As a lark, because I know I'm no Internet slueth (more of a mudraker), I looked at the few documents posted at USA Today.
I noticed that in the 2000 docs that were released (presumably in 2000, eh?), there was a line in his service record file that was redacted.
On page 16 of 25:
"[BIG BLACK LINE] transferred to ARPC (ORS), 3800 York Street, Denver CO 80205 effective 2 October 1973 (DOS TexANG 1 Oct 1973)."
In the newly released 2004 set of docs (PDF), the same line is NOT redacted, which I found curious.
On page 5/19:
HD TR TexANG per ANGR 36-05, SO ANG-A 158, State of Texas AG, Dept, Austin, Tx and transfered to...
(end of previous redaction).
I thought this was interesting.
Because I found this:
TANG Regulation 36-05 states in part:
- Purpose. National Guard officer personnel policies focus on attaining and maintaining military leadership which directly correlates with achieving a combat ready, professional and dynamic force. It is essential that personnel policies pertaining to the Texas National Guard provide for a viable mobilization capability, promotion opportunity and grade vitality. This regulation establishes the necessary policy and procedures to insure this goal by providing authority for administrative discharge of officers when and where necessary.
- Policy. Officers who are substandard in performance of duty or conduct, deficient in character, lacking in professional qualifications or status, or otherwise unsuited for continued military service are not to be retained in the Texas National Guard. Presence of one or more of these conditions will be sufficient basis for the administrative discharge of an officer from the Texas National Guard. Additionally, an officer of the Texas National Guard may be administratively discharged from his appointment for one or more of the following reasons or conditions. [conditions not relevant to request]
The bold emphasis is mine.
I'm not reading too much into this, but what does it mean? Could any NG members or experts chime in with what they think it means?
I just thought it was interesting because it appears to say the Bush got an HD but was kicked out via this administrative rule.
Why would they redact it in 2000, when it said "HD", but release it in 2004? That makes no sense to me...
But is that what is says? Curious and Curiouser...
(I did some very minor HTML editing -- kos)
