Responding to my question about the odd acronym “OETR” in this memo (see updates 3 and 5), reader Seth Williams emails:
Jeff,
To the best of my knowledge it isn’t a question of which acronym (OETR/OER) is current; both acronyms are in current use.
An OER is a report used for various things, among them evaluating promotions. It’s also interesting to note that it’s not exclusively an Air Force acronym; the Army uses the acronym OER in the exact same context. It was a well known acronym when I was an enlisted soldier (as opposed to an officer) stationed at Ft. Hood in the early 90s. Enlisted soldiers knew what the OER was because when an officer was due to be evaluated it fell on the enlisted ranks to work harder to make the officer look “high speed and low drag”.
AFI 36-2501, which references OERs, (see “Attachment 1, Abbreviations and Acronyms"), is online [here]
OETR doesn’t stand for Officer Efficiency Training Report. The OETR is not a report at all, rather it’s the place where educational transcripts are kept. It’s just an office at the AFIT (Air Force Institute of Technology). The AFIT has been granting degrees since 1956, and was in operation for quite a long time even before that, according to their brochure [here (my emphasis)].
AFI 36-2305, which references the OETR, (see “Attachment 1, Abbreviations and Acronyms") is online at [here; you can find the reference in table 1, rule 1, column C (on page 4). And while there is no online contact information for OERT, that appears to be because they are a subset of the registrar’s office].
To put it simply: any reference to “Bush’s OETR” is absurd in the extreme, because it’s not an acronym for a report. The supposition that an officer would get the name of the OER, a widely used and important report, wrong is absurd as well.
So then.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
John Kerry.
John Kerry who?
Yeah. That’s precisely what history will have to say about him, too…
****
update: promoted from the comments, Mark writes:
I was active duty Army from 1980 to 1992. I’d received and written many OERs during that period. I was a battalion level personnel officer (S-1) twice in that time.
I had never seen or heard of an OETR. I had seen, heard of, and written OERs.
It’s a case of someone using the wrong name for something. People in the military tend to use the acronym for something as its name. You don’t talk about “Officer Efficiency Reports”, you talk about OERs. You don’t tell someone to perform their “preventative maintenance checks and services” on their vehicles, you tell them to perform a PMCS on them. OETR doesn’t mean anything to me while OER does.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Dan Rather.
Oh yeah? Prove it…
Jeff, I had an idea and I can’t post on powerline and lgf AND my e-mail is messed up. Maybe you can decide if this is important and get in touch with those guys. The Washington Post is reporting that NONE of the documents known to be authentic from Bush’s National Guard unit at that time use proportional spacing. So, is there anyway for someone to post some of those documents on the net so we can determine what typewriter WAS used at that office?
Hmmm. Can you provide a link, Kathleen?
Hate to lend ammo to the “memos are real” camp, but a quick Google search confirms that OETR could very likely stand for “Officer Effectiveness Training Report.” The AWOL Project (http://www.glcq.com/) has a copy of an offical document (which, as far as I can tell, is a genuine one—although after this week, that assessment comes with a hefty dose of skepticism) that has the title right at the top: http://www.glcq.com/docs/notice_of_correction.htm
It seems to me that there are enough evidences of forgery in the CBS documents already (the character/line spacing is more than enough, in my book) to harp on an acronym usage that may or may not be correct.
Cypren –
In that document you link to, the acronym OER is used.
Further (to Cypren) –
See numbers 4, 8 and 12. OER clearly refers to the missing Officer Effectiveness Training Report.
And wasn’t <a href=”http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212575/posts>Gen. Staudt</a> retired nearly a year prior?
Yes, John.
Cypren – the doc you link to, as UpNights notes, supports Seth’s position. If you look just about the signature line, you’ll see “PLEASE RETURN ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS FORM WHEN RETURNING CORRECTED OER”
I just talked to my father who was a officer in the Air Force from 1959 – 1989; He had never heard of an OETR, it has ALWAYS been an OER.
Cypren – Take a look at the actual OERs on that smear website. At the bottom of the first page of GWB’s OERs it clearly is a COMPANY GRADE OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS REPORT. I’d love to see if this website has been changed recently to as the titles of the hyperlinks on this page:
http://www.glcq.com/source_documents.htm
Now show titles that refer to “Officer Effectiveness Training Report” when the actual links show OER not OETR… I think this site is trying to cover Dan’s ass.
Finally that document you point to has a very opportunistic hole punch (don’t think it’s on purpose though)… If you look very carefully the real title of this document is:
NOTICE OF MISSING OR CORRECTION TO OFFICER EFFECTIVENESS/ TRAINING REPORT
The “Slash” is very important as it means Effectiveness OR Training Report reinforcing my belief that the is no such thing as an OETR… It would be nice to see if we can find a document that refers to an Officer Training Report
Jeff, this is the link to the Washington Post story I was referring to. This should bring you to the second page of the story, where the part about the other authentic documents is stated. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9_2.html
If for some reason you can’t link that, this is the title, author, and date.
Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush
By Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page A01
And here is the actual paragraph from the story and if I wasn’t in such a dang hurry all the time, I would have put ALL this on one post.
After doubts about the documents began circulating on the Internet yesterday morning, The Post contacted several independent experts who said they appeared to have been generated by a word processor. An examination of the documents by The Post shows that they are formatted differently from other Texas Air National Guard documents whose authenticity is not questioned.
JFH—that’s a great catch, and yes, having a slash makes perfect sense.
I grew up around the military, and I’ve heard of OER (but not OETRs) as well, but wasn’t about to consider that definitive. But your find seems to have answered my only question.
Anyway, regardless of the acronyms, the proof of forgery is so blatant that it really isn’t needed. Now all that remains is to see how long it takes CBS to either fess up or use their connections in media to really muddy the waters, Boston Globe-style. (Which is what I’m betting will happen.) A lie, if told by enough people, becomes a “he-said-she-said” situation in the minds of the public.
The only question is, can CBS get enough of the Old Media to lie with them, and bank on their collective credibility swaying undecided voters?
Either way, I’m pretty sure that this is the last election that the Old Media will have significant influence in. These kind of stunts are the last gasps for power and self-validation of an institution that quickly sees itself doddering into senescence; the populace is becoming more and more Internet-savvy every day.
I have sent this message as a comment on CBS News website:
I am a graphic design professional and film producer who has been working with typography since the late 1960’s— long enough to have seen up close the transition from typewriters and dry-transfer lettering to desktop publishing. There are millions of people with similar experience who spotted the conspicuously amateur forgeries of the alleged memos AT FIRST GLANCE.
The saddest aspect of this episode is how much it confirms the bias and irresponsibility of the CBS News organization in general, and Dan Rather in particular. It calls into question their professionalism and credibility on ALL issues, NOT just their obvious hostility to Bush and Conservatives.
I am contacting my Congressional representatives and asking that a request be made of the Department of Justice to determine if criminal fraud by the CBS News organization may be involved in the transmission and circulation of these forged documents.
The question, sirs, IS NOT whether they are forged. That they are crude forgeries is no longer debatable. And nor is a craven apology, nor the dismissal of Mr. Rather, any acceptable solution to this matter. It is obvious that CBS News is permeated with a vicious, pernicious arrogant contempt for facts, truth, and the public it claims to serve.
Kathleen, I just dropped FindLaw’s URL for Bush’s records into the URL link. Same location will lead to Kerry’s records if you neeed them.
Well, hell, I thought I was being slick.
Try this.
I hate computers.
Last update:
ARPC Form 204 still exists:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/forms/formlist.asp?puborg=ARPC&series=0200-0299
It’s now called – Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Performance/Training Report which reflects the new name of an OER, Officer Performance Report.
The aside question to active duty Air Force or Army guys: Do you know call them OPRs (as I’ve seen in some publications) or do most people still call them OERs?
JFH / CYPREN —
Can you expand on your observations re: OETR vs. OER? Assume people like me are listening, people who haven’t any idea what much of this bureaucratic stuff means.
The USAF does not use the term OPR for the officers, and EPR for enlisted/NCO. Just for our clarification.
*** NOTICE TO MY LAST POST ****
Should read:
The USAF does now use the term OPR for the officers, and EPR for enlisted/NCO. Just for our clarification.
Changed “not” in first sentence to “NOW”
sorry
Cypren flew the coop. Lame duck.
You know, though hurting CBS is all clean fun, it occures to me that it’s a sideshow.
Forgive my paranoia, but this story doesn’t hurt Kerry at all and it doesn’t help Bush at all unlike the swiftboat story it replaced.
Is it just possible that CBS is taking the bullet for John Kerry by distracting all you dangerous bloggers from stories that make a difference?
I was active duty Army from 1980 to 1992. I’d received and written many OERs during that period. I was a battalion level personnel officer (S-1) twice in that time.
I had never seen or heard of an OETR. I had seen, heard of, and written OERs.
It’s a case of someone using the wrong name for something. People in the military tend to use the acronym for something as its name. You don’t talk about “Officer Efficiency Reports”, you talk about OERs. You don’t tell someone to perform their “preventative maintenance checks and services” on their vehicles, you tell them to perform a PMCS on them. OETR doesn’t mean anything to me while OER does.
Thanks Charlie (colorado)! I feel the same way about computers, but I find they are like men, I hate them, but find them undeniably necessary to my existance and a great source of entertainment when they actually work.
Now, a little side note. I notice in perusing the records of John Kerry that none of the records I read used the superscript “th,” in fact they didn’t even bother with “th” at all. Isn’t is sad that the Department of The Navy had to use sad typewriters while a lil ole National Guard Service in Alabama had a IBM supermachine (or whatever it was)?
Since the only place I’ve seen reference the term Officer Effectiveness Training Report (which really makes no sense linguistically) is this Anti-Bush site, some further investigation into these guys might be warranted. I have no other explanation of how someone would come up with the ridiculous acronym of OETR.
BTW, note how Mark uses the word “Efficiency”. I believe the word Effectiveness was changed to Efficiency in the late 1970s… It is now as some has noted changed again to “Performance”
after 4 years in the air force, i could conduct an entire conversation in acronyms and appreviations, using both as verbs and nouns. that was our institutional jargon.
to imagine a military person (one each, self-contained, air-cooled) to misuse a common abbreviation like OER is silly.
Joshua Scholar:
It could hurt Kerry a hell of a lot if it turns out that the source of the docs was someone connected with the Kerry campaign or the DNC. CBS is still (AFAIK at this writing) refusing to identify the source of the docs and nobody has come forward to out him/herself.
(Just for kicks and grins, it would make more sense to me for Bill & Hill to be behind the fake docs, rather than Karl Rove.)
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!!!!
ExRat, your wish is, well, someone’s command: voila.
> quick Google search confirms that OETR could >very likely stand for “Officer Effectiveness >Training Report.†The AWOL Project
>(http://www.glcq.com/) has a copy of an offical
>Posted by Cypren
Hello, The author of the glcq.com website is Paul Lukasiak. Is it a coincedence that Bill Burkett decides to review this same document in August 13 at http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=23055 that has the OETR reference that ends up on the forged document? I would think its highly likely that a “document expert” such as Lukasiak is a suspect. Hes a web designer,pdf designer and an active journalist.
AND he on 9/20/2004 here http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=301 Paul Lukasiak is stating that there are documents released by the Bush administration that are fake!