I will be writing a more formal response to this in a few hours, but wanted to give an immediate reaction based upon what I currently know and state what I believe this means.

First, let's set the table for the perspective and what the "body language says".

Releasing reports of any kind on Friday afternoons from any branch of government is used to escape the major weekday news cycles.  It's a way to get bad news under the radar screen.

I'm sure that these files had already been reviewed at the Pentagon to insure whether the news was supportive of or detracting to the President and the time for release was coordinated through the Secretary of Defense.  So I believe that there is no surprise here to the White House.  For all of these months and in fact years, the White House and Bush Team have used one stall after another.  But the relentlessness of those following this issue continues to push even farther.  There is a personal credit in this for you and your relentlessness as well.

But now, what does it mean?

1.  The Department of Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) records are the OFFICIAL pay records for all actions that took place.  Whenever I was first interviewed, I spent a long time in explaining the redundant system called the military and where the files were kept and even worded the FOIA for some.  This is the second set of records (the first is the master Microfiche which the White House has said they selectively released to the Press before.  The third set is in RETAINED RECORDS - Archives at Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas and is under the direct control of the Adjutant General of Texas.  The files that I saw being worked over in the Museum had been retrieved from RETAINED RECORDS - Archives and taken to the Museum for whatever took place.

2.  This DFAS release confirms OFFICIALLY that 1LT George W. Bush was not paid for ANY service either from Alabama or Texas during the famous timeframe we have constantly checked out.  This also confirms a) why no one was a valid or true witness to him doing any duty in Alabama, and b) that his claim to have received dental work while in Alabama which has been at least partially substantiated confirms that he receivde dental care that he was not entitled to.

3.  We can still see by the records that 1LT Bush was never OFFICIALLY transferred into the Alabama Air National Guard.  Instead we find that his official status at that point could have only been a)  Absent, conditional release for no longer than a period of 90 days awaiting transfer; b)  Absent, authorized for training - split training authorized, c) Absent, without leave.  In the case of option b - this category on the morning report at the unit of assignment would only be correct if a training certificate was issued by the commander of the unit in Alabama which he trained with - which has not been found within any records.

4.  Summary.  The files and the information released officially previously confirms OFFICIALLY that 1LT Bush:

       a.  Requested after his departure to Alabama to drill with a postal unit in Alabama.  Request was denied.  1LT Bush did not attend drill either at his home unit or in any other unit before his request was denied.

       b.  Requested following his denial to make drills with an Alabama Air National Guard unit.  There is no record of him being entered in to any morning report; no training certificate issued by any Alabama Air National Guard commander or other person; no notation of Equivalent training conducted by 1LT Bush on the 111th morning reports; and no documentation either at the state or DFAS level of pay actions for any period in Alabama.

In my opinion, this closes the book on Bush's attendance and his claims of going to drill in Alabama have been absolutely proven false.
From a psychological standpoint, this also explains why that once he was confronted on this matter in 1994, he made no effort whatsoever to have his files corrected through either an administrative process or the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) throughout this ten year timeframe as any reasonable man - and certainly any politician would do - thus flunking the 'reasonable man' threshhold.

Now the appropriate question must be asked and answered.

Did 1LT George W. Bush complete his military commitment, as claimed.

There is a new website that you have seen over the past few weeks that has the original copy of the appropriate regulations that defines his military commitment.  Some of the guys in the press have let him off the hook with the claim that he was honorably discharged.  That claim is lowering the bar.

Whether in time of war or not - he had a six year commitment that included satisfactorily completing 48 single unit training assemblies (SUTA) or 12 - 2 day drill per year and fifteen days of annual training.  As an additional commitment since he went to flight school he signed a commitment to meet the physical, health and training commitments of rotation inclduing his minimum flying hours in order to maintain both safety and proficiency.

This DFAS release confirms that GW only satisfactorily completed 4 years and for a long period of time failed to observe the order of his commander to show up for assigned drill with his parent unit or with another agreed unit.  He left his commanders believing that he was drilling in Alabama when he was not.  In fact, he was never transferred to Alabama.  And that is the reason for the Officer Efficiency Evaluation "not observed" report from LTC Killian.

Further during a time of war, regulations provided special dispensation to soldiers and airmen who did not meet their training commitment and it included transfer of the individual into special units for immediate deployment to Vietnam or other theatres.  As I have said before, as a commander I did that with two individuals under my command.

So the bottom line is that George W. Bush should not have been discharged honorably from the Texas Air National Guard because he had not met his minimum training requirements.  Obviously he got in with special consideration and got out with special consideration.
And while he was serving under his own honor - he rebuked authority and failed to follow orders that he knew to be lawful to attend drill andmeet such commitment.

While this seems stark and harsh, it is the exact and same set of rules that others served under.  To a man, had anyone regardless of rank done what the evidence clearly shows 1LT Bush did; he would have been court-martialed; reduced in rank; given a rifle and be sent to Vietnam - and not as an officer - but as an enlisted man.

Again, the accounts given by Bush, Bartlett, Hughes, Lloyd and others is clearly refuted by the DFAS release.
What is left?

The question still remains what happened to all of the processes in place to handle the disciplinary actions taken to ground 1LT Bush and his pal James Bath.

And there is still the matter of the points awarded to 1LT Bush within the 5th year following his return from Alabama and whether they were legitimate.  These are of far less consequence, and will be harder to prove.  But there should be training certificate documentation for each day of that "rush to train" period.

The telling document is still the disciplinary document - the counseling statement for either 1LT Bush or James Bath concerning their loss of flight status.  This LTC Killian document should be specifically asked for.