Posted on 01/28/2004 6:24:05 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Wesley Clark has been criticized for refusing to distance himself from filmmaker Michael Moore's assertion that George W. Bush, who served with the Air National Guard, is a "deserter." What is the formal definition of desertion in the military, and does it jibe with the particulars of President Bush's case?
The crime of desertion is covered in Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A deserter, in addition to not showing up for work, must also have the "intent to remain away therefrom permanently." In a court martial, prosecutors can demonstrate such intent by presenting evidence that the accused ditched his military uniforms, bought a bus ticket out of town, or remarked to a friend that he was never, ever heading back to base. Evidence to the contrary might include leaving behind personal property, a lengthy record of otherwise first-rate service, or testimony that the accused's absence was due to substance abuse.
During times of crisis, a soldier can be ruled a deserter even when she has not demonstrated any intent to leave permanently. A member of the armed forces who takes off "with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service" can also be found guilty of desertion, and the punishment for abandoning one's duty during combat can include execution. (Click here for Explainer's previous take on the military death penalty.) In rare instances, a desertion court martial is also possible when someone joins another branch of the military, or a foreign army, without first being "regularly separated"—that is, free and clear—from their previous post.
As a practical matter, the military usually divides "absent without leave" cases from desertions by considering the length of the accused's time away. According to a 2002 report by the U.S. Army Research Institute, a missing soldier is considered AWOL until the 31st day of his absence, at which time his status is changed to "Dropped From Rolls," the administrative term for desertion. Few soldiers classified as DFR ever face a court martial for desertion, however; the report states that 94 percent of DFRs are simply given less-than-honorable discharges.
Strictly speaking, Moore's charge is incorrect. "Deserter" is a precise legal term reserved for those who've been court martialed and found guilty. Bush, by contrast, was honorably discharged in 1973. The question then becomes whether Bush's status should have ever been changed to the equivalent of DFR during his term with the Air National Guard, which began after his graduation from Yale in 1968.
The president's allies and critics both seem to agree that Bush's service was beyond reproach until May of 1972, when he left Houston, where he was stationed, for Alabama, to work on a Republican senatorial campaign. The sticking point is whether Bush ever reported for duty with the 187th Tactical Recon Group, based in Montgomery, Ala., as he was supposed to. Bush claims that he did indeed show up for duty, though he did not fly. (A Boston Globe investigation from 2000 quotes a campaign spokesman who said Bush performed "odds and ends" in Montgomery.) Though Bush admits to missing a few required weekends while in Alabama, he says he made up that time when he returned to Texas the following year. He received his honorable discharge in October of 1973, eight months before his scheduled discharge, so he could attend Harvard Business School.
There are conflicting accounts as to whether Bush ever really served in Alabama. The commander of the 187th Tactical Recon Group told the Globe that he has no recollection of Bush's presence. Several Bush friends, however, have insisted that they distinctly remember the president attending drills in Montgomery. The issue has become a partisan lightning rod, with organizations on both right and left offering differing takes on the commander in chief's time with the Air National Guard.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
Yeah, if the CO was say a bird colonel, he would have been approximately 45 to 50 yrs old in 1972. That would make him 75 - 80 yrs old today. Now my 85 yr. old grandmother is still as sharp as a tack, but many in that age range...
Flying fighter jets is more dangerous and likely to ruin your civilian life plans than going to Vietnam. Especially the F-102, which killed quite a few pilots who were not up to snuff.
After returning from his 1 year leave from Alabama, the records show that he drilled for 36 days - which is the same as 1 year of drills (2 days per month), and the 2 weeks annual training period (Monday to the following Fri - or 12 days.)
I have had command of 2 Navy reserve units ... and flexible scheduling is regularly considered. Flexibility can benefit the military ... and might help keep someone IN rather than dropping out.
GWBush - as an "ex-fighter pilot", after the F-102 was retired, did not have any critical skills that would have REQUIRED his regular presence ... chances are, his last year would have been make work (if he stayed in TX and had drilled regularly) ... but his make-up drills might have allowed him to work on some meaningful projects.
PAPERWORK ... paperwork from the late 60's and early 70's sucked! I started serving in 1975, and let me tell you that some of my records from the late 70's is poor quality, based on hand-written entries, etc. I would hate to "re-create" the stuff if the Navy lost it. (And I think some of the archives where GW Bush's records were stored were burned in a fire, resulting in the destruction of some of those records!)
But it is worth restating - after the F-102 was retired, GW Bush was probably considered of minimal use in the Guard/Reserve. He was probably shuffled around and given meaningless work (and how much work can be "turned over" from regular workers who work 9 - 5 Mon-Fri., to a drilling reservist who shows up 1 weekend a month. You really don't dump much work on someone like that. As a junior officer, he was probably given significant leeway in rescheduling drills . . . the idea being that if he was going to resign his commission, why invest significant time/effort in him (additional training, etc.) And the fact that he did his final year of drills in one extended period of time (36 days) is actually very positive, because he probably could be assigned a task that could be completed in a short time.
The Democrats are grasping at straws in a futile effort to smear the President. GW Bush's service might not have been spectacular, but it certainly was honorable. I also have served with junior officers who joined the reserves, but due to various job/family or other conflicts, they stopped drilling, AND ULTIMATELY - WE DIDN'T CARE. If that individual didn't want to continue - he might as well be let go. No one was listed as AWOL, and certainly no one was accused of desertion. They were dropped from the rolls - end of story. If the individual had "owed" a payback for special training, then it would be reasonable to expect the individual to stick around and complete the payback. But GW Bush trained in a F-102 that was then retired. He had no additional "payback", and in fact, if he wanted to continue flying, he would have had to commit to additional time in the service for re-training, and for a payback time after completing the training.
Mike
Yes, but flying high-performance jets -- especially the F-102 -- was not exactly a "safe" way to put in your time. In your era, 1967, there were some F-102's on strip alert in Vietnam waiting for the stray MiG-21 to show up. Given that this aircraft type (Fighter-Interceptor) was in-use early in the American involvement, there was at least a "theoretical" possibility that GWB's F-102 Squadron (or parts of it) may have been called to active duty in 'Nam.
By 1972 the F-102 was being phased-out with ANG units. It doesn't surprise me that an ANG pilot who was "getting short" would not be allowed to transition to the next type (possibly the F-4C ?) before separating from his unit.
To put this in perspective:
Juanita Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978, five years later. :-)
• "I have received a number of e-mails regarding the story that GWB was AWOL for a period of months during the Vietnam War. The story, which I believed to be mainly true, is in fact false. George W. Bush did not “go AWOL” during his time in the service. George magazine published an article entitled “The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either”. I have included that article in the section discussing Bush’s military record.
I also received a very detailed e-mail from a Navy instructor in California, who asked to remain nameless:
All the cited documents so far are an assortment of standard form letters that are found in many reserve pilots records. The "smoking gun" AWOL proof cite is actually a standard report evaluation of ANG members that have transferred during an evaluation period. Each command is required to submit an evaluation record even if the member is no longer there to keep a constant an unbroken line of evaluation. The "smoking gun" terminology of "Not observed at this station" is the exact proper wording found in any members record of evaluation during a transfer which oddly the previous cited documents actually prove was the case. This is the standard evaluation extension language used in almost all military records. For the Navy the block is listed with "Not Observed" for the Army it lists "not present for evaluation”. The flight suspension letter is also a commonplace form letter suspending flying till an annual physical exam is completed.
This other "smoking gun" is such a common occurrence especially in the ANG that there are other people than George Bush listed on it using the same exact terminology.
Further investigating the documents finds that the AWOL claim is merely wishful thinking by some who simply misunderstand what the military documents say or don't know how common they really are in many service members records.
As you pointed out in your investigation in the final months of George Bush's ANG reserve commitment "when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months before his service was scheduled to end." The military does not and cannot by regulation, issue an Honorable Discharge to anyone that has been AWOL or otherwise seriously reprimanded as the resume tries to claim.
You can find reference citation on the Resume' claimed cites of AWOL at Bureau of Naval Personnel under the Uniform Regulations Manual and PERSNET as well the manpower regulations and report evaluation procedures. "
The address for the source is:
http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf
Me too. Dug out the old pictures a while back and was amazed at how many faces I couldn't put names to any more. Remember every one of the personalities though, even if I can't put it to the right name and face any longer.
Not necessarily. I got an unofficial 30 day leave in December of 1967 before departing for Vietnam. There was no paperwork. There would be paperwork if Bush had been expected to report and did not. That would be remembered.
The fact that no one remembers indicates he had unwritten permission to be absent. It happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.