with one question. You said that Form 40 or 40A tracked an indiviual's presence or absence from a given drill.

You also mentioned that a copy of these stayed with the unit for 3 years, then was destroyed. This being the military, I assume there were other copies; would they also be destroyed?

I find the pay records more convincing than the NGB-22, but if I understand you, there is still the possibility that Bush was away for 6 months, but didn't get reassigned or activated because he was allowed to make up drills that you or I wouldn't have been allowed to make up, and given an honorable discharge for political reasons. The only way to disprove that would be to see the 40A pre-excusing his absence, right?

Frank -

That's correct on the 40As. Considering the administrative requirements, the Guard would have something similar. Might not be a 40A, but it would serve the same function. I'm using 40A as the generic term here.

The 40As at the unit level, and the Form 40s, were destroyed after 3 years per document retention rules. At higher levels, I don't know how long they'd be kept, but I would imagine it to be twice the unit length, or six years. (They'd have more storage space, after all...) And then they'd be trashed.

Re the making up of drills - if you were a Reservist, an E-1 fresh out of Basic, from an unknown family, and you had what your commander considered a good reason to be absent (like a course for EMT training in another state, schooling or family commitments that precluded you training for a while) then it'd be no problem. We did it fairly often, maybe two, three people a year. You didn't need connections, you didn't need rank. All you needed was a good reason. 'I don't want to come to drill weekends' wasn't good enough!

I had my annual tour rescheduled two years in a row after my son was born - I did it over 7 months, two days extra a month. All you need is a reasonable excuse, and the Reserves will work with you. They recognize you've got a Real Life, and if you're in a non-critical position (and being a surplus pilot isn't one) there's no reason to NOT excuse someone.

BTW, when I put my paperwork in to retire (which you have to do 6 months before the date you wish to retire) you're given the option of excusing the next 6 months worth of drill weekends. I decided not to take the excusal, preferring to work out my time.

It was kind of funny. My first day in the Air Force long ago was spent stuffing envelopes - and on my last day I was pulling outdated paperwork out of people's records and putting it in envelopes to mail to them. Full circle... with a long, strange time in between...

J.

Well, I am a lawyer. True I am not an expert in military law, but I have spent a fair amount of time looking at the law that pertains to this situation. And, whether he was AWOL is a question of law. Just as with any crime, the choice to actually charge someone with a crime is a political one. And, if there was after the fact approval of his tranfer, that would be a reason not to prosecute, but it is not a legal defense. And, AWOL does not only apply to active duty. Read the law if you are interested. http://tinyurl.com/35ek2

Anyway, you have focused the real issue: Was Bush authorized to move to Alabama in May '73? I have seen no document indicating this. There is a document requesting the transfer in September, more than 3 months after he moved and stopped reporting in Texas. You seem pretty sure he had authorization to transfer or at least excused from reporting to duty in Texas. Do you have proof? There is at least a question here. Your resolve that he was authorized or excused seems unfounded, but maybe you can explain better why you seem so sure.

Kop -

I'd suggest you call up your local base, ask to talk to the Judge Advocate General's office, and see if you can get a legal opinion.

Why do I seem so sure? It's because I'm a clerk who did this for 13 years. I know what went on at the unit level. I prepared pay documents. I interpreted them for guys in the unit. As I posted to Frank, it's clear to me what went on with his points when you look at the dates. I'm sorry if that isn't sufficient explanation to you. I have no doubt that I'd find a lot of the stuff you're expert in to be arcane and bewildering - and I'd take your word for it if you told me a document was worded correctly if I brought it to you for an opinion.

I'd also advise you to read my post on the Right way, the Wrong way, and the Military way of doing things. You're approaching things from a civilian point of view, not a military one. The military doesn't care whether you think it right or wrong - you're not a military lawyer, so your opinion matters naught.

By the way, please stop moving the goalposts in this issue. First, it was if he served. Then, it was where he served and when. Now you're looking for a copy of his orders? Give me a break - and please stop beating the horse. It's dead.

J.

Moving the goal posts? Christ. Spare me the cliches and diversions from an issue I thought we were debating. Whether other issues have been debated in the past by other people seems irrelevant to the narrow issue we were discussing, namely did Bush have permision or authorization to pack up an go to Alabama in May 72. Nothing you said addressed this point.

This is not a rhertorical question: Do you know of any evidence that he was excused and permitted to leave in May 72? I thought your expertise could shed some light on this important point. From my reading of the documents he was approved for the transfer by Alabama in May, but denied by Texas. He requested Texas transfer him again in September. At which time they did. What is your theory that he was authorized to leave duty in Texas from May to September? I do not want to assume that don't have any evidence just because you refuse to offer any, but maybe you were too busy building yourself up as an expert and denegrating me as a lawyer to remember what we were discussing. I'm all ears.

Kop -

No offense to your skills as a lawyer, but you've stated you aren't familiar with military law - and by extension I'm thinking you're unfamiliar with military customs and practices. You're certainly unfamiliar with the records that are kept for retirement point accounting.

This is not a slam at you, there's no reason for you TO be familiar with them. Just as there's no reason for me to be familiar with how a medical tech tests my blood or urine when I have a physical, or how a HVAC tech takes care of the air conditioning system on a multi-story building. They're outside my field of expertise, and although I may have an interest in them (being interested in a lot of things) there's no way I'd know all the ins, outs, tricks, traps, whys and wherefores of a field with a cursory examiniation.

For example, I've been working in the PC field for the last 20 years and I'm pretty good maintaining hardware and solving user issues in the Windows world - but you toss me a UNIX server and tell me to administer accounts on it and I'd be lost. It's still computers - but that doesn't mean I wouldn't need some intense training before I'd be up to speed on what I was doing. And even then, someone who'd been doing it for 5 years or so would have a depth of knowledge and experience that I would lack.

(BTW, before you start ripping on me with the "How could you be a PC tech AND a Personnel Specialist during the same time" rant - remember that the AF Reserve is a part-time thing unless you're called up. I needed a real job to pay the bills and keep a roof over my head.)

Back to the points sheets and attendance - I'm analysing his points, based on what I have available. He did his time. It's a binary thing - either he did his time or he didn't. If he hadn't done the time, the points wouldn't be there. The points are there - the time was done. No shading, no interpreting, no "But what iffing" and "Don't you need this to prove..." - the time was done. The points records shows that. The military takes point accounting for retirement VERY seriously.

He has an honorable discharge, therefore the military thinks he completed his duty in a satisfactory manner. You can argue that - but the burden is on you to prove otherwise, not on either me or the military to prove to your satisfaction that he did his duty.

And remember - what do they call a physician who graduated 99th in a class of 100?

"Doctor."

Have a good day...

J.

BTW, if you won't take MY word for things, ask Baldilocks over at http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2004/02/okay_i_lied_hap.html for her take on things.

You'll probably not be happy with her answer either. Like me, she's looking at things from a military standpoint and finding nothing wrong or even suspicious.

J.

I guess you would be a guy to go to in order to address this:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=276
What were the regs for ribbon wear in the TANG in '69 (something the "BlueLemur" hasn't mentioned)?

Great series of posts.

It's interesting the Navy has just stated that the awarding of Kerry's medals followed proper procedure, was authorized, and further investigation into a matter 30 years old would not be productive. I think the same statements apply to the Bush National Guard question. Let both issues rest and get on to the REAL issues...

And your statements about "the Army way" are spot on. I'm an officer in the Navy and know what the paperwork reality is in the military. You could if, and, or but anyone's military record and find discrepancies.

Great post. Isn't it odd that we are revisiting this issue yet again?