This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the source for any of this information? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? -- Vidkun 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Gave the sources today to quell the claims of original research. - Husnock 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think calling a phone number and having a conversation about a government publication is not too much to ask to veriofy a source. 314-801-0800 is the Customer Service line to the Military Personnel Records Center which published the instructions. Just becuase these instructions are not published on the internet doesnt mean they are not valid. - Husnock 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The Case Reference Guide of the National Personnel Records Center is a valid published instruction. It is published by archivists of the National Archives and Records Administration and is, itself, based on memos promulgated by the Office of the Archivist of the United States. You can write to 9700 Page Avenue, Overland, MO 63132 and ask any question you want about the instruction or call the number listed above to veriofy its existence and validity. In addition, the information in this article is also based on information contained in military service records which are primary sources. Why are we even talking about this? Is someone saying this article is not true or contains incorrect information? I think its pretty well sources and accurate. - Husnock 13:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am actually on a military deployment for the next year or so so cannot research this article. I check Wiki from time and time and found it surprising that this article was being challenged for a source. I may, however, create an article on the Case Reference Guide to show that it does in fact exist and is a valid publication published by a major United States agency (mainly the National Archives and Records Administration.- Husnock 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In 1994 and 1995, the Army was still using the different terms, at least for the Oath of Office for commissioned officers. I took one oath, and RA officers took another . . . I do not remember which was which, but the only difference was "having been appointed a second lieutenant in the army of the united states," vs "having been appointed a second lieutenant in the united states army." Non-RA officers who were augmented to RA, were re-sworn in with the "other" oath. -- Vidkun 20:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
on the DA 71, it shows three check blocks, both on the current version, and the one I used: Regular Army (branch when so appointed); Army of the United States, without component; Reserve Commissioned Officer . . . of course, back in the day, there were three types of commission: RA, Active Duty (which was really a reservist, on active duty for minimum of 6 years), and Reserve Officer . . .
This has been an education for me, Husnock, and if you get more info (you would have better access where you work), please pass it on. -- Vidkun 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Husnock, or anyone else, can we get a citation for this bit: This is most common in the case of those holding the ranks of either Lieutenant General or General, since these ranks are considered held for the duration of an assignment with the highest Regular Army rank being that of Major General. I have heard this to be true, in anecdotal comments, but nothing verifiable.-- Vidkun 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
(b) An officer who is appointed to the grade of general, admiral, lieutenant general, or vice admiral for service in a position designated under subsection (a) or by law to carry that grade shall continue to hold that grade—(1) while serving in that position; (2) while under orders transferring him to another position designated under subsection (a) or by law to carry one of those grades, beginning on the day his assignment to the first position is terminated and ending on the day before the day on which he assumes the second position; (3) while hospitalized, beginning on the day of the hospitalization and ending on the day he is discharged from the hospital, but not for more than 180 days; and (4) while awaiting retirement, beginning on the day he is relieved from the position designated under subsection (a) or by law to carry one of those grades and ending on the day before his retirement, but not for more than 60 days.
(c) Officers in O-9 and O-10 Grades. - (1) An officer who is serving in or has served in the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral may be retired in that grade under subsection (a) only after the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing to the President and Congress that the officer served on active duty satisfactorily in that grade. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/ii/chapters/69/sections/section_1370.html -- Vidkun 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Army Reserve and National Guard of the United States have never been incorporated into the Army of the United States and have always been seen as separate components."
This is most common in the case of those holding the ranks of either lieutenant general or general, since these ranks are considered held for the duration of an assignment with the highest Regular Army rank being that of major general.
AR 25-50 (Preparing and Managing Correspondence), dated 17 May 2013, states, in part:
6–6. Retired military personnel Retired military should follow the same rules as active personnel, except that no organization or branch of the Army will be shown. Show retired status after the grade as follows:
-- Vidkun ( talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I earlier redirected this old User:OberRanks article to United States Army. It was restored without any comment or explanation by User:Hawkeye7 [2]. I'm going to revert this if I don't hear some very good argument against it. This being an article written by OberRanks, not a single word of it can be trusted. There is, literally, not a single actual reference supporting the basic premise that the "Army of the United States" is or was somehow a distinct entity, separate from the United States Army and the "Regular Army". The only properly sourced statement in the article is the one saying that it isn't ("is also the legal name of the collective land forces of the United States, as prescribed by the United States Constitution"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the source for any of this information? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? -- Vidkun 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Gave the sources today to quell the claims of original research. - Husnock 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think calling a phone number and having a conversation about a government publication is not too much to ask to veriofy a source. 314-801-0800 is the Customer Service line to the Military Personnel Records Center which published the instructions. Just becuase these instructions are not published on the internet doesnt mean they are not valid. - Husnock 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The Case Reference Guide of the National Personnel Records Center is a valid published instruction. It is published by archivists of the National Archives and Records Administration and is, itself, based on memos promulgated by the Office of the Archivist of the United States. You can write to 9700 Page Avenue, Overland, MO 63132 and ask any question you want about the instruction or call the number listed above to veriofy its existence and validity. In addition, the information in this article is also based on information contained in military service records which are primary sources. Why are we even talking about this? Is someone saying this article is not true or contains incorrect information? I think its pretty well sources and accurate. - Husnock 13:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am actually on a military deployment for the next year or so so cannot research this article. I check Wiki from time and time and found it surprising that this article was being challenged for a source. I may, however, create an article on the Case Reference Guide to show that it does in fact exist and is a valid publication published by a major United States agency (mainly the National Archives and Records Administration.- Husnock 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In 1994 and 1995, the Army was still using the different terms, at least for the Oath of Office for commissioned officers. I took one oath, and RA officers took another . . . I do not remember which was which, but the only difference was "having been appointed a second lieutenant in the army of the united states," vs "having been appointed a second lieutenant in the united states army." Non-RA officers who were augmented to RA, were re-sworn in with the "other" oath. -- Vidkun 20:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
on the DA 71, it shows three check blocks, both on the current version, and the one I used: Regular Army (branch when so appointed); Army of the United States, without component; Reserve Commissioned Officer . . . of course, back in the day, there were three types of commission: RA, Active Duty (which was really a reservist, on active duty for minimum of 6 years), and Reserve Officer . . .
This has been an education for me, Husnock, and if you get more info (you would have better access where you work), please pass it on. -- Vidkun 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Husnock, or anyone else, can we get a citation for this bit: This is most common in the case of those holding the ranks of either Lieutenant General or General, since these ranks are considered held for the duration of an assignment with the highest Regular Army rank being that of Major General. I have heard this to be true, in anecdotal comments, but nothing verifiable.-- Vidkun 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
(b) An officer who is appointed to the grade of general, admiral, lieutenant general, or vice admiral for service in a position designated under subsection (a) or by law to carry that grade shall continue to hold that grade—(1) while serving in that position; (2) while under orders transferring him to another position designated under subsection (a) or by law to carry one of those grades, beginning on the day his assignment to the first position is terminated and ending on the day before the day on which he assumes the second position; (3) while hospitalized, beginning on the day of the hospitalization and ending on the day he is discharged from the hospital, but not for more than 180 days; and (4) while awaiting retirement, beginning on the day he is relieved from the position designated under subsection (a) or by law to carry one of those grades and ending on the day before his retirement, but not for more than 60 days.
(c) Officers in O-9 and O-10 Grades. - (1) An officer who is serving in or has served in the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral may be retired in that grade under subsection (a) only after the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing to the President and Congress that the officer served on active duty satisfactorily in that grade. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/ii/chapters/69/sections/section_1370.html -- Vidkun 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Army Reserve and National Guard of the United States have never been incorporated into the Army of the United States and have always been seen as separate components."
This is most common in the case of those holding the ranks of either lieutenant general or general, since these ranks are considered held for the duration of an assignment with the highest Regular Army rank being that of major general.
AR 25-50 (Preparing and Managing Correspondence), dated 17 May 2013, states, in part:
6–6. Retired military personnel Retired military should follow the same rules as active personnel, except that no organization or branch of the Army will be shown. Show retired status after the grade as follows:
-- Vidkun ( talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I earlier redirected this old User:OberRanks article to United States Army. It was restored without any comment or explanation by User:Hawkeye7 [2]. I'm going to revert this if I don't hear some very good argument against it. This being an article written by OberRanks, not a single word of it can be trusted. There is, literally, not a single actual reference supporting the basic premise that the "Army of the United States" is or was somehow a distinct entity, separate from the United States Army and the "Regular Army". The only properly sourced statement in the article is the one saying that it isn't ("is also the legal name of the collective land forces of the United States, as prescribed by the United States Constitution"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)