Posted on 09/09/2004 11:57:05 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
2. The two memos refer to a flight physical and a flight review board, both IAW ("in accordance with") AFM 35-13. But that would stand for "Air Force Manual" 35-13, and manuals are guidelines only. They have no regulatory authority. No one takes a physical exam, flight or not, IAW a manual. Manuals relate to operational procedures, not enforcement of standards. Especially would a "flight review board" not be convened IAW a manual. Enforceable regulatory authority in the military derives only from two sources: the Uniform Code of Military Justice and orders. Regulations are a type of written order issued under the authority of a flag-rank officer. (In the Army, for example, regulations are issued under the authority of the Chief of Staff down to installation-commander level.)
What governs official procedures or requirements for physicals is a regulation, not a manual, because a regulation is an order and a manual is not. A regulation has much the same effect as law. Regulations are governing documents that must be adhered to, not advisory publications that permit ad-hoc deviations, as manuals do.
So I browsed over to the Air Force's official web site for its publications, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. There I searched for AFM 35-13 without success. The intelligent search engine recommended using only the numbers, so I searched using only 35-13. Result:
35-13 has been rescinded or superceded by another publication. Additional information is available at Obsolete Publications.
So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation).
So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is.
This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.
Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.
From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.
Furthermore, it is likely that whatever AFR 35-13 governed, flight physicals wasn't it. My contention is buttressed by two points:
A. AFR 35-13's successor publication is a personnel management instruction (regulation).
B. This online copy of a senior NCO's routine reassignment orders, dated 1954, which cites AFR 35-13 as an authority for the transfer. A publication governing personnel assignments doesn't also govern enforcement of flight physicals.
So the forger said the physical was to be done IAW a manual, not a regulation, and named a manual that never existed anyway, and used a numeric that belonged to a personnel-management reg, not a flight-standards reg.
I just did a search of the air force headquarters website for 35-13 and nothing could be found.
http://www.hafdash1.hq.af.mil/index.cfm?search=35-13
Anotherwords the AFR (Regulation) would be short to the point and the AFM (Manual) would issue the details what had to be done.
YOU got it BABY!! Wonderfully said!
Thanks. I know this doc is in the legit category. If I'm wrong, I apologize--at least I don't do journo for a living.
Author is claiming that when you go to the source docs for regs, etc. it ain't there.
If I'm wrong it's because the author is. If you can go back to original procedural manuals or whatever or point me to it, I would be grateful.
Did you see this thread?????
No -- thanks for the ping.
Ping...
Did you see this thread ?? Would someone like maybe Ollie North be able to dig into this "lingo" and verify this info??.....Thanks!!
An instruction is not the same as a regulation. The military issues instructions for procedurally complex things like how to maintaind diesel engines on ships in the fleet in question. If there is a problem and you failed to follow the procedures in the instruction you may get a ding on an inspection. If there is a formal investigation because of a death, grounding, or collision it may be worse, but it isn't the same as an order as it is called in the department of the Navy.
IOW an instruction is strongly suggested guidance that you violate at your own peril.
Yes, thank you. I was contributing and critiquing several dozen times through its evolution over the past 30 hours.
I am grateful for the link, but I will point out that my original post ended with, "It would be good if someone who served in the Air Force in those days and who has knowledge of then-current publications could chime in on the points I made. If I am wrong then I am willing to have it pointed out."
More than one commenter on my original post cited a link to AFM 35-13. I amended my post earlier this morning to reflect that fact. But the first half of the post, regarding form and style matters, stands. In fact, I have received a handful of emails from both serving and former Air Force officers verifying my points on that matter.
One thing that blogs and FR can do is give mass intelligence and expertise to dificult subjects. I appreciate the work of those who revealed my conclusion was in error, and unlike most MSM I will prominently admit it.
Keep up the good work!
Pardon is this post shows up wrong - I joined FR just to make this post and am not yet sure I am doing this right.
Dan Rather should resign or be fired !!
CBS news should fire Dan Rather for not being absolutely positively certain of the authenticity of these forged documents. We are in the absolute final leg of a Presidential election and Dan Rather rushed to press to get these dociuments on the air because he thought it would potentially help Kerry and hurt Bush. He is blinded by his partisanship and is not fit to be a journalist.
Dan Rather never even looked into where these papers came from. It was his job to be CERTAIN of their authenticity. It's fitting that Rather's career comes to an end under this cloud of his extremist partisanship. He will always be remembered for this. His legacy will be fitting....a reporter who would lie to America if it supported his Left Wing Ideology.
Dan Rather= mouth watering BITE down hard...into his own leg.
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.