One Hand Clapping

More format and content analysis of CBS documents about Bush
Summary:

Some fundamental style and format errors exist in the documents purportedly signed by Lt. Col. Killian in 1972, casting more doubt on their authenticity;

The Air Force Manual cited in memos seems never to have existed. [Update, 9-10: see final "Update" at the end of this post, where in response to my invitation for more fact checking, I cite a couple of readers who say that this publication did exist after all. Which is what the blogosphere is good at.]

Take a look at these two "original" documents, purportedly signed by Killian, although one seems to have been initialed, not signed (what variety!): this and this.

Two points:

1. The letterhead is typed on the paper, not typeset. But the military uses typeset letterhead paper, with color logos and office symbols. An office symbol is an alphabetic identifier of the command and that command's office sending the letter. For example: AFZA-PAO. The first four letters are the command's identifier and the last three are the identifier of the staff section or function. This is the Army's system, but my strong recollection of Air Force letterheads was that their correspondence used the same basic system. Anyone out there with first-hand knowledge?

Update, 9-10: Reader Mike Weatherford emailed me a scanned image of his Air Force enlistment orders. The whole page is 80KB, too big for my bandwidth, but I isolated the letterhead section to show you what I mean:

Note that the office symbol, RTBQS, is clearly visible. The letterhead typeface is all caps, and the Air Force seal is included. On the original, the seal would be blue.

The signatures on the two Killian-CBS documents are right justified. But the Air Force left-justified signature blocks well into the 1980s. Weatherford's orders of 1977 reflect this:

(end update) A memo for record need not go on a letterhead anyway. A blank page suffices with the office symbol typed in. The letterhead typed in is not needed. Furthermore, there are actually two or three lines to a signature block: the signer's name and rank on the first line and the signer's duty position on the second line. A commander's signature block would not need a third line. Note that one Killian documents' format is wholly different. This is also evidence of forgery by someone not wholly familiar with correspondence formats.

Finally, the rank is stated on both memos as Lt. Colonel. But the Air Force abbreviates the rank as Lt Col (note no periods). For very formal correspondence, the rank might be fully spelled out, but there is one and only one correct abbreviation, and Lt. Colonel isn't it. Again, I reject the idea that a serving Lt Col would have made such a fundamental mistake.

Update: A similar error is made in Bush's rank, abbreviated in the memos as 1stLt. - note no space between 1st and Lt and the period after the Lt. But the correct AF abbreviation is 1st Lt with the space and no period. Again, a fundamental error of the kind that a lieutenant colonel or his secretary would not make. It's just too basic.

Last but very important: there is good reason to believe that Killian's signatures are forged (actually only one signature and an initials set). Command Post published two images side by side, the left of Killian's known, bona fide signature and the right of the CBS-presented signature. The difference is striking. (end update)

2. The two memos refer to a flight physical and a flight review board, both IAW ("in accordance with") AFM 35-13. But that would stand for "Air Force Manual" 35-13, and manuals are guidelines only. They have no regulatory authority. No one takes a physical exam, flight or not, IAW a manual. Manuals relate to operational procedures, not enforcement of standards. Especially would a "flight review board" not be convened IAW a manual. Enforceable regulatory authority in the military derives only from two sources: the Uniform Code of Military Justice and orders. Regulations are a type of written order issued under the authority of a flag-rank officer. (In the Army, for example, regulations are issued under the authority of the Chief of Staff down to installation-commander level.)

What governs official procedures or requirements for physicals is a regulation, not a manual, because a regulation is an order and a manual is not. A regulation has much the same effect as law. Regulations are governing documents that must be adhered to, not advisory publications that permit ad-hoc deviations, as manuals do.

So I browsed over to the Air Force's official web site for its publications, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. There I searched for AFM 35-13 without success. The intelligent search engine recommended using only the numbers, so I searched using only 35-13. Result:

35-13 has been rescinded or superceded by another publication. Additional information is available at Obsolete Publications.

So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation).

So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is.

This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.

Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.

From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.

Furthermore, it is likely that whatever AFR 35-13 governed, flight physicals wasn't it. My contention is buttressed by two points:

A. AFR 35-13's successor publication is a personnel management instruction (regulation).

B. This online copy of a senior NCO's routine reassignment orders, dated 1954, which cites AFR 35-13 as an authority for the transfer. A publication governing personnel assignments doesn't also govern enforcement of flight physicals.

So the forger said the physical was to be done IAW a manual, not a regulation, and named a manual that never existed anyway, and used a numeric that belonged to a personnel-management reg, not a flight-standards reg.

It would be good if someone who served in the Air Force in those days and who has knowledge of then-current publications could chime in on the points I made. If I am wrong then I am willing to have it pointed out. As I said, I served in the Army beginning a few years after the date of the purported memos. But the Air Force's and Army's habits and administrative procedures have always been closer than between the two and any other service because they were the same service until 1947. In only 25 years the fruit didn't fall that far from the tree.

Update: Glenn Reynolds fought off some serious dental pain to post a comprehensive list of links.

Bill Hobbs posts that Sandra Ramsey Lines a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, "said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software."

Update, 9-10: It seems there really was an AFM 35-13 after all. Scott Forbes comment-linked to a page that reproduces orders from 1970 that cite AFM 35-13. Also, Cecil Turner comments about how a manual could be relevant to this matter.

So it seems now that citing a manual could well be valid. But that doesn't overcome the style and format errors that are numerous and obvious, to say nothing of the typeface problems.

Thanks for the additional insights!

by Donald Sensing, 9/9/2004 09:41:57 PM. Permalink |

Blogroll:

News sites:

Opinions, Current Events and References

Useful Sites:

Shooting Sports

DVD bestsellers

Military History and Politics:

Religion bestsellers: