by Tejano
I highly recommend reading this article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/21/usat-guard.htm
A great summary of the event (that the USA Today covers) is stated up front:
"Evidence continues to grow that National Guard units across the country are undermanned and have faked their troop level reports to Washington for years in order to protect their flow of federal money and to hide their inability to retain troops."
While I do not have any earth shattering evidence to go against my Guard unit (as they try to go by the book, even though they lie at times), I worked on the strength report on at least 3 seperate occassions.
A staff sergeant (that was involved in the latest fib fiasco as I reported earlier), with the aide of cadets, usually computed what the platoon sergeants sent in during the day regarding how many people were present, absent, AWOL (absent without leave), etc. I was usually given the task of tracking down the sergeants to obtain the numbers from them, as well as counting up the first draft of numbers.
At this point I'd like to point to another quote from the article:
"The December articles in USA TODAY reported allegations of ghost soldiers in Army National Guard units in Illinois, South Carolina, California, Arizona, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming. In some units, as many as 20% of the soldiers are troops who exist on paper only, according to Guard members and government investigators."
A number of sergeants (and low ranking officers, 1st/2nd Lieutenants) had a hand in coming up with various numbers. As my unit loved to arrest people (yes, some people get their kicks from others misfortune) there was little leniancy regarding unexcused absences. So there were quite a few 'U' (unexcused) markings as compared to a more laid back unit (trust me, they exist).
An off the cuff remark floating around the office during this roll call, included one common one "we may not even have to fudge the numbers this time." I have nothing to gain from making up these quotes (I don't own stock in the Guard or in the Media, just myself), as you can tell from the other articles I have written on the Guard as of late. So...
Did I see any 'fudging' going on? Since I simply counted the numbers without regard to who truly was present, I can not help the investigators. However, based upon the fact that my unit discussed 'fudging' numbers to appease those higher up in the chain of command (saving their necks), it is quite possible they may fudge a soldiers presence for a month or two. Knowing the personality of the two main sergeants involved in this operation, both were straight shooters that worked full-time with the Guard (one did have a fibbing problem in terms of what jurisdiction they have over soldiers, but that is another story).
Would I send officials to varify the numbers? Even if it is not for the purpose of uncovering fraud, if I ran a business (which this is) I would like to have honesty as my policy.
Here is something to think about though. My own case of discovering I am not required to attend both drills and BASIC leaves a sour taste in my mouth. On July 27-28 (the first drill after I was supposed to attend BASIC), I would recommend any and all reporters/investigators to look at the books and see if I'm still on them. Actually, as of this moment I would ask to look at the books, as they know (the company CO and the Orderly sergeants) that I will never attend another drill or BASIC; so maybe I'll become another phantom in the Guard, tell me what you find.
Tim Swanson ([email protected]) is a senior at Texas A&M University studying history and economics. Send him comments.