Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy/Archive 1

message: To talk about something besides the memos for a moment. If we are talking about failing to fulfill a commitment, Bush apparently did, according to the standards of the time. Specific points of reference like serving x numbers of times in a particular time frame and showing up until the last day of your reserve enlistment were waived early and often. The militay was especially sensitive to giving people a bye for working in politics--the U.S. military has a very strong culture of deferring to political authority. Ask anyone working in an administrative capacity when a "Congressional" came down. Kerry availed himself of this when he got an early out to work in a Massachuseets campaign.
Speaking personally, I had to sign a commitment saying I understand that I was responsibile for a six year service commitment, despite the fact I was drafted. I was separated from active duty in 1969, but I spent two years in the ready reserve and two years in the standby reserve and never went to a single meeting until I received my honorable discharge in 1973. I did get a nice glossy magazine every month and maintained my membership in the Military Police Association, though. People are pontificating about what they don't know about. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve commitments 

message: Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation Rex071404   02:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you need the hmm... The National Guard is not part of the related service, exactly. National Guard is state. You can make a better case that the Air Force Reserve is part of the Air Force, but that's not exactly equivalent either. They have separate command structures unless they are activated for regular service. But the overriding point is that Guard and Reserve never got the latest and greatest for obvious reasons. When I trained in the Army in 1967 we didn't even qualify on M-16s unless and until we were on orders for 'Nam. We trained on, qualified on, and used M-14s, and that was Regular Army, not Reserve. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation 

message: In regards to the possibility that a particularly expensive and rare model typewriter just so happened to be the one used for the memo and just so happened to produce such a curiously matched to MS Word memo, well here's what has to have happened for that to be true:
# A man who never typed memos of this type (says his wife)
# would have had to have had "CYA" fear (that his son says he was not the type to have)
# which would have drove him to produce memos
# which ALGORE's opposition research team never found
# and Ann Richards oppo team never found
# and the Democratic National committee never found
# which were not in the papers his wife still has
# and not in his Guard files
# but somehow were perfectly preserved
# and somehow fell into the hands of those who want to publicize them
# after not falling into friendly hands in 32 years 
# but even so, are indeed bona fide
# and came to CBS, via a route they won't announce
# after having sat around all these years
# since supposedly being typed - in complete opposition to the known personality traits of the supposed author
# on a very rare and expensive typewriter
# which the national guard had none of
# using a particular typeface element
# and in doing so, exactly matched MS Word of today
# but with no proof that this supposed typewriter configuration actually could produce such a result (only speculation)
I've heard of "totem pole hearsay", but this - this is "totem pole speculation" 17 times removed. Rex071404   05:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if Dan Rather reports it, it must be true... </sarcasm> TimShell 05:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabey we could incorporate this comparision of one of the documents in questions to an MS Word generated version. Click on it to see it enlarged. TDC 08:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
We need attribution and license release by image creator Rex071404   09:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Permission has been recieved from Charles Johnson of little green footballs. TDC 19:12, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
The license notice must be on the graphic itself? Or, perhaps you can post the text of the OK onto the "article page" off the graphic? Here is the URL for that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GWBAWOL.gif  Rex071404   19:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's possible 

message: Ignoring the forged memo issue for a second, I managed to convince Simon Woodside to release his great graphical timeline of Bush's military service (only based on the official documents) under a Creative Commons license. Now, the version currently used in the article is a big GIF file - it looks nice, but is not editable. It would be nice to have an SVG copy as well, so we could all make changes to the timeline using free software. Unfortunately the program Simon used to create the timeline does not support SVG export, but he has created an EPS copy . Does anyone here have the tools necessary to convert EPS or PDF  to SVG?--Eloquence*
(misunderstanding about licensing moved to Rex' talk page)
At this juncture, I lack the expertise to comment on licenses. Therefore, I will confine my inquiry to the image itself. I take extreme objection to the undue emphasis being placed on the phrase "we not seen Bush for past 12 months". Other than that, my very brief initial inspection indicates that the image may not be too objectionable, provided that phrase is striken in it's entirity. I can almost assure you that there will be a mini-riot of emotion by several editors here if that clearly POV phrase is not expunged. See if Simon will resend with that removed. Also, if the licnese allows, I'll be happy to edit it out. Rex071404   06:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical timeline - can we get it into SVG? 

message: Just now, Gamaliel reverted an edit of mine without and edit summary and without talking here. I am concenred about that aand am inviting him to talk. In the meantime, I have re-reverted my edits about the typewriter. Rex071404   09:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct, I did not revert. Gamaliel  09:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Your edit stated that there was no evidence that a particular model of typewriter was employed by the TANG, which is true.  My edit stated that there was no evidence of what sort of typerwriter was used by TANG at all, which includes the typewriters in your sentence.  Since my statement covered all typewriters, I did not see the need for a statement which covered a particular type of typewriter. I thought this was self-explainatory.  I apologize if you did not understand it. Gamaliel  09:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typewriter evaluation 

message: Maybe some of you who've followed this story more closely can explain something to me.  The experts in typefaces can argue about whether these documents could or could not have been produced in the 1970s.  Even if some typewriters available then could've done the job, however, that doesn't establish authenticity.  (The documents could've been produced in 2004 on a word processor, or in 2004 on a well-preserved appropriate model typewriter from the 1970s.)  I'm suspicious when documents surface that are supposedly signed by someone now conveniently dead.  An obvious basis of authenticity would be if someone from his family produced the documents with the explanation that they just turned up in the course of moving stuff around in the attic, but that hasn't happened here.  The article says only that they came from "an unnamed source".  Is there any more information available on this point?  Who else might have had access to such memos and might now be producing them?  It may be that there's nothing more to be said in the article but, compared to all this attention to typefaces, it's certainly a point that left me wanting more information. JamesMLane 16:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: CBS know the story, but they are part of the story. So far they refuse to say where they came from or why they think the giver is reliable. Their entire news organization credibility is at stake. CBS has a lot to explain and I'm not sure they are in any way protected by law for refusing to do so. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of documents 

message: Can someone please explain why this sentence: One coworker on the Blount campaign staff, Archibald Blount, a relative of Blount, claimed that Bush was known during this time as the "Texas Souffle", for his supposed character of looking good on the outside but not having much on the inside is in the article? I feel it adds nothing, is POV and I see no supporting information which bolsters it as actually being a fact. Rex071404   04:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitious name calling 

message: I have a small problem with the following:
: "But since there is no evidence to suggest improprieties regarding Bush's discharge itself, a reasonable person could very well accept it on it's face as being self-validating. This is especially true in that allegations of having supposedly been "awol" do not in and of themselves suggest that Mr. Bush did not ultimately fulfill his service requirements, prior to being dishcarged."
The previous final sentences of the paragraph:
: "Neither Bush's honorable discharge nor the statements of Guard members that they do not remember him proves anything conclusively. The discharge could have been a political favor and the recollections could be inaccurate or deliberately false"
leave the reader with a good sense of balance and let the reader decide.  It is a reiteration that one can conclude either way.  Rex's latest edit decides for us how we shold interpret the information, specifically that "a reasonable person" would think a certain way (or in Rex's transparent inference that the allegations are false).  Despite the existence or lack thereof of evidence, the decision still should not be forced upon the reader by appealing to "a reasonable person would think X".  I don't necessarily think you are wrong, Rex, in what you have added to the article, but I do believe that it is forcing us to conclude in a certain direction.  The previous final sentences exhibited this balance and I move to revert, but I want to ask the community first.--kizzle 00:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is factual, the "tone down" language" that I put it. There was too much loaded innuendo in the immediately prior loaded accusation, so the "toning down" of the groundless accusations was correct. That crap about the DC sniper was simply too much. And now that people keep deleting my balancing text, I have deleted that too. The pathetic anti-Bush bile being squeezed in here by others is beginning to make my blood boil. DC sniper? Hmmmm. Why stop there? Why not list every other vile misfit who was once accused of "awol" and compare Bush to those persons too? Guilt by scurrilous, false association and innuendo - apparently some here think that's fair game! Rex071404   06:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see the DC sniper stuff- if it was just comparing Bush to another supposadly AWOL person, I'm glad you took it out. Why do you not like the previous version, specifically? what implies innuendo for you, and what screams out as being biased, please? Lyellin 06:51, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Lyellin, I am sorry to say this, but the edits I was forced to make in order to add some cogency and coherentcy to the "awol" accusation along with the clean-up required to yank the DC sniper crap, has sufficently changed this section so as to make referring the prior versions - as you now do, moot. At this point, I'll need to hear from you about what - if anything - you'd like to change in the section as I have currently rendered it. Frankly, if all editors here, pro-Kerry/pro-Bush/uncommitted alike would also be vigilant against anti-bush screeds like the sniper crap I removed, we would not have these discussions facing us endlessly - as these re-writes would not have to occur again and again. Rex071404   07:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I think the sniper bit can go as it's just an example and not really necessary or pertinent. But I don't think it's fair to claim that the intent was to compare Bush to the sniper personally. Let's assume good faith here. Gamaliel  07:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The sniper bit was me and included because he is the only example I know of offhand where someone was found AWOL and then received an honorable discharge anyway.  My point was that the claim 'Bush could not have been AWOL because he was honorably discharged' is inherently false... the two are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, if they were then all someone would have to do to get out of completing their service is go AWOL.  I plan to put that fact back in as it is relevant (the proferred explanation is false).  I suspect it might get yanked (since it directly refutes the White House response) if no example / proof is provided, but I'll leave that out unless I can find a less controversial example.  For the record, I did NOT compare Bush to Muhammed.  That's just Rex being Rex.  CBDunkerson 11:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex's latest edit. 

message: This large-scale rewrite of this article is unwarranted.  I smell POV but frankly i need to calm down before I respond to this edit. --kizzle 19:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being entirely too kind.  Those edits were complete nonsense.  How is the CONTENT of the 'Killian memos' POV?  Rex yanked, "This memo also indicates that Killian requested a flight inquiry board be held, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status.".  The memo in question includes the words, "I conveyed my verbal orders to commander, 147th Ftr-Intercep Gp with request for orders for suspension and convening of a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13."  There is no 'POV' here... simple fact, but it somehow offends Rex so hey... he just yanks it.  And lots of other perfectly valid and unbiased stuff.  For instance, I corrected a passage that >I< wrote in the first place to say that 'Defenders of Bush' make a claim which I had at first incorrectly attributed to Bush himself... why the heck was THAT put back to the wrong text.  What do we have to do to keep this guy from continually trashing the page for no apparent reason?CBDunkerson 22:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The so-called "memos" are utter frauds and you know it. They don't "indicate" anything. At best, they "purport to indicate". If you want to refer to them as "so-called memos which purport to indicate, but have been utterly discredited as cheap forgeries", perhaps that would be ok. Rex071404   02:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So good to see that you have such a firm grasp of 'Neutral Point of View'.  Sorry, I'm done with this.  You obviously have NO interest in even ATTEMPTING to be non-partisan.  There is no point 'discussing' with someone so determined to simply trash the article.  CBDunkerson 11:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest edit 

message: Because, you see, lies have legs, even after they're shown to be based on forged documents.
:BUSH LIED: SAID HE FULFILLED HIS DUTY
::Bush, speaking from the Oval Office in 2004: "I'm just telling you, I did my duty." [Meet the Press, 2/8/04]
:…BUT HE DISOBEYED A DIRECT ORDER TO TAKE A PHYSICAL AND WAS GROUNDED
:"President Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot, according to documents made public yesterday." [Washington Post, 9/9/04]
::The colonel [Killian] goes on, the "officer," meaning then-Lieutenant Bush, "has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical." [CBS "60 Minutes," 9/9/04]
:…BUT HE TRIED TO GO OVER HIS COMMANDER'S HEAD TO GET A POSITIVE EVALUATION
::In August 1972, Bush's superior officer Lt. Col. Jerry Killian notes in a memo that Bush had gone over his head and was "talking to someone upstairs" to avoid service in Alabama. [CBS "60 Minutes," 9/9/04]
Where did I get these from? The DNC website, right now, under the title "BUSH LIED." 
And this is also still on the site:
:"George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling.
:"Tonight's CBS New report made clear that President Bush has misrepresented the nature of his National Guard service for decades to the American people. And now that questions are being raised, only Bush can settle this once and for all by answering the unanswered questions about his Guard service.
:"CBS News exclusively obtained documents that flatly contradict two of Bush's often repeated claims about his time in the National Guard - that he received no special treatment and that he fulfilled his duty.
:"According to these new military documents, political pressure was applied and strings were pulled for President Bush at every step of the process: to get in the Guard, to stay in the Guard, and to exit the Guard.
:"These are serious charges. They have not been leveled by his opponent. Or by a political party. Or by an outside group. They are based on documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander.
:"George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated'?"  -- Cecropia | Talk 19:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the forgery important (continued) 

message: What's the significance of the PULL addition supposed to be? --Impi 16:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PULL addition 

message: I removed this:
:It provoked a fury during the pre-election time in 2004 when Michael Moore called a TV discussion between Wesley Clark and President Bush a talk between "the General vs. the Deserter". In the US military services, a deserter is somebody who is AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave) for more than 30 days; see the Wikipedia entry on Deserter. Clearly Bush's non-presence from May 5th to October 27th in 1972 spans more than 30 calendar days, but not 30 service days (assuming one had to serve a weekend per month).
:Some people critical of Bush's service records maintain their position that Bush was a deserter, not only an Absentee Without Official Leave. The Uniform Code of Military Justice states that one difference between AWOL and deserter status is that a deserter has the "intent to remain away therefrom [from the unit, organization or place of duty] permanently", while the AWOL just "fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed or remains absent from it". It may be that the intention of staying away from millitary service is assumed from the time spent absent without leave.
:In war times, deserters often face the death penalty.
The anon poster seems to have put this up in good faith, but it is entirely too flawed to stand.
#Michael Moore is a known partisan who naturally puts things in the most aggressively negative light in regard to Bush. Therefor a citation to him is of no value in making a substantive charge.
#The poster commented: "I'm not a legal expert, but just wanted to add this." I won't characterize myself as an "expert," but I taught Military Law (and other subjects) as a U.S. military instructor during 1968 and 1969 and am well aware of the standards of AWOL (Absent Without Leave, not Away W/O Official Leave) and Desertion.
#In order to be AWOL and for the 30-day meter to start running, the person has to be recognized as AWOL and so classified on the unit's Morning Report. If the person is still away, on the day after the 30th day the person is dropped from the unit rolls as a Deserter, and this too is noted on the Morning Report. Neither of these events have ever been alleged to have happened to Bush, so he is legally neither AWOL nor potentially a Deserter.
#The 30 days is a technical qualification, so that a unit is not required to keep deadwood on the rolls, but can replace the missing soldier. Being AWOL more than 30 days is a factor in a presumption of desertion, but is not proof. If a soldier voluntarily returns any time after being dropped as a deserter, it is almost impossible to convict him for more than AWOL.
#The anon wrote: "It may be that the intention of staying away from millitary service is assumed from the time spent absent without leave." Not so, as I demonstrated above. And a deserter must be convicted at a Court-Martial with standard rules of procedure and evidence.
#In war time a deserter can (not often) face the death penalty. (1) Vietnam was not "war time." This is why veterans of that era got the NDSM, a Cold War era service medal, not a Vietnam War service medal. (2) The death penalty for simple desertion in the US Army in war time is exceedingly rare. Exactly one soldier (Eddie Slovak, IIRC) got the death penalty during World War II. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWOL and deserter 

message: Dropped this link:
*"Who is Ben Barnes? A Deep-Pocketed Kerry Partisan Who Can't Keep His Stories Straight" GOP.com
As it no longer points to that article. Ellsworth 19:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Whomever wrote this part of the article:
The second problem is more serious. The '50 point' standard is used to determine whether or not a particular service year (as noted above, May 27th through the following May 26th) is counted as a "good year" for military retirement benefits. The more appropriate measure of whether Bush met his obligations is the attendance requirements, which, for the National Guard, are on a fiscal year (July 1st through the following June 30th).
The military's fiscal year starts Oct 1 and runs through Oct 30th.
*******
:* [Response - 10/24/2005]  The federal fiscal year is NOW October 1 through September 30.  However, prior to 1976, it was July 1 to June 30th.  (I will edit the article to clarify that the fiscal year during 1972 and 1973 was July 1 to June 30.) John Broughton 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiscal year 

message: Regaring the statement, unless there is some offer of relevance or credibility...  or even some indication of the nature of her statement.  It isn't relevant or credible.  I'm removing it.
== Retirement year and service year
The fiscal year issues are meaningless, unless you intend to be
a twenty year 'lifer', otherwise, the serviceman's 
'service year', is pertinent to the 50 point standard.
CorvetteZ51
actually, it is the "retirement year" that is meaningless in terms of Bush's service -- and the "fiscal year" that is critical in determining whether Bush met his obligations to the US Military.  That is because, under federal law, Bush was required to train and meet training standards, and that training and those standards used the "fiscal year" to determine compliance with the relevant federal laws.
paul lukasiak
: The article does make the argument that Bush wasn't a lifer so the 50 point standard (which is a retirement year standard) isn't particularly important.  In fact, I just made minor changes to two sentences to make this argument even clearer.  But since the numbers put out by the White House (via LTC Lloyd) were calculated based on retirement years, they can't be left out of the article, even they are meaningless. John Broughton 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnes' daughter's statement 

message: I rewrote the opening paragraphs to meet several aims. First is a matter of Wikipedia style. The opening paragraph is supposed to be short and succinct. Second is to present what the controversy actually involves and then to describe what made it politically significant when it was raised.
As it was the article dove directly into the charges about Bush's service, assuming that everyone reading it knew why it was controversial and the context in which the controversy arose. This violates one of the most fundamental principles of journalism, that you assume that the reader has no pre-knowledge of the subject.
The opening was also more than a little POV necause it assumed that the controversy was important, yet didn't give the background that demonstrated the political uses of the controvery and why it became significant in the electoral process. I'm reading the changes over for a few language and clarity tweaks. -- Cecropia 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked in detail at the new language, but am okay with the concept.  One change I do really feel should be made (feedback welcome) is to merge the text in the "Nature of the controversy" section back into the very top of the article.  I think it's much better ABOVE the table of contents, and since the top and the first section are both very short, nothing is lost by deleting the section title.  John Broughton 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point, but wikipedia style is to have as little above the TOC as possible. I don't object to your particular suggestion, though. (Some articles argue 3/4 of the case before they ever get to the TOC) -- Cecropia 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've combined the two sentences, as well as doing some minor editing to them.  John Broughton 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The military service of George W. Bush is a popular target of the media" mmmmm, what?!--205.188.116.10 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraphs 

message: timeline image should be delete. violates WP:V#SELF. As this section explains ...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. simonwoodside.com not well-known professional researcher or well-known professional journalist. 72.36.251.234 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline image should be delete 

message: Changed 3d sentence to: "...As a result, his flight status was suspended by his "cmdr" (commander) on 1 Aug 72, confirmed by then-Col Bobby Hodges on 5 Sep 72  and confirmed again by a National Guard Bureau order on September 29 ..."
This suits the actual facts as provided by the paperwork: George Bush was suspended on August 1st, 1972 by his "cmdr" (Killian) according to the suspension document cited and the confirmation document of then-Col Bobby Hodges  (also cited here)
The ARPC document says:...Verbal orders of the cmdr on 1 Aug 1972 suspending 1STLT George W Bush...from flying status are confirmed...." This means that  George Bush's commander gave him a suspension order verbally on Augustr 1st, 1972 and that is the effective date. There was a paper copy of this order--its what the two confirmation documents are confirming. Bush's "cmdr" didn't phone his oprders in to HQ for confirmation, he wrote a memo about what he did and sent it up the chain of commandefor confirmation. That document is missing from Bush's records.
Hodges' confirmation cited says: "...In accordance with AFM 35-13 para 2-29m, failure to accomplish annual medical examination, 1st Lt George W Bush is suspended from flying status effective date 1 Aug 1972..."
AFM35-13 para 2-29m  states that ".. All rated officers on flying status must accomplish a medical examination annually... Failure to accomplish a required medical examination disqualifies the officer for flying duty and he will be suspended effective the first day of the month following his birthmonth..." 
George Bush was born in July: that makes the effective date of his suspension to be August 1, 1972, as the two confirmation document state also.
This is important to consider when evaluating the CBS supension memo: it has the right date.  August 1st. Bush was supended on that date according to the two confirmation docjuments. It also has the right information: the TXANG DID get someone to fly Bush's plane after he stopped flying, disproving the theory that the TXANG was glad to see him go because his plane was being replaced. Bush's plane kept flying for two more years after he left.
Hodges confirmation can't be the original order--its dated 6 weeks after the event and makes no mention about "verbal orders" having been given so the ARPC was confirming a different document than his: one that metioned haveing given the orders verbally.
The original orders should be in Bush's files by regulation AFM 35-13 para 2-10b2 (cited above) "...CBPO-SA will insure that the unit personnel record of an aeronautical order which...imposes or revokes a suspension...will be acknowledged by the person concerned tro indicate time and date of receipt of orders..."  Its not, one of the reasons they scrambled Bush's documents before releasing them. 
There are two confirmation documents but not the document they're confirming--Killian's original order. Marian Knox claimed to have typed that order but said the CBS version wasn't it. Where is the original order that Killian did deliver to Bush on August 1sst, 1972. There never was an alternative order given by Bush's supporters, although one HAD to be written and dated "on or before the effective date..." (para 2-10, cited)
One thing for sure: George Bush knows whether the CBS order is the one Killian read to him on August 1st--and has never denied it, nor have his aides.
===Changes to "Flight physical" section===
I have altered this slightly to reflect the truth in Bush';s documents:
First paragraphs changed to:
"By regulation , National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.
This is the truth: Bush was supended from Flying for failure to take his required physical. He never flew again after April 15th, 1972
3d paragraph change: " The document directly orders Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing ("Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13") but there is no evidence Bush obeyed this order. The Air Force regulation cited here, AFM 35-13 Para 2-29m [2] required the commander of Bush's Texas National Guard unit to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination" but there is no evidence this investigation ever occurred. This has never been explained.
Again the truth: the investigation mandated by AFM 35-13 para 2-29m apparently never happened, although both confirmation documents call for it.   None of the principals in this  matter--Bush,Hodges, Martin or Staudt have ever commented on Bush's suspension or explained why there was no investigation as mandated by regulations.
4th paragraph: Added: "...There also should be a signed acknowledgement by George Bush of his suspension order but there is none..." This is once again the truth: the sentence: "...("Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13") is a direct order to sign his suspension order   AFM35-13b2  para 2-10 says that "...CBPOSA will insure that the unit personnel record of an aeronautical order that...imposes or revokes a suspension...will be acknowlegegde by the person concerned to indicate time and date of receipt of orders...."
By any reading of this regulation, there should be a a signed acknowlegement of Bush's suspension by him in his files,regardless of the reason for his suspension. There is none. If BUsh failed to obey this order, he failed to obey a direct written order--and there's no evidence he did.
5th paragraph: added: "...Although he had taken the physical twice previously by flight surgeons,..." because its the truth and makes his statement even more absurd--Bush knew when he said it it wasn't true: flight physicals are NEVER given by a private doctor.
Also added " purportedly" to "...where Bush purportedly drilled in October and November 1972 and in January 1973..." and added "There is no record of his attendance in the 187th Albama ANG."
There is no record of him ever attending trainings at the Alabama unit and they deny to this day there is any record of him there. When it is said: "There are no records showing him there, it is the same as saying: "The records show he wasn't there"  or the the whole purpose of record keeeping for attendance is defeated. His pay records  show that he was paid for different days than his authorization 
The approval cited above is a very curious document: It states that BUsh will not be able to maintain his flight requirements in that unit. But BUsh had been suspended from flying  the previous month (august 1st)--he didn't HAVE any flight requirements. This shows that Bush was still falsely listed as a pilot after his supsnsion from flying--as do the rest of his documents. (see also AFM 35-13 para 2-7  "...If 30 days have passed and the officer has not been medically certified for return to flying status,change the officers flying status to reflect a grounded status..." this was never done--Bush was a kept listed as a pilot, 1125D, untill his discharge, 14 months after his suspension. This has never been explained.}
How and why did George Bush continue to get paid to be a pilot for 14 months (52 days) after he was suspended from flying? Thats never been explained either.
exlrrp
67.142.130.14 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made on suspension date 

message: I have altered this slightly to reflect the truth in Bush';s documents:
First paragraphs changed to:
"By regulation , National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.
This is the truth: Bush was supended from Flying for failure to take his required physical. He never flew again after April 15th, 1972
3d paragraph change: " The document directly orders Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing ("Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13") but there is no evidence Bush obeyed this order. The Air Force regulation cited here, AFM 35-13 Para 2-29m [2] required the commander of Bush's Texas National Guard unit to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination" but there is no evidence this investigation ever occurred. This has never been explained.
Again the truth: the investigation mandated by AFM 35-13 para 2-29m apparently never happened, although both confirmation documents call for it.   None of the principals in this  matter--Bush,Hodges, Martin or Staudt have ever commented on Bush's suspension or explained why there was no investigation as mandated by regulations.
4th paragraph: Added: "...There also should be a signed acknowledgement by George Bush of his suspension order but there is none..." This is once again the truth: the sentence: "...("Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13") is a direct order to sign his suspension order   AFM35-13b2  para 2-10 says that "...CBPOSA will insure that the unit personnel record of an aeronautical order that...imposes or revokes a suspension...will be acknowlegegde by the person concerned to indicate time and date of receipt of orders...."
By any reading of this regulation, there should be a a signed acknowlegement of Bush's suspension by him in his files,regardless of the reason for his suspension. There is none. If BUsh failed to obey this order, he failed to obey a direct written order--and there's no evidence he did.
5th paragraph: added: "...Although he had taken the physical twice previously by flight surgeons,..." because its the truth and makes his statement even more absurd--Bush knew when he said it it wasn't true: flight physicals are NEVER given by a private doctor.
Also added " purportedly" to "...where Bush purportedly drilled in October and November 1972 and in January 1973..." and added "There is no record of his attendance in the 187th Albama ANG."
There is no record of him ever attending trainings at the Alabama unit and they deny to this day there is any record of him there. When it is said: "There are no records showing him there, it is the same as saying: "The records show he wasn't there"  or the the whole purpose of record keeeping for attendance is defeated. His pay records  show that he was paid for different days than his authorization 
The approval cited above is a very curious document: It states that BUsh will not be able to maintain his flight requirements in that unit. But BUsh had been suspended from flying  the previous month (august 1st)--he didn't HAVE any flight requirements. This shows that Bush was still falsely listed as a pilot after his supsnsion from flying--as do the rest of his documents. (see also AFM 35-13 para 2-7  "...If 30 days have passed and the officer has not been medically certified for return to flying status,change the officers flying status to reflect a grounded status..." this was never done--Bush was a kept listed as a pilot, 1125D, untill his discharge, 14 months after his suspension. This has never been explained.}
How and why did George Bush continue to get paid to be a pilot for 14 months (52 days) after he was suspended from flying? Thats never been explained either.
exlrrp
67.142.130.14 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to "Flight physical" section

message: Anomalocaris and I disagree as to whether this section, which he/she added, belongs in the article.  I believe it does not:  as I stated in my edit summary, when I removed it, this is negative info (which requires good sourcing); is of a trivial value (who cares about his nickname, if not commonly used, as it is not?) and the sources that are cited (blogs) are generally considering not credible, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:External links.  Anomalocaris has responded (edit summary, putting it back in): of course it's blogs that's the whole point.
I'll defer to other editors on this matter, having stated my opinion.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nickname" section 

message: No study of Beorge Bush's military service would be complete without reading and understanding the information on his discharge: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
   Note that this document is NOT a discharge from miitary service, but only from the ANG.
   Subject is transferred to the Air Personnel Reserve Center, 3800 York St., Denver, CO.,
   which will keep his name on a list until his 6 year obligation is met.  Nothing abnormal.
   This is the same thing it says on my DD-214.  After 4 years of active duty, my name sat
   on a list in Denver for 2 years until my 6 year obligation was fulfilled.  This document
   also shows that he had no qualifications BEYOND the 1125D, and DID have 2 decorations:
   TAFMS and TAFCS (anyone care to translate?).  Obviously he didn't qualify as expert with
   the M-16 by hitting the target 59 times with 60 rounds.
   Gatr 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: George Bush's discharge

message: I appreciate the editing thathas been done up to now and am endeavoring to supply the citations suggested and explain why there are no citations on some.
FirstParagraph. "...No document has been found that releases him from this date other than his discharge..." (citation needed) I don't know how to supply a citation for something that isn't there. I defy anyone concerned with this matter to study Bush's military documents and point out one single document where Bush's May 26, 1974 is officially changed or any reason is given for changing a legal agreement that Bush signed his name to more than once. Neverthess, I am keeping this "citation needed here."
"...There is further writing over this box that is illegible.(citation needed)..." The citation is the discharge itself--anyone can look at the discharge itself and see the illegibility in this box and in other places so I am removing the "citation needed" here.
2d paragraph: "...This shows that the Texas Air National Guard did not know Bush’s mailing address or how to contact him when this was written.(citation needed)..." The TXANG would have put Bush's true and accurate home addresss on the form if they had known it--they would have no reason not to, and it is illegal not to put down true and current information on an official form. The fact that they only wrote "Harvard Business School, Boston (sic) Mass" indicates they didn't even know the right town he was in: Harvard is not in Boston, its in Cambridge. The fact that this is an entirely inaccurate "Permanent Address for Mailing purposes" is stark and outright: George Bush would not have received mail addressed to this address. It was NOT George Bush's permanent address for mailing purposes, making this entry inaccurate and false. Its not the only inacccurate,false or questionable entry here either. That they didn't know Bush's true home address or even the right town he was in is evident right on this discharge so I am removing the "citation needed." The discharge IS the only citation needed here.
3d paragraph: The citations for these statements come right off the wikipedia page above. I have inserted citations of the relevant sentences where citations were requested. This seems awkward to me, if there's a better way change it.
I have no problem with the rest of the editing done this far
exlrrp 67.142.130.47 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Bush's discharge=

message: There are numerous ways to obtain an early release from the military with an honorable discharge, especially the Air Force.  One can imagine that an early release was all the more obtainable during that lax era of the ANG.  I've personally known individuals who have separated honorably from the Air Force after completing only half of their "obligation" (not through Palace Chase).  These Airmen were not released due to bad conduct, they simply applied for it.  An Airman may pursue one of many categories of early separation.  Some of these categories are early release for the holiday season (if an Airman's actual date of separation falls during the holiday season, he or she may apply for a separation prior to), early separation to accept public office, early separation to pursue education (hmmmm), and early separation due to pregnancy.  The claim that Bush's early release is somehow indicative of special treatment is ill-founded.  The man simply asked to be let out early and was allowed to do so.  This is actually much more common than one might think.
The fact that the TAFMS is not followed by any date is a little fishy, as is the acronym's location on the document, but I highly doubt that it was placed there in an effort to fool somebody into believing it was an acronym for a medal.  Any military or government offical reviewing the document, be it in 1974 or 2004, would have immediately recognized this acronym.  Had someone created or altered this document, that someone surely would have known this.
As for omissions and inaccuracies on official documents, keep in mind that we're talking about the Air Force, an incredibly complex and bureaucratic organization.  Add to that a component that doesn't hold itself to as high of a standard and you have some idea of the ANG of the 60s and 70s. 69.146.156.208 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not fulfilling obligation and TAFMS 

message: I am in complete agreement that the details of Bush's military service and subsequent discharge are somewhat unclear.  However, I believe nitpicking every minor inconsistency in his paperwork is a bit unfair.  
In the Air Force, the AFSC for missile maintenance is 2M0--.  It can be 2M031 for those involved in the maintenance of the electronics systems that provide support to the Minuteman III ICBM, 2M032 for those who actually handle the warhead and guidance system, or 2M033 for those who maintain the facilities.  Furthermore, the 2M031 career field can be further broken into 2M031B for those involved in the maintenance and repair of Air-launched Cruise Missiles.  My point is, 1125B sounds a lot like 1125D.  Isn't it possible that Bush is just a retard and didn't know his AFSC?
As far as not listing basic training, OTS, or UPT under "military schools", isn't it possible that this was misinterpreted as "military academies"?
Much has been said about Bush's commanders failing in their duty, that their actions were a complete violation of the UCMJ.  Absolutely.  However, the UCMJ exists because servicemen and women fail in their duty everyday.  If everybody in the military were honest, there would be no need for the UCMJ.  Integrity is not as widespread as recruiters would have you believe.  I agree that the aforementioned officers should have had enough personal integrity to ensure that Bush's requests for transfer and early separation were completed to perfection and fed through the proper channels, but not everybody in the military holds themselves accountable.  To them, it's just a job.  This is especially true of the ANG (seen the interview footage of the ANG Colonel wearing his epaulettes incorrectly?).  I'm not convinced that those officers' lack of integrity is indicative of a massive cover up.  Even if it was, don't act so surprised that there are dishonest people in the military.  They abound.
Who cares if Bush got out of his contract early?  I agree that he didn't complete the amount of time that was reported (5 years, 4 months, 5 days), but to argue that he violated the terms of his contract even if he did complete that amount of time is absurd.  I'm currently in the process of getting out a full two years before the expiration of my contract.  Why?  To pursue a master's degree and because I have a better paying job on the outside.  Why is getting a master's degree not a priority?  If the Air Force is looking to cut costs by letting people out of their contracts early (like they're doing now and like they did toward the end of Bush's term), why is that such a bad thing?  It's legal.  The argument, to me, sounds like "Bush should have felt such a deep commitment to service that he could not bring himself to serve a day less than those stipulated in his original contract, even if the Air Force came to him and offered him an early release."  Ridiculous.69.146.156.208 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes, he's shady 

message: "...I believe nitpicking every minor inconsistency in his paperwork is a bit unfair...." Whats unfair about showing all the laws broken, the falsifications and misrepresentations, in Bush obtaining his discharge? These aren't "minor inconsistencies," they prove federal crimes! The truth is not neutral to Bush and his former superiors, it convicts them. I Might point out that Bush's supporters went through EVERY conceivable detail of Kerrey's career when it suited their agenda. And Bush paid people to do it.
"...Isn't it possible that Bush is just a retard and didn't know his AFSC?...": I would say thats impossible for someone smart enough to learn to fly a jet, then  get into Harvard Business School and then get elected Governor and then President. But its also absolutely impossible for his superiors not to have known it either, yet they reviewed and approved it. The phony AFSC was put down twice which hardly makes it a typo. Bush didn't type his request anyway, Martin did it for him. But Bush is still responsible for it: its his signature on the bottom certfiying it to be true and correct.
The notion that they thought "military schools" meant "military acadamies" is absurd. It says: "Military schools attended (indicate date, course number or title and location)" Its very clear what they wanted--military schools attended that would add legitmacy to the request. Bush had been to at least Basic and flight school-- so "none" is an outright lie in that box. Its an impossibility--you can't be ANY kind of pilot in the AF without going to school. At the bottom, Bush certifies "that the data contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge..." That means that BUsh is responsible for its contents. (So are his superiors who signed off on it)Its not true and correct, its an outright lie that his AFSC was 1125B and that he hadn't been to any military school. Bush has his name signed to an outright lie--which his superiors approved.
"...Much has been said about Bush's commanders failing in their duty, that their actions were a complete violation of the UCMJ.  Absolutely...." Then you agree their actions were a complete violation of the UCMJ? That means they broke the law--that they broke the rules and failed to follow procedures specifically set down for these eventualities---thats illegal!! Surely you must think that someone who broke the law should be held accountable for it! Anybody else would be held accountable and its a mark of  Bush's special favored status that he wasn't.
"...I agree that the aforementioned officers should have had enough personal integrity to ensure that Bush's requests for transfer and early separation were completed to perfection and fed through the proper channels, but not everybody in the military holds themselves accountable...." Youre exactly right!!  They didn't have enough integrity to do their jobs!! But these people get PAID federal money to do their jobs--and failure to do so is dereliction of duty. Thats what we're looking at here: Bush got an honorable discharge because his superiors failed to do their clearcut duty: to investigate and hold him acountable for his failure to take his physical. And they need to be held accountable for it because they won't hold themselves accountable for it.
"...I'm not convinced that those officers' lack of integrity is indicative of a massive cover up...." No, its indicative of corruption--the coverup came later.
"...Even if it was, don't act so surprised that there are dishonest people in the military..." I am an honorably discharged Army veteran, served in Vietnam and other places. Its no surprise to me that there are corrupt people in the military. Thats what the UCMJ and AFM are for--to establish and maintain integrity but they only do that if they are enforced.And those are the rules I and everyone else had to play by--everyone but people like GWB and his former commanders.
The fact that they didn't should be noted, definitely.
"...Who cares if Bush got out of his contract early?..." The real question is: who cares if Bush got out of his contract ILLEGALLY? And the answer is: All of America should--this is our commander in chief, the one who just extended all his soldiers Iraq tours by 3 months.
If, as you agree, the "5 years 4 months and 5 days" is fraudulent then that means the whole discharge should be considered fraudulent. And there's more: it says plainly he was NOT qualified, in capital letters yet (See discharge:  "NONE) to hold the ONLY job he's listed as having--whats legal about that? Its a huge anomaly and calls into question the whole legality of his discharge, not to mention he wasn't there to sign it. GWB waves this dkischarge around but you never hear him discussing it.
America should care and undestand that our commander in chief was paid for 52 days as a pilot, with flight pay, after he had been suspended from flying because this is embezzlement of federal funds. AFM 35-13 para 2-11 (cited above) says plainly that the order that put a pilot on flying status is invalidated after he is suspended under Para 2-29m. That means his flight status was invalidated, he was no longer a pilot--and was no longer to be PAID as a pilot. Rufus Martin knew this well, he was the personnell officer of a large FEDERAL unit, required to know all the regulations concerning his job. Yet Martin, in this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/points_1973_summary_handwritten.pdf certifies Bush to be a "Plt--on fly" for this whole year--when Bush had been suspended 4 months into it and had not flown the whole year. This is false--its fraud!!  Martin had no justifiable grounds at all to certify Bush as a pilot for this year--but did anyway, allowing Bush to get paid for 14 days this year--after he had been suspended from flying. (there's no certification at all of BUsh to cover the last 38 days he was paid as a pilot)
Bush could NOT have performed the work he was paid to do because he was suspended from doing it by the same people who continued to pay him for work they suspended him from doing. This is illegal, fraudulent, misrepresentation. 
And when Bush endorsed and deposited the checks for work he had not done, was suspended from doing, that he KNEW he hadn't done, he  committed the crime of embezzlement of federal funds.
You don't REALLY think he should have gotten flight pay after he had been suspended from flying do you? The Air Force sure doesn't, its why they included regulations like AFM 35-13 para 2-11 and they meant for their commanders to enforce them. Nevertheless, what Bush's paperwork proves is that he was ONLY listed and paid as a pilot after his suspension untill his discharge.
"...If the Air Force is looking to cut costs by letting people out of their contracts early (like they're doing now and like they did toward the end of Bush's term), why is that such a bad thing?..." If they were looking to cut costs by letting Bush go, then why did they hire a higher ranking man, a captain, one Jan P Linke,  to take his place? They didn't retire Bush's airplane when he decided not to fly any more, they got someone else to fly it when he wouldn't. Hiring a captaion to take the place of a 1st Lt is hardly a cost cutting measure. The fact that they hired someone to fly his plane after he quit shoots the "he quit because his plane was going obsolete" argument right out of the skies.
Further more, the AF continued to pay Bush as a pilot, with flight pay, for 52 more days AFTER he had been suspended from flying! What kind of "costcutting" is THAT? The American people sure didn't get their money's worth on THAT, now did they?
"...The argument, to me, sounds like "Bush should have felt such a deep commitment to service that he could not bring himself to serve a day less than those stipulated in his original contract, even if the Air Force came to him and offered him an early release...." No the facts as shown in Bush's paperwork, even his discharge, show  that BUsh was kept listed as a pilot--and PAID as a pilot for pilots work he didn't perform and was not qualified for (actually DISqualified from ) for 14 months (52 paid days)  Bush was not entitled to get paid for pilot's work after he had been suspended from flying but his superiors  kept him  fraudulently listed as a pilot. Bush embezzled federal funds when he took the money for work he hadn't done--KNEW he hadn't done.
The facts of this story go way, WAY beyond the "it was just lax discipline." Serious federal crimes were committed here including, fraud, misrepresentation, dereliction of duty and embezzlement. 
And no one has ever been, or probably ever will be, held accountable for it. But the truth must be known.
exlrrp 
67.142.130.41 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, get a grip!  You're trying to make the ANG equivalent to the Air Force, and the ANG is definitely not the Air Force. If he was 'Flying Status', it means he was OK to fly irrespective of his instrument card.  He wasn't actively flying. And he hadn't  been grounded.  His medical was within reach, as was his instrument card. His current type (F-102) was being phased out (gone from Vietnam in 1968, and being converted to target drones at the end of 1972), and it would be a whole lot of work to transition to a new type.  His replacement would not be flying "Bush's plane" - he'd be current on the new replacement model. It's a waste of money to type an old pilot on a new plane near the end of his service.  It costs a small fortune. But Bush was still a pilot. So, in 1972, Bush was in line to be a volunteer instructor .  I think you're just being a bit emotional about all of this. Take a deep breath!  BomberJoe 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picking Nits

message: "In the 2004 Presidential Campaign, the Democratic Party chose a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, John F. Kerry, as its presidential nominee."... Kerry is probably more known as being ANTI-Vietnam.  Just one of the many problems with NPOV and weasel words in this article.  --66.227.194.89 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's nothing wrong with him still being a pilot until his discharge.  I don't know what you're thinking of. He WAS a pilot, and having a fit over it won't change the basic fact that he was a pilot right up to the end of his service. He's probably still a pilot if you want to debate about it. BomberJoe 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awfully written. 

message: I have added a rebuttal to the entry about George BUsh's mailing address on his discharge. The statement says there is no reason to doubt Bush would have gotten mail at that address. I have checked with the Harvard Business school--they don't deliver mail to the students, they only hold them for pickup. Bush would have had to check with the mailroom frequently to get mail there, a highly irregular means of getting one's mail. Bush was required to keep the military apprised of his currwent address because he was not discharged from the military, only transferred from the TXANG. (see his discharge: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif "reason and authority for discharge")  Yet on this discharge there's only an incomplete address for Harvard Business School (the full address: "Harvard Business School, Soldier's Field, Boston MA, 02163") (the discharge has the zipcode wrong, they list it 02263, a further indication Bush would not have received mail here easily)
The TXANG also uses this address as Bush's Home of Record on this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-18)discharge_hodges_indorse.pdf the same month he requested discharge. It was neither Bush's Home of record nor his mailing address. Bush's mailing address was 373 Broadway Cambridge Mass,02138 acccording to subsequent documents. (see: http://www.glcq.com/docs/(74-11-21)arpc_discharge.pdf )
Furthermore, George Bush does not include a return address on his Request for discharge http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-05)discharge_request.pdf although he does say he is moving to Boston to attend Harvard Business School. How then would the TXANG know where to contact him to tell him his request had been approved? Bush must have had all the confidence in the world that his request would be approved because he was attending class in HBS on  the day this was approved by his Wing commander, Bobby Hodges (see http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-18)discharge_hodges_indorse.pdf ) Notice that on this approval, Bush is still listed as a "Pilot Fighter Intcp 1125D..." although by this date  it has been 14 months since he was suspended from flying and 18 months since his last flight. His suspension on August 1st, 1972 removed him from flight status according to AFM 35-13 para 2-11 ( http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf ) but he was still kept falsely listed as a pilot up untill his discharge, as tough his suspension had never happned at all. This document proves it.
:: There's nothing wrong with him still being a pilot until his discharge.  I don't know what you're thinking of. He WAS a pilot, and having a fit over it won't change the basic fact that he was a pilot right up to the end of his service. He's probably still a pilot if you want to debate about it. BomberJoe 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding rebuttal

message: This wholesale deletion of sourced information is not justifed.  You may have some valid points as suggested in your comment on your first edit (" who has pointed out these inconsistencies and made these suggestions? ") - but that seems to point towards a couple of  templates rather than wholesale deletion of this information. Dlabtot 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletions by [[User:131.107.0.73]] 

message: The physical that they are talking about is a flight officers only physical, only required if one is going to stay on flight status. Any flight officer that doesn't take the annual physical for whatever reason, will be removed from flying duty no matter what the reason (including transfer to non-flying duty), it's standard procedure. I am sure even Chuck Yeager received formal orders grounded him from flight status after his retirement from the USAF.
Also mandatory drug testing was no instituted until the 1980's, and it was only mandatory for new enlistees. Existing officers (enlisted, or commissioned) only received drug testing after it was instituted in lots (for example a who unit would be tested), or after an accident.
As said by a guardsmen on a flying forum:
:"I hope I don't run for President, because they would go apeshit looking at my flying records:
::"He had to get rechecked in the Huey THREE times! He must have been a poor pilot....his medical clearance expired for a MONTH! What physical problems was he hiding? Why didn't he get a physical as required by regulation? He FAILED an evaluation in pilot training, more evidence that he wasn't the great pilot he acts like he is..."
And he said:
:"One thing you need to understand to make any sense of this is the Guard is VERY flexible when it comes to your civilian occupation. Generally, if your civilian job takes you away from your unit in such a capacity that you can't make your traditional obligation (ie attend unit drill on the weekends), you can either make it up via other ways, or in some cases you can be exempt from attending altogether.
:In short, the Guard can't legally force you to give up your civilian occupation just to serve with a particular unit once a month. If Bush left to work on a political campaign in Alabama, and the campaign is legitimate (and it was), then the Texas Air Guard can't force him to come back to serve.
:Bush requested to transfer, and that was denied. It was denied NOT because they wanted Bush to come back to Texas, but because Bush was an F-102 pilot, and he wasn't trained to fulfill any other career field. Plus he requested to transfer to the Air Force Reserve, which is a totally different entity. AFRes is a Federal organization, whereas the TXANG is a state organization. Bush received a direct commission (which is legal and not uncommon in the Guard), but that commission was a state commission with Federal recognition. In other words, he was a commissioned officer in the TXANG, but the federal government recognized his authority as such. However, he did not possess a federal full commission. So he was ineligible to serve as a commissioned officer in the AFRes.
:I know, it sounds sketchy to some, but that's the way it works. We had a guy who was direct commissioned in the LA ARNG back in the late 1990s, and after flying helicopters for a while he wanted to fly airplanes. He couldn't go to the Reserves because he held a state commission. He couldn't attend federal OCS/OTS (Officer Candidate School) because you can't hold a commission of any kind prior to entry. So his only choice was to transfer to the LAANG to fly F-15s, which he did."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by PPGMD (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 August 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue isn't "how it works", the issue is whether Bush fulfilled his obligations under US law and military regulations.  As a Ready Reservist with a Military Service Obligation (MSO) whose draft status was dependent upon fulfilling that obligation, Bush was required by law and military regulation to maintain his readiness to fulfill his role as a pilot with his unit at all times.   Bush's MSO required him to attend at least 90% of the monthly training held by his unit each fiscal year, or at least make them up in the manner required under military regulations.  He didn't come close to that in his last three years of his MSO.   Bush's job title (technically, his Air Force Specialty) required him to maintain his flight status at all times, and that included passing a flight physical each year AND putting in an addition number of flight hours (technically, "Additional Flight Training Periods" -- I believe it was 12 at that time) each quarter.   (This flight requirement was what Turnipseed was referring to when he authorized Bush to show up for substitute duty in Alabama when he wrote "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group.")
The failure of Texas Air National Guard officials to enforce the regulations with regard to Bush has no bearing on the question of whether Bush fulfilled his service commitment, any more than a crooked cop who ignores a drug dealer means that no crime is being committed by the drug dealer.    Bush's own military records clearly demonstrate that he failed to fulfill his duty, and that is really the only relevant issue.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight Physicals 

message: After looking into Turnipseed's comments about the Bush AWOL story, it seems that Turnipseed may have been misquoted, or his statements taken out of context:
:Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source. 
:But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson's reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush's service. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.
:Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.
:Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html
How should the article be altered to reflet this?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Turnipseed 

message: I have read that the signature was confirmed to be from the same person by handwritting experts.  If there is something saying that the signature is not exactly the same as others of the same name, but not neccessarily from a different hand, there should at least be mention that a handwritting expert consulted by CBS before airing the report confirmed that it was by the same hand. Kevin Baas | talk 17:51, 11 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: From the CBS report:
The fact is that there is sharply conflicting information about whether a waiting list existed at all as of spring 1968 for entrance into the TexAND. As discussed previously in Section A of this chapter, Mapes expressed in a 1999 e-mail to her Senior Broadcast and Executive partners that "this squad did not have a waiting list" in 1968 and that the "Colonel who ran it appeared to keep about 20 places open at all times." Further, as discussed previously, Major General Hodges had also advised Mapes in 1991 that the Group had no waiting list, particularly for volunteers who wanted to be fighter pilots." 
Page 141
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf
Edit will reflect.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.249.174 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waiting list 

message: The following change, by 199.29.196.5, which seems somewhat rational, is not:
"The records show that George W. Bush earned 842 points during his first four years in the Texas Air National Guard. Using the 50 point per year requirement for the TANG, this amounts to almost 17 years worth of service. Adding in the 56 points for each of the last two years make the total equivalent to 19 years worth of service."
It's flatly wrong to equate 50 points to a year of service.  While on active duty, for example, a service member earns 365 points.  Using the logic of 199.29.196.5, then, every active duty service member is really doing SEVEN years of service every year.  That's absurd.
50 points is the MINIMUM needed for a good retirement year. That's all.  It's like saying that you have to work for a company for at least 1000 hours in order to qualify for vesting purposes for a retirement account.  Someone who works 2000 hours DOES NOT get credit for two years.
"This fact has been glossed over by the media and political opponents looking to validate the story that George W. Bush didn't complete his service."
That's absurd.  This "fact" appears to have been just discovered by 199.29.196.5.  No servious source (including Fox, the Washington Times, or other conversative, Bush-supporting organization) has ever claimed that George Bush served the equivalent of 19 years.  They'd be laughed out of town.  
"By the 2004 presidential campaign, the media even went so far as to conjure up forged documents to try to make this story stick. That George W. Bush put in that much time and was honorable discharged has been ignored in this whole affair."
This is sheer point of view - extreme point of view.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.152.43 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to change article on January 21, 2005 

message: I have deleted the entire paragraph referencing factcheck.org, because of redundancy, and factcheck's inaccurate representation of Bush's requirements.   The paragraph was redundant because factcheck's sole source for the (non-existent) "50 retirement point" requirement was Albert Lloyd, who is cited in the previous paragraph.   The factcheck piece is also inaccurate not merely for citing a non-existent requirement for Bush, but also in its presentation of Bush's training obligations.  Factcheck said "The newspaper said Guardsman are required to serve 15 days of active duty to meet training requirements" which is a distortion of what was written in the cited article in the Boston Globe, which noted that Bush was required to perform 48 periods of inactive duty training.   The records show that Bush didn't fulfill the 48 period requirement, a fact that FactCheck had to ignore to reach its "conclusions".
The Factcheck piece is full of distortions and irrelevancies (like citing 82 days served in during the calendar years of 1972 and 73, when the US military used the fiscal year in determining whether someone had met their obligations) and is wholly unreliable and intellectually dishonest.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to "Six Year Obligation" section 

message: I deleted the entire paragraph which stated that Bush did not fulfill his 15 day active duty requirement in FY 72-73.  The writer cited only the nine days of credited active duty in May, 1973.  However, Bush was also credited with six days of active duty in June, 73, bringing him to the 15 day minimum (notwithstanding the question of whether Bush actually showed up.)
I also deleted the phrase "as Bush had no intention of being in the military long enough to qualify for lifetime benefts" and replaced it with "as there was no actual requirement for Bush to qualify for six years toward retirement. (Fulfilling his actual training obligations would have resulted in far more than 50 points per retirement year.)"
Although its obvious that the deleted statement is true, its also irrelevant.   What is relevant is that the "50 retirement point" requirement did not exist for Bush.   
Finally, I deleted (from another section) the paragraph that suggested that Bush was "punished" by adding six months to his 6 year term in the military.   There is simply no justification for this implication.  Under Federal regulations at that time, all officers who were "discharged" were actually maintained on the rolls in an inactive status for a minimum of six month -- (there was a special "group" called the Inactive Status List Reserve Section, which was a list of former officers who, with Congressional approval, could be reactivated if there was a national emergency.)   Bush's "discharge" papers (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(74-05-01)arpc_nars-b_to_islrs.pdf) actually transfer him to ISLRS effective the date on which his MSO ended.   An undated note (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(undated)arpc_discharge_request.pdf) from Bush asked how he could get out of ISLRS, and while there is no actual response to this request in Bush's files, the Air Force did apparently respond by sending Bush a "resignation form" from ISLRS which Bush submitted on 11-8-74 (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(74-11-08)islrs_resignation_form.pdf ) (this document was one of those that were released only because of the AP lawsuit). 
(aside... there is a "50 point requirement" for officers in order to maintain their active status.   To simplify, being in active status allowed one to accumulate time served toward gratuitous points; when someone was placed into an inactive status, they no longer accumulated that time served toward gratuitous points.   (Bush was not "required" to maintain "active status", rather, as someone with a Military Service Obligation, the military was required to maintain Bush in an "active status" unless there was something very seriously wrong.)
This raises the question of Albert Lloyd's basic integrity, because the points record he cites as providing Bush with a full year for retirement in 73-74 was generated because Bush had been placed in an "inactive status" effective Sept 15, 1973.  (See http://www.glcq.com/docs/points_1974_summary.pdf )  Had Lloyd cited this "status" requirement, the document he used would have raised immediate questions because it places Bush in an "inactive status" at a time when he needed all his gratuitous points to get to 50.    My guess is that Lloyd understood this, and created the "retirement points" out of whole cloth, rather than bring attention to the fact that Bush was not collecting points toward time served as of Sept 15, 1973.)
paul lukasiak
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to "missed drills" section 

message: Changed the wording “filled out” to “submitted.”   In the sentence. “Then, on May 24, 1972, Bush filled out a form requesting a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama.”   We don’t know who filled out the form, the 147th’s FIG personnel officer, Rufus Martin, has acknowledged that he was involved in this bogus transfer attempt, and there are numerous significant anomolies (like the fact that Bush’s Air Force Specialty Code is entered wrong twice, not to mention the fact that the instructions at the top of the page clearly state that the form is to be filled out to the “present unit of assignment”, instead Bush sent it directly to Bricken) that make it clear that Bush was trying to pull a fast one with the help of Martin. )
Changed “according to” to “based on” in the next sentence “According to his application, he was already in Alabama at work on the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, “   While the application clearly implies that Bush is already in Alabama working for Allison and Trevalen, it doesn’t actually say it.   Indeed, the “address and telephone number” provided by Bush for his then current residence was that of Allison and Trevalen – 
Added the heading
Irregularities in Bush’s Transfer Request
And the following text
, “The transfer request (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-05-24)trans_application.pdf ) itself was highly irregular.  The instructions at the top of the page (and military procedure manuals) make it clear that it should have first been submitted to his “present unit of assignment”, yet Bush first submitted it to the unit to which he wanted to transfer.  The current address (Item 5) that Bush listed was that of the offices of Allison and Travelan, and despite the fact that this could only be a temporary address at best, no permanent address was included per the instructions on the form.  The form twice (Items 7 and 15)  lists the wrong Air Force Specialty Code for Bush; it has 1125B (designating a fighter pilot trained to fly two planes no longer in service, the F-89 and/or F94) rather than 1125D (designating an F-102 pilot).   And while the form does list the Training Category of the 9921st ARS (Item 17), it does not, as instructed (Item 16), list Bush’s own training category (Training Category A).   
The back of the form is also filled out incorrectly.  The “first indorsement” is supposed to be from the Guardsman’s current unit of assignment, who upon approval sends it to the receiving unit.  The “second indorsement” is to come from the receiving unit, which is supposed to not only approve the transfer to the unit, but indicate the specific vacant position (the “Position Control Number”) to which the Guardman will be assigned.  Instead, Bricken filled out the first indorsement, and sent it back to Bush personally.
Furthermore, “Air Reserve Squadrons” were a special kind of unit,  In general, Air Reserve Squadrons consisted of individuals with specific civilian professional qualifications (lawyers, doctors, clergy) which would be needed in the event of a mobilization, but whose job within the military did not require the constant “military” training required of combat personnel.  But “Training Category G” Air Reserve Squadrons included “Members of Congress and other key Federal employees.”  (http://www.glcq.com/cfrs/102.pdf, section 102.3)  Bush, of course, was neither.   More importantly, assignments to Air Reserrve Squadrons were controlled completely by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver Colorado, unlike “regular” Reserve and Guard units, individual Air Reserve Squadrons had no power to approve or disapprove transfers.
Deleted the sentence” On May 26, Reese H. Bricken, commander of the 9921st, wrote to Bush to tell him that his application had been accepted.” And replaced it with “On May 26, Reese H. Bricken, commander of the 9921st, “approved” Bush’s application for transfer.   Bricken also made it clear that he understood that the transfer request was highly irregular, writing “You already understand that this is a Training Category G, Pay Group None, Reserve Section MM proposition.” (emphasis added).   As an obligated Reservist, Bush was in “Training Category A”, which required the 48 periods of inactive duty training, and 15 days of active duty training, and was required to remain in that Training Category.  Training Category “G” offered no training at all.  
The “training category” issue is key here, because under Air Force regulations (AFM 35-3, paragraph 14-6) “If a member…will be unable to further train with his unit because of an impending change of residence,…he is required to sign a statement that he has been counseled.”   That “counseling” included notifying Bush of his obligation to find a new unit with which he could fulfill his training obligations.
Rational for major addition.  This information is more fully fleshed out in my piece at http://www.glcq.com/trans.  The bottom line on this transfer request is that it was not merely highly irregular, but has all the earmarks of a scam designed to get Bush out of his training obligation with the Air National Guard.  Rufus Martin has acknowledged both that he suggested the 9921st and that he knew that Bush was ineligible for transfer to that unit at the time the request was made.  This was not, as if is often described, some kind of “temporary transfer”, if it had been approved, it would have removed Bush from the Air National Guard entirely – and relieved Bush of any obligation to perform any training whatsoever.   It is important, IMHO, to make the true nature of this transfer request known, and it is especially important to make it clear that despite the transfer request, Bush remained obligated to train with the 147th, rather than suggest (as the current version does) that because Bush had gotten “approval” from Bricken and Hodges, he was somehow off the hook for training while the request was being processed. (see below).
Added the subheading The Transfer Request is Rejected, and subsequent performance 
Deleted the first request for a citation in the paragraph which begins…”On July 21st…” and provided a link to the appropriate document from which both quotes were taken.
Replaced “This rejection left Bush obligated to continue his duty with his Texas Air National Guard unit, the 111th at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, Texas.[citation needed] From the records, and from statements from Colonel Bricken, it seems clear that Bush did not report for any duty at the 9921st, and no claims to the contrary have been made.[neutrality disputed]” with “Throughout this period, Bush remained obligated to train with his Texas unit, or perform substitute training each month.  Bush service chronology (his AF-11, see http://www.glcq.com/docs/(undated)af_11_unscribbled.pdf ) shows no indication that the 147th ever transferred Bush out of its control, nor do Bush’s payroll records for the period in question (http://www.glcq.com/docs/payroll_72q2.pdf ) show any indication that any personnel action was officially taken by the 147th relieving him of his obligation to train with that unit.   Nevertheless, Bush’s records show that he is credited with no training during these months.  “  And Colonel Bricken is on record as stating that Bush made no effort to participate as a Guardsman with the 9921st.   
Rationale:  The current version suggests that until the transfer was rejected, Bush was not obligated to train.  This is simply not the case. 
Deleted the Paragraph 
“Bush's failure to drill in Alabama during July, August, and September 1972 potentially means that Bush was "Absent Without Leave" for the months in question, and that even if he later "made up" the absences (most were not), he was AWOL at the time.[original research?] Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan, has reviewed the payroll records and concluded that they indicate that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. [14]”
Rationale:  The first sentence uses “AWOL” in an inappropriate fashion – Air Force regulations contain specific policies and procedures to deal with the failure to perform required monthly training administratively; i.e. order the violator to active duty to complete his Military Service Obligation.   “AWOL” should not be used in discussions of the failure to fulfill inactive duty training requirements.  (That being said, there is an argument to be made that Bush was, indeed, AWOL, because his superiors were not empowered to excuse his extended absence from inactive duty training.   In that sense, the extended absence without proper authorization could be considered AWOL, but as noted above, the Air Force had administrative procedures that precluded the use of the AWOL provisions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice in such cases.)   The second sentence is deleted because Korb was equivocal on the issue of Bush’s failure to fulfill his obligations for fiscal year 72-73, and Bush’s absence during the period of the “transfer request” was during that fiscal year.  (and I should know – it was my research on the payroll records that Korb used in making that statement – with regard to FY 72-73, Korb feels that, although Bush was in technical violation of the requirements, it was not uncommon to allow Guardsmen to perform extra duty prior to going away for a couple of months, and ignoring the technical violation of the regulations.   Although Korb acknowledges that there is no evidence that such extra duty was requested, authorized, or performed, he was unwilling to go “on the record” regarding Bush’s dereliction for FY 72-73.)  Korb’s statement is, however, relevant and valuable, it just doesn’t belong immediately after a discussion of Bush’s transfer request.
Added “More than a month after the ARPC rejected Bush's transfer request” to the paragraph which begins  “on September 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Alabama "for the months of September, October, and November." ‘
Rationale:  The fact that Bush waited more than a month to apply for “equivalent duty” after the rejection of a transfer request he knew was likely to be rejected reflects the lack of urgency Bush felt with regard to fulfilling his obligations.  By the time Bush received the transfer rejection, he had already blown off two full months of required training; and failed to complete his required flight physical.  The fact that he waited a month and a half before seeking permission to train elsewhere is part of a pattern of disinterest in fulfilling his obligations that are necessary to understand his records.
Provided a link to Bush’s payroll records which show payment for inactive duty training in October and November, 1972.    (the fact that the data entry for these dates was not done until December 22, 1972 – a fact reflected in the julian date (357)  at the end of the data entry lines found at the bottom of the page that correspond to these payments, is also highly relevant.  Under regulations, notification of “equivalent training” done with a different unit had to be sent by the training unit within 48 hours of the training being accomplished.   If everything had been on the “up and up”, i.e. if all the proper approvals had been given, this data would have been entered weeks earlier. )
Provided link to payroll records showing payment for April 73 duty.   
(as to relevancy, given that Bush’s OER for the period including April 73 said that he didn’t show up for training in Texas in the previous 12 months, the lack of any supporting evidence is a strong indication that Bush may have been getting paid despite not showing up.   )
Added : “Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan, has reviewed the payroll records for Bush last two years of service, and concluded that they indicate that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. [14]” to the end of the section.
Rationale:  It had to go somewhere, and at the end of the section seemed appropriate. 
paul lukasiak
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to "Drill attendance" section 

message: you never noticed the most obvious falsehood of all and its right near the middle of the page: "Military schools attended...none" NONE? Thats impossible!! That's completely untrue--Bush Had been to several military schools by this time.
Look at the bottom of the page: "I certify that the data contained herein is true and correct top the best of my knowledge..."
On this page Bush declares himself to be an F86 pilot, who has never attended ANY military schools and permanently lives in a post office box in Alabama. he certifies this to be true "to the best of his knowledge..." Think Bush didn';t know his own AFSC? Think his superiors didn't know it? Think they didn't know if he had been to school or not? Think they didn't know his permanent address wasn't a PO Box?
This is a falsified document, there's no other rational explanation for it. George Bush's signature is confirming informaation to be true that is a flatout lie--and he SIGNED it! (or maybe not---I agree Martin may have signed it) this has to be the most outrageously falsified document of any future president ever. To disagree with that one must say that Bush didn't know his own AFSC, his permanent address or whether he had been to a military school or not. And his superiors didn't know either.
I want to thank you Paul for all your work, but you and everyone else miss the main point: Bush was PAID to be a pilot for pilot's work for 14 months AFTER he had been suspended from flying. (August 1st, 1972--see date correction below) He was able to do this  because his superiors fraudulently kept him listed--and PAID---as a pilot until his "honorable discharge" although he had been stripped of ALL his qualifications. This is fraud! And many other crimes as well, like dereliction of duty and embezzlement. No one has ever explained how and why Bush was paid as a pilot, to be a pilot when he was suspended from flying and was on the rolls of NO unit at all.
(Another main point you miss: Bush  didn't game his way out of the military, his superiors did it for him)
Why was George Bush getting paid after 1 Aug 72 to be a pilot? Thats when he was stripped of ALL his qualifications (see discharge: "Qualifications: NONE") Nevertheless, the pay records show him getting paid 52 more days after his supension. He is ONLY listed as a pilot, there's nothing else they call him.
On this document:  Martin falsely states that Bush earned 56 points that year (May 72-73) for being a "plt on-fly." This is false: Bush was suspended on August 1st, 1972, four months into that year. After that, he was no longer a "plt on-fly" and it was criminal to pay him--or certify--him as such. he didn't fly at all, the whole year! Yet we have Martin's signature certifying this to be true. This is fraud! This is another falsification--unless you think Bush should be credited and paid for pilot's work he was suspended from doing and he himself admits he didn't do. ALL these points for this year are fraudulent because they were awarded to Bush  for being a "plt on-fly" and he was not--which makes Bush's discharge fraudulent also.
George BUsh was paid to be a pilot, with flight pay, for 14 days this year and for 38 more days untill his discharge, 14 months after his suspension from flying when he never flew at all and doesn't even claim he did. Thats all right there on your own website. Thats why they scrambled his papers when they released them. Bush and his superiors defrauded his way out of the service and thats what his records show.
Look at the OETR 72-73:  "...Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the time of this report..."
that means he wasn't paid through through the 111th's or through their authorization that whole year--but the 187th Alabama ANG has no record of him there either. That mmeans he wasn't paid through that unit either, ever, since he didn't sign in. His pay records differ from their training days and his transfer "approval" shows different days than his pay records. So how did george BUsh get paid for 14 days this year for work he had beeen suspended from doing and when the only two units he cculd have been in say he wasn't there? this is fraud and embezzlement: he was paid on the false premise that he was a "plt on-fly"  And he knew when he signed the checks that he hadn't done the work.
Look at the response to the correction notice for the OETR covering this year:  "...This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he is no longer training in his AFSC or in his unit of assignment..." That says it right there: he should have been reassigned/reclassified in May 1972--and he wasn't! He was kept listed as a pilot, 1125D, throughout his "service" until his "honorable discharge." This is FRAUD! His superiors falsely kept him listed as a pilot--and PAID as a pilot--for work they had suspended him from doing, at a time when they claim he wsn't in their unit. See also  "...If 30 days have passed and the officer has not been medically certified for return to pilots status,change the officers flying code to reflect a grounded status..." Bush's superiors violated this regulation when they kept him as a pilot. Also"...The original aeronautical order that placed a rated officer on flying status TO FLY REGULARLY AND FREQUENTLY will remain valid untill....d: is suspended from flying status under 2-29..." Bush's superiors did none of this--they kept him fraudulently listed as a pilot for 14 more months.
When George BUsh signed checks for pilot's work he could not have done, because he was suspended from doing it he committed embezzlement of federal funds--and his superiors aided and abetted him by committing crimes of their own.
Or explain why they kept him listed and paid as a pilot all the way untill his discharge when he had been suspended from flying and hadn't flown an inch.
exlrrp
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.38 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re the transfer request