Bush Served His Country Without Pay

PoliPundit.com ^ | September 16, 2004 | Oak Leaf

[Merry]

"Bush served his country without pay"

The following is a post written by a regular reader of this site known to those who visit the comments section as "Oak Leaf". He is an active reservist with over twenty years of service that includes both the National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve. He has extensive experience in personnel programs management and has served on the faculty at a senior service college. Air Guard Service Without Pay

When George W. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard, a component of the US Air Force, he entered into a six year statutory service obligation. On December 1, 1969 he signed DD Form 1644 "Ready Reserve Service Agreement" which states, "I agree to be a member of the Ready Reserve until 26 May 1974." I first need to explain that the ready reserve is all reserve soldiers that are members of both "drilling units" and to the "individual ready reserve" which is simply a pool of individuals that can be called to active duty. When you review the "officer record brief" of 1LT George W. Bush, you find that on October 1, 1973 he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and re-assigned to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (Individual Ready Reserve). He remained assigned to the Air Reserve Personnel Center until he was ultimately discharged the following May. To a civilian this is slightly confusing because the Texas discharge makes it appear that he was completely discharged from the military, but this is not correct. The discharge simply reflects that he is no longer affiliated with the Military Department of the State of Texas. Yes, each state has a "Military Department."

With every enlistment in the reserves an "Acknowledgement of Service Obligations" is part of the enlistment contract. It states, "You will be required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies unless you are excused by proper authority. If you accrue 9 or more unexcused absences during any continuous 365 day period you may be declared an unsatisfactory participant." Each month a reserve unit is required to complete a "Record of Reserve Training" that lists all assigned members of that unit. Each four hour period on that list represents a training assembly and you will be coded with either P (present), E (excused), U (unexcused) or ET/RST ("other training"). Had 1LT Bush received nine U's he would have been declared an unsatisfactory participant. If you missed two weekends and one morning you would have 9 U's. Because this never occurred, it means that he was either granted E's as an excused absence or performed equivalent training (ET). That alone verifies he met his obligation

The old media remains extremely focused on the performance of duties that meets that old saying, "one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer." That saying falls in line with "my recruiter lied to me." Civilians would be astonished to discover that many reservists perform duties without pay. In reviewing my own records, 13% of my reserve man days in my first six years were without pay and surprisingly while a college student, 21% of my reserve man days were performed without pay. A search of the web led me to AF Form 1288 (front/back) in which 1LT Bush requests duty in Alabama on May 24, 1972. Block 17 shows that the request is "no pay, training category G." In the approval section, it is clearly disclosed that this is "pay group none." Why is this important? Regardless, of the ultimate unit he ended up training with, it shows that 1LT Bush was willing to train without pay. The old media remains focused on pay records!! In regards to pay records, USA Today states, "They show he was paid for 82 days in 1972 and 1973, but show no service for five months between April and October 1972." Pay records would show no service during this time period because he was not paid! 1LT Bush served his country without pay. That is why there is no pay record.

1LT Bush can be "faulted" for one thing and that is keeping his retirement points correct. I need to point out that, "It is the soldier's responsibility to insure that his or her retirement points are correct."

1LT Bush was "responsible" for getting those retirement points posted to his record. I would assume that the records were sent forward and there was never any follow up because he chose not to serve 20 years. Because he earned at least 50 points for each year of service meeting the requirement of a satisfactory year there was just no incentive to pursue further record updating. In my own reserve career, I am still trying to correct unpaid duty records that go back 20 years. I have three comments on Oak Leaf's post. First, I want to thank him for taking the time to review these documents and to write such a detailed, yet clear and easy to follow analysis. Second, I think one reason the media has done such a pathetic job covering these matters is because they do not have enough people within their ranks with any military experience. Third, this point that Oak Leaf makes illustrates one more stark contrast between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Bush evidently worked without pay, and probably, due to inadequate follow-up on the paperwork, without any recognition for that time. John Kerry went to ridiculous lengths to document every bruise and scratch he got in Vietnam, and to make sure every activity he was engaged in was not only written up for awards, but was even recreated and memorialized on film. Isn't that just everything voters need to know about the character of these two men in a nutshell?

[dixiechick2000]

My hero

Mine, too. ;o)

[demnomo]

Hubba Hubba. W is a hottie in that flight suit!

[Mo1]

I wish the MSM would at least attempt to learn about the military.

Ummm .. doesn't the MSM have Military experts on their shows all the time? .. One would think they would ask one of those guys

[demnomo]

Sigh.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More mysteries explained!

I think....

[dixiechick2000]

"Ummm .. doesn't the MSM have Military experts on their shows all the time? .. One would think they would ask one of those guys"


You WOULD think so, wouldn't you? ;o)

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Ammo for the good guys MUST READ PING!!!

[Kryptonite]

Thanks.

Why am I amused that such a direct, simple explanation of service without pay escaped so many in the MSM?

Gosh, ya think? LOL

[dixiechick2000]

"Sigh."


Oh, yeah...
My sentiments, exactly.

[Mo1]

Here's a link

polipundit.com

[Rocky]

Great post. Thanks.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[pollyshy]

Thanks for the ping. That boy's folks sure raised him right!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping.

[Chad Fairbanks]

ROTFL... and lets not forget people like my wife who was ctive Duty Navy, IRR, Naval Reserve, Active Duty Army, and Army Reserve...

Imagine trying to keep her records straight if she were running for office?

[pollyshy]

Thanks for the ping. That boy's folks sure raised him right!

[Mike Fieschko]

Leave it to a blogger, who is not in his jammies, but is serving his country in Afghanistan, to do the job of journalists. My husband keeps saying that the MSM doesn't even try to understand how the army works.

If you husband is serving or served, give him my thanks.

All these threads and blogger entries have given me more of an education in the different branches than I (who never served) ever thought I'd have.

Jonah Goldberg of NR's The Corner put up an email from a USAF Captain, because of this:



LtCol from NORAD on Fox.

There are comments at the Castle Argghhh! blog.

Part of the Captain's email follows:

The sad part is that no one around him, from the producers, cameramen, et al. was savvy enough on the military to catch the problem prior to airtime. I’m not exonerating the colonel, but anyone who has served would (almost instinctively) have noticed the upside-down insignia. If someone did notice and chose to allow an officer of the United States to appear in that manner, the only word I could find for that choice is “reprehensible”. Mind you, I’m not ascribing malice toward the United States military to anyone, but I do realize it has been known to exist in some circles of the Fourth Estate.

I’d feel a bit better if the so-called “military correspondents” could learn the difference between self-propelled artillery and tanks (which have significantly different military utility), would know the rank structure well enough to address sergeants-major as “Sergeant Major” rather than “Sergeant” (which the newest of recruits understands by Day 2 of basic training, along with all the other forms of address from “Private” to “Mr. President”), and that the rifles fired at a military funeral are not a “21-gun salute”, but are from an older tradition of firing three volleys over a grave to signify the conclusion of a battlefield truce to succor the wounded and bury the dead. The press tries to hire science reporters with some science background to help explain stories to the non-scientist public, but when it comes to covering those of us sworn to defend the nation, the media organizations send reporters who couldn’t readily identify an A-10 and an F-15 if they were standing next to them. Nor do those reporters seem to care to research the issues beforehand. After all, they could learn most of what they wanted to know just by going online and reading the fact sheets from the service Web pages. I guess immersing themselves in a military history course or interviewing content, professional soldiers to gain background information just isn’t as satisfying as spending a (well-publicized after the fact) weekend sleeping on the streets to “truly understand the homeless question”.

[dixiechick2000]

"Ammo for the good guys MUST READ PING!!!"

Absolutely!

But, it's quickly turning into a chick thread! ;o)

[Mo1]

You WOULD think so, wouldn't you? ;o)

*L* ... I guess that's why the MSM has a problem with us Pajama People .. We Think

[Bernard Marx]

Bump.