Talk:Army of the United States

message: "The Army Reserve and National Guard of the United States have never been incorporated into the Army of the United States and have always been seen as separate components." 
:This somewhat condradicts what is stated in National Army (USA). What exactly is meant by incorporated?. - Matthew238 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regular Army/ National Guard

message: This is most common in the case of those holding the ranks of either lieutenant general or general, since these ranks are considered held for the duration of an assignment with the highest Regular Army rank being that of major general.
:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/ii/chapters/69/sections/section_1370.html and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000601----000-.html --Vidkun 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need citation for this 

message: AR 25-50 (Preparing and Managing Correspondence), dated 17 May 2013, states, in part:
6–6. Retired military personnel
Retired military should follow the same rules as active personnel, except that no organization or branch of the Army will be shown. Show retired status after the grade as follows:
:a. All Army personnel, active or reserve component, retired for service, age, or physical disability and all personnel on the Army of the United States Retired List, including regular Army personnel and nonregular Army personnel on the Temporary Disability Retired List will use “USA Retired” (for example, A. B. Smith, COL (USA Retired)).
:b. All personnel on the Officers Honorary Retired List will use “U.S. Army Retired (Hon).”
:c. All Army reservists assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired) will use “USA Retired.”
:d. Army retirees serving as DA civilians will not use or refer to their military grade or rank except when referring to their personal retirement actions.
--Vidkun (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirees designated as AUS Retired no longer supported 

message: I earlier redirected this old User:OberRanks article to United States Army. It was restored without any comment or explanation by User:Hawkeye7 . I'm going to revert this if I don't hear some very good argument against it. This being an article written by OberRanks, not a single word of it can be trusted. There is, literally, not a single actual reference supporting the basic premise that the "Army of the United States" is or was somehow a distinct entity, separate from the United States Army and the "Regular Army". The only properly sourced statement in the article is the one saying that it isn't ("is also the legal name of the collective land forces of the United States, as prescribed by the United States Constitution"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed a distinct entity, separate from the Regular Army and National Guard, and established by statute. Like them it was part of the United States Army. It is normally linked from articles displaying ranks and dates of promotion eg. Leslie Groves. I intended to undo the deletion of the article, but hit the wrong button. My apologies for that. No need to trust OberRanks, everyone familiar with the subject knows that it is correct. I will overhaul the article and add references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need proof, here's the statue (10 U.S.C. 3012): "United States Army. The Regular Army, Army of the United States (AUS), Army National Guard (ARNG) of the United States, and the United States Army Reserve (USAR)."  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting