[RexRichard]

Re: 01 August 1972 on the fake would have been 01 AUG 72 on an original. The military didn't concern itself with the century part of the year until the Y2K scare and the widespread use of computer databases required such.

Although I think the documents are fake, I cannot agree with this part of your analysis. I have worked for the Army for 39 years and in that time the correspondence rule for dates has been that if the Month is abbreviated then the year is abbreviated. If the month is spelled out, the year is also in long form, i.e,. 01 Aug 72, or 01 August 1972. That's my experience with the Army. Perhaps the Air National Guard has a different rule.

[Mr Rogers]

I agree. I'm am confused, however, at why it was written with an "01" for the date.

Don't know what the conventions were in the military back then, but in 21 years in the military I've never seen someone write 01 August...it would be just 1 August 1972.

Any ideas?