{"id":29913,"date":"2012-05-12T06:44:04","date_gmt":"2012-05-12T10:44:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=29913"},"modified":"2012-05-13T11:18:51","modified_gmt":"2012-05-13T15:18:51","slug":"another-look-at-geoff-millard-and-his-papers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=29913","title":{"rendered":"Another Look at Geoff Millard and His “Papers”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Remember that amazing young studly National Guard Soldier Geoff Millard<\/a> of IVAV fame? \u00a0That sterling young former National Guard super-trooper claiming 3 MSMs(!), an ARCOM, 3 AAMs, and a load of other decorations – all earned\u00a0in less than 8 years of service!\u00a0 Who was also later photographed wearing an unauthorized CIB?\u00a0 And who was the President of IVAV’s DC Chapter?\u00a0 Remember him?<\/p>\n

Jonn previously posted the highly suspect “DD214” Millard sent in order to “validate” his claims regarding his military service.\u00a0 Jonn has also pointed out a serious issue with Millard’s alleged “DD214” (I’m intentionally using quotation marks here) that calls the validity of the document into question – e.g., the document lists campaign and expeditionary medals, along with time in “Kuwait\/Iraq” (more about that later), but lists no foreign service time.\u00a0 Jonn also showed that, in 2008, a FOIA regarding Millard didn’t match Millard’s “DD214” (it wasn’t even close).<\/p>\n

However, Millard can always claim that that the lack of foreign service was simply an oversight or error on the part of the clerk preparing the document, and that the mismatch was because NPRC didn’t yet have all of his records.\u00a0 So I decided to take a hard look at the rest of Millard’s purported “DD214” to see if there were other parts of Millard’s “DD214” that were similarly problematic.<\/p>\n

From Jonn’s original article, here’s Millard’s purported “DD214”:
\n
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

Short answer:\u00a0 there damn sure are other things on this “DD214” that are . . . very interesting.<\/p>\n

Long answer follows.\u00a0 Be forewarned, some of it is a bit dry and detail-oriented.\u00a0 But details sometimes are telling, and IMO here – the details are telling.<\/p>\n

Problems 1, 2, and 3:\u00a0 Photographed wearing an unauthorized CIB; “DD214” doesn’t match FOIA; No Foreign Service, but campaign and expeditionary medals?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I’m listing these 3 mainly for completeness.\u00a0 Regarding the FOIA mismatch and CIB issues:\u00a0 Jonn covered those in his original article on Millard (see the link in the first paragraph above).\u00a0 To his credit, Millard quit wearing the CIB, thus obliquely acknowledging the fact that he doesn’t qualify for one – though he tried to blame that on an “Army FUBAR” rather than being man enough to take responsibility for his own\u00a0screw-up.\u00a0 However, Millard will doubtless claim that the rest of the mismatch between this “DD214” and his FOIA results happened because his records at NPRC were incomplete in 2008.\u00a0 (I’d love to hear his explanation of the rank mismatch, though – since I understand he was discharged as an E4 vice a Sergeant.)<\/p>\n

We’ll soon see.\u00a0 It’s now been roughly 5 years since Millard’s discharge from the ARNG.\u00a0 That should be more than enough time for his complete military records to be available at NPRC.\u00a0 And there’s currently a new FOIA request about Millard pending action.<\/p>\n

Regarding the “No Foreign Service” issue, Jonn’s also covered that pretty well here<\/a>, so I won’t go into detail.\u00a0 Another admin error?\u00a0 Theoretically possible – but IMO, very doubtful.\u00a0 People preparing DD214s are usually pretty good about recording foreign service correctly when troops come back from deployment.
\n
\nProblem 4:\u00a0 Three Army Reserve Components Achieve Medals (ARCAMs)?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first serious problem I noted with Millard’s DD214 has to do with the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (ARCAM).\u00a0 For those with an active Army background, the ARCAM is essentially the US Army Reserve (USAR) and Army National Guard (ARNG) equivalent of the Good Conduct Medal.\u00a0 (One significant difference is that it may be awarded to all personnel below the rank of Brigadier General –\u00a0not just to enlisted personnel.)\u00a0 Since 28 March 1995, the ARCAM has been awarded for 3 consecutive years of satisfactory performance of reserve duties while assigned to a USAR or ARNG Troop Program Unit (TPU) or to an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) position.\u00a0 Full-time enlisted service on active duty does not<\/strong> count towards the ARCAM (USAR\/ARNG enlisted soldiers are eligible for the GCM while serving on full-time active duty instead).\u00a0 Details are found in AR 600-8-22,\u00a0 4-14 through 4-20, and at the US Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC) Awards Branch website.<\/p>\n

Millard’s “DD214” is dated 20051114 (block 12.b., Separation Date This Period). \u00a0That means the information on his “DD214” is as of no later than that date. \u00a0And this “DD214” shows (block 13) Millard as having 3 awards of the ARCAM.<\/p>\n

As noted above, the ARCAM is awarded for 3-year periods of qualifying ARNG or USAR service.\u00a0 Therefore, 3 awards of the ARCAM would require 9 years of qualifying ARNG or USAR service.\u00a0 That in turn means that Millard would need 9+ years of qualifying ARNG service as of 20051114 – the date of his “DD214” – for this entry to be legit.<\/p>\n

However, Millard’s “DD214” also gives his DOB as 19801218.\u00a0 “Uh . . . Houston, we have a problem.”<\/p>\n

Even assuming Millard enlisted in the ARNG on his 17th birthday, that’s less than 7 years 11 months before this 20051114 “DD214” was effective.\u00a0 (Millard’s FOIA results give his entry date into the ARNG as 19980514, which is barely 7 years 6 months before the “DD214” was issued; since his “DD214” omits prior inactive service – more on that later – either date is consistent with this purported “DD214”.)\u00a0 Hmmm.\u00a0 That means the maximum number of ARCAMs Millard could possibly rate as of the date this “DD214” was issued (20051114) would be 2 – and not<\/em> the 3 listed on his “DD214”.\u00a0 Looks like someone assumed Millard qualified for 3 ARCAMs as of the end of the 9 years of total service shown on his FOIA (19980514 – 20070513) and used that number of ARCAMs when preparing this “DD214”.\u00a0 Oops.\u00a0 Looks like someone misread the calendar!<\/p>\n

I also noticed Millard’s “DD214” shows him as having a GCM.\u00a0 Millard could rate a GCM if he were actually mobilized as shown on this “DD214”: it’s his first GCM and the active duty indicated on this “DD214” was active Federal service of between 1 and 3 years (AR 600-8-22, para 4-5.c).\u00a0 However, per AR 600-8-22 and additional guidance found at the USAHRC GCM page<\/a> and ARCAM page<\/a>, the same period of service can’t count for both the GCM and the ARCAM.\u00a0 When a USAR or ARNG enlisted soldier goes on long-term\u00a0active duty for pretty much any reason other than for training, that “stops the clock” for the ARCAM and “starts the clock” for the GCM.\u00a0\u00a0This includes mobilizations and voluntary active duty in support of contingency operations.\u00a0 The ARCAM clock starts restarts when the individual comes off active duty and returns to their unit in normal “part-time” USAR or ARNG status.<\/p>\n

So that means Millard damn sure doesn’t qualify for more than 2 ARCAMs total under any<\/em> circumstances.\u00a0 Per his FOIA, he has exactly 9 years total service – and seventeen+ months of that was used for his GCM and therefore can’t be counted towards an ARCAM.\u00a0 He’d need all 9 years to rate 3 ARCAMs.<\/p>\n

Looks like another “oops” by someone while reading and interpreting AR 600-8-22 and\/or another failure to check the USAHRC website.\u00a0 Or both.<\/p>\n

Problem 5:\u00a0 Armed Forces Reserve Medal (AFRM) – “SECOND AWARD”?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I also noticed a second serious problem with Millard’s “DD214”.\u00a0 There are two Armed Forces Reserve Medal (AFRM) entries on this “DD214”.\u00a0 That’s problematic for three reasons.\u00a0 First, any decoration should only be listed once on a DD214 – subsequent awards and devices are noted with the entry for the decoration, not as separate entries on the form.\u00a0 Second, the two entries are inconsistent.\u00a0 And third – the first AFRM entry (in block 13) is, well, jacked up.\u00a0 Multiple qualifications for the AFRM are no longer<\/em> listed on a DD214 as “(2ND AWARD)”, “(3RD AWARD)”, etc . . . .\u00a0 All awards of the AFRM – even the first – are now shown by specifying a device; subsequent awards now merely add additional devices. The second AFRM entry (“ARMED FORCES RESERVE MEDAL W\/M DEVICE”) in block 18 is done correctly.<\/p>\n

Like the ARCAM, the AFRM is a Reserve-specific beast.\u00a0 A USAR or ARNG soldier can become eligible for the AFRM two different ways. The first way is as the result of the individual achieving 10 years of reserve service qualifying for reserve retirement within a 12 year “window” (longevity).\u00a0 When awarded for longevity, the AFRM is awarded with an hourglass device.\u00a0 A bronze hourglass is used for the 1st 10-year period, a silver for the 2nd, a gold for the 3rd, and the 4th (very rare) is recognized by both the gold and bronze hourglass devices.<\/p>\n

Alternately, the AFRM may be awarded for either involuntary mobilization or voluntary active duty\u00a0 in support of a designated contingency.\u00a0 AFRMs awarded based on mobilization or voluntary active duty are awarded with the M device.\u00a0 Multiple mobilizations or periods of voluntary active duty to support the same contingency get a single M device; all mobilizations since 9\/11 to support GWOT count as support for a single contingency.\u00a0 Mobilizations to support two or more different contingencies (e.g., first for Bosnia and then later for Iraq) are recognized by the use of numerals to the right of the M device.\u00a0 If an individual has received the AFRM due to both longevity service and mobilization(s), they will have one or more hourglass devices and the M device (plus a numeral, if they have served in support of multiple designated contingency operations).\u00a0 Details are found in AR 600-8-22, para 5-8.<\/p>\n

Yeah, the rules for the AFRM and its devices are fairly convoluted and confusing.\u00a0 It’s probably the ribbon\/medal that’s most often jacked up on a USAR or ARNG soldier’s uniform. I’ve seen fairly senior people get it wrong.<\/p>\n

Having said all of that, let’s look at Millard and his eligibility for the AFRM.\u00a0 Based on what he’s claimed, Millard at best qualifies for one award of the AFRM – and he only qualifies if he was actually mobilized. \u00a0The block 13 AFRM entry on his “DD214” is completely jacked-up and thus appears to be bogus.\u00a0 If Millard actually was mobilized for GWOT service as he claims, the second entry for the AFRM on his “DD214” would be correct for an ARNG or USAR soldier with less than 10 years of qualifying service and a single mobilization.\u00a0 And in any case, there should not<\/strong> be two entries for the AFRM on his “DD214”.\u00a0 Looks like yet another obvious “oops” in checking the regulation by whoever ginned up the document, plus a second “oops” in not catching the duplicate entries.<\/p>\n

Problem 6:\u00a0 Both the ICM and GWOTEM for the same tour in Iraq?\u00a0 Really?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Millard’s “DD214” claims he qualified for both the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (GWOTEM) and the Iraq Campaign Medal (ICM) on a single deployment to Iraq in 2004-2005 (block 18).\u00a0 This claim is highly suspect and is the third major problem with his “DD214”.<\/p>\n

The general rule for an OCONUS deployment in support of contingency operations is “1 tour, 1 campaign or expeditionary medal”.\u00a0\u00a0 Yes, exceptions to this rule exist – but absent substantial additional documentation, it appears highly unlikely that Millard meets one of those exceptions.<\/p>\n

Millard’s tour straddles the 28 Feb 2005 implementation date for the ICM.\u00a0 Prior to that date, only the GWOTEM was authorized for those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan; on that date, the Army implemented the ICM and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal (ACM).\u00a0 Per AR 600-8-22, 11 Dec 2006, para 2-17.c, if a soldier was qualified for the GWOTEM based on service in Iraq before implementation of the ICM, the soldier has the choice of which medal to wear (GWOTEM or ICM) – but it’s one or the other, not both<\/em>.\u00a0 A soldier doesn’t<\/strong> get both the GWOTEM and ICM merely because his\/her tour happened to include the date the ICM was implemented with 30+ days on either side – as was the case for Millard’s tour in Iraq.\u00a0 It’s still an “either\/or” situation.<\/p>\n

And if Millard is claiming the GWOTEM for initial reception\/staging time in Kuwait prior to moving forward to Iraq – well, that’s also a NO GO.\u00a0 Time spent in Kuwait during reception\/staging does not<\/strong> count as qualifying service for the GWOTEM if the unit afterwards moved north into Iraq.\u00a0 Millard would have to have been on orders directing him to perform official duties in Kuwait (e.g., as part of the advance party preparing for arrival of main body of the 42nd ID) for that time in Kuwait to count for the GWOTEM. See the USAHRC GWOTSM and GWOTEM FAQ<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While it is possible for an individual to qualify for both the GWOTEM and a campaign medal on a single tour, that’s not very common.\u00a0 Qualifying for both the ICM and GWOTEM would require the individual to meet one of four conditions: (a) service for 30+ consecutive days in both countries (Kuwait and Iraq), with relocation due to unit move or individual TCS associated with a change in mission\/duties vice routine completion of reception\/staging in Kuwait<\/em>; (b) 60 days nonconsecutive service in both countries due to official duties (e.g., repeated TDY or mission trips to both areas, none of which were 30+ days in duration); (c) 30+ days consecutive service in one country plus 60 days nonconsecutive service in the other while performing official duties; or (d) award of the CAB for action occurring while in Iraq on official business while otherwise serving primarily in Kuwait.<\/p>\n

I don’t see a CAB on either Millard’s DD214 or his FOIA results, so (d) can be ruled out.\u00a0 Since the 42nd ID deployed to Iraq in 2004-2005, presumably (a) can also be ruled out (reception\/staging in Kuwait prior to moving north does not<\/strong> qualify a soldier for the GWOTEM under those conditions).\u00a0 Millard presumably wasn’t part of an element that “bounced” between Iraq and Kuwait every 10 days or so on official business, and he claims to have deployed to “Kuwait\/Iraq” vice having been based\u00a0elsewhere and performing repeated trips to both countries – so that effectively eliminates (b) as a possibility.\u00a0 Finally, the dates of service in Kuwait\/Iraq on his “DD214” total just less than one year, so Millard being a part of the 42nd ID advance party doesn’t seem make sense (he’d presumably have been sent early in that case and would thus have been in-theater somewhat longer than 1 year).\u00a0 And the 42nd ID deployed to a part of Iraq well north of Baghdad – so unless Millard can document extensive TCS or TDY to Kuwait while deployed to Iraq, those two facts pretty much say we can also strike (c).\u00a0 I just can’t see how the youngster managed to legitimately qualify for both medals.<\/p>\n

Bottom line:\u00a0 I seriously doubt Millard is legitimately qualified for both the ICM and GWOTEM. If he deployed with the 42nd ID to Iraq, he rates one or the other – but almost certainly not both.\u00a0 I think whoever ginned up his “DD214” either misinterpreted the regulation and\/or didn’t bother to consult the USAHRC FAQ on the subject.\u00a0 I’ll personally have to see a helluva lot more in the way of documentation before I’ll buy Millard’s claim of being legitimately qualified for both the ICM and the GWOTEM for his tour in Iraq in 2004-2005.<\/p>\n

Problem 7:\u00a0 “Overseas Training Ribbon?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

The “ARMY RESERVE COMPONENTS OVERSEAS TRAINING RIBBON” (ARCOTR) entry in Millard’s “DD214” (split between blocks 13 and 18) is also suspect.\u00a0 Per AR 600-8-22, The ARCOTR is awarded “for successful completion of annual training (AT) or active duty for training (ADT) for a period not less than 10 consecutive duty days on foreign soil.”\u00a0 The key here is the individual’s status while training overseas – to qualify, the overseas training must<\/em> be either (1) Annual Training or (2) while serving on active duty\u00a0 under ADT orders<\/em>.\u00a0 Mobilization is not USAR or ARNG Annual Training.\u00a0 Mobilization also is not ADT – it’s a different status (contingency\/operational support) and also does not qualify soldiers for the ARCOTR.<\/p>\n

I know that elements of the 42nd ID have trained in Canada at times in the past, so it’s actually possible this one is legit.\u00a0 The key question is whether or not Millard ever personally participated in an out-of-country ARNG Annual Training or while serving on ADT orders for the requisite 10+ consecutive days<\/em>.\u00a0 If he never did so, then this entry is also bogus – because any training performed while staged in Kuwait prior to moving to Iraq during his mobilization doesn’t count for the ARCOTR.\u00a0 Another instance of misreading the regulation, maybe?<\/p>\n

Problem 8:\u00a0 No Prior Inactive Service?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I also wonder about that “0000 00 00” entry for “Prior Inactive Service”\u00a0 (block 12.e) of Millard’s “DD214”.\u00a0 I’ve seen several legitimate USAR DD214s, and all of them show TPU\/IMA\/IRR time while not serving on active duty as Prior Inactive Service.\u00a0 Of course, all of these DD214s were from the\u00a0 USAR – and it’s possible the ARNG handles this entry on a DD214 differently.\u00a0 I’d appreciate feedback from any of our readers who have an ARNG background concerning this point.<\/p>\n

Problem 9:\u00a0 Humanitarian Service Medal?\u00a0 Huh?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, this photo from Jonn’s original article on Geoffrey-boy shows our “studly” young Millard sporting the Humanitarian Service Medal. (Bottom row, 2nd from the wearer’s left – the ugly thing with what looks to be an outstretched palm waiting to be “greased”.\u00a0 Sheesh, that’s one incredibly lame design for a military medal!)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Millard’s “DD214” doesn’t seem to list him as having received that particular medal; neither does his 2008 FOIA results.\u00a0 Wassup wit dat, Geoffrey?\u00a0 Is that another “oops”?\u00a0 What precisely did you do – and when did you do it – to “earn” that Humanitarian Service Medal you were photographed wearing?\u00a0 Did someone forget to add that one to your “DD214”?<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yeah, I’d say that Millard’s “DD214” looks to be a reasonably well-executed fake done by someone who did a poor job reading and interpreting AR 600-8-22 and amplifying USAHRC guidance.\u00a0 The ARCAM entry alone convinces me something’s fishy; it’s plain impossible to serve the requisite 9 years for those 3 ARCAMs during a period of time that’s less than 8 years long – especially since more than 1 year 5 months of that time can’t be used for ARCAM eligibility.\u00a0 A DD214 today also doesn’t show a “2nd award” of the AFRM; it’s always awarded with one or more devices, and subsequent qualifying periods or mobilizations after the first are now recognized with devices, not listed as “Nth Award”.\u00a0 (The same medal isn’t listed twice on a DD214, either.) \u00a0And while it’s theoretically possible, seeing both the ICM and GWOTEM for a single tour in Iraq on Millard’s “DD214” is also highly suspect and IMO appears bogus given the circumstances of Millard’s deployment to Iraq during 2004-5.\u00a0 If he indeed deployed with the 42nd ID to Iraq, under Army policy he qualifies for one or the other – but almost certainly not both<\/em>.\u00a0 The lack of any entry for prior inactive service and the ARCOTR entry on Millard’s “DD214” likewise raise questions.\u00a0 And finally, there’s no HSM listed on his “DD214” or his 2008 FOIA results – but just like his phantom CIB, Millard’s been photographed wearing one anyway.<\/p>\n

Oh, and don’t forget the issues Jonn noted previously\u00a0–\u00a0the rank (and many other things) Millard’s claiming doesn’t match his FOIA results, plus his “DD214” lists campaign and expeditionary medals with no foreign service time listed.\u00a0 (Getting a campaign or expeditionary medal with zero days of foreign service is really difficult to pull off.)\u00a0\u00a0 And Millard’s already owned up to blowing it out his 4th point of contact regarding having a CIB.<\/p>\n

This “DD214” seems to have way too many problems to be legit, Geoffrey my boy.\u00a0 I might buy one or two admin errors – but\u00a0content-wise this one\u00a0is just about as f-ed up as a football bat.\u00a0 So it gets a big NO-GO.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Remember that amazing young studly National Guard Soldier Geoff Millard of IVAV fame? \u00a0That sterling young … Another Look at Geoff Millard and His “Papers”<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-phony-soldiers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=29913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=29913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=29913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=29913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}