TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:07 amNot entirely true. Not defending this guy, but his record shows almost 2 1/2 yrs active duty. Yes, he was a reservist. Also, it is possible to serve in the IRR (for which you get retirement points, but not enough for a "good year" that counts towards retirement). You can, however, gain enough points for a good year in the IRR through "participation." You can participate in Summer Camps, and/or drills with a local unit, and build those points. At least that was true in my day (1962 - 1984).

I apologize for saying he went straight to his reserve unit. I made the statement based on other reports that he had only been a reservist. If he was active duty at a regular unit, he was not just a reservist, especially if it was for over two years.

G26ster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:47 pmEveryone who enlists in any service has an 8 year obligation. Depending on the branch, either 2,3,4 years active duty, and the remainder of the 8 years IRR (Individual Ready Reserve), unless you voluntarily join a Reserve unit. So yeah, once he was discharged, he had 4 years left in the Reserve unless his discharge was less than honorable.

Just for technical and historical accuracy, at the time of his and my enlistments, the commitment was just six years. It was increased to 8 years either in the late 90s or early 2000s. But you could always enlist straight in the reserves and only do your active duty for training and then go to a reserve unit. This is what Phillips did.

A person who served an enlistment on active duty and then did his time in the IRR is rarely called a reservist. It would be true, but their active service generally is recognized and the IRR is ignored.

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:54 pmCatholic diocese apologizes for students behavior, will investigate may be expelled.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ca ... ns-n960626

I have to admit that I particularly liked this quote from the article:

Rep. Debra Haaland, D-N.M., who with Sharice Davids, D-Kan., became the first Native American women elected to Congress, said the video and the growing intolerance made her "really sad."

If they are saying these are the first two women who are Native American (a misnomer I detest but calling them the technically correct term of aborigine brings up images of Australia) then doesn't mean that even the media is admitting that Warren was lying about her heritage? Congress includes the Senate, though i know the media tends to forget that.