The deal is whether it really happened. For an officer to "lose his commission" is rather unusual. You either have it or you don't. For someone to
agree to such a move is even more unusual. Or do you think we simply ought to accept what anyone says at face value? I'm not saying it did not happen.
But it would be nice finding a source other than Dean himself to prove it did happen, and right our "proof" is what Dean has said. There is no
corroborating evidence. The "research" consists of someone here quoting from a book where the author sat down with Dean at dinner at his house where
he had been several times and interviewed him.
Search out the 'stolen valor' websites to see the easy instructions to write to the military records archives for basic military service records. All
you need is the guy's name and date of birth -- service number would be better, if available. I've done it a number of times for
credentials-falsifiers like Hoagland's 'NASA source' Ken Johnston, it takes several weeks to get an answer.
What do you think I just did, Jim? Precisely that. I got a letter from the National Archives. If you guys want me to scan it and post it, I'll do
I thought that was his claimed position after when he joined the UN, Command Sargent Major.
He claimed he was a lieutenant in the US army and Command Sargent Major in the UN, if memory serves me well.
No. As has been stated several times previously in this thread, Dean claims to have been a Lieutenant and then, due to a reduction in forces and his
lack of a college degree, was offered enlisted status, where he stayed for many years and rose to E-9, Sergeant Major. "Command" Sergeant Major is a
position much like the "Chief of the Boat" in the Navy, who is still a Master chief (E-9), but represents all enlisted men to the commanding officer.
There are many "Command Sergeant Majors" in the Army, and only the "Sergeant Major of the Army," a single enlisted position, outranks them.
There is no such thing as a "UN Command Sergeant Major" Furthermore, there has never been a dispute that Dean was one. The point of confusion that
started this thread was the claim that Dean was a lieutenant BEFORE he was a sergeant. Since that is unusual, the OP claims Dean is a liar. Other
people claim he is not, but their source for that claim is Dean himself.
After all the rhetoric died down ("Dean is a liar!" "No, he isn't!") we have simply tried to find independent corroboration that this unusual set of
events happened. We already know Dean says it happened. Pointing out that Dean says it happened doesn't do us much good, so I attempted to contact the
National Archives, which even has a form expressly for this purpose. It took them little more than a week to reply, which is kind of surprising for a
bureaucracy that large, but there we have it.
They have been unable to locate Dean's record(s) of service, ostensibly because I did not provide sufficient information such as a social security
number and "service number," which during Dean's tenure was different than the social security number.
Now, this whole situation shows up a conflict between "freedom of information" and "privacy." It's unlikely I could get Dean's social security number
and if I did, that would be a clear violation of his privacy. So unless he volunteers it, or someone snoops around, it's not going to happen. Now the
National Archives is claiming they can't find it BECAUSE I did not provide the relevant numbers.
To believe this you have to believe that the database that holds this information does not have a "name index." I've worked around large databases my
entire career (in library card registration systems) and the first thing you do is construct a name index and a library card number index. These are
no-brainers. No one knows his library card number, so when they show up and say, "I forgot my card." you have to look them up--by name. In every
system I have seen the name is a "field" and any field can be indexed. It is simply inconceivable that a system would be developed that did not
include a name index.
But that begs the question. is there one? I also do not know the state of the National Archives, which has records that go back prior to WW II.
Obviously, computers didn't exist back then. The records were manual. If they have done no retrospective conversions of the data, they may still be
manual, filed by service number, and this accounts for their inability to find the records.
My own suspicion here is that the National Archives consider these FOIA requests a nuisance, and they simply don't try very hard. They are required by
law to try, but they are not required to be successful. If they type in "Dean, Robert Orvel" and it comes back with "0 hits" they just stop right
there. Ten seconds tops, push a button for an automatic form letter. Done. Nobody actually gets up and spends 10-15 minutes to search the archives.
It's a daily task to answer these things as fast as you can and move along to more important things. If the DoD or the FBI asked the same question,
they'd do what is necessary to find the records, but for someone like me, whose reason for asking was listed as "historical research," it's simply not
important enough for them to exert much effort.
Hence the conclusion: Inconclusive.
At least I tried to get the data instead of just argue an opinion.
edit on 11/3/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)