GWB and the Air Guard

"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

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

...
I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
time did NOT go to Vietnam.

...

How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did
NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to
do with anything?

It is generally accepted by most folks who remember those years that
men joined the NG to avoid service in Vietnam. Here and there some
folks on this newsgroup argue that GWB in particular did not choose
the Air National Gurad to avoid being sent to Vietnam. If he had
WANTED to go to Vietnam as a pilot then it would ahve made sense
for him to enlist in the USAF or USN.

So I still stick to the notion that GWB chose the guard to avoid
being sent to Vietnam. That's why those numbers are meaningful.

If GWB did not want to go to Vietnam that's fine with me. My brother
didn't want to go, but his birthday was drawn last in the lottery
for his year. I didn't want to go, and they did not draft anyone
from my year. Neither one of us volunteered.

I see nothing wrong with avoiding service in Vietnam by whatever
legal means. I see nothing wrong with terminating one's tour of
duty in Vietnam by whatever legal means. That was how things
were back then.


It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.

If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the
Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he
didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go.


If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments
for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)?
I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses.

--

FF

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."

On 15 Feb 2004 11:50:02 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

...
I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
time did NOT go to Vietnam.

...

How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did
NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to
do with anything?

It is generally accepted by most folks who remember those years that
men joined the NG to avoid service in Vietnam. Here and there some
folks on this newsgroup argue that GWB in particular did not choose
the Air National Gurad to avoid being sent to Vietnam. If he had
WANTED to go to Vietnam as a pilot then it would ahve made sense
for him to enlist in the USAF or USN.

You oversimplify. By 1970 input to USAF pilot training was
contracting. It was harder to get a slot, with priority going to
USAFA, then full four-year ROTC and finally to OTS which was the
"opportunity of last resort" for a college graduate who finally saw
the draft looming on the horizon.

By getting a Guard slot, a lucky individual got a guaranteed pilot
training slot, and probably more important a guarantee of
post-graduation assignment to the aircraft of the state unit. IOW, a
guaranteed fighter slot. Pretty good deal.

Under no circumstances would someone wanting to go to Vietnam as a
pilot ever ENLIST. (Before Kevin jumps me again, that is not a slur
against enlisted folks, but merely a statement that enlistment is not
a route to UPT.)

So I still stick to the notion that GWB chose the guard to avoid
being sent to Vietnam. That's why those numbers are meaningful.

If GWB did not want to go to Vietnam that's fine with me. My brother
didn't want to go, but his birthday was drawn last in the lottery
for his year. I didn't want to go, and they did not draft anyone
from my year. Neither one of us volunteered.

I didn't even know that I didn't want to go. I wanted to fly fast
jets, and got sucked into the business. Too bad I found out that I
liked it.

I see nothing wrong with avoiding service in Vietnam by whatever
legal means. I see nothing wrong with terminating one's tour of
duty in Vietnam by whatever legal means. That was how things
were back then.

And, conversely, there were an incredible number of USAF and USN
aviators who went again and again, all voluntarily.


It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.

If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the
Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he
didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go.


If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments
for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)?
I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses.

Nope. Deferments for college continued throughout the war. You
extended your 2-S deferment if you went to graduate school. You
remained deferred if you went into selected professions such as
teaching--which may account for the pacifist left-wing bias found in
so many educators today.

The "unrest" was simply protesting the war in general and the
obligations of citizenship in particular.



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

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

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?

You're just spinning facts into fantasy, and tricking it out with
innuendo. Bush received no payments after July 1973, his last day in
uniform.

Bush's Guard service was exemplary for three years, minimal for
another three. In my website I give him the same grade his Yale
professors did for his course work: a "gentleman's C" -- which in
today's university would translate to a B-plus.

There was nothing dishonorable about any of it. Sure, he got favorable
treatment, as any one of us would do if the opportunity arose. Yes, he
slacked off toward the end, but there were very good reasons for
that--the 111th FIS no longer fielded the plane he had trained to fly.

The facts, as many as are own, are all laid out he
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

Stop wasting our time with your double-talk about disciplinary units
in Denver. For my part, I'm giving you the old Control-K as of this
afternoon.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip

If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments
for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)?
I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses.

Nope. Deferments for college continued throughout the war. You
extended your 2-S deferment if you went to graduate school. You
remained deferred if you went into selected professions such as
teaching--which may account for the pacifist left-wing bias found in
so many educators today.


I beg to differ with the gentleman. In my senior year (1968), routine graduate school deferments ended. I
remember it well because of the widespread panic that little action caused among the sons of the well heeled I
associated with.

I had neither the grades or inclination for graduate school, so I went ahead and applied for Navy OCS. When I
applied, before the change in policy, the recruiters told me, "Just let me know when you want to come take the
tests". After the policy change, the AF and Navy recruiters were swamped with applications from college seniors.
A six month waiting list JUST TO TAKE THE TESTS was very scary to a college senior less than four months from
graduation.

I was accepted, was sworn in on May 1, and opened my mailbox upon my return to school to find my notice to report
for draft physical. I politely declined, but it wasn't much of a victory.

1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964.

BTW, I applied to fly for the Navy (AVROC) during by sophomore year. The docs rejected me, so it's moot.
However, I don't recall that the "issue" of VietNam even entered my thoughts at that time. Teenage stupidity and
lack of situational awareness surely contributed to that omission, but I think I was pretty typical.

Bob McKellar, who nonetheless thinks going into the Navy was the second best thing he ever did, although that
realization took a long time to arrive.

BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of
what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )

Bob McKellar wrote:


1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964.

Oops!

1968 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964.

Bob

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote:

BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of
what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )


I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is
quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony
regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance
was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from
the mission.

If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators.

Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title
still to be determined.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is
quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony
regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance
was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from
the mission.

If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators.

Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title
still to be determined.


Ed Rasimus


No ordnance dropped and no ordinance violated?

Tex