GWB and the Air Guard

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 =---

From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 2/16/2004 2:45 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

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...

Well he was in a Guard unit. There is no dream sheet or assignment process.
If a guard unit accepts you for a pilot slot, you go to UPT, then RTU for that
particular aircraft.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
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...

You may not be aware of how the Air National Guard recruitment works. You
elect to join a specific unit which would allow platform shopping. Want to
fly fighters? Then don't join a tanker outfit. You do not enlist in the
Air National Guard and then be placed in an assignment pool. Doesn't work
that way. The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th Air
Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended wing' with
both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and the
175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air Force
Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate relationship
and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.

Regards,

Tex Houston

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"John S. Shinal" wrote in
message
...
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...

You may not be aware of how the Air National Guard recruitment works. You
elect to join a specific unit which would allow platform shopping. Want
to
fly fighters? Then don't join a tanker outfit. You do not enlist in the
Air National Guard and then be placed in an assignment pool. Doesn't work
that way. The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th Air
Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended wing'
with
both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and the
175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air Force
Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate
relationship
and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.

Are those latter two units actually blended? I thought the 116th was the
first and only as of now.

Brooks


Regards,

Tex Houston

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
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...

Seems to me that if I wanted to sign up for any state's ANG, all I'd have to do
to figure out what I'd be trained into would be to take a look at what they were
using, unless they were in the process of phasing in some new equipment that
hadn't shown up yet. Luck of the draw? In USAF, sure.....but in ANG units, a
good bet would be that it'd be in what the state was already using. If it
wasn't a sure thing, it had to be the next best thing to it.

George Z.



----== 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
=---

How far north of 21 are you guys?

More likely, as a typical college senior with a hangover, he chose the
111th because a) it flew "fighters" and b) it was in Houston. What
more does a 21-year-old have to know?

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...

Seems to me that if I wanted to sign up for any state's ANG, all I'd have to do
to figure out what I'd be trained into would be to take a look at what they were
using, unless they were in the process of phasing in some new equipment that
hadn't shown up yet. Luck of the draw? In USAF, sure.....but in ANG units, a
good bet would be that it'd be in what the state was already using. If it
wasn't a sure thing, it had to be the next best thing to it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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