Reply With QuoteKind of throws a wrench in it, don't'cha think?"...unless excused therefrom by proper authority."
I mean, I'd say an honorable discharge is proper authority unless you're going to contend the DD-214 is a forgery.
You want to get more technical about it. Its not just in the manual. Its in his contract "Statement of Understanding" to serve 48 days of inactive duty:
Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."
Kind of throws a wrench in it, don't'cha think?"...unless excused therefrom by proper authority."
I mean, I'd say an honorable discharge is proper authority unless you're going to contend the DD-214 is a forgery.
There has to be a form for each day. To authorize him to miss.
It has to be filed in advance.
He can't miss more than four in one year.
Maybe there is, the record on President Bush seems to be fairly lacking in content.
Is the DD-214 fraudulent? Because, if it isn't the U.S. Government was satisfied, in October of 1973, that Lt. Colonel George W. Bush had fulfilled his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard.
And, I'm betting there were a whole lot more people and do ents around then to support that finding.
You're using what is called a circular argument. He was authorized to miss becuase he got the honorable discharge. The technincal term for it is "begging the question."
It means Assuming the truth of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises .
Try again.
No, I'm saying he received an honorable discharge and, unless you're asserting it is fraudulent, it pretty much says he fulfilled his obligation to the Guard.
Thats the very defninition of a circular argument.
Premise: All honorable discharges are valid
Conclusion: His honorable discharge is therefore valid.
Well, all honorable discharge, not fraudulent, are valid...therefore, his honorable discharge is valid.
Why is that such a hard concept?
I don't understand why you think you can make a better judgement, than did those who were in a position to, on whether or not he fulfilled his Guard duty, 30 years later and with insufficient information.
I think you see my point. You tried to reword it. But it doesn't make it any more valid of an argument.Well, all honorable discharge, not fraudulent, are valid...therefore, his honorable discharge is valid.
You're conclusion is still assumed in your premise.
Burden's on you to disprove it and you're rowing up a waterfall. No one but you and the Boston Globe is disputing that he did not fulfill his obligation.
Neither of us have the necessary information to argue beyond speculation. I have the advantage in that we have a do ent that shows he was honorably discharged.
I see no reason to argue further, I'm not changing my vote...and neither is anyone else based on this thread. We're wasting our time.
No I believe the burden is on you to find papers authorizing him to go AWOL.
^^Ding Dong, the thread is dead!^^
Prove he was AWOL.
First of all do I need to prove that he missed over five months of drills at one point?
Means nothing.
Becuase that would technically all fall under the definition of AWOL. Are you going to argue that he was authorized?
Text. “Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
(4) Aggravated forms of unauthorized absence. There are variations of unauthorized absence under Article 86(3) which are more serious because of aggravating cir stances such as duration of the absence, a special type of duty from which the accused absents himself or herself, and a particular specific intent which accompanies the absence. These cir stances are not essential elements of a violation of Article 86. They simply cons ute special matters in aggravation. The following are aggravated unauthorized absences:
(a) Unauthorized absence for more than 3 days (duration).
(b) Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days (duration).
(c) Unauthorized absence from a guard, watch, or duty (special type of duty).
(d) Unauthorized absence from guard, watch, or duty section with the intent to abandon it (special type of duty and specific intent).
(e) Unauthorized absence with the intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises (special type of duty and specific intent).
Okay, let's see the section on how one is authorized to be exempt from those provisions.
Heres the link have for the one I just did:
Link
But I think the more relevant answer to your question might be to point out that you can only have four authorized absenses a year.
linkA member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]
Is that someone's analysis or is that out of the manual?
I'd like to see the section where it explains who, under what cir stance, and any other relevant information on how one is exempted from the provisions you just posted.
The only Manual I have acess is to travis's PDF that he posted, and it says the same thing about four absences.
link
6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was
missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status
(retirement points only) for unexcused absences.
6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per
fiscal year [U.S.C. le 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.
6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will
be do ented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally subs uted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs
in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.
6.6.3. The training received during an EQT must be of similar nature and quality to that which was missed. EQT will
be appropriate to and enhance ability of the individual to accomplish the duties of the position to which he or she is
assigned. In the case of staff or support personnel, this may include actions to enhance the training, management, or
readiness of the unit.
So, you've based your conclusion on incomplete information?
Further, are these the regulations in place in 1972-73? Are there relevant addenda, appendecies, or errata sheets?
You know one side effect of continuing this discussion and trust me I do not know where it is at is that the general public will find out that Bush actually was a fighter pilot and spent a couple of years in the Guard doing more than just weekend duty.
This issue is already a loser for Kerry. It's only a matter of how big of a gift the Demos want to present to the Bush campaign.
No I am saying I don't think there is anything that could authorize an absense to the extent which Bush took. The millitary is pretty strict about everything. Even for Inactive training sessions that you are going to attend you have to fill out a form to become authorized to do that session. The first link and the last link all talk about even illness is not an excuse to miss. You are AWOL according to the first link even if you are sick or out of the country.
That's exactly what it did for my neighbor, Tommy. The story related in my signature is true.
That's a pretty inconclusive position from which to accuse someone of being AWOL. Particularly when there is no supporting do entation."...I don't think there is anything..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
