"The OETR Scam"

I just got an e-mail from someone calling himself "JFH" which raises an intriguing question about an acronym used in one of the Killian docs. Jeff Goldstein wrote a post yesterday about a reference in the August 18, 1973 memo to something called an "OETR". Two people familiar with military terminology e-mailed Jeff to say that the acronym the author of the memo meant to use was "OER" -- an abbreviation for "Officer Effectiveness Report". Read Jeff's post and you'll see that his contacts are quite adamant that "OER" is a commonly used term and that no one familiar with military jargon would botch it in a memo. Or click here and see the listings for "O" on a webpage devoted to military abbreviations. "OER" is listed. "OETR" is not.

Enter JFH, who agrees with Jeff's contacts.

I wondered how could the forger [be] so clueless on using a made-up acronym of OETR when every officer in the Air Force and Army knows the acronym is OER. . . . The acronym OER is so pervasive in the Air Force community that every officer's wife and kid (as I was during this period) knew what it was. These are the most important documents of an officer's career. It is worth much more than it[s] weight in gold as it drives the promotion process. How could anyone ever call this thing an OETR? . . . .

It was only after a commenter to Jeff's post pointed to an anti-Bush website called the "AWOL Project" that it all became clear.

J's point is a simple one (and please note that he's not saying the webmaster of the site is the forger). If you click the "AWOL Project" link and scroll down about three-quarters of the way, you come across a cache of documents underneath a header entitled . . . "The OETR Scam". The same faulty acronym.

How did the AWOL Project webmaster get "OETR" from "OER"? J thinks he knows. He says if you click the document entitled "Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report (6-29-73)" you'll see a heading at the top of the first page that looks like it reads "Officer Effectiveness Training Report." But, says J, it doesn't:

Because of a hole punch in this document, the website authors missed the fact that the name of the form is actually: Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness / Training Report. The slash which you can barely make out (and trust me, there is a slash there… as I can explain my certainty if you need me to) show[s] that this form is used for notifications for both an OER and a Training Report (don't have a lot of detail on this report yet; but it makes sense that training reports that record success[ful] completion of formal training are almost as important to get corrected or added before a promotion board meets). But if this document is your starting point in an investigation into your biased AWOL story, you may have [missed the slash and] thought that this form was for correcting "OETRs".

J points out that the correct acronym -- "OER" -- is actually printed right there on the form in boxes 4, 8, and 12, but the print is small enough that the webmaster might have missed it and followed the (apparent) acronym in the heading instead. J also notes that the three other documents listed under "The OETR Scam" as "Officer Effectiveness Training Reports" are, in fact, OERs (see the bottom right of the first page of each).

J wonders if perhaps the header on the AWOL Project used to read "The OER Scam" and was recently changed after the August 18, 1973 memo came to light to make the terminology conform to that document. Answer: no. Here's a Google cache of the site from August 20th that includes the "OETR" acronym. And here's another one from September 6th. The new Killian memos weren't released by CBS until September 8th.

So what does all this amount to? Two things. First, the fact that the August 18, 1973 memo bungled a commonly used bit of military terminology suggests that the author wasn't Killian and, therefore, that the document is a forgery. That's assuming, of course, that J is right about the usage of "OER" versus "OETR", which I think he is; if anyone disagrees with him on that point, e-mail me or leave a comment below and I'll mention it. Second, the fact that the author of the document made the same novice mistake about the same acronym as an anti-Bush website suggests that he might have visited the site before writing the document and picked up the "OETR" acronym for them. Needless to say, this would also rule out Killian as the author while shedding a little light on the real author's motives.

I want to emphasize again that neither J nor I is accusing the webmaster of the AWOL Project site of being the forger. On the contrary: A pamphlet posted on the site written by Gerald Lechliter uses the correct heading of the "OETR" form ("Officer Effectiveness / Training Report", replete with slash) and avoids using the erroneous aconym. All we want to know is how that strange, apparently unknown abbreviation ended up first on an anti-Bush website and then, later, in a primary source document purported to have been written thirty years ago.

One more fact for you to chew on as you digest all this. A Google search of the phrase "officer effectiveness report" returns over 400 results. A search of "officer effectiveness training report" returns only 10. And every last one of them has to do with George W. Bush supposedly being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard.

I"m loving this!!! (from the link provided)

"""I’m an active duty USAF Lt Col with 19 years in and wanted to add that the OETR/OER/OPR flap is likely just another nail in Dan Rather’s coffin.

To clarify:
OER (Officer Effectiveness Report...AF Form 707B--Company Grade Officers) was used to describe officer reports until 1988 (my last OER was dated May 88)

The acronym OPR (Officer Performance Report, still AF Form 707B--Company Grade Officer) replaced the OER in 1988.

Training reports (AF Form 475 since 1983, at least) are called Education/Training Reports and are used for either officers or enlisted personnel.

There is no Officer Effectiveness Training Report (OETR) currently nor can I find any evidence that there ever has been. It’s quite likely that whoever concocted this document simply made the erroneous assumption that an Education/Training Report (E/TR or ETR) would have both an officer and enlisted version.

Not a bad assumption since performance reports are different for officers and enlisted. It’s just that training reports aren’t! We all get the same form. And, FWIW, we don’t refer to training reports as “ETR"s...believe it or not, we just call them training reports (one of the few exceptions to the military rule to shorten everything). Whoever did this just showed they don’t know the USAF. I won’t even bother with “memo for file”...WTF? It’s Memo For Record!!!!""

Does anyone not think that the forger could have easily used a vintage typewriter, like those used for real 1970's memos, and a few copies of legitimate AF memos to produce something that was indistinguishable from the real thing? The question is why didn't he/she? Why fake a document that is so obviously fake, when to do it right would have taken very little extra time and effort?

Hatred of Bush, arrogance of the media and perceived stupidity of the Bush campaign and general public, lust to get Bush fast tracking the memos without scrutiny? Bullbutter. These people are not stupid, nor are they fools, nor are they incompetent.

I believe that the fakes were meant to be discovered and create controversy. Any theory as to the source(s), in my opinion, has to take into consideration this undeniable truth. You connect the dots.

Myself, I think it very reasonable that Billary & Co. produced the docs with the knowledge and willing collusion of CBS to out them, knowing ti will be blamed on the Kerry campaign. Dan Rather? Maybe he's ready for retirement anyway.

Very probably, again we are just being led around by the rings in our noses, lapping up the duck soup and implementing the plan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.