Air Force Tried To Discharge Bush After Discovering He Was AWOL

New research confirmed by RAW STORY and verified with federal law and military regulations, indicates that in late 1973 or early 1974, the United States Air Force, which supervises and whose jurisdiction supercedes the Air National Guard, attempted to discharge then-Lieutenant George W. Bush.

Effective September 15, 1973, four years into Bush’s six-year duty requirement, the Air Force placed Bush on inactive status. This document, in Bush’s military record, was dated January 30, 1974, suggesting that it was backdated.

Go to Raw Story

Inactive reserve is not a parking lot on the way to being dishonorably discharged.

This is a regurgitation and re-targeting of a RW attack on John Kerry (who ALSO spent some time in the inactive reserves).

True - but the process cited is only used on the way to a dishonorably discharged

and that is the point

at that point in time going to inactive reserve would be unheard of - unless we were talking about dishonorably discharged

Again, Kerry ALSO went on to inactive reserve after being "signed up to fulfill a military service requirement"

They also read a whole lot into a document having a processing date and an "effective date" that simply isn't there.

The processing date, on the document (shown below) is Jan 30 1974.



Also, we've updated the article -- he COULD have asked to go on inactive reserve, in violation of regulations, but there's no evidence for that; he never asked for it according to what's in his file, and furthermore, he would have needed permission in advance.

As for Kerry -- he WASNT in the National GUARD!! he had a military service obligation to whatever he was in --

AND -- EVERYONE who had a military service obligation in the guard went on inactive status -- but NOT until they completed their service obligation. Of course -- that wasn standard procedure on the path to being discharged.

If you're the author of the "theory" you missed a bunch. So Kerry wasn't in the guard? Really? But the regs you cited were for the AF, not the guard.... neither of them is a direct fit. Did the document say anything about applying only to the guard?

As per my comment - what significance do you see in a document having a different "effective date"? Have you ever been IN the military? Have you looked through some of the dates on Kerry's records? This is not uncommon.

In answer to your point. Nobody NEEDS to "ask" to go to inactive reserve. As per the reg you cite (probably a parallel to both Guard and Navy regs), you automatically go to inactive reserve if you seperate prior to completion of the time of service. Right in 19-2-a it says "unless sooner discharged for the purposes of complete severance from military status". You're taking "discharged" to imply "dishonorable"?

This is the same process he would have gone through if things happened the way he claimed. If he requested permission to leage the guard to go back to school, he would have gone through the inactive reserves on the way.

Just do a google on "Kerry" and "inactive reserves" and take a look at all the kooky attempts to paint HIM as being AWOL based on these same types of incorrect assumptions.

First off, I said nothing about dishonorable discharge. I only said he wouldn't be discharged honorably -- how can you be discharged honorably when you haven't completed the requisite six years in your term of service?

Second, Bush was placed on inactive status, and then re-activated two months later. He would have still been required to make up any time for his six year requirement. With the five months he missed in 1972, and didn't make up, and then those additional six months -- Oct 73 to March 74 -- Bush didn't even serve four years!!!

You're suggesting they were trying to honorably discharge him after serving four years?

No -- I think Bush got an honorable discharge (which, of course, there isn't any proof of) simply by virtue of having all the regulations that applied to him overlooked.

I'd love you to document what "he wouldn't be discharged honorably" is supposed to mean.

If you mean that the technical designation could not be "honorable discharge" you are splitting hairs, since there is more than one possibility.

ELS (Entry Level Seperation) - would not apply to anyone out of Basic (or say 6 months service).

BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge) or DD (Dishonorable Discharge) - can ONLY result from a Court Martial.

OTH (Other Than Honorable) - Not as bad as the above, and would not fit "AWOL", but would still justify your story.

And then the magic final option:

General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge which is often refered to by laypeople as an "honorable discharge". And would be precisely what you would expect in the situation described.

I'll change the language. I meant to suggest Bush can't, in good conscience, claim, as he has been doing publicly to have "honorably" (in the definition of the word sense) served his military service obligations when he didn't serve your military service obligations.

Doesn't that seem reasonable?

:-)

The tone of the article implied that it was proof that the Air Force tried to kick him out because of the missed service. That may or may not be true, but isn't supported by the documents mentioned.

To be technical, however... assuming the dates in the record are correct, he could claim to have fulfilled his MSO. He was in the guard for 5.5 years and inactive reserves for the final six months. That's actually the standard process. If you leave prior to the end of your MSO you stay in the inactive reserves (and are subject to callups) through the end of the MSO period.

I did a quick search - and this is for the current enlisted regs, but it's evidence of a standard process -

In most cases military enlistments are for a period of eight years no matter how long you sign up for. How many of those years you spend on active duty is a matter of your individual contract. Some people spend 2, 3, 4, 6 or all 8 years of this enlistment as an active duty member of the military. Those who spend less than eight years on active duty are required to spend the remaining portion of the obligation in the Inactive Reserves (you don’t report or get paid during this period, and you can be recalled to active duty if needed).

But sure, it's ok with me if you claim that serving part-time in the guard and scooting when it served you isn't REALLY "serving your country". Of course, we burned THAT bridge with Clinton.

I just disagree with you here; I trust someone who supervised the entire reserve system more.

And Bush signed an MSO contract to serve the full six years in active status -- regardless of what others contracts were. Any time spent on inactive status during that contract should have been added on at the end.

As Korb has said, just being on inactive status doesn't discount your MSO, and you're still required to complete your MSO.

Thanks for the dialogue though, it's helped me to feel clearer on my reasoning, and to be ready for counterattacks from those who are actually on the Republican side of the fence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes, the Air Force supervises the Guard; I just hadn't familiarized myself with Kerry's record.

Kerry was placed on the inactive reserve in May 1972, after having been in the service for a full six years (since 1966), as is standard practice; a guardsman is placed on inactive reserve after completing his MSO.

But Bush hadn't completed his 6-year requirement, so the fact that he was placed on inactive status is anomalous.

And what do you mean you don't need permission in advance to go on inactive status? Are you saying people just went off to graduate school and four months later, realizing they didn't ask to be put on inactive status, wrote to their commanding officers?

That doesn't sound terribly accurate to me, or even plausible.

Kerry was in the Navy from Feb 1966 to January 1970. He would have been transfered to active (ready) reserves until his obligation was done (though there is some question here - some Kerry staffers have said he went into the inactive reserves HERE, which would call your point into question) and then to the inactive reserves.

It does (as I said) open a whole can of worms on the whole "records" debate. He was pretty actively anti-military right after leaving Vietnam. If he was active reserves at the time was he attending to his obligation? If he was on INactive reserves during that time, it doesn't fit your description of what must happen.


This is what I meant by you pulling out a RW argument. The whole "transfer to inactive" being a relevant point cuts at least two ways.


edit - As for "And what do you mean you don't need permission in advance to go on inactive status?" I mean when you request to leave the Guard prior to completing your six years you will automatically be placed on inactive reserve until the end of the six years. It isn't that you don't have to request goign to college, it's that when you DO make that request, you go inactive until seperated (as stated in the my previous post).

He was placed on inactive DUTY in 1970, but not on inactive status until 1972. I'm going through the records now to give you a link.

here's proof: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Transfer_To_Standby_Reserve.pdf

The document you linked moves him from the Ready Reserves (i.e. "active reserves") to the Standby Reserves (i.e. INactive reserves).

Are you implying some kind of "active military but inactive duty" designation? He was in the USNR, not the USN after 1970.

These are just two different things. Even on the most CONSERVATIVE website, wintersoldier.com, who attacks Kerry -- even he concedes that Kerry didn't go on inactive STATUS until July 1972.

The Individual Ready Reserve is Active Status. It is often referred to as the "Inactive Ready Reserve" colloquially, because in general these people are not on active duty, and don't perform any training. But if you are in ANY part of the "Ready Reserve" you are "Active Status."

From paul lukasiak, the researcher whose research our work is based on. I'm going to connect him to this whole thread and see what he has to say.

I'm sure the hobbit can set Paul straight on North Florida vote fraud, as well, since he knows everything about everything

I believe that's what I said.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because he's insisting on accuracy he's "not liberal"?

did you read what I said?

you're conflating the two

I asked him who he's voting for BECAUSE every time I've seen a post of his, he assumes the POV of a supply side republican

I fully understand the importance of accuracy in this matter--have been in contact with Marty Heldt since he started (sent him money....have you?), if that means anything.

so spare me the LOL, dear

OK?

LOL LOL LOL... how's that?

I see somebody questioning the accuracy of something, and then I see you accusing him of not being a liberal because of it. That's strange logic, dear. LOL

And "liberal" is not a label I long for.

But "Democrat" is fine with me.

Have we changed the name fo the Board?

was struggling for a word that wouldn't repeat progressive in that sentence (as in taxation)

democrat works fine

progressive democrat would be better, ha

I see that isn't part of the description, but that's fine

putting words in mouth isn't the smartest thing

I didn't say he was questioning accuracy, now, did I?

infer all you like from my statement

just curious as to why he always takes the side inimical to our interests, see?

not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems a consisten stance

he's explained why in another post here, and I can accept that, dear

so try to be accurate in your own posts, OK?

dear?

"just curious as to why he always takes the side inimical to our interests, see?"


I contend exactly the opposite. I happen to think that my positions are the ones MOST likely to have us succeed politically.

The fringe of the RW that went all crazy accusing Clinton of murder and "Arkancide" HURT the republican party. The fringe of our party who talk about Bush comma ding torture, or ordering 9/11 (MIHOP), or pretending that economic conditions are other than they are etc etc etc will only hurt us the same way.

Notice that this is true for both parties EVEN IF the fringe is RIGHT? Even if Clinton HAD killed someone... the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have helped then unless it was overwhelming proof.

In the case under discussion... it is perfectly adequate to say the man didn't "serve" his country so much as himself. Accusing him of "AWOL" and saying he should be in jail hurts the cause more than it helps.


JMHO of course.

could be that your style has rubbed me the wrong way: see brown nosing

afa, AWOL, that's a GOOD sound bite, that gets the wingnuts frothing at the mouth like no other meme we've got going

and, as I understand it, there's PLENTY of evidence that he WAS absent without leave, depending upon how one interprets the UCMJ

far be if from me to be up to debating the fine points, but isn't that what the law, ass that it is, happens to be all about

to dismiss the possiblity of his being AWOL out of hand is a mistake

it's time to put THEM on the defensive, and I don't think it hurts our "cause" at all

every time they have to mention that story, it puts them in a bad place, because the connotations are BAD for Bush, even when his defenders try to vilify the accuser

look how badly Kerry is faring with the 87 billion dollar vote. he's SCREWED on that, because he didn't deal with it effectively, much less at ALL, and now it's becoming an imprint, and he's gonna have trouble reversing that

AWOL has the potential to be a monkey on the monkeyboy's back. there's PLENTY of plausible info out there now, if the media chooses to report even a FRACTION of it

what they SHOULD do is concentrate on why he refused to "accomplish" his physical, never made it up, then LIED about how long he kept flying in his silly memoir

:devil:

But he's not running this year (or maybe.....)

Kerry of course. I'm not far enough Left to support Nader.



When have I been against progressive taxation? At most I would support a cost-of-living wiggle factor for the brackets. For instance, 75k in NY City doesn't get a family of four all that much, but the same income here in NC would be pretty darn comfortable (I hope to find out some day - lol).


Nope - you called it right. I loved debate competitions in school and I love to spar online. Spend time at almost exclusively liberal boards and your going to be sparing with people who went too far left.
In fairness, I AM "conservative" by comparison to the VAST majority of people on DU, but that's more a function of the audience here, a HUGE plurality of which were big time Kucinich supporters (which is WELL to the left of the party as a whole). Think of me as the John Breaux of DU (I used to say Zell Miller until he had the labotomy).

AFA taxation, might be off on that one, as I suffer from PSD, but if you like Breaux, that's just about what he supports, seeing as how he voted for all the giveaways to the rich, and is a classic DINO

good riddance to him, and ESPECIALLY Miller, who was never much different than he is now; he just realized he could get RICH by shooting off his mouth all the time. he's just a mouthy WHORE now

his voting record hasn't changed any since he became such a loudmouth

glad to see you're voting for Kerry, though

here's a thought: why don't you take your prodigious rhetorical skills to a venue where they would most benefit your candidate?

cause you ARE good at it

you'd do much better for us at the NYTimes forum, which is crawling with maximum ani, and you could keep up with them quite easily, I'd guess. that board is VERY high traffic, and could use some devils' advocates for the left

I'll take a look.

As for Miller. Anyone who says he was "never much different than he is now" has never been a Democrat in Georgia. He was THE most popular politician in the state for YEARS and well respected nationally with some thought that he might be tapped to run for President (and he DID give the keynote address for Clinton in '92, right?).

Breaux and Miller and people like them (Edwards is pretty close, as is Gov Warner in VA) represent MILLIONS of southern Democrats who are STILL in the party. We shun them at our peril.

But thanks for the "brown-nosing" my ego is properly proped up.


As for the tax cuts, they made the system LESS progressive, but it's still "progressive". Leave the lower brackets alone and leave the child tax-credit (but get rid of the top bracket cuts) and you would have a MORE progressive system than under Clinton.

I'd be fine with that. :-)

in congress for that to happen

also, I was talking about Miller's Senate record, not gubenatorial. the south will change its voting patterns glacially, ever since the Southern strategy, or until they start realizing that they vote against their own interests every time they delusionally fall for the wedge issue party's line of faux-populist BS.

talking about the New York Times forum

brown nosing?

you sure know how to take a compliment, don't you?

...

WHO NEEDS REPUBLICANS?!?!?!?!?!

I'm sorry, but ANYONE who would endorse GW Bush after these 3.5 years of fuckups couldn't POSSIBLY be a Democrat!!!!

Zell Miller is either a mole, a sellout or is losing his mind.

lol

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I would love to see the AWOL SOB get his just rewards.

The assumption in the reporting is that the Air Force/Guard was making him inactive in order to give him priority eligibility for the draft?

Better check when the draft ended. I don't think it was operating in 1974. I don't now what sort of grandfathering in clauses there were but I don't think he could have been drafted into the active Air Force.

I DO think that it shows that Bush had a history that revealled very Republican personal traits, such as knowing exactly what the consequences of actions are and then taking advantage of that knowledge.

If you remember or read the history of the times, the US military was into a RIF in 1974 that included me.

I left the Army in 1974.

The Army cut one year off my 4 year active duty obligation because with the war ending there wasn't a need to keep many of us. I was let out an additional 2 and one half months early when the unit I was serving with in Virginia was moved to San Antonio, TX (I only served 2 years, 9 months 12 days and 10 hours of an original 4 year enlistment, at the time I considered this proof that God existed). Of course they couldn't just _let_ me go, they made me sign a piece of paper in which I promised to complete my 6 year obligation in the reserves...including a year and some months in the active reserve.

I was given an honorable discharge even though I never bothered registering with the reserves as I was ordered to do. Hardly anyone did this. The military was cutting personnel, peoples's names were assigned to units that only existed in notebooks on a "command authority's" desk. Aurora, Illinois, had a huge regiment but only on paper. No one expected to get personal close attention from the reserve personnel office and no one, including it seems GW Bush, did.

On the draft point, I believe you've caught me in error -- and I apologize; the correction has been noted and I'll add a formal correction at the end of the piece.

Regardless, there is no reason he would be put on inactive status when he had served only four years and then be put back on active status. If he had taken your route, there would be documentation of him signing something to complete his service.

On the 'registering with the reserves' point -- we're not talking about him being put on inactive status because he had completed his MSO. We're talking about him being put on inactive status BEFORE he completed his service obligation.

The proper and specific terminology found in the regulations, is "priority induction through the selective service system." This was the penalty for those who had recieved a draft deferment, and although people were no longer being "drafted" in 1974, men continued to be required to register with their draft board on their 18th birthday until 1975. (That being said, it is certainly possible that the retroactive nature of the change to inactive status may have been related to the question of Bush's "priority induction." )

It dates to his last contact with the service.

Perhaps when he was absent a sufficient number of months then the classification goes to the _beginning_ of the period of his absence.
Sort of similar to the way penalties on your credit card behave if you skip the payments.

Induction through the selective service system still sounds like a euphemism for the draft

...but chasing the draft down a rabbithole may not be fair to your general premise...Bush's records may really indicate that the reserves recognized Bush was AWOL, regardless of whether he was ever adequately punished or not..

''Bush's records may really indicate that the reserves recognized Bush was AWOL, regardless of whether he was ever adequately punished or not.''

I don't understand the jargon, the paperwork, or the legalities involved, but how difficult is it to establish whether or not he was considered to be away from his post for a period of time long enough to be in hot water with the TANG?

beyond that point, MANY people who are up on this as far as one can get inSIST that the key question does not revolve around AWOL, but why he "failed to accomplish" his flight physical, and never made it up.

many reasons hypothesized for that, but those records are still hidden, and there never has been a believable explanation.

the one they give puts the cart before the horse: that he went to Alabama,therefore didn't fly anymore. not to mention the CANARD about his own personal physician not being available to give the physical. that does NOT happen. EVER!

that should be about an 8.9 on the Richter lie scale

... the idea that an aspiring officer would feel comfortable bringing a Congressman's son up on charges of AWOL or deserting????

Isn't it possible that all these colonels and majors were up to their armpits in BS and shit that they didn't want to BOTHER with trying to make George Bush Jr serve his time.

<Perhaps when he was absent a sufficient number of months then the classification goes to the _beginning_ of the period of his absence.
Sort of similar to the way penalties on your credit card behave if you skip the payments.>

that is not the case. There is nothing in the Bush documents that suggests that September 15, 1973 was the start date of Bush's absense, and no logical means to conclude that was the date of the start of his absence. (for instance, he was credited for performing substitute duty for required weekend training that occured AFTER September 15.)

In point of fact, there is only one explanation for the retroactive placement of Bush on "inactive status effective September 15."

Each year, Guard and Reserve units had to provide to the selective service system (specifically, the local draft boards) certification that those serving who were draft deferred had "satisfactorily participated" effective September 15 of each year. The only other alternative to this was to certify the Guardsman or Reservist as having "failed to satisfactorily participate"---THAT certification led to the loss of draft-deferred status and "priority induction" through the selective service system.

This is basically how the Air Reserve Forces handled deserters... they didn't court martial them, they fobbed them off on the Selective Service system. And if the "deserter" did not respond to the induction notice, it became a matter for the Federal criminal courts to deal with. The Air Force was in the business of national security, NOT running court martials---and they took "administrative" routes WHENEVER they could in order to concentrate on their real mission.

Now, it is important to note that if someone "failed to satisfactorily participate", the procedure was to order them to active duty as a punitive measure THROUGH the Reserve/Guard system itself. ONLY if someone had been designated a "non-locatee" (in other words, if the Air Force had ordered them to show up, they hadn't shown up, and after making a reasonable effort to find them could not do so) would someone be "certified for priority induction" through the Selective Service System. And it is ONLY by this "certification" that someone who was an "obligor" could be placed in an inactive status (other than things like joining the clergy, or permanent disability).

This is a very difficult subject to explain for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the confusion between the OFFICIAL designation of "inactive status" and the colloquial use of the term "inactive reserves". In point of fact, the "inactive reserves" didn't exist. There was what was called the "Inactive Status List Reserve Section"....and that was JUST A LIST of people who were no longer effectively affiliated with the military, but who, if the shit REALLY hit the fan, the government would look at because they had experience and training.

What is referred to as the "Inactive Reserves" is usually the "non-participating part of the "Individual Ready Reserves". These were people who remained on ACTIVE STATUS, but did not train. "Ready Reserves" means that you can be called to active duty upon the order of the President. EVERY person who has an "inactive status" is part of the "Standby Reserves", and they can ONLY be mobilized through an act of Congress. (There is also an "active status" component of the "Standby Reserves.)

conditions in the army and the air force at that period were not comparable.

secondly (and probably MOST importantly) there is an exception in the rules regarding military service obligations when he is no longer able to train with the unit to which he had been assigned because of actions taken by the military. In your case, your unit was move hundreds of miles away BY the Army. That pretty much exempted you from any kind of punitive measures---you were not REQUIRED to find another place to train.

This is completely different from Bush's situation. He quit TXANG, then failed to find another unit in which to serve. That meant he was transferred to the authority of the Air Reserve Personnel Center. THAT meant that ARPC did a complete review of his records before deciding what to do with Bush if he did not find another unit within the required 60 days.

And the FIRST THING that ARPC saw when they opened Bush's records was the fact that he hadn't trained with his unit for an entire year, had not trained as a pilot for an entire year, and that TXANG had NOT RESPONDED to a request for an explanation for this.

So, I really don't think that you can compare your personal experience in the Army with what happened to Bush after he quit the Texas Air National Guard.

Do you?

What IS true is that Bush was transferred to a discliplinary "paper" unit before "making up" some time. It's not fact, but I think it's VERY clear that Bush played just an active part in George's discharge as he did in getting him INTO the National Guard.

Personally, I have no problem with someone trying to get out of war. At the sametime, I have an esteem for people like John Kerry and Rod Tidwell who VOLUNTEER to do combat duty. But whichever path you choose, you must do it with HONOR. You must COMPLETE your obligations. Bush chose the National Guard and then abandoned his duty to our nation.

By contrast, Clinton was a successful Rhode scholar. Gore did his tour in Vietnam as a journalist. Bush received special favors to get OUT of duty and then went AWOL when he didn't care to serve anymore.

Had Bush been discharged pre-maturely while he was serving honorably, I don't think there would be a problem. Like many people have said, they didn't need. And likely, Bush was probably a danger to his squadmates with his legendary drunken recklessness. But Bush was discharged LONG after he went AWOL. It's pretty clear what would happen to a normal person if they pulled what Bush pulled. But Bush escaped his fate do to intervention from his Congressman father.

<What IS true is that Bush was transferred to a discliplinary "paper" unit before "making up" some time. It's not fact, but I think it's VERY clear that Bush played just an active part in George's discharge as he did in getting him INTO the National Guard.>

this is not true. ARPC(ORS) -- the place to which Bush was reassigned after quitting TXANG -- was in no way, shape, or form a "disciplinary unit." The Air Force permitted its obligated reservists to move from one location to the other, and recognized that in some cases they would not be able to find another unit in which to serve prior to leaving their old "unit of assignment". ARPC(ORS) was where these "relocatees" who did not have a new unit were temporarily assigned--and they were given 60 days to find another unit.

Although ARPC was empowered to take punitive measures against those who failed to fulfill their obligations, in NO SENSE can ARPC be considered a disciplinary unit as such.

Secondly, Bush "never made up time". Bush finished out his Military Service Obligation while assigned to ARPC. Under those circumstances, officers (but not enlisted men) were assigned to what is known as the "Inactive Status List Reserve Section" for up to three years, until the Reservist requested to be discharged, but no less than six months. This was just part of NORMAL regulations, and would have been implemented regardless of whether Bush had "missed time". The purpose of ISLRS was pretty much a "just in case the shit REALLY hits the fan, we want to be able to force these guys with experience back into the military" thing...it was ONLY a list of people, and that was about it.

Well, my understanding is that the ARPC was the last stop before having your ass hauled off to Vietnam. There was NO REASON for Bush to simply "quit" TANG. The only reason he "needed" a new assignment is because he failed to take a physical AND he failed to show up in Alabama for his one day a month.

So you're suggesting that after Bush skipped out of TANG AND failed to show up in Alabama AT ALL, that he was simply put on a 60 day waiting list until he could "find" a new unit. Then Bush was simply put on inactive reserve with NO RESOLUTION to his refusing to take a physical.

Wouldn't have been easier just to send Bush to the doctor's office in the first place????

Your understand of ARPC's purpose is faulty, I'm afraid. And I think you need to realize that I'm on your side. The RawStory stuff that is now coming out is being confirmed by Dr. Lawrence Korb based on MY research, and pieces I wrote about Bush's records when examined within the context of the contemporaneous laws and Air Force policies. http://www.glcq.com (but my server is down at the moment for some reason!)

ARPC stands for Air Reserve Personnel Center. ARPC had LOTS of functions, including adminstering all Air Force Reserves personnel, as well as providing some oversight of Air National Guard members.

Air Force Reservists could be split into to main categories, those who were assigned to specific Reserve units for mobilization/training, and those who were not. (there was some overlap, but I really don't want to go into explaining irrelevant details at this point.)

The Reservists who were not affiliated with any specific unit were assigned to ARPC...in other words, there was no hierarchal structure between a "non-affiliated" Reservist, and ARPC (no squadron or group commanders, etc. etc.).

There were LOTS AND LOTS of reasons why someone would be assigned to ARPC---for instance, Reservists who signed up for the active duty component of the Air Force and served a minimum number of years could be discharged from the active component and enter the Reserves. At that point, they could choose to be "participating" (i.e. join and train with a unit organized to serve as a unit in the event of a mobilization) or not do so. This latter group was "assigned" to the APRC as part of the "Individual Ready Reserve"

Or, if for some reason a Guardsman's or Reservist's economic circumstances were to change, and his family would have suffered severe economic hardship if he was called to active duty in the event of a mobilitization, that Guardsman or Reservists would be reassigned to the "Stand-by Reserves", which were also administered by ARPC.

If for some reason a Guardsman or Reservist with an unfulfilled Military Service Obligation could no longer train with their unit, they would also be assigned to ARPC, to a section called the ORS. (Obligated Reserve Section). The veteran who commented above, whose Army Reserve unit moved from Virginia to Texas, would have been assigned to the Army's equivalent of ORS---the military did not force reservists to move when their units relocated.

In Bush's case, he had quit TXANG because he was going to take classes at Harvard Business School. The Air Force did not forbid, or even discourage, such moves---it did insist however that those who moved find another unit in which to serve. The Air Force also understood that there would be circumstances when a Reservist or Guardman could not find a new unit before they moved...in those cases, the Guardsman or Reservist would be discharged from their old unit of assignment, and reassigned to ARPC, and given 60 days to find another unit.

If a reservist did not find a new unit within 60 days, ARPC could then act. It had a lot of options--it could involuntarily assign that member to a unit where there was a vacancy for which the member was qualified, it could require the member to report for active duty for training in order to qualify for an existing vacancy, or it could order the member to active duty "for up to two years" for failing to find another unit.

In Bush's case, ARPC could not reassign him involuntarily, because his lack of a physical meant that he was unqualified for ANY position. Nor could they order him to train for another position without his first getting that physical, nor order him to active duty for failing to find another unit without him having a physical.

So, ARPC would have ordered Bush to get a physical. When Bush failed to show up for that physical is when punitive actions would have been taken.

It is important to note, however, that in Bush's case APRC may not have waited the full 60 days before taking any action. When someone was reassigned to ARPC, ARPC did a complete review of their records. And we all know what Bush's records looked like. ARPC COULD have acted against Bush based solely on those records--but again, they would have had to order him to get a physical before they could take any further action.

My understanding is that once you signed the papers, you were expected to show up once a month, 2 weeks a year and do your duty. After all, the US government pays a LOT of money to train people to fly. Aren't they expected to pay Uncle Sam back by doing their patrols, etc.... ?????

The other thing I find really goofy about this is why Bush even NEEDED a transfer to Alabama. Pardon me for my potential ignorance, but GW Bush WAS a pilot. And his family was certainly affluent. It was COMPLETELY within the capability of GW Bush to fly back to Houston once a month to do his duty (provided he take his physical).

AND BTW, from what you state, it sounds like a physical is a pre-requisite to being transferred. Yet somehow Bush was transferred to the Alabama Air Guard without any physical being conducted to see if he was "fit" for duty.

Bush was allowed to quit the Texas Air National Guard, but remained obligated to train. He was supposed to find another unit before he was discharged; because he had not done so, he had sixty days to find another unit in which to serve.

Re: the Transfer to Alabama...in fact he probably didn't need one. The really interesting thing about that "transfer request" was that it was a total scam. Bush tried (with the cooperation of TXANG officials) to make an end run around the regs, and transfer into a unit which would ELIMINATE any training obligations he had. Basically, he was trying to scam his way into a "legal" form of desertion.

Finally, Bush was never transferred to Alabama. NEVER. In order for a transfer to from a State Air National Guard unit to any kind of unit in another state to take effect, the ANG member has to be discharged from the State ANG. That never happened. The transfer never happened. Bush remained obligated to train with TXANG the entire time he was in Alabama.

was going to be a big splash?? Or did he make a statement only to have it ignored.....

:kick:

What Korb has done is legitimize those in news organizations that want to pursue this story.

Now, everyone who was in the military back in the early seventies knows that Korb is telling the truth about the regs. And the media as a whole is probably coming around to the realization that they were scammed by the White House on this story.

But when was the last time that the media admitted it was wrong? How long did it take for even SOME of the media to admit that they did a crappy job of reporting during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq?

But I'm convinced that people in the media ARE AWARE of this story again....and that when the opportunity arises, it will be covered again. Its not like we've had a whole lot of slow news weeks lately...and the reporters who WOULD have covered this are probably too busy covering the other innumerable scandals and lies coming out of the white house.

Right now, the people who are reading this thread have to start asking Atrios, and Kos, and TalkLeft, and CommonDreams, and every other major AND minor "progressive blog" why THEY are not covering it yet. Because they aren't.

And until THEY start to cover it, the odds of the mainstream media covering it are substantially reduced.

Ahh, to see that fucker expelled from Air Force One! Preferably at about 30,000 feet. :evilgrin:

and a big american flag. Remember Normandy! Keep those cameras clicking.

:kick: