Note: This is an incomplete draft for comment and is part of The AWOL Project, a series of online articles examining the military records of George W. Bush from the perspective of the Federal statutes, Department of Defense (DoD) regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures concerning that military service.

DO NOT LINK TO THIS PIECE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

Please direct your comments, correction, and suggestions to awol@glcq.com.

TAMPERING, FORGERY, AND PURGING OF BUSH MILITARY RECORD

PART I: EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENT TAMPERING

THE QUESTIONABLE DISCHARGE FORM

The first document[1] to be considered is Bush’s discharge form (NBG-22[2]), which was formally known as the “Report of Separation and Record of Service”.

PHYSICAL ANOMOLIES IN THE NGB-22

The “Remarks” section (Item 32) shows clear signs that this document was tampered with. Something else had been typed on this form, then “whited out” in some fashion, and an amended version of the “Remarks” were inserted.

The first thing that one notices is that the left margin has been completely changed. On the rest of the document, letters line up very close to the left hand side of the form. But in the Remarks section, the margin is at least two characters from the edge of the form.

At the far left hand side of the document, between the first two clearly typed lines of Section 32, are what appear to be “ghost characters”. These characters line up with the left hand margin found on the rest of the document.

And toward the top of the Remarks section, there is a line of what appears[3] to have been a full line of typewritten comments that have been deleted from the form. The line begins at the left hand margin, and ends at what appears to have been the original right hand margin. It appears to have the same “slant” of the lines in the rest of the document as well, and appears to line up vertically—two lines below the characters in the previous lines of typing.

CONTENT ANOMOLIES IN NGB-22

The first of the content anomalies is seen in item 2, “Service No.” With a few exceptions, the “service number” was not redacted from the documents released by the White House.

The second anomaly raises the question of whether the proper form was used. Item 5 is printed with the words “TERM OF ENLISTMENT”[4] which has been crossed out, and “APPOINTMENT” typed above it.

The next anomaly has to do with what is listed as Bush’s “Permanent Address for Mailing Purposes”, which is listed as Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass 02263. There is no post office box, no street address, no specific building where mail should be sent. This is consistent with Bush’s resignation letter from TXANG, where he doesn’t even bother to tell TXANG how to reach him. It should be noted that by October 1, 1973, Bush had been living in the Boston vicinity for close to a full month, but obviously whoever typed this form had no idea where they could actually find him.

Finally, we come to Section 31, “REASON AND AUTHORITY FOR DISCHARGE”.

As should be obvious, no reason for the discharge is given. It says nothing about Bush going to attend Harvard Business School, for instance. It just tells ARPC that Bush is no longer TXANG’s responsibility, its ARPCs. This may have been TXANG’s way of saying “this person is a problem” without actually saying so.

THE MYSTERY OF AF FORM 11

A second form which has clearly been subjected to tampering is Bush’s AF Form 11, his Officer Military Record. There are three different versions among the documents that were released by the White House: an “old” version, whose entries extend only to sometime prior to July 7, 1972, an “unscribbled” version whose last entry is dated October 1, 1973, and an excerpt from the form (Item 8, “Chronologicial Listing of Service”) that has clearly been tampered, whose last entry is also 10-1-73.

Unscribbled Item 8 of AF Form 11

Scribbled Item 8 of AF Form 11

The first thing that one notices when comparing the two forms is that the words “HD TR TexANG per ANGR 36-05, SO ANG-A 158. State of Texas AG Dept. Austin TX and” have been obscured. But unlike an ordinary redaction which are done with a thick marker and straight lines (see top line of the “unscribbled” version above), someone literally scribbled out the words with either a pen or a fine point marker.

There are a number of intriguing possibilities here, including one that suggests that the original discharge was less than honorable, and that the original written order discharging Bush was not number A-158. Certainly, TXANG knew by July 30, 1973 that Bush was leaving, and that Bush had (supposedly) requested a discharge on September 5, 1973. We also know that very soon after September 18, 1973, the Texas Adjutant General’s office had all of the information it needed to issue a written order in a timely fashion. So why did it take another four weeks for TXANG to issue the written orders getting rid of Bush and assigning him to the authority of the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colorado?

This failure to issue written orders in a timely fashion, notifying ARPC in advance that Bush had quit the Air National Guard and now was their responsibility, was clearly a case of dereliction of duty on the part of TXANG. There is no evidence that the “verbal orders” discharging Bush from TXANG were ever communicated to APRC prior to October 16. For two weeks, Bush was left completely unaccountable despite the fact that he was required to be available for mobilization at all times.

We also know that Bush’s service should have made him ineligible for an “honorable discharge”—his failure to perform the legally mandated training, and his failure to maintain the qualifications of his job—that of an F-102 pilot—would have ordinarily resulted in a general discharge at best. (Mr. Bush’s supporters constantly harp on the fact that Bush received an “honorable discharge”, as if that meant that he had performed all required training and met required standards. Clearly, Bush did not do so.)

There is also the intriguing question of why the “scribbled version” are copies of only Section 8, rather than of the entire AF Form 11. Was someone investigating Bush’s records, and thought that the “tampered” section was evidence?

THE LACK OF AGREEMENT

But there is another intriguing possibility that can explain why this document was tampered with. Bush may have been reassigned to an “entry level” pilot instructor position, which would have been indicated on the AF Form 11. In mid-1971, the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron had been redesignated as the “111th FIS (trng).” In other words, in order for Bush to play a role in the 111th’s new training mission, he would have to acquire some new skills.

When, on May 2, 1973, Bush’s superior officers reported that he had “not been observed” training at Ellington Air Force Base for an entire year on his annual Officer Effectiveness Training Report, they stated (in Section II) that his DAFSC (Duty Air Force Specialty Code) was 1125D, that of an F-102 pilot.

The Air Force found this “Training Report” highly irregular, and demanded more information. On the form on which this demand was made, it was also noted that “DAFSC and/or duty title in Section II does not agree with Item 8, AF Form 11.”

There is a very strong possibility that what was scribbled out (and then typed over) was an entry indicating that Bush has been reassigned as a “trainee pilot instructor”, and that he had failed to pass the necessary tests to qualify for that new assignment.

Up until at least October 30, 1970, Bush was qualified to do only one thing, fly the single seat F-102 Fighter Interceptor. At that point, he was not qualified to fly the T-33 training jets used by the 111th, nor was he qualified as a “passenger carrying pilot”. Neither his Officer Effectiveness Training Reports from May 1971 and May 1972, or any other document among those released in February, make any mention of his achieving qualification in either category.

Yet according to the Associated Press’s account of Bush’s recently released flight records, Bush had spent most of his flying time during his last three months at TXANG before leaving for Alabama on two-seater planes and on flight simulators. And, the AP noted “the final two entries of Bush's official flight logs that refer to him being assigned to work as an instructional pilot in late May 1972,” something which a White House spokesperson attributed to a “paperwork error.”

But given the evidence, it probably wasn’t a paperwork error. Given the lack of “agreement” between the two forms that was noticed by the Air Force, it is extremely likely that he had was being assigned a new job, and could not meet the requirements. Subsequently, an attempt was made to cover-up Bush’s failure to meet the requirements of his new assignment by scribbling out the evidence that Bush had been trying to become an “instructor pilot”. This failure, and Bush’s inability to perform a necessary role in the 111th’s new training mission, would provide more than enough impetus for TXANG to try to get rid of Bush by getting him transferred to a unit where he would no longer be required to do any training whatsoever. (see The Transfer Scam).

OTHER ANOMOLIES ON AF FORM 11

The AF Form 11 continued to be used until April 1, 1974 as the place where a member’s :”assignment history” was recorded [5], (at which point all such record keeping was transferred to computer databases.) Yet there are at least two highly significant changes made in Bush’s assignments that are not reflected on any copy of this form.

The first concerns Bush being placed into an “Inactive Status” effective September 15, 1973. Granted, this particular reassignment was probably retroactive, and the result of punitive action taken by the Air Force after Bush abandoned TXANG, (see Deserter—Bush at ARPC) but it should have been noted on the AF Form 11 because the form on which this information was printed is dated January 30, 1974.

From AFM 35-3 Chapter 10, Para 10-9

Under the Air Force’s assignment policy, if you were in an “Inactive Status” it meant that you were assigned to the Inactive Status List Reserve Section of the Standby Reserves of the United States Air Force Reserves. (All Ready Reservists were “Active Status.”)

Even more problematic is the change in Bush’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) from 1125D (for an F-102 pilot) to 7021 (for an “Executive Support Officer”). (In other words, the Air Force took away Bush’s “pilot” designation, and reassigned him as a glorified paper pusher. Of course, Bush never actually did performed any duty as an Executive Support Officer, but the Air Force clearly did not want Bush to remain on the books as a pilot for some reason. )

This change was made in an order dated March 7, 1974, and it should have been noted on the AF Form 11, but was not. Nor does it appear on Bush’s Official Military Biography, which should also have mentioned the change, rather than present the erroneous impression that the Air Force thought that Bush remained eligible to be a pilot until he was finally discharged in November, 1974.

Another change that probably should have been noted on the AF Form 11 (and absolutely should have been part of Bush’s Military Biography) was his reassignment at an unknown date to ARPC’s Non-Affiliated Reserve Section B, aka ARPC (NARS-B). NARS-B was the Active Status section of the Stand-by Reserves for members, like Bush, who had not completed their Military Service Obligation. (NARS-A was for those whose MSO had been fulfilled.) We do know that this reassignment took place prior to May 1, and because it is highly unlikely that ARPC would have bothered changing Bush’s AFSC while he was in an Inactive Status, it is very likely that Bush was reassigned to NARS-B before April 1, 1974.

Indeed, if one were to believe Bush’s Official Military Biography, one would think that he spent his last year affiliated with the Armed Forces as a pilot assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section of ARPC. Yet, according to the documents that were released by the White House, this is clearly not the case. The complete lack of appropriate documentation for virtually everything that occurred that is indicated by the documents strongly suggests that Bush’s records were purged in order to avoid disclosing embarrassing information.

PART II: EVIDENCE OF FORGERY IN BUSH’S MILITARY RECORDS

PART III—EVIDENCE OF RECORDS PURGING IN BUSH’S MILITARY RECORDS