Thursday, September 28, 2006

MacBeth Redux?

It seems that there is a bit of Jesse MacBeth happening again. I make it a habit to follow the "Loose Change" folks. My clearing house for that windmill tilting is Screw Loose Change. This morning they posted a story about SGT Lauro Chavez, aformer Soldier who is now a "Whistleblower" for the 9-11 "Truth" movement. I'll let other people dissect what he says about the events at NORAD or the training exercises on 9-11. However I will speak to my area of quasi-expertise. Army admin.

A copy of SGT Chavez's DD214 Form 1 was posted here. I saved a copy of it in case that version disappears. If you look at sections 13 and 14 you'll see that the text looks a little different. I'm not such an expert as to say that it's wholly impossible for that text to be fake. However it's different looking enough to make me question it. I'm more interested in the content of the blocks.

I've never seen an Army DD214 that called the Good Conduct Medal the "Army Good Conduct Medal". They've always listed it as simply the "Good Conduct Medal". However I've seen 214s from the USMC that listed it as the "Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal". That in an of itself wouldn't have been enough to make me call "shenanigans", however there are other, similar mistakes in these two sections.

As someone who was on Active Duty prior to NOV95 SGT Chavez would have been eligible for the National Defense Service Medal from that period. He'd have received a second NDSM for being on Active Duty after 9-11. His 214 only shows one NDSM. It's also strange to me that he could serve six years in the Army and not earn a single Army award. His other awards are both for joint service work. He did work at a joint command so it makes sense he'd have joint awards, but it's just strange to me he'd not have received at least one Army Achievement Medal in a nearly seven year career.

While the inconsistencies in block 13 are minor the mistakes in block 14 are pretty glaring to me.

His block 13 (Military Education) reads:

So, in his first two years of service he was able to attend the SFQC? As a 74G? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the selection course first? And how likely is it he was able to get an SF training slot without ever first going through Airborne, Air Assault, or Ranger? I'm not saying it's impossible but how many SF guys don't have that training?

But again, it's a content issue and that isn't what strikes me as wrong. What strikes me as wrong are the dates. If you look at the dates listed on Chavez's DD214 they are in a MM YYYY format. The Army has used a YYMMDD or YYYYMMDD format for dates since I enlisted about six months before SGT Chavez did. If you look in Section 18 of SGT Chavez's 214 you'll see what I'm talking about. The dates listed in there all use a YYYYMMDD format. While Block 14 will use only YYMM or YYYYMM, you'll never see MM YYYY. It's simply not done that way. Also, the double slash "//" added to the end of the "NOTHING FOLLOWS" on both section 13 and 14. In the other two sections where "NOTHING FOLLOWS" is used (Sections 11 and 18) there is no "//". I've seen 214s that have both "NOTHING FOLLOWS//" and "NOTHING FOLLOWS" but I've never seen one that used them both, it's always consistent within the document.

And finally Block 22 is unsigned by the official, but that might have been a mistake by the separation office.

I'd be curious to hear what the SF folks have to say about this Soldier. He says he was at the SFQC in July 1997. I wonder if anyone remembers him.


I took a closer look at his 214 and I noticed something suspicious. I was going to do a big, long post describing what I'd noticed, and then I discovered that someone beat me to it. Bottom line, this Chavez guy totally faked his 214.


Post a Comment