[Poohbah]

I do recall a case where someone altered elements of the command history, not for anyone's benefit, and got six-six-and-a-kick for his trouble.

Also, when it's "memo for file," it's considered an official record--even if it's the CO's "private" documents (basically, any communication about personnel under his command is considered official).

[Cboldt]

I do recall a case where someone altered elements of the command history, not for anyone's benefit, and got six-six-and-a-kick for his trouble.
Also, when it's "memo for file," it's considered an official record--even if it's the CO's "private" documents (basically, any communication about personnel under his command is considered official).

OK. I'll accept for purposes of analysis that memos for the file are official documents. I'm still drawing a blank on a case or a statute that would make these forgeries a felony. I'm not saying there isn't one, but darned if I've found it yet.

The fellow that got six-six-and-a-kick, sounds as though he affected somebody's legal rights via the forgery. Do you recall if that was the case? The only person affected by this forgery is GWB. None of the forged documents also appear in the official record, as produced by the Federal government repositories.

[Cboldt]

I do recall a case where someone altered elements of the command history, not for anyone's benefit, and got six-six-and-a-kick for his trouble.
Also, when it's "memo for file," it's considered an official record--even if it's the CO's "private" documents (basically, any communication about personnel under his command is considered official).

P.S. What is "six-six-and-a-kick?" Obviously, I don't have any military background!