Replies

See the letter from Gerald A. Lechliter here[8/16]:

The analysis documents serious shortcomings that go to the heart of Bush's credibility and honesty and proves that he not only shirked his duty but committed serious offenses. The analysis is footnoted to his records and the contemporaneous regulations and beyond a reasonable doubt shows the following:

* The pay records released by the White House this past winter prove Bush received unauthorized, i.e., fraudulent, payments for inactive duty training, even if he did show up for duty.

The 2004 memorandum from Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Albert C. Lloyd, who affirmed for the White House that Bush met his retention/retirement year point requirement, is an obfuscation, or outright deception, that disregarded Bush's failure to meet the statutory and regulatory fiscal year satisfactory participation requirement. It discussed only the meeting of retention/retirement year point totals, an entirely different issue irrelevant to the satisfactory participation requirement.

Bush's superiors in the Texas Air National Guard failed to take required regulatory actions when Bush missed required training and failed to take his flight physical.

Despite seemingly laudatory comments, Bush's May 1972 officer performance report was a clear and unmistakable indication that his performance had declined from the annual 1971 report. The report was the kiss of death for an officer and was written before he left for Alabama that year.

Bush did not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for satisfactory participation from 1972 to 1973.

The analysis is long (32 pages), and could serve as the basis for an article that could be widely publicized. I'm willing to send the analysis and documentation to any disinterested party to confirm my findings. [Send request to The Crisis Papers (crisispapers@comcast.net) and we'll forward to the author. -- Eds.]

http://www.crisispapers.org/features/awol-letters.htm
_______________________________________________________
Note the use of "fiscal year" by Lichliter, which has been debunked in the thread below even though used extensively by the Boston Globe. Perhaps Gerald supplied more than we think?

Note Boston Globe article here where "fiscal" term is used: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1209792/posts