View Single Post
Old 08-21-2011, 08:59   #13
sinjefe
Quiet Professional
 
sinjefe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
If David Oh had been in the active duty Army, this would not be an issue because he would have been assigned to the JFK Special Warfare Center and School (SWCS) as a student pending completion of training to become an 18A (Special Forces Officer) and then either assignment as such to an active Special Forces unit or, as in his case, reassignment as an Infantry Officer to an Infantry unit for failing to complete the 18A course.

However, being in the National Guard, David Oh was assigned to the duty position he was seeking to fill within the unit pending preparation by his unit for him to attend and complete the training for that job. In his case, it was an 18A duty position and he was listed as being "slotted" (carried on the unit's manning roster for unit strength reporting purposes) in that duty position even though he was not yet qualified to perform those duties.

However, for those who know and who complete the required training to earn the honor of being called a a Special Forces Officer or "Green Beret," David Oh did not complete the requirements and - like many - merely served for a period of time with a Special Forces unit...but was never a "Green Beret" or an 18A (a duty position on the unit's manning roster in which he was slotted for a period of time) as he seems to have alluded to over the years.




As an 18A, I was an "Officer in Special Forces" which means I was an SF qualified Officer who served as such in that duty position. David Oh was not an "Officer in the Special Forces" - he was an Infantry Officer either assigned to or serving with a Special Forces unit and being carried in an 18A duty position pending completion of the training required to fulfill that job. There is a distinction and David Oh well knows it.

For someone who either is or was truly Special Forces qualified, David Oh's lawyerly waffling on the subject and explanatory letter to The Inquirer rings patently hollow, and is an indicator IMO that he is not as honorable as he wants others to believe. Sad.

And so it goes...

Richard
Very well put. That is the explanation that needs to be used to bust him out. Send it to his political opponents.
__________________
"Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag, puke, piece 'o shit, Private Pyle, or did you have to work at it?" - GySgt Hartman
sinjefe is offline   Reply With Quote