[Richard]

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.

My resume and campaign literature say I was an Officer in the Special Forces. That is true and accurate. I openly tell people that I did not complete the Special Forces Qualification Course. However, that is not the issue or the accusation that was made towards me. The accusation was that because I did not complete the "Q course", I could not say that I was an Officer in the Special Forces. I provided the reporter with 2 documents which showed that 1. I was not attached for training as the Daily News article states... I was a member of the unit. When we were activated we all went to Ft. Bragg and started training and preparing to go overseas. 2. While I have never made public or private statements that I was special forces qualified, I had a change of duty from 11A (Infantry Officer) to 18A (Special Forces Officer) while at Ft. Bragg. Again, contrary to the Daily News article, I did not make any claims that that change of duty made me a "Green Beret". But the reporter wanted to know the significance of my job description which was standard 18A language for a Special Forces detachment officer. I truthfully told him that I was simply serving my country and did whatever the army and SF command told me. The reporter asked if the 18A made me SF qualifed. I said it means the army gave me a job to do. The reporter insisted on writing a story that, I wanted to be a "green beret", joined a National Guard unit, went through SFAS and was a 'non-select", and returned to Philadelphia to practice law. I told him that was not an accurate story. His editors decided to pull his story. The afternoon before the story ran, the reporter called me and told me he was going to print the same story. Of course, there is more to this story but the bottom line is that the reported wanted to write a story about me making false representations. That he can not do.

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