As much as I would like to agree with you, my review of the case reveals that you overlooked the words "the meaning of PTI 961 remains unclear" and " there is no specific documentary evidence". Further, the separation document does not contain the wording required by regulation for being "unfit" or "for failing to meet or maintain standards". It is not good policy to fill in the blanks to support your pre-concieved notions. Have a good day!

Dear Fake General -- So when did you start spelling your name with that extra "e"?

As much as I would like to agree with you, my review of the case reveals that you overlooked the words "the meaning of PTI 961 remains unclear" and " there is no specific documentary evidence".

lets see now. The first quote you use does not appear in my piece (there is a sentence that says " And although the particular meaning of “PTI 961” remains unknown, all “900” series PTIs mean that someone is no longer considered part of “Air Force strength.”[3]")

the second quote you cited was used to reject one of the possible criteria under ANGR 36-05 (i.e. there is a lack of specifically required documents that would make it possible to consider that particular criteria a possibility.)

in other words, my efforts to be intellectually honest with regard to the limits of what we now know precipitated an exercise of utter intellectual dishonesty on your part.

I'm afraid that Jo Fish misread my comment---the accusation of intellectual dishonesty was directed at the "General Wesley Clarke" fellow, who created an imaginary quote from my piece, and also took a second quote completely out of context.

Jo Fish represented my work in a completely honest fashion!

For what its worth - I've followed Paul's work since I first seen it appear. Being a Vet who enlisted back in 1977, we still had alot of those ancient regulations floating around. I also started working on military computers around 1979, and familiar with the IBM 129 card punch and data coding sets. Coming from the aviation community (although Marines), it was really easy to piece together the analysis that Paul and Bolo Boffin compiled, when compared to some of the articles included in my records. (I used to do maintenance trend analysis in aviation)

Paul, if I had it within my power - you'd have one hell of alot more than some piece of crap award from the dirtbag journalist community.

I myself went UA during my tour. When I returned I took my punishment like a Marine, then responded like a Marine - I excelled. I didn't run, didn't hide behind anything or anyone. God knows there were plenty of people within the chain of command lying in wait to nail me too. That's the nature of the beast.

So, for those who want to support the CiC - go ahead. That's your perogative.

I know where W stands. His dereliction of duty is no reflection on my Honorable Service. I will maintain my Honor and Integrity until my death when I walk my final post at the Pearly Gates of Heaven.

Good luck trying to buy those things which we have earned. It ain't gunna happen.

Thanks again Jo - and to you too Paul. You guys make sure that our Honor stays intact.

Semper Fidelis

'Unfit for command' is a poor attempt at projection by the slowboaters...

Irony of ironies...vanity of vanities...

This stuff is a revelation to many. I'll try and resume my efforts to move up the chain of information and hook you up with someone in the know with regard to the smoking AWOL.

Last I saw of him was '91. Have hopes he's still available.

Further review reveals that the OER in question actually should have read, " Although Lt Bush has been on temporary duty and not physically present to be observed, I have confirmed that Lt Bush has not made anti-American speeches and/or provided aid and comfort to the enemy."

Unfit for Duty. George W Bush.

Anyone with any doubt as to how fucking stupid "General Wes Clarke er Clark" might be has had that question answered . . . .

oh, 7 or 8 times

TomR...don't go away mad! Stupid is anyone who thinks "not observed" means missing for a year!! Mr. Rogers/Paul Lukasiak thinks he can confer "intellectual honesty" to the demogagoggers at this mutual comisseration bloghole...puhlezz!! If you deep cover guys know so much, how many "other than honorable" discharges did Lt Kerry get before he got lucky?

Kerry releasaed his entire file. Go to johnkerry.com and enlighten yourself.

Bush has yet to reveal a DD214.

Been there, done that, Pilgrim! Senator K is withholding 100 pages of his record according to his pal and confidant...biographer Brinkley. "Stupid" is anybody who thinks Lt Kerry's real discharge was issued in this decade, Duh!!

Just so you will know, the cover letter saying that the BUPERSMAN board had decided to dump LT Kerry is there at the records portion of johnkerry.com(but the "enclosed"
discharge certificate is missing). I wonder
what the PTI/SDN was then/ what it is now/ and what will it be later??

...is anyone who thinks "not observed" means missing for a year!!

when someone has "not been observed at this unit during the period of report"
and that period is a full year, and no rating is provided, "missing" is the
correct word to use.

It was the responsibility of Harris, Killian and Hodges to observe Bush's
training, and report on it. If Bush trained somewhere else, it was their
responsibility to get a training report from the unit that Bush trained at.
(and insofar as the 147th had been redesignated as a "training" unit in 1971,
its pretty obvious that these officers were well aware of the provisions
regarding training reports for pilots who trained somewhere other than their
unit of assignment.)

The Air Force demanded that the Txang get a supplemental training report from
the 187th in Alabama---Txang did not do so---their response was "report not
available for this period for administrative reasons."

Insofar as the oe/tr ratings were required each year, and no report was issued
for a full year, Bush was officially "missing" that full year.

PuhLezz, like I said..."stupid" is anyone who thinks "not observed" means missing for a year! Paul, get serious one lousy moment...Lt Bush was not missing, the OER was missing...read your own stuff! It's not unreasonable to conclude that the official rater did not have sufficient infomation on which to make an evaluation, (in his opinion,
not yours...yours didn't count at the time).

Fake General -

Going through life drunk and stupid like your Commander in Chief will get you nowhere, Son.

Denial is still not a river in Egypt, no matter how you try to interpret it.

> Paul, get serious one lousy moment...Lt Bush was not missing, the OER was missing...read your own stuff! It's not unreasonable to conclude that the official rater did not have sufficient infomation on which to make an evaluation, (in his opinion, not yours...yours didn't count at the time).

it was the responsibility of Harris, Killian, and Hodges to observe Bush, and evaluate him based on that information. If they did not observe Bush, it was their responsibility to to get a supplemental sheet to the OER (an AF Form 77a) from the people they had designated to supervise Bush's training on their behalf. The failure to submit a Form 77a from the 187th with the original OE/TR signalled that TXANG did not know what, if anything, Bush was doing. The failure of TXANG to comply with ARPC's subsequent demand that a 77a be acquired from the 187th says that Bush was MISSING for a full year.

TXANG was being paid to maintain Bush's readiness as an F102 pilot, and Bush was being paid to maintain his own readiness, by the taxpayers of the United States of America. The OE/TR was part of the accountability process----and TXANG could not account for Bush.

Bush was AWOL, which under the Uniform Code of Military Justice means away without competent authority. TXANG did not have the authority to simply let Bush not train as a pilot for a full year at another base, with no idea what Bush was doing at that base or even if he was showing up. They were responsible for Bush's training, and they were not allowed to simply blow off that responsibility.

BigFoot, is that you? Like I said.......! And don't forget that the previous OER says "Lt Bush is in Alabama" so what are you talking about? If your APR/OER was late to file, were you AWOL? Uh Huh...I thought so...
Isn't it time for Jo "961" to tell everybody to tell ten to tell ten about the real meaning of 961...just wondering!!

Nice of you to imply another was so, there was a guy here who clocked in like 6 minutes late and was wrote up for being AWOL. Someone who missed a calendar year is beyond the pale.

Corndog, sorry I overlooked your contribution....I defer to your experience!
Alphie...here in the mutual admiration stinkbomb factory you guys start a rumor and then years later accept it as true because you heard it somewhere. The 961
caper(Bush was discharged as unfit..well maybe he wasn't..ho hum) should teach somebody something...like you can't just fill in the blank/unknowns(well, in Jo 961's case maybe). Uh, regarding the six minit late AWOL story...tell the guy to appeal..and get back to me later! What's that got to do with the Guard in the 70's?

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams