GWB and the Air Guard

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:
Snip

SNIP

Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.

The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
choice not an obligation.

The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but whether
GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
while not performing is reserve function.


With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link
his
service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called
to
serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards
in
the years since the ending of the Cold War.

Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my
meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted
the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have emphasized
that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his
type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for their
services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand
comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected.


They were right about that, certainly. But furthrmore, it made sense only
to
call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."

Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no longer
in great demand in the war zone.


GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do
either
with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part
and
parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record"
on
this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an
elected
Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
Center, Denver, CO).

By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.

Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to
make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have seen
no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG.


The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.

I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at hand:
whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was
legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller" who
performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to boot.


What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or
was
involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take
the
required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,
included
drug-testing. GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based
Project
PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a
"sentence"
to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.

First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the
intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the
issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972) after
going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded from
TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty
after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712). It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
other things, disciplinary reasons. Neither drills nor attendance were
required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in
question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official
duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three years
(approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no
service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years of
his commitment.


Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.

Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are
Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to
learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had taken
on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a
powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's work
with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than
standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program
seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe at
some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy.
Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made
that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became
concerned.


Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,
among
other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO. Members of the
NG
are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could
GWB
have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something
else
entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG toward
required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately
six
months' later than that given by NGB.

Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
office complex. That's its job.

ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always
encompass eithere physical restraint or custody.


Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we should
continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush
never
took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior to
the time such was done in the active USAF.

That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.


Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances can
be revealed by flight physicals.
So, when did TANG institute drug-testing?

Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about
1973.
ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for
disciplinary
measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of
the
service as well as inside.

Some have "suggested" that drawing conclusions on what might be and
what could have happened is the exercise of spin doctors.

In any event, a clean copy of at least one redacted file (the partially torn
document) has become available; an ARF document detailing GWB's guard
activity in 1972-1973, which first entry is for October. It does not deal
with either TANG or ANG service, but with ARF. I don't recall having drawn
any conclusions or having attempted to place any sort of "spin" on any
thing.


During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective
sea-change
in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its
preparation
and readiness for active service. The Colonel was perhaps lucky in being
able to stay the course and experience those changes. What some find
troublesome is that GWB suggests that his service was directly comparable
to
today's N-Guardsmens', which clearly it was not. (Nor apparently, was it
equivalent to the Colonel's, as the Colonel demonstrates that he took his
own role seriously and served through thick and thin). In that case, who
slanders whom? Is it appropriate for our President to wrap his service in
the same mantle as that of comtemporary, dedicated guardsmen who have
been
called to active duty, if his own service was not in most ways
comparable?

Show me someone who has survived the training environment of UPT
(where I was an instructor for 4 years), who has handled the multiple
survival courses required of an aircrew (which I am familiar with),
who has qualified in a Century Series SE/SS fighter and performed
operationally, even without combat, and they will have my respect.

No argument here. But does your respect for such a person extend to a period
of time in which no actual service appears to have been performed but for
which the principal nonetheless was paid, and during which time no clear
record of his activities emerged, for such a long time?


SNIP remainder

IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding
from
aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his
assignment
to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--), his community service commitment in
Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between
dates
of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need
not
be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
(informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
second term.

You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
seek answers.

Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the rumors
or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware of
them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My motivation
is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President
can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I
value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be.

The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
you believe any of them?

The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the
ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable is
other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.

BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article
focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been terribly
concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged
use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly.

From: "Lawrence Dillard"

.. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.


Documents have been provided about his service. During the 2000 election cycle
Bush repeatedly denied using cocaine. What more do you want?

Did you ask similar questions about clinton's administration? He did sign up
for ROTC. He did promise to show for duty. He confessed to a drug felony
(possesion of marijuana was a felony when he tried it) remember " I only tried
it twice, didn't inhale and didn't like it?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:
Snip

The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
choice not an obligation.

The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but whether
GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
while not performing is reserve function.

Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL
TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational
alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was
assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of
conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to
NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a
reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft
available at the time.

Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my
meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted
the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have emphasized
that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his
type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for their
services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand
comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected.

You have an interesting way with words. My service "does not stand
comparions to that which modern-day units can often be subjected"
either. That's a meaningless requirement. How can service in the
present be compared to the unknown of what service might be like in
the future?

There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."

Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no longer
in great demand in the war zone.

So, now we are demanding prescience? How does one know when starting a
two year training program leading inevitably to qualification in a
combat aircraft that in two years the type will no longer be in great
demand in the war zone?????

By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.

Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to
make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have seen
no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG.

Read today's newspaper.


The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.

I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at hand:
whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was
legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller" who
performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to boot.

The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. The
relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975,
from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was
drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could
have had it for the asking at any time.

First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the
intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the
issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972) after
going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded from
TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty
after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712).

His flight physical omission was at the time of his reassignment to
Montgomery where he was not going to be on active flying duty.


It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
other things, disciplinary reasons.

Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a
disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence
of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment
(Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed.


Neither drills nor attendance were
required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in
question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official
duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three years
(approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no
service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years of
his commitment.

Duty is duty. You are either on duty or you are not. If the ARPC
posting was a duty assignment, then the time would count with TANG.
Confess now, you're really making this up aren't you?


Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.

Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are
Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to
learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had taken
on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a
powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's work
with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than
standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program
seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe at
some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy.
Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made
that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became
concerned.

I am wrong in my statement? Reread it (or have a friend read it to
you). You agree with me in your response, until you get to the last
sentence, which indicates that you place great credence in "rumor" and
"suggestions were persistently made" (don't you just love the
non-attibution of passive voice??) Now you are "concerned"? Now you
are the rumor monger and suggester!

Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
office complex. That's its job.

ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always
encompass eithere physical restraint or custody.

It can also encompass reduction in rank or loss of pay. None of this
is supported by any credible evidence.


That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.


Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances can
be revealed by flight physicals.
So, when did TANG institute drug-testing?

I wasn't in TANG, but the requirements for a flight phyical are the
same across components. I was on flight status from July '64 through
June '87. During those 23 years, I was never tested during a flight
physical for banned substances. Drug testing was done separately and
handled independently. The first drug testing I can recall was 1974,
but it was not done in a flight physical.

The annual physical is scheduled, drug testing was random and "no
notice." The state of drug test discrimination at that time would make
it no problem to "clean up" 72 hours before the scheduled physical
making it virtually useless.


You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
seek answers.

Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the rumors
or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware of
them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My motivation
is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President
can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I
value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be.

You do not apparently sincerely seek answers because you refuse
adamantly to acknowledge when you are corrected either by someone with
experience or first-hand knowledge or simply with regard to the logic
of your rhetoric and subscription to rumor and suggestion.

The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
you believe any of them?

The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the
ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable is
other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.

See today's newspaper for full service records. Then, since the Guard
Colonel and I have both served for more than 20 years each as rated AF
pilots in tactical aircraft type, the (g)ambit of our knowledge
certainly covers the issue in question.

Let me ask about your background and ability to credibly refute our
experience. Where and when did you serve? Guard or active duty? Rated
or non-rated? Type aircraft qualified? Familiarity with out of career
field postings? Educational level? Political experience? Affiliations?

Nah, you won't go there will you?

BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article
focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been terribly
concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged
use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly.

So, mom says she is concerned when the media, political opponents,
etc, make allegations (please look up the definition of "allegation")
about drug use. My mom would be concerned as well. So would yours.
What's the down side of that report? It seems normal and natural. It
also doesn't indicate that there was any truth to the allegations.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:26:21 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. The
relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975,
from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was
drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could
have had it for the asking at any time.

Ed, if had done so, what would have been the result? Would he have
been transferred to non-flying duty in the ANG (which is essentially
what happened, by all accounts), would he have been transferred to a
different Guard unit, or would he have been transferred to the
inactive reserve (which, again, is essentially what happened for the
last six months of his six-year requirement)?

In the local cocktail party circuit, there are only three of us who
served in the military: one as a draftee, one as draftee who became RA
in order to go to language school, and one who went in as Enlisted
Reserve--to wit, six months active duty followed by a supposed hitch
in the reserves. Not one of the three of us ever attended a reserve
meeting after we got out of the army, though all of us was assigned in
theory to a duty station in case we were called back (at one time, I
was supposed to report to the American consul in Frankfurt--yes,
certainly!).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
other things, disciplinary reasons.

Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a
disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence
of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment
(Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed.

This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
the Texas Air Guard.

If Bush had turned up at Denver, they wouldn't have known what to do
with him. This was in all likelihood a coven of clerks in a strip mall
office building, shuffling dusty records and from time to time issuing
a honorable discharge. (Mine had my name spelled wrong.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
other things, disciplinary reasons.

SNIP
This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
the Texas Air Guard.

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent
could explain.

As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the
separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one
time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign
until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive reserve.
Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974.

If Bush had turned up at Denver, they wouldn't have known what to do
with him. This was in all likelihood a coven of clerks in a strip mall
office building, shuffling dusty records and from time to time issuing
a honorable discharge. (Mine had my name spelled wrong.)

No intent to slander, just hasty typing. GWB's *assignment* to ARF is even
now the subject of some discussion. Was it that, as you relate, he "was no
longer available to attend" TANG meetings (but if so, was he nonetheless
accepting payment for his service-time? If he were doing so, he would have
been a "ghost-payroller"); or was there another reason, such as balking on
his flight physical, which led to his grounding (July, '72), i.e., a
sanction for not fulfilling that obligation ( his record does not suggest
much activity for the last two years of his enlistment). As will be
recalled, GWB began to skip drills in (approx) May, '72; did not report for
his flight physical in July, '72; his *records* were transferred to
ARF/ARPC in Sept/Oct '72, when he began to receive ARF points; his
separation is recorded as Nov 21, '74.

"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October,
1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post)
among
other things, disciplinary reasons.

SNIP
This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
the Texas Air Guard.

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
equivalent
could explain.

ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are
sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who
do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?"
The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement
function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber.

Every major base I've ever been on has some sort of detention facility.
For instance...USAF members are *assigned* to Langley AFB for, among other
reasons, disciplinary reasons. Does that mean every person at Langley has
been sent there for disciplinary reasons? Not a chance.

Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of
wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action?
Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now.

His DD-214 equivalent clearly shows an Honorable Discharge.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable
REASON AND AUTHORITY FOR DISCHARGE: Officer is transferred to to ARPC (ORS),
3800 York St, Denver Colorado. Effective 2 October, 1973

Key word there...DISCHARGE. If he had been *assigned* (as in his physical
body going there) to ARF/ARPC for your supposed disciplinary reason, he
would not have been *discharged* at that time.

Your "among other things" includes normal separation (and transfer to the
inactive reserve). Why the innuendo WRT the additional functions of
ARF/ARPC, Denver? Is there any paper or any person that can say GWB was
*assigned* to Denver for 'disciplinary reasons'?

No...didn't think so.


As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the
separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one
time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign
until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive
reserve.
Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974.

Original, planned separation date = May 1974
Early discharge in Oct 73 and transfer to the inactive reserve adds an
additional 6 months.
Oct 73 - May 74 = 6 months
6 month additional commitment in Inactive Reserve = Nov 74.

Simple

Pete
Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:43:54 GMT, "Pete" wrote:


"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
equivalent
could explain.

ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are
sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who
do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?"
The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement
function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber.


Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of
wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action?
Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now.
= Nov 74.

Simple

Pete
Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable


The more I read Mr. Dillard's postings and his repetition without
acknowledgement of the key point refuting his assertions, the more I
think he's working off a script of DNC "talking points."



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

....working off a script of DNC "talking points."

As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
fulfillment of duty ?

I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
like the luck of the draw to me...



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:20:29 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent
could explain.

I can't find anything official that being assigned to ARPC is some
type of mark against a persons record. Could you provide some official
source for that thought?

I did find this at the ARPC site, but nothing about it being some type
of punishment..

Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC)
"The Personnel Center’s mission expanded in the 1970s, when the Air
Force made ARPC responsible for all Air National Guard personnel
records. This action happened first for officers in July 1971, and
then for enlisted members in March 1978."