The Stamp on the Military ID card

[Chris Newton]

Something to chew on.

I suggest comparing this card:

 

To the actual 1173 regs.:

 

 

next page:

 

next page:

The "REYES" ID  above is actually filled out entirely correct. (and yes, it is laminated). This card Expired in Aug. 59.

 

 

Note section 68.5  Where is Oswalds DD Form 1172?

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Chris Newton
forgot page 1 regs

[Tom Hume]

On Sunday, Chris wrote: “...I question why ... LT. J.G. Ayers was identified as a “1st Lt.” when he was in reality a Lt. “J.G. ie “junior grade”.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98552#relPageId=4&tab=page

Edit: Oops! 

On Monday, Sandy made this guess about the penmanship in 1st Sgt Stout’s name entry:

“[signed by P (?) Stout 1st Sgt]”

It looks more like “B I Stout 1st Sgt” to me. What do you think?

Question: Supposedly, Oswald would have surrendered his active duty ID card during out processing. Do we by any chance know his active duty E-2 card number?

Tom

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Tom Hume

[Chris Newton]

7 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

On Sunday, Chris wrote: “...I question why ... LT. J.G. Ayers was identified as a “1st Lt.” when he was in reality a Lt. “J.G. ie “junior grade”.

Actually I might have been wrong about this. Somewhere I saw the "LT. JG." and that stuck with me, but "1st Lt." could be correct.  There are some subtle differences between the Army, Navy and Marines "rank" names. An example is that Oswald was discharged as a PFC (E-2). In the Army, an E-2 is a Private and a PFC is an E-3.

[Chris Newton]

7 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Question: Supposedly, Oswald would have surrendered his active duty ID card during out processing. Do we by any chance know his active duty E-2 card number?

I've been looking for that but haven't found it. It's one of the last things he would have surrendered and having done so, his separation orders would have been substituted as temporary authorization to even be on the EL Toro Facility.

I was trying to make the point earlier that his standard green ID would have been in his wallet while he was submitting the fake DD Form 1173 as an ID on his passport application. Without the Active Duty ID (DD Form 2 (green)) he would not have been permitted re-entry to El Toro (or it would have at least been a major hassle).

Edited September 6, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Something to chew on.

I suggest comparing this card:

 

To the actual 1173 regs.:

 

 

next page:

 

next page:

The "REYES" ID  above is actually filled out entirely correct. (and yes, it is laminated). This card Expired in Aug. 59.

Note section 68.5  Where is Oswalds DD Form 1172?

Regulation 68.5 has this:  "Note:  [Application] Form filed as part of original document." What would be the "original document?"

 

Some things I noticed:

1. The regulations don't specify how most fields are to be filled out. (See 68.3 (i)) Most are "self -explanatory" fields with no specification at all. The regulation may not be precisely followed  even on "regulated" fields. For example, the regulation for field 3 on the Reyes card (field 4 in the book) states that  for Reyes, the character M shall be typed to signify her as "Mother." But on the card it is "(M)."
   
   Question: Is the person in charge given latitude on the format of items in the fields? If not, then every person in charge would have to know to include the
   parentheses. And to type the "(M)" after the name, not before. And precisely how to type all the "self-explanatory" fields.
    
2. A member of the military can be issued the card if the Secretary of the Service involved considers the issuance to be in the Service's interest. (See 68.2 (e))
    
3. For some reason, the Regulation does not specify the designation to be used for a person of Inactive status. (See 68.4 Item 11)  I assume that is an accidental omission.
    
4. The thickness or type/brand of lamination is not specified.
   
   Comment: I agree that the Reyes ID card is laminated. But the lamination is thin. Thin enough that the plastic can be bunched up by rubbing it hard and can curl if the adhesive is released. It is not a thick lamination like what I have on my drivers license and other ID cards.

 

[Chris Newton]

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

For some reason, the Regulation does not specify the designation to be used for a person of Inactive status. (See 68.4 Item 11)  I assume that is an accidental omission.

Precisely.... because someone on Inactive Status has NO privileges and would not get this card. It's not an "accidental"  omission.

note: 68.2 (e) last sentence actually directs you to the correct ID for both RESERVE and INACTIVE Servicemembers (it's DD form 2 described in section 67 which is viewable, in part, on the first page I posted).

Edited September 7, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Chris Newton]

On 9/4/2017 at 6:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

He received the passport on the 11th

Hey Sandy,

We know the passport was "issued" to Oswald "routinely" by the passport Agency on Sept. 10.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135&search=passport_and+santa#relPageId=272&tab=page

I cannot find any instructions that would return this newly issued passport to the County Clerk's Office, in fact, I can find no account of how Oswald actually obtained the new passport.

Did he pick it up, in person before he left for Texas and New Orleans? If so, where? Was it sent to his Mother's address?

It probably could not have been sent to MCAS, El Toro since it was illegal for an Active Duty Servicemember to apply for a US passport.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

For some reason, the Regulation does not specify the designation to be used for a person of Inactive status. (See 68.4 Item 11)  I assume that is an accidental omission.

Precisely.... because someone on Inactive Status has NO privileges and would not get this card. It's not an "accidental"  omission.

Oh right. I got confused because the card isn't supposed to be issued to military members, and yet 68.4 Item 11 lists "Active" as one of the options.

But now I see that that can happen if the Secretary of the Service approves it on an individual basis. (If I understand the regulation correctly.)  (Apparently the Secretary can approve the issuance to an Active serviceman but not to an Inactive one. I guess.)

Did you notice in 68.1 that the card is "for issue to dependents of Members of the Uniformed Services, .... and for such purposes  as may be determined." Who knows who that last clause might pertain to. But I couldn't see in the list of eligible people anything about civilian contractors. Unless "civilians accompanying .... the Uniformed Services" applies to them.

How the heck does one accompany the Uniformed Services? What does that mean?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

note: 68.2 (e) last sentence actually directs you to the correct ID for both RESERVE and INACTIVE Servicemembers (it's DD form 2 described in section 67 which is viewable, in part, on the first page I posted)

And also  ACTIVE. Which added to my confusion. (Because 68.4 Item 11 lists "Active" as one of the options, but not "Inactive.")

 

[Chris Newton]

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And also  ACTIVE. Which added to my confusion. (Because 68.4 Item 11 lists "Active" as one of the options, but not "Inactive.")

...keeping in mind the primary purpose of the card which is to allow dependents of Active Duty Military to gain access to a military facility so that they can shop at the PX and access military health facilities, there are some exceptions which are listed. None of those exceptions are known to apply to Oswald.

The sponsor of the person holding the card is the Active Duty, Deceased or Retired person that is/was the Servicemember. The dependents of inactive and reserve servicemembers are not eligible for the privileges awarded by this card so there is no "inactive" or "reserve" sponsor status.

By definition a reserve or inactive Servicemember who is recalled for active duty, is then in "Active Duty" status and would be re-issued a green DD form 2. The card I posted earlier was an Active National Guard ID yet it was still "red", the National Guard is in essence a state militia until federalized for whatever time is necessary to complete a needed mission.

When I was in Germany, Civilian contractors would be issued these cards (DD 1173) so that they could gain access to my Kasserne while they were performing whatever job/task the Army had awarded to them. If those Civilian contractors were to go on vacation or had a work stoppage of some sort, the ID's would be collected from them until they returned to finish their contract. The reason was to prevent them from accessing and enjoying the benefits of any other facilities while on "holiday".

Also keep in mind that there were usually huge benefits to shopping at an American PX - cheap American cigarettes, cheaper alcohol and gasoline, foods that were frequently unavailable or in short supply in the host country. So cheap that in Germany we had a ration card with a monthly allotment for specific items that were frequent targets of the local black market. (Cigs, Coffee, fuel, & alcohol)

 

Note the sponsor on the REYES card "USA  AD"... United States Army   Active Duty

Edited September 7, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

Hey Sandy,

We know the passport was "issued" to Oswald "routinely" by the passport Agency on Sept. 10.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135&search=passport_and+santa#relPageId=272&tab=page

I cannot find any instructions that would return this newly issued passport to the County Clerk's Office, in fact, I can find no account of how Oswald actually obtained the new passport.

Did he pick it up, in person before he left for Texas and New Orleans? If so, where? Was it sent to his Mother's address?

It probably could not have been sent to MCAS, El Toro since it was illegal for an Active Duty Servicemember to apply for a US passport.

Chris,

Hey I think you've been working too hard. (Speaking of which, how did you get those 1960s regulations?!!) The mailing address is right there on the first page of the application. 

For some reason I made a note to myself that Oswald received the passport on the 11th. I don't know what gave me that idea, and so I don't know if I should take it seriously or not. But if I ignore that, it looks like he wouldn't have gotten the passport till he visited his mother upon returning to Fort Worth. Her address (as it is written on the application) was 3124 West 5th Street, Fort Worth.

Here's the passport application:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwib_vGJjZLWAhVnjFQKHdtFDjUQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history-matters.com%2Farchive%2Fjfk%2Fwc%2Fwcvols%2Fwh22%2Fpdf%2FWH22_CE_1114.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE3SIXIZARS2DvdIS8cZUgYFV3kHA

 

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

...keeping in mind the primary purpose of the card which is to allow dependents of Active Duty Military to gain access to a military facility so that they can shop at the PX and access military health facilities, there are some exceptions which are listed. None of those exceptions are known to apply to Oswald.

The sponsor of the person holding the card is the Active Duty, Deceased or Retired person that is/was the Servicemember. The dependents of inactive and reserve servicemembers are not eligible for the privileges awarded by this card so there is no "inactive" or "reserve" sponsor status.

By definition a reserve or inactive Servicemember who is recalled for active duty, is then in "Active Duty" status and would be re-issued a green DD form 2. The card I posted earlier was an Active National Guard ID yet it was still "red", the National Guard is in essence a state militia until federalized for whatever time is necessary to complete a needed mission.

When I was in Germany, Civilian contractors would be issued these cards (DD 1173) so that they could gain access to my Kasserne while they were performing whatever job/task the Army had awarded to them. If those Civilian contractors were to go on vacation or had a work stoppage of some sort, the ID's would be collected from them until they returned to finish their contract. The reason was to prevent them from accessing and enjoying the benefits of any other facilities while on "holiday".

Also keep in mind that there were usually huge benefits to shopping at an American PX - cheap American cigarettes, cheaper alcohol and gasoline, foods that were frequently unavailable or in short supply in the host country. So cheap that in Germany we had a ration card with a monthly allotment for specific items that were frequent targets of the local black market. (Cigs, Coffee, fuel, & alcohol)

Note the sponsor on the REYES card "USA  AD"... United States Army   Active Duty

I was wondering why USA was typed there. Now I know. (I thought it meant United States of America.)

Anyway I now see the source of my confusion. When studying Field 10 on the card (Field 11 in the book), I was thinking "Status of Bearer." But of course it is "Status of Sponsor." So of course "Active" is one of the options, but not "Inactive." Whew!

 

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey I think you've been working too hard. (Speaking of which, how did you get those 1960s regulations?!!) The mailing address is right there on the first page of the application.

Yes. I have way to many things on "my plate". I saw that address but thought you might have found something I didn't.

I was perusing Dr. John Newman's site and documents and I found an interesting item. Apparently CIA Officer Anne Egerter created a "false" biography for Oswald...

https://jfkjmn.com/new-page-79

...one item, aside from the things that Dr. Newman pointed out in the paragraph below this document, that jumped out at me, was the purported date of 03 SEP 59 for Oswald's discharge. This is the day before he applied for the passport and a day before the "false DD 1173" was dated. Where did she get that date from?

If I could speculate: Oswald is secretly discharged on 03 SEP 59 and becomes part of some ONI/CIA related intelligence effort/operation. During his remaining days at El Toro  he gives the illusion of a Marine waiting his discharge while assigned to HS & H, MCAS but in reality is working and getting instructions with a "handler" (1st Sgt. B. Stout?) to prepare for his trip to Europe.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Chris Newton
puntuation

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:21 PM, Chris Newton said:

If I could speculate: Oswald is secretly discharged on 03 SEP 59 and becomes part of some ONI/CIA related intelligence effort/operation. During his remaining days at El Toro  he gives the illusion of a Marine waiting his discharge while assigned to HS & H, MCAS but in reality is working and getting instructions with a "handler" (1st Sgt. B. Stout?) to prepare for his trip to Europe.

That seems reasonable given Egerter's account.

If the purpose of the 1173 card was just to apply for a passport (as I believe it was), I wonder where the card went after that. I don't believe Oswald kept it. Because why would he have removed his photo and replaced it with another photo of himself... a step that would require him to camouflage the security stamp on the photo?

It seems to me that the CIA must have retained the card. And for some reason removed the photograph.

 

[Chris Newton]

On 9/5/2017 at 11:06 AM, Chris Newton said:

There is no way Oswald could have grabbed a few blank DD1173 cards!  If he
had tried he would have had one less hand.  There are usually two people
who have access to these cards, there are numbered, counted each time they
are removed from the safe, listed on a separate form by number when
issued, balanced by number and name of receiver and person issuing the
card each day.  Two people have to sign when a card is issued.  If a card
is missing at the end of the day, bells and whistles go off, and there is
an investigation.  The missing numbers are voided and all the places where
they could be used are issued a list of missing card numbers to watch for.
Any personnel involved in stealing or helping to steal these forms would
get caught and spend a lot of time in a federal lockup.  It would not be
worth taking that chance.

So on the off chance this was a bunch of horse do-do, I did what I could to research the security procedures and found a copy of the Marine Corps Personnel Manual, MARCORPERSMAN 11-14, dated 1967.

It turns out the statement above is pretty damn accurate, if not extreme enough. See below Section 9, Security and Accountability of DD forms 1173: