Allah Pundit posts a new document that raises more questions than it answers.
If you have any expertise with Army discharge forms, take a look and give us a holler.
John Noonan at Op-For rips the form apart and adds:
If Jesse was indeed a boot-camp dropout, he would have easy access to this form. You see, these DD-214s are often used as methods of verifying medical discharge from military service to potential employers/background investigators. Dishonorable discharge is a frequent disqualifier to careers in the civilian world, so the military makes the forms readily available to medical washouts for verification purposes.
This form makes Macbeth’s story fairly easy to deconstruct. Jesse, as a boot camp dropout, would have an official DD-214 listening his training brigade (check), reason for discharge (check), duty station (check), name, address, and social (check, check, check). Since he made no real progress in the army, boxes listing any sort of decorations, education, combat experience, etc would be blank. With blank boxes 11 and 13, one could write just about anything in the free space, which is why the font in those boxes on Jesse’s form is different from the font on the rest of the paperwork. I’m also 90% certain that forging official DoD documents is illegal.
I think Jesse just put the final nail in his coffin. In the meantime, go do something meaningful for memorial day, as there are plenty of real troops out there deserving of our appreciation and gratitude.
Getting tons of feedback, which we’ll sort through and post over at Hot Air. Here’s a taste:
It looks to me to be an attempt at forgery. I believe this to be true for the following reasons:
1 – Misspelled ‘qualified’
2 – Most likely if he was Ranger Qualified he would also be Airborne Qualified; and it is not listed. You use to be able to attend Ranger School and not be airborne qualified but if you are member of a Ranger Battalion you should after being assigned to the unit or even before assignment to it, sent to Airborne School. Airborne Skill ID is ‘5P’. Ranger Qualification is in addition to the 11B, so if he was infantry and a ranger it would be ’11B5R’, and if he was infantry and airborne ranger his designation would be ’11B5S’
3 – Awards, normally all award designation on forms are abbreviated e.g. Army Service Ribbon = ASR, also just for joining the Army and making it through basic training and AIT, he would have been awarded the Army Service Ribbon. The form does not show an ASR. Also if he had 6 years of service he should have an Army Achievement Medal (AAM), or Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), or an Meritorious Service Medal(MSM) plus if he saw combat a CIB (Combat Infantryman Badge). He has none of these in six years of service? Highly improbable.
4- Also Block 14 should show all military training completed therefore it should show basic, Infantry AIT, Ranger School, and Airborne School. Block 14 should show all Army schools over 2 weeks in length. If memory serves me correctly, basic training is 8 weeks, Infantry AIT is 16 weeks or so, Airborne school 3 weeks, and Ranger School is a little over 8 weeks.
Bottom line it looks like someone added stuff to a DD 214 where the individual washed out or was chaptered out of the Army before completing any advance training such as AIT (Advance Infantry Training).
Keep up the good work
Michael E. Bistrica
Major (Retired), U.S. Army
I spent 15 years in Air Force Personnel (including a year in Separations) and this form, from all appearances, is “as bogus as Harry Reid’s sincerity.”
The scan of the form is difficult to read, but the laughable spelling errors put up major red flags. I prepared dozens of DD 214’s during my time in separations (early 1980’s) and they had to be absolutely accurate. That means no spelling errors. I will readily tell you that DD 214’s could be a major pain in the a** to prepare, especially for folks who had been in for a long time, given that we were still using typewriters at the time.
Again, I can’t read the form too well, but it appears “Jesse MacBeth” entered the service around his 18th birthday (i.e., 2002). I couldn’t tell when MacBeth was allegedly separated, but if he was in for at least three years, and kept his nose clean, then the DD 214 should reflect the fact that he received an Army Good Conduct Medal–and this award doesn’t appear on the form:
If “MacBeth” was also “Ranger qualifyed” [sic], then he had to have received a hell of lot of training at Fort Benning and elsewhere, which should also have been reflected on the DD 214–and isn’t. Furthermore, it should be very easy to track down “Shirley Covington,” who allegedly signed this DD 214, since the odds are good that she’s still at Fort Benning (assuming she’s a real person!).
In fact, you could even try contacting the Army Ranger School at Benning. If MacBeth recently graduated from Ranger School, they’d sure as heckfire remember him!
In short, Michelle, I’m willing to bet a sawbuck this DD 214 is F.A.K.E. I just wish I can meet this guy face-to-face, so I could him what a fool and a jerk he really is.
Mark D. Jaeger
USAF, Retired, 1980-1995
blog comments powered by Disqus
1 – “Ranger qualified” is spelled wrong (qualifyed!!) and others have already noticed the different typeface
2 – His last duty station is listed as the Bascic Combat Training Brigade at Ft. Benning, Ga., which indicates he never finished basic training.
3 – If he never left Basic, there’s no way he could have gotten a Purple Heart, unless one of his fellow trainees shot him.
4 – Doesn’t list any other decorations he would have received (and claims to have received), including his Army Service ribbon for graduating BCT/AIT, no National Defense Ribbon, etc. And of course, no CIB and no CAB.
5 – He has erased the type of separation he received, but his character of service is still listed as UNCHARACTERIZED. This means: that the individual had fewer than 180 days of continuous active service.
Sgt. Nicki Fellenzer
29th Infantry Division
Virginia Army National Guard
Why does this sound so familiar? Top Dem let off hook after breaking federal law (Sunday open thread)
July 31, 2016 09:35 AM by Doug Powers
Call off the controversy: Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer vouch for Loretta Lynch’s ethics after Clinton meeting
June 30, 2016 09:19 PM by Doug Powers
May 26, 2016 08:40 PM by Doug Powers
March 24, 2016 08:05 PM by Doug Powers
February 16, 2016 09:14 AM by Doug Powers