Where Was W Waldo?

the point is - and has always been - nem, that there is no record that he finished his active duty. Not one person can verify that he finished his active duty: don't you think that is strange?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

When he asked to move to Harvard, still 8 months shy of his service commitment, he signed an affidavit that he would report to the Mass. National Guard.He never did. A month later he asked for a discharge, still 8 months shy of meeting his commitment, and it was granted. Where it should have specified the length of service on his discharge form, it instead said "indefinite", even though he actually had committed to a definite amount of time.He was discharged 8 months shy of meeting his 6 year commitment. Tal's attempt to cloud the issue with a lack of AWOL papers on Bush is irrelevant; it was his family's influence that got him the discharge in the first place so why would AWOL papers have been filed? He was discharged. He wasn't in the National Guard any more, inactive or not.His pay records show that he was 8 months short; his retirement papers corroborate that. Bush did not serve the full term of his commitment in either Active or Inactive reserve status.This isn't that hard to follow, people.

What I find strange is that, should the allegations be true, how he could not show up to his remaining 5 drills and flown under the Air Force's radar (yes, pun intended).

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Maybe for the same reason Ronald Reagan was not indicted and tried for treason? Daddy stopped the investigation?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

short answer: because he couldn't.One of the other things that he failed to show up for was a medical exam to qualify him for being able to fly a plane. This is documented. His active flight status was revoked. In absentia. This too is documented. He stopped going to those when they (gasp) started testing for drugs.I presume you can add.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : quote

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yeah, sure, maybe... Guess we'll never know.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I can't find any documentation on when the military began drug testing, but 1972 sounds way too early to me. I want to say it was around the mid-80's, but I could be mistaken.Perhaps you can find that info, not that it would indict Bush though, as its purely speculative.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Alright let me clarify. This is a confusing topic, even for veterans. You are tracking there. This is also on the money. Oh yes it counts for time in service. Let's say you did 4 years active duty then 4 years in the IRR. You are then called up to serve on active duty. You will get paid for having 8 years time in service. I know this because I'm in this boat. I have 8 years Active Federal Service, but I get paid for 10 years Time in Service. When I hit 9 years AFS..I will get paid for 12 years TIS. But since I did those 3 years in the IRR, I can't retire until I have 23 years TIS which would put me at 20 years AFS.You can actually stay in and retire out of the IRR.NJ is correct about just being alive and in the IRR you fulfill the rest of your obligation. So his last orders transfering him to the IRR is the key document needed to satisfy service requirement.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

Correct. He was discharged and transferred to the IRR. This stops your pay. But by being in the IRR that did fulfill his commitment (see above post). It's the most relevant post to this entire issue. If you are going to claim someone was AWOL, as CBS did, then you have to use the definition of AWOL to make your case. Being a Deserter (which follows after being AWOL for 30 days) is a felony. That's a big deal. Thus there is an entire regulation (AR 630-10) that governs the steps necessary to declare someone AWOL/Deserter.This issue really isn't about Bush being AWOL, but about him meeting his service obligation. It is proven that he did when he was moved to the IRR.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

No, he was discharged from inactive status 8 months early. He never met his commitment; at least, there's absolutely no paperwork that shows that he did. Neither I nor CBS ever claimed that Bush was moved to AWOL status, so the lack of those documents disproves something that was never asserted had occurred.Regardless, Bush was 8 months short of his service commitment. That's proven by his payroll record, his retirement credit record, and his faulty discharge papers, and that's simply the last word on the subject. There's absolutely no evidence that Bush met his service commitment in Inactive status or by any other means. You have yet to present any evidence that Bush met his obligation under IRR or any other status.

Look, Tal, maybe a diagram will make it make sense to you. See the brown bit at the end? That's the part he skipped out on - the 8 months between his discharge and the end of his agreed commitment.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed overwide graphic to a thumbnail.

Tal writes:

quote:

---

If you are going to claim someone was AWOL, as CBS did

---

Ahem.Do you have any evidence that CBS actually used the term "AWOL" to refer to Bush's failure to fulfill his duty obligations? The corresponding article to the 60 Minutes report (here) never mentions the phrase. In Rather's interview with Barnes (here for Part I and here for Part II), that phrase is never used.Again, I think we have a problem of terminology here: You are using the strict definition of "AWOL." Some in this discussion are using a more colloquial definition. The 60 Minutes report, however, never uses the term.Do you have any evidence that CBS at any time referred to Bush's failure to complete his service as "AWOL"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

What?!?! As in, DFAS back pays you for the years prior to re-activation? If this is what you're saying, maybe it would have been better to have stayed in the Navy. 1. I would have retained my rank, and 2. I'd be back payed for almost 3 and half years.Or are you saying that your "time in service" will reflect the years you were on IRR status? As in, you are an E-5 with four years, you got out and was in the IRR for three years. When they call you back, you will be an E-5 with 7 year pay, as opposed to an E-5 with four years pay? Is this what you mean? If so, I guess that's not such a bad deal. The first one is better though. How can you not drill, and essentially do nothing for Uncle Sam any longer, and retire with benefits? I'm not understanding that portion. Besides, all that really seems to matter is what is listed on your DD-214 anyhow. Everything else is hearsay as far as the military is concerned... which is why we should annotate everything and make a bazillion copies. Can't rely on those admin folk to do it. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Where are the records you speak of now, so I can see what everyone else seems privy to?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

No. Yes. You can call the Reserve Component Human Resources Command (or Navy equivalent). They offer Reserve TDY assignements to many locations dependant upon MOS. These assignments are anywhere from 2 months to a year in duration. Once you are done you go back in IRR status and can shop for another one. I have a friend back in Louisiana that doesn't have a day job. He just goes TDY to various locations a couple of times a year. You acrued days of active duty is the same as what regular Reservists use to retire on.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.