Reply With QuoteTravis I know its not a call to active duty....Its an order to report for drills. Why would they have to order him to report? That isn't something they send out everyday is it?
But it proves that the Guard wanted him to report somewhere SW! This is major.
Travis I know its not a call to active duty....Its an order to report for drills. Why would they have to order him to report? That isn't something they send out everyday is it?
@ TD
Then you have the famous not observed comment:
BTW...here is the current "30-day" rule. As expected, it is not as you have stated.
From ANGI 36-2001 (15 Jan 97)
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.
The point being...even now, being outside of 30 days doesn't mean you can't get credit. It means you won't get paid for it.
What about the 10% rule then?
Don't know, Despurado. However, the military writes orders for lots of things. I don't see any "smoking gun" there.
, when I entered OTS, I had one of those with my name on it. And no I wasn't late or in trouble. It's just the way they do things.
I already told you about that picture. Try reading my response.
And as far as the OER goes...where's the back side?
I did its a picture. I can't look up the original as I don't have it, but from the part shown it seems very clear. You can not miss more than ten percent of your drills.
In what context? Again, you show your utter ignorance of anything military. It is most certainly not very clear.
the back
"Not been observed", as in no one saw the whites of his eyes, or "not been observed"...flying a plane?
"has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
WTF do the "AWOL" accusations come from? Looks like he was there to me.
www.nationalreview.com/ke...ryspot.asp
60 MINUTES TO INVESTIGATE 60 MINUTES II (PARODY*)
[09/13 06:13 PM]
NEW YORK — In a stunning development, the flagship news program of CBS, 60 Minutes, has decided to investigate its Wednesday night counterpart, ‘60 Minutes II.’
60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt came out of retirement in order to investigate the spinoff program, which, he pointed out, was an idea he had always hated and opposed anyway.
“This story has all the classic ingredients parts of a archetypal 60 Minutes story,” Hewitt said. “Forgeries and lies. A brazen attempt to influence a presidential election. Shadowy political operatives. A powerful ins ution that is hiding behind short, defiant statements. The whole situation just screamed a need for a hard-hitting reporter to hold the powerful guys in suits accountable. It just happens that in this case, we’re interviewing the powerful guys in suits down the hall.”
The media world is abuzz with excitement about the shocking interview of CBS Evening News host Dan Rather by Mike Wallace. CBS has released one particularly tense exchange:
(Wallace and Rather sit opposite each other, eye to eye, almost mirror images.)
Wallace: Expert… after expert… after expert has declared these do ents (dramatically holding up four sheets of paper) to be forgeries. What is your response to them?
Rather: We have solid sources.
Wallace: Who are they?
Rather: I’m not going to say.
Wallace: Why should people trust you?
Rather: Do you know who I am? I’ve been in the news business for 42 years!
Wallace: Do you know who I am? I’ve been in the news business for 53 years! And Christopher Plummer played me in the movie!
Rather: I am 100 percent certain that the chances of this do ent being real are almost 51 percent.
Wallace: You’re being evasive.
Rather: I’m not being evasive, I’m just being more nimble than a one-legged Texas bullfrog before a prairie thunderstorm!
Wallace: That doesn’t even make sense.
Rather: I’m tired of this criticism coming up with regular frequency, Kenneth.
Wallace: What frequency? And who’s Kenneth?
60 Minutes will present its report, “The Great CBS News Civil War of 2004” on Sunday.
WARNING: The above statement is a parody. So far.
*So indicated for the resident leftwingnuts who can't take a joke.
Except no one saw him in Alabama. No one remembers seeing him there his pay roll records don't show he was there. Oh except for a dental exam.
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he ac ulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
USNEWS
1. He received an honorable discharge. Again, he just needed to ac ulate a certain level of service per year, which he did.
2. No one cares. The only reason I bothered to participate in this discussion was because someone tried to create a 30 year old memo using MS Word and CBS told us it was true.
missed this line didn't you?
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
"has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
That was signed by 2 officers, in case you missed that part.
There is some dispute to that and again, WGAF?
They were in alabama too?
Your party is running against an in bent president and all you have to offer are some unproven allegations about what happened 30 years ago. Pretty ing dumb. The GOP tried some of that in 1996. Didn't work.
The back side of the OER gives the answer. Again, no problems there.
As for his service in Alabama, once again you are incorrect. There are reports of people "seeing" him.
Even so...given that he was just one airman in a 900-member unit...and not in the command structure...and not from the area originally...I put no weight whatsoever on the "I didn't see him there" stories.
Clinton wasn't lying about it at the time Bush is. Big difference, especially if you think lying about sex is a major offense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions