During most of the 1970's I filled the position of Unit Senior NCO until I retired in 1977.  Whether you liked it or not the Unit Senior NCO was detailed by regulation to fill a position, created by higher headquarters by formal directive, designated in Air Defense Command and Tactical Air Command Unit, both commands, as Unit Retention Counselor.  I was appointed on Special Orders as Unit Retention Counselor.
 
The Base Recruiting Office, a part of Central Base Personnel Office (CBPO), supervised the Retention Program.
 
Each month Base Recruiting Office provided The Unit Retention Counselor with a machine listing of the names of all people eligible for reenlistment in our unit.  The Base Recruiting list scheduled a mandatory date and time for the candidate to meet with the Counselor.  The Reenlistment Candidate was scheduled for a mandatory appointment with Base Recruiting and acknowledged by signature and date a mandatory appointment the Unit Retention Counselor.  The unit could not cancel this meeting or change the time.  The Air Base could not cancel the meeting once the schedule was published.  In event of primary equipment failure, aircraft failure, etc. the meeting could not be canceled!  Base Recruiting also provided the Unit Retention Counselor with a list of mandatory discussion/explanation points.  Both the Candidate for Reenlistment and the Unit Retention Counselor acknowledged receipt and understanding of these instructions.  Any Offerings made by the Unit Retention Counselor to the Candidate for Reenlistment were acknowledged by signature by  each candidate for reenlistment and the Unit Retention Counselor.  Ultimately the mandatory discussion sheet(s) established a formal contract Offer between the United States Government with each candidate whether the candidate reenlisted or not.  Mandatory discussion items were:
1)  Bonus amounts if eligible for one.
2)  Extensions of current enlistment.  Deviation opportunities.
3)  Four year enlistments (reenlistments).
4)  Retirement benefits
      (a)  Pay.  Retirement pay for various grades were discussed.
      (b)  Free lifetime medical care for the candidate and all eligible dependents in event the candidate
             elected to reenlist.  The Unit Retention Counselor explained/discussed this offer with each
             candidate.  When this discussion/explanation ended the candidate acknowledged in writing
             by date and signature:

            1)  Meeting of Minds.
            2)  Offer.
            3)  Acceptance occurred if, or when, the candidate reenlisted.
            4)  Time to commence - day of retirement.
            5)  Time to end - death of last eligible person.
            6)  Signatures. The candidate signed and dated the offer.  The Unit Retention
                  Counselor signed and dated the contract.
            7)  The completed document was returned to Base Recruiting. 
            8)  Originally Base Recruiting made this United States Government Contract
                 by attaching the entire form to the Enlistment Agreement.  Later on the contract
                 became part of the Enlistment Agreement by entering the contract details in
                 the Remarks Section of the Enlistment Agreement.

 Patriotism and love of the United States are instilled in the developing minds of our children.  More frequently than not some of these dedicated people will devote part of their adult life to service in government.  These individuals represent the 'best and brightest' of our United States society.  This was true from 1941-1944 and is still true today.
 
The United States Library of Congress is a treasury of knowledge.  In 1914 Congress created a Congressional Research Service (CRS) for legislative use.   CRS "is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature."  
 
Can you imagine America's "Brightest and Best" allowing General Marshall or General Eisenhower to spend federal funds that were not authorized by Congress?   
 
I derive no personal pleasure from criticism of CRS.  Criticism of fellow evaluators is never easy.
 
In 1944 Congress honored several Generals by life-time appointments as General of the Armies.  Two of these appointees George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower went on to become Chief of Staff of the United States Army.  Both leaders had known difficult budgetary authorization times when both trained soldiers to execute the "Manual of Arms" with wooden guns, when automobiles with wooden sides were painted on wood and mounted on the automobile to simulate real tanks for maneuver practice.  Talk about "Do More With Less" policy!
 
It seems preposterous to me that survivors of such difficult budgetary conditions would allow contracts for free lifetime medical care that were not legislatively approved/authorized by the United States Government.  Why has CRS remained silent on this matter until enforcement of the contract was questioned by the judicial process?  1943 would have been an excellent year to have blown the whistle.  1944 was equally a good year.  1945, 1946, and 1947 when re enlistees were urgently required for the Armed Forces.
 
The first question this raises for me, if true in the CRS Reports and I do hereby question veracity of the CRS Reports, did staff fail the Generals?  Which Federal Staff?  The staffs of these leaders had lengthy history of accomplishments that effected the entire world in favorable ways.  These staff, similar to the legislative assistants of today, represented the United State's best and brightest scholars.  The staff failed the elected!  Kind of unbelievable.
 
Where and who was responsible for the oversights (if oversight happened)?  General of the Armies George Marshall?  General of the Armies Dwight Eisenhower?  Their blind and stupid staffs?  There is, today, unconditional universal belief throughout the Armed Forces that millions of patriots believed and accepted the contracts for lifetime health care.  CRS asks patriots to accept their findings that appropriations were never legislatively authorized for health care.  By CRS asking their users to accept this finding, however unintentional, that General of the Armies Marshall and General of the Armies Eisenhower failed to learn the "Manual of Arms" that was completed with wood guns.  That the capability and brilliance of  yesterdays legislative staff, pales when compared with the accomplishments of todays legislative staff.   Preposterous!  Unbelievable!!
 
It is my personal opinion that CRS has failed Congress, Legislative Staff, and all users of CRS Reports in reporting the history of contracts for the health care for military retirees that both Generals offered to any person who reenlisted.  No CRS Report includes the pertinent historical details such as the above explanations.  Why is explanation absent?
 
No CRS Report provides the details that the Air Force Inspector General made "Retention" a "Special Subject for Inspection".  As Unit Retention Counselor this meant that the program administered by me was inspected frequently.  Every visitor inspected my program.  Some inspections required four days.  The part-time duty of Unit Retention Counselor quickly transformed into a full time task.
 
In my mind it is unbelievable to think that the work standards of the staff supporting General of the Army George C. Marshall and General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower when each was Chief of Staff of the United States Army would permit spending of funds for which there was no Authorization!  What a Flag of Caution this raises for today's Armed Forces!  Completing the "Manual of Arms" with wooden guns failed.  Those patriots who defeated Germany in WWII were generally stupid and are not trusted administrators/custodians.  How much more insulting can explanations get?  The Military Armed Forces had gone through difficult money times and if CRS is to believed, learned nothing concerning funding or contracts.   Yet these patriots taught "Manual of Arms" with wooden guns.
 
And CRS expects us to accept and believe that people who survived such difficult financial periods allowed contracts for medical care for military retirees that were not authorized by Congress!  If CRS Reports on Military Retiree health care are to believed there was no authorization from Congress.   This is horrendous deception and CRS shares equal blame for allowing these contracts.  Just where and when does the responsibility to speak apply to CRS?  Five different versions of the CRS reports and CRS still does not have it correct!
 
Would today's Legislative Staff fail to notify their Legislative employer that federal funds were being spent without legislative authorization?  To believe that statement is just as stupid as it is to believe that lifetime health care was not authorized for any patriot who reenlisted.
 
Successful occupation of Europe.  Successful administration of the Marshall Plan and its architecture which today is reflected in a prosperous unwarring Europe which has had more than 60 years of regional peace.   I do not accept CRS's finding that funds for lifetime medical care for military retirees were not authorized.

Posted on the Internet 4 Oct 2008

A Look Back. Who are history's great leaders?  Why were they great?  Perhaps I failed to explained why Marshall and Eisenhower were great.  First they taught WWII soldiers the Manual of Arms with wooden guns, they painted plywood tank silhouets and mounted the silhouet on an automobile for field artillery practice.  Then of course there are the technology advancements of WWII, aircraft, ships, atomic energy, computers, radio communications, radar, aircraft carriers.  Under General Marshall people to maintain the technology advancements were necessary.  His decision was to offer the reenlistee free lifetime medical care in exchange for commitment.  It worked so well that the next US Army Chief of Staff General Dwight Eisenhower continued virtually unchanged the policies of General Marshall!  If Marshall or Eisenhower were alive today it is my belief they would insist that the contracts be honored just as President Bush said three times (2 as a candidate for President and again in Kannapolis North Carolina) "Promises made in the past, will be promises kept."  (or words to that effect).

 

The US Court of Appeals in Case 99-1402 Schism & Reinlie VS the United States had choice and in my opinion chose wrongly. For years (1971-1977 Tactical Air Command (TAC) and Air Defense Command (ADC) required  each individual eligible to reenlist) to sign a piece of paper that the reenlistment eligible person was 1) Offered lifetime medical care for himself and all eligible dependents 2) To commence on his first day of retirement 3) to end when the military retiree died 4) duration lifetime.  The first person to offer these lifetime contracts was General of the Armies George C. Marshall when he was Chief of Staff US Army. The second offering was by General of the Armies Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was Chief of Staff, US Army.  The candidate for reenlistment acknowledged the offer by signature and then the US Government representative (normally the Unit Commander or the Unit Senior NCO (TAC and ADC required Special Orders appointment of the Unit Senior NCO as Unit Retention NCO).  When the 9th Strategic Reconnaisance Wing, Fairfield-Suisun AFB Calif. got thirty percent of the aircraft in combat configuration the 9th Maintenance Sq following a barracks white collar standby inspection and then an open ranks outside inspection got the remainder of Saturday off.  For me that was my first Saturday off. The Base Legal Officer informed the assembled that the income tax from military pay was paying for the lifetime medical care he had just explained. The reenlistment candidate by signature acknowledged the US Government offer for lifetime medical care, dated the offer which was then signed by the US Government offeror and dated, then turned in to the Base Recruiting Office. The decision of the US Court of Appeals casts cloud over all legislative staff.  Several of the Judges were employed by Universities and are quite knowledgeable of Contracts (the foundation of all US Commerce).  The US Congress honored Generals Marshall and Eisenhower with special lifetime recognition. The US Court of Appeals casts dark shadows over the accomplishments of General Marshall and General Eisenhower. It is my suggestion that the US Court of Appeals request the Supreme Court to vacate their decision on Schism & Reinlie VS The United States.

---