Tuesday, July 29, 2014


***  This article has been updated to outline the differences between the 1983/84 changes in MOS codes  as compared to the previous revamping in 1965.   I have chosen to include the multiple links that support the shared data.  It also has included a more detailed explanation of promotion, as some thought the summary not sufficient.


What is stolen valor?  Stolen valor is the disgraceful act of a person claiming a military record, medals, badges, ranking, war stories, and other military honors they did not earn.   Even though stealing valor currently is not illegal to do in most cases,  it is still the mark of a degenerate man who lacks integrity. 

The Stolen Valor act of 2005 was passed to prevent people from belittling the true soldiers' experience and claiming an honor they did not earn.  Per the Act,  the phony soldier or the corrupt serviceman could face up to one year in prison if convicted.  However,  the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States on terms of violating the right to freedom of speech.  Thus,  the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was created,  making it illegal  to gain financially from such a pathetic disposition to misappropriate honors not earned.   

The occurrence of stolen valor has grown in the electronic age, bringing forth those of poor character who lack morals and claim the honor and credentials of a military career which they have not earned.  This offensive and abhorrent deed  is often embodied in two different types of people. The first is the depraved civilian who has never enlisted but invents a military past for his own selfish gain.   The other is the soldier who embellishes his  own record by stating credentials not earned through a self-centered plan to fabricate an image of superiority over others.   I don't know who is lacking in morality more. Nonetheless,  they are both shameless despicable liars.   These people dishonor those men and women who put their lives on the line to give us our freedom.  Stealing valor is an unpardonable action of a corrupt soul.

Claiming the honor of military service not earned is a highly disrespectful act.   However, tread lightly prior to making the charge of stolen valor against another because unjustifiably stripping a military man of his honor is just as, if not more, disrespectful.   There are ways to determine fictitious honors from the genuine.  Many times a man or woman will present a DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to provide credentials as proof of service.  However,  this form is easy to forge and is often used to deceive. Research can give you the knowledge necessary to distinguish the difference between the bonafide form and the bogus form.


Airborne training occurred prior to the Special Forces Aidman medical course.  Upon completion of the Airborne course, a person was awarded their jump wings and considered to have a specialized skill. 

The skill qualification identifier "P" would have been added to their MOS once they completed Airborne if they chose to work as a parachute qualified medic. IE: 91A1P.   I am not sure why someone would chose to not work as a parachute qualified medic if they were.

If the soldier completed his Special Forces training,  the skill identifier "S" would be added to the MOS. IE: 91B1S.  However, 91B1S was rare, and usually the code was 91B2S, a Special Forces medical sergeant. 



Military Operational Specialties (MOS) are jobs in the military and are grouped according to specialty as related to their civilian counterparts within a Career Management Field (CMF).  The CMF identifies each group of specialty with a two-digit number that is usually the same number as the corresponding MOS.  However,  these numbers are only a generic code classifying job type and require additional characters to define the MOS further.


An MOS is a code made up of a series of numbers and letters based on a person's military specialty (CMF), field specialty, level of skill (Rank/ Pay grade), and a special qualification identifier (SQI).

There are several generic job classifications listed within the CMF. Prior to revamping in 1983/84,  the code used for a medic was "91."  It later changed to "68".    The first two letters of the MOS is the CMF.  91  would have been used for someone in the medical field up to 1983/84.

Wikipedia indicates that it was in 1983 when the MOS coding system was revamped:
History: 1983 Reform

However, other sources list the time as 1984.  In his 1989 paper, "The  Future of the Reserve Component (RC) Special Forces (SF) Individual Training Program. An Individual Training Program.",   Lieutenant Colonel James D. Moore, SF wrote: 

In 1984, Skill Code (SC) 18 had been developed for Officer Personnel which replaced ASI "5G" and Career Management Field (CMF) 18 Series MOSs had replaced SQI "S" for the enlisted personnel.

The full paper may be read here:
The Future of the RC SF Individual Training Program

UPDATE:  The MOS system was revamped in 1983,  and the changes went into effect in December 1983:

Even though the MOS changed in December 1983,  it was not until October 1984 that the CMF for Special Forces was added.  Until then,  anyone carrying special forces status on their DD 214 would be identified by the skill qualification indicator "S" in their MOS code.  IE: 91B2S (The "S" replaced the "O" because the person had a special qualification indicator.  A person with an "O" does not.) SQI's are discussed in more detail later.

For example ---- Anyone who enlisted in 1978 and served seven years and one month in their MOS  would have been discharged in 1985.  If they were Special Forces qualified, their MOS should have identified the 1984 changes, and the career management field (first two letters of the MOS) should have been "18."  If they only served for six years in their MOS,  they could have been discharged prior to the 1984 changes.  However, their MOS would have carried the SQI "S" to identify them as being Special Forces qualified.


The third character of a MOS code indicates what the soldier's field specialty was.    For example,  in the post-1984 system,  the CMF for the medical field switched from 91 to 67-68.  However,  there are many different types of jobs within "medical":

  • 68 T = animal care specialist 
  • 68 V = respiratory specialist
  • 68 G = patient administration specialist
  • 68 W = Health Care Specialist
  • 67 A = Health Services officer
The 68W "Health Care Specialist" replaced  the 91A "army medical corpsman."   

  • "The health care specialist provides emergency medical treatment, limited primary care, force health protection, evacuation in a variety of operational and clinical settings from point of injury or illness through the continuum of military health care and, as a field combat medic, provides emergency medical care/treatment at point of wounding on the battlefield or to battle and non-battle casualties during wartime." from: http://www.army-portal.com/jobs/medical-service/68w.htm

Per the current MOS system, 68W is the CMF for a health care specialist.  The health care specialist serves in different areas depending on his skill level.  A 69W1O  is trained at the basic level.  The pre-change counterpart was the 91A1O.  At a skill level of "1",  they lacked the training to function unsupervised.  

The medical corpsman kept the MOS of 91A until he reached the status of non-commissioned officer, or 91 B, who was considered the 'field' medic.  http://www.history.army.mil/books/vietnam/MedSpt/chpt4.htm

"Medical regulating started on the battlefield. Medical groups placed regulators (senior noncommissioned officers) in areas of troop concentration or at the site of a combat operation."

Medical aidman did assist on the battlefield at times,  but they were not considered 'field medics'  such as a NCO 91B would be.  I contacted a Stolen Valor site to discuss MOS codes.  I forwarded the DD214 included in this article.  This was the answer (name removed)

I asked the retired SF sergeant if he could provide a more detailed explanation of the clinic medic verse the field medic.  He was quite helpful and apparently knew his MOS codes.  I would expect him to know them since he was a retired SF officer who investigated Stolen Valor.

A MOS for a Special Forces Medic in 1980 was 91B2S.  And, since the MOS indicated he wasn't serving a job that required him to parachute from airplanes,  he couldn't have taken on any SF assignments.  Again, 91A10 is not a MOS for a Special Forces medic.



The fourth character of a MOS is a number which indicates the skill the soldier possesses in their field.  Skill, pay grade, and rank all were correlated.  The more skill of the soldier, the greater the rank, and the higher the pay grade. To denote skill/rank/pay grade, a number from 0- 5 is assigned:

0 - training level
E1 - E5 are based on pay grade.   Again, paygrade is related to skill. A lower pay grade indicates a lower rank and lower level of recognized skill in said position.  This method of coding per specialty is based on the theory that in order to be promoted,  one must have the skills and knowledge to perform at a higher rank.

Level 1     -  E1-E4     -Private, Private 2, Private first class, Specialist,  Corporal
Level 2    -   E5           -Sergeant
Level 3    -   E6           -Staff Sergeant
Level 4    -   E7           -Sergeant First Class
Level 5    -   E8 - 9     - Master Sergeant, First Sergeant (E8); Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major(E9)


Currently,  when a person joins the military,  they are obligated to the military for 8 years.  Military Obligation

 If the soldier signed up prior to 1984,  they were only obligated to the military for 6 years. PAGE 1, Chapter 2 

For many MOS's,  a soldier can leave active duty after only serving two years of his obligation.  If he decides to leave, he is still obligated to fulfill his remaining commitment.  He can fulfill the remaining years commitment through either joining the Army National Guard or the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR).  If the soldier decides to join the IRR,  he loses his MOS.  NO MORE TIME WILL ACCUMULATE AS TIME SERVED IN THE MOS. He will no longer receive a paycheck. However, he still would be eligible for a promotion based on time served.

If the soldier decides to join the Army National Guard/ Reserves,  he is obligated to give one weekend/month, two weeks/year of his time to the reserves. He can choose to either keep his MOS or ask to be trained in a new one. If he keeps his MOS,  TIME WILL CONTINUE TO ACCUMULATE AS TIME SERVED IN THE MOS.    A soldier will earn pay while in the Army National Guard/ Reserves.
Transition Active Duty to Reserves

Both the National Guard/ Reserves and the IRR fulfill the soldier's obligation to the army.  While he is 'serving' in either, the army may recall the soldier back to active duty should the time come.  US military specialist, Rod Powers, author of the Military Obligation link, states recall from the IRR does happen:

  "In fact, for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has already recalled over 5,000 soldiers in the IRR back to active duty (so far, the Army is the only service who has recalled IRR)."

Rod Powers is a retired Airforce first sergeant who has served 22 years active duty.  He has written various articles on all branches of the military. He is the author of ASVAB for Dummies,  a guide to assist potential soldiers with the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test. A good score on the  ASVAB improves the chances of the soldier getting their choice military specialty/ job  ASVAB

A soldier is eligible to receive promotions even if not serving on active duty. It does not matter if he joins the IRR or the National Guard/ Reserves;  he can still move up in rank from an E4 - E5.

 So, what does it take to receive a promotion in rank during active duty?

(This is a simplified explanation of the promotion in rank in the army per information on the web.  Please alert me if the information is incorrect.) PS - this statement was included on the original article.

Most MOS only extend to a particular skill level. Once that top skill level is obtained, the serviceman must choose between remaining in his current specialty or progressing to a related MOS to implement his higher skill. For example,  moving form 91A to 91B.

Promotions in the army  
RANK E1 - E4
  • Decentralized promotions (E4 and below)
    • The commander decides who gets promoted 
      • usually everyone does based on time served
    • soldier is promoted if they meet the criteria
      • competent in their job
      •  free from serious discipline
      • Minimum time requirements in the previous rank and time in service
        • E2 (private) =  6 months in the previous rank
        • E3 (Private first-class)  = 4 months in the previous rank and a total of 12 months in service
        • E4 (Specialist/ Corporal) =  6 months in the previous rank and a total of 24 months in service
    • E2-E4 can be achieved quicker, or even at time of entry, under certain conditions
      • college credits
      • JROTC
Special Forces X
  • "X" is not an MOS. It signifies a person is applying and going through the process to be accepted in SF.
    • "X" does not guarantee acceptance into the Special Forces.
      • It only gives the recruit the opportunity to see if he is Special Forces material
      • Currently, a person can apply to SF before they reach E4 status.
    • However, it was not always like that. According to US military expert, Rod Powers, a person had to reach E4 status prior to even applying
      "Until recently, the only way to join the Army Special Forces was to apply after achieving the grade of E-4"  Rod Powers, US military expert, Special Forces
      • IE: A newly enlisted man would not be able to apply for Special Forces unless he enlisted at a higher level and quickly became an E4.
    • Currently, in the special forces a person can be promoted to E4 with only 12 months service and there is no minimum time served in the previous rank requirement. 
RANK E5 - E6
  • Semi-centralized promotions
    • Army wide decision/ unit has input
    • depends on the amount of vacancies open for the rank in the MOS
      • Only so many positions allotted per rank
      • The higher the rank, the less amount of positions
    • Based on accomplishments (administration points)
      • decorations (medals, ribbons, badges, etc)
      • performance in their MOS
      • Military education
      • Civilian education
      • performance in military training
    • A promotion board
      • interviews the candidate
      • scores the candidate
      • votes on the promotion
    • If the majority of the votes are to promote,  all points are added together. If the individual qualifies,  he is placed on a recommendation for promotion list.
      • Those with the highest scores will be promoted.  The rest,  even though they qualified, will not.
  • Two "Zones" for promotion
    • Primary Zone 
      • Majority of Soldiers
      • E5 (Sergeant) = 8 months in their previous rank and 3 years enlistment time
      • E6 (Staff Sergeant) = 10 months in their previous rank and 7 years enlistment
    • Secondary Zone
      • For the exceptional soldier 
      • E5 (sergeant) = 4 months in their previous rank and 18 months enlistment time
      • E6 (Staff sergeant) = 5 months in the previous rank and 4 years enlisted time
E7, E8, E9
  • Centralized promotions
    • Army wide decisions/  unit has little to no input
    • No minimum time in the previous rank required.
    • E7 (sergeant first class) = six years enlistment time required
    • E8 (Master sergeant/ First Sergeant) = 8 years enlisted time required
    • E9 (Segeant Major) = 9 years required
    • A promotion board meets
      • does not meet with the soldier
      • reviews the military file of the applicant
    • Promotions are based on seniority.  The most senior member of those accepted for promotion will be promoted first.  The process will last over a period of 12 months with the least senior members being promoted last

To summarize: Depending on rank, the process of a promotion depends on different things: 
  • decorations (medals, ribbons, badges, etc.)
  • dates of service
  • dates of training
  • performance reports
  • records of disciplinary actions
  • duty positions
  • educational accomplishments
  • the entire military record

Average time frame of promotion per 2001 statistics:
  • Private (E-2) - 6 months
  • Private First Class (E-3) - 1 year
  • Specialist/Corporal (E-4) - 18 months
  • Sergeant (E-5) - 4.2 years
  • Staff Sergeant (E-6) - 8.5 years
  • Sergeant First Class (E-7) - 13.6 years
  • Master Sergeant/First Sergeant (E-8) - 17 years
  • Sergeant Major (E-9) - 20.8 years

The fifth character of the MOS is reserved for special qualifications. If a solider does not have any special qualifications, the character will be "O".    Prior to the 1983/4 addition of CMF 18 to identify Special Forces,  a special qualification identifier (SQI) was used to identify special forces operatives performing in a given area.  For example,  a SF medic would be identified as 91B2S. (91B1S was rare).   "S" was the SQI used to identify Special Forces.  When CMF 18 was added, there was no longer a need for the use of a SQI to identify a Special Forces operative. MOS/ SQI pre- 1983/84

Some common current SQI's

  • P = Parachutist (Parachute badge?  Airborne?)
  • O = No Special Qualifications
  • V = Ranger Parachutist
  • M = first sergeant
SQI's no longer used
  • S = Special Force

Summary and Sites
My goal was to provide a basic understanding of the MOS portion of the DD214.   In addition,  I wanted to provide basic information related to a promotion,  the time needed to reach a rank, and express the idea that skill is related to rank.  I hope the reader now understands that higher skill levels in a select MSO are often correlated with rank. Additionally,  I hope the reader is able to understand the difference between pre and post 1984 MOS coding, including the use of SQI's such as "S" to indicated Special Forces in 1983.


I forwarded a copy of a severely redacted DD 214 to a retired SF officer.  Parts of that conversation are previously noted.  The retired officer also stated
 "I can say with certainty that during the time period that served, the missing "S" on his primary MOS indicates that he was never a special forces medic."

"A second-generation Green Beret
  "Trained as a Special Forces Medic in the late seventies."

I chose to not name the officer because I did not wish him to be harassed.  However, I did list a Stolen Valor site and encouraged people to do their own investigation.  The man who claimed ownership of the posted  DD 214  contacted one of the sites.  The conversation follows.  As with the DD214, the name has been removed to maintain anonymity.

 Only part of the conversation appears to have been posted.  The context indicates there was more to the conversation than what was shared.  It appears that the folks from "This Ain't Hell" stated they could not help him, but the man wouldn't take no for an answer.  The response from the "This Ain't Hell site" is in direct response to the man's threat to sue them.  In return,  the man was threatened to be investigated.  His response:

  The people from "This Ain't Hell"  did not do what he wanted, so he went on attack and posted this:

The Website did not advise me on the content of my blog.  They only provided factual information regarding the MOS codes on the DD 214 I provided.  The SF sergeant stated, and it is true, that a MOS of 91AO1 is not the MOS of a Special Forces Medic. It is the MOS of an E1-E4 ranking clinical medic who has not achieved Special Forces standing in the "7 years and one month" spent in the MOS. It is the MOS of a clinic medic who had not progressed to a field medic status, or 91B.  It is not the MOS of a Special Forces Medic, 91B2S. 
"I am a second-generation Green Beret"

Trained as a Special Forces Medic in the late seventies.

The man has threatened to sue for defamation. 

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false 
 A true statement, no matter how harmful, is not considered defamation

The MOS on the DD 214 does not match a MOS of someone who is "A second-generation Green Beret"  or "Trained as a Special Forces Medic in the late seventies."  If it were,  the MOS would be 91B2S or 91B1P (a field medic who made it through airborne and jumps from planes).

The DD214 is missing the SQI prefixes used during the period,  "S" or "P".  And finally, as per the article written by US military Expert Ron Powers,  during that time a person could not have applied to join special forces until he reached the rank of E4.

I went down to the recruiters’ office in 1978 to see about flight school. Yeah, that’s right, flight school—not Special Forces. I was seventeen years old, and th
e recruiters were adamant I could not go to flight school due to my age and lack of college......."

The man alleged he was denied flight school so he requested entry into Special Forces.  He stated he was denied,  but was let in when a relative introduced himself to the recruiters.  According to the man, the recruiters were so impressed with meeting an SF soldier, they violated the merit system and let him apply for Special Forces. They did so even though he did not qualify (Rod Powers- prereq, E4).  Allowing someone to forgo the rules and apply for SF because a relative requested it would have been a violation of merit system principals.  Nepotism is not permitted in the military..  Merit System Principals

"Personnel management is based on and embodies the Merit System Principles. The merit system principles are the public's expectations of a system that is efficient, effective, fair, open to all, free from political interference, and staffed by honest, competent, and dedicated employees. ..............Recruit qualified individuals from all segments of society and select and advance employees on the basis of merit after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity"

Allowing a person to forgo the rules set for all because they are related to an SF officer is far from being a fair and open competition that assured equal opportunity to all.  If we are to believe that a person was allowed to stray from the regulations based on nepotism, we have to believe more than one person would be willing to violate merit system principals.  Call me naive, but I have a lot more faith in our military personnel's standards than that.


Many DD214 examples can be found via an online search.  Some online DD214's slightly differ by design.   There are DD214's all over the web, and that poses a problem; many unscrupulous people have downloaded  the forms and used them to create forgeries.   Stolen Valor sites recommend to not rely on the presence of a DD214 due to the frequency at which they are forged.

When a forged DD214 is presented to a person wise to the practice, mistakes and deception are exposed.  Often,  errors are made without the perpetrator even being aware of their mistake. However, those who run online "prevention of stolen valor" can easily point out the error.  All the information on a DD 214 can be shared, except for the birth date and SSN of the veteran.  Even though it is legal to leave the name on the DD 214, I chose to block it out.

Because of the Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA), certain portions of the military record are open to the public without authorization from the individual.

Often, the record can be obtained with only the birth date and place of birth of the soldier.  This site explains how to obtain the military record of anyone you have concerns about:

Or, you can take the following steps to take to verify a military record:

Obtain and fill out a Standard Form 180.  Here is a link to one for your use:

Include as much information as possible on the Standard form 180.  Knowing the first,  middle, last name and DOB is beneficial especially if many people do not share the same name (IE,  there may be only one person which that name born on a certain day)  There are plenty of ppl search sites that can be used to discover DOB.

Mail the form to the appropriate address listed in the instructions.

It takes about 10 days for the request to be received and processed.  After 10 days, the status of the request can be checked by using the online Status request form:

Or via telephone at:

If the person you are investigating was in the service,  the National Archives will have the information to verify enlistment.  It's a great way to determine if a person is due the honors they are claiming.

I had come across a situation in which a DD214 appeared not to support the owner's claims. After comparing the story with the claim,  Stolen Valor was suspected. The owner of the DD214 has since changed some of the evidence, but I have the preserved screen shots of the original in a file.
The Owner's claims:
  • Enlisted in 1978
  • Took a "hardship" leave from the service
  • Left in August, 1984
  • Was in the army's Special Forces in the late 70's
  • Went to Airborne training 
  • Was a Special Forces Medic
  • Graduated from a non-military college in 1985
  • His career began in 1985.
  • Presented a copy of his DD214
    • MOS = 91A210
    • spent 7 years and 1 month in the army
    • earned the Parachute badge
    • earned the EFMB,  Emergency Field Medical Badge
    • left his name and birth date on the DD214 (I removed them as noted in blue)
    • severely redacted the rest 


Many of the redacted areas of the DD214 could not be used for identity theft. Including them would be beneficial for someone who was trying to validate their statements.  There is not any need to redact them. 

  • 4A grade/ rank/ or rank
    • According to Power's article,  the rank should have been at least a E4 for someone training in the Special Forces in the 1980's.  
    • 4B Paygrade
      • Showing paygrade would also indicate rank
  • 6 Reserve Oblig term date
    • informs the solider when his obligation to be recalled was up.  
      • The minimum term was 6 years after enlisting. An obligation date  would indicate when the soldier enlisted.  If the soldier enlisted in 1978,  there would have been no obligation to fulfill after 7 years and one month
  • The training block:. 
    • The training block would have shown a person attended a SF qualification course

  • 91A1O is not the MOS of a Special Forces medic. 
    • "O" means the person holding the MOS did not have any specialized training.
      • "P" stood for Parachutist:  A person who made it through Airborne could function as a parachute trained medic, or 91B1P
      • "S" stood for "Special Forces";  IE a Special Forces medic
    • 91B2S is the MOS of a Special Forces medic.
  • 91A1O 7 years and one month
    • 7 years and one month is the entire time spent in the specialty, not necessarily the entire time enlisted.
      • The Special Forces medical training is 32 weeks. Why could the training not be completed if he had 7 years to do so?
        • A MOS for a Special Forces trained  medic is 91B2S. It is not 91A10.
        • The man was only in the army for 7 years.  There was no other MOS.
  • 91A1 - O
    • "O" means the owner of the DD214 did not have any special skills or qualifications associated with the MOS
      • If the owner was Special forces,  an "S" should have followed. 
        • An O, "no special skills", was in the slot.
      • If the owner attended airborne and had a "parachutist badge", he would have been able to function as a parachute trained medic. 
        • A "P" would be in the slot
          • An "O", no special skills, was in the spot.
  • 91A- 1
    • "1" indicates someone didn't make it past corporal in during their 7 years enlistment.
      • Corporal can be reached in 18 months
      • On average, it only takes 4.2 years, not 7, to reach the rank of Sergeant.
      • Promotions in rank can still be obtained during a 6 year minimum term even if not serving in active duty. 
      • Special Forces trained soldiers are an elite squad: The best of the best.
  • The EFMB,  Emergency Field Medical Badge.
    • Extremely hard badge to get
      • On average, a 17% pass rate
        • A recipient should be able to reach the rank of sergeant in 4.2 years 
  • Statements
    • "Took A hardship discharge from the Army"
      • In order to qualify for separation under this provision, the hardship must not be of a temporary nature; must have developed or become increasingly worse since entry on active duty; discharge or release from active duty is the only readily available means of alleviation; and the individual must have made reasonable effort to relieve the conditions through other means available and appropriate to the family circumstances." military hardship
      • "Not temporary" signifies longer than a couple of months.
        • If joined in 1978, served 7 years and 1 month in a MOS, would have had to leave the army in 1986 or later to incorporate a hardship leave
          • Stated he left in 1984 and started college in 1985
      • Re-enlisting after a hardship
        • Requires a waiver to re-enlist
      • MOS and discharge
        • Once discharged,  the time accumulation worked in a MOS stops ticking away.
    • "LEFT IN 1984"

      • Joined the Army SF in the late 1970's
        • Joined the Army in 1978
        • Rod Powers "Until recently, the only way to join the Army Special Forces was to apply after achieving the grade of E-4"
          • Time in service has to be two years before E4 is obtained.
          • Rod Powers is defined as a "US Military Expert"

    • The timeline generated using the multiple sources and statements does not seem possible.
      • The man joined the army in the fall of 1978. 
      • The man said he had no college experience prior to joining the army
      • The DD214 displays a 7-year-1-month term as a medic (earliest he could have been discharged - late fall of 1985 ).
      • Man posted that he graduated from a 4-year college in 1985.

        • The main changed the posting after being discovered:
        • he claimed that he never wrote he graduated in 1985; he stated Facebook automatically filled that in. No, the user must plug those numbers in by checking "graduated", checking "College",  and writing "1985" in the description
      • Man's job ad indicates he first went to a community college, and then obtained a degree from a four-year college.
        • It's not possible to enlist in the fall 1978, have no college, work a MOS for 7 years and one month, leave in winter 1985, go to a community college, transfer to a 4-year school, and then graduate in 1985.  
    • The man changed his college information to show a 5-year term.  The MOS on the DD 214,  but not the term, works better if:
      • The man joined the army in 1978
      • Worked in the MOS of 91A1O for two years one month
      • Discharged in 1980
      • Went to Community college for the rest of 1980
      • Went to the 4-year school from 1980-1985
      • Graduated in 1985
      • Started his career in 1986

An enlisted man discharged prior to October 1st, 1984, would have carried the skill qualification identifier (SQI) "S" at the end of his MOS to identify that he were in the Special Forces.  If the enlisted man was discharged after October 1st, 1984,  he would not have the SQI "S" attached to his MOS.  It would have been replaced by the new career management field identifier used to indicate a Special Forces trained soldier:  18.

SQI CODES: Vietnam Era MOS codes
Special Forces: Post-Vietnam

From Wikipedia:



Special Forces are an elite team. They are the best of the best and are carefully selected and trained. They are often deployed where traditional combat tactics were not sufficient. Because of their duty and importance, not every solider who desires to be in Special Forces will make the cut.   Currently,  a soldier training to be a Special Forces operant will carry the CMF code "18X" to identify he is still in the candidate status.

Male ages 20-30   ---  What was the age in 1978?  
US citizen
High School Diploma
Achieve a General Technical score of 110 or higher and a combat operation score of 98 on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.
Qualify for a secret level security clearance.
Qualify and volunteer for Airborne training -
Take Defense Language Aptitude Battery or Defense Language Proficiency Test
Achieve an overall minimum score of 229 on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

Boot Camp (basic combat training)  -   9 weeks   - Ft. Benning, Ga.
Advance Individual Training (AIT)   -   4 weeks   - Ft. Benning, Ga
Airborne Army Training                   -   3 weeks   - Ft. Benning, Ga

Special Operations Preparation course (SOPC)     - 4 weeks - Ft. Bragg, NC
Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS)  - 3 weeks - Ft. Bragg, NC
Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC)          -   34 - 76 weeks depending upon MOS speciality
Live Environment Training (LET)  - Immersion Training in foreign countires - varies in time

Depending on the specialty,  the process could take 14-16 months.



Following the Vietnam war, the US army returned to a more conventional tactic of warfare.  Despite the important role the Special Forces played during the Vietnam war,  the army deactivated many SF units.

 "The 1st, 3rd, 6th and 8th SF groups were inactivated, and there was a general de-emphasis of special operations as the Army concentrated once more on conventional warfare, turning its gaze from the jungles of Asia to the plains of Central Europe."  SEE: Special Forces: Post Vietnam

In 1978,  Special Forces had dropped to 60% of what it was at in 1964.  At the time,  the US military was not eager to continue to build the Special Forces division of the army.  They returned to conventional methods of warfare and didn't see the importance of the Special Forces Unit.  It was not until after 1980,  that they once again realized the importance and benefit of the Special Forces group.  In 1980,  Special Forces attempted to rescue US hostages in Iran and, unfortunately, failed.  It was a sign that the US army did this fine elite group of men an injustice by not recognizing the importance to keep the program strong.  In 1981,  Special Forces was revitalized.   The Special Forces Qualification course was made even more difficult and longer to ensure only the best soldiers would become part of the Special Forces team.  However, prior to that, a soldier still had to meet certain qualifications to apply for candidacy.  According to US military expert Ron Powers,   a soldier had to be at least an E4 (two years enlisted) to apply for the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC).


The man used to have the claims of his military career on a website he used for business.  The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 made it illegal to use any type of false military attributes to earn money.   He publicly posted the redacted DD 214 on his website in order to defend his statements.  After this article had been posted, the site was revised.  Statements such as "I am a second-generation Green Beret" disappeared.   Since he removed the claims of being Special Forces from his website, he no longer is walking the edge of the law.

Other Stolen Valor Sites.

I encourage you all to do your own research. Ask if a man could have joined the army in 1978, joined the Special Forces in the late 70's, and had a MOS of 91A1O 7 years 1 month// nothing follows.



The man's method of rebuttal was via unfounded statements, verbal abuse, threats, and harassment. Whereas, the best rebuttal would have been evidence-backed facts.  The man has implied that the his statements were true, as well as the DD 214.  However, the evidence shows that the statements are in contradiction to the DD 214.

 He attempted to refute the contradictions. Regarding the CMF on the DD214, he  stated the MOS changed in 1991 and followed it with verbal abuse. In return, I provided links which showed the MOS was changed in 1983/84.
Moron?   According to the Special Forces Association, the CMF 18 for Special Forces was added in 1984, not 1991 or 1992.   Name-calling and misinformation was posted instead of links.  I find links offer a better rebuttal:

When he was faced with the fact the MOS changed in 1984 and the situation indicates he was discharged in 1985,  he said "You Dumbass, I left the army in 1984."  Again, he responded with more verbal abuse.

Dumbass?  Unless I am doing my addition the wrong way, 1978 + 7 = 1985.

When it was pointed out that his education timeline interfered with his MOS time, he changed his graduation date from 1985 to 1990.  He again became verbally abusive and claimed it was not he, but Facebook, who automatically inserted the information for him.  Evidence shows the information has to be inputted by human, not a bot.

The man has been asked several times to provide the information to support his claim.  The strongest defense would be to present a credible link which stated a Special Forces medic was "91A1O."  He hasn't, because it isn't.

Instead, this man, concerned about professional conduct, went on a tirade of name-calling and verbal abuse.

He embarked on a harassment campaign and posted 29 of the same messages in 9 minutes, displaying an address and phone number.  He made threats to harass my neighbors, school, and work place.  Then to top it off, he threatened to call the Board of Nursing because:

"-they won't care if you defamed me. If I feel defamed is good enough."

He provided the following journal article as support for his claim:

He either not read it or understand it because the journal article is about HIPAA violations on social media.  The article discussed three situations where a nurse violated a patients right to privacy. 

In scenario #1,  the nurse used insensitive language and shared vague personal details about a patient in her blog.  She received a warning from the board of nursing.

In scenario #2,  staff at a local hospital forwarded an email with a patient's backside exposed. An investigation occurred and the hospital faced legal ramifications for violations of the patients right to privacy.

In scenario #3,  a student nurse posted a picture of a pediatric leukemia patient and an endearing story about the patient on her Facebook page.  Someone reported it, and the student nurse was expelled. The school was prevented from returning to the pediatric ward and the hospital faced HIPAA violations

The man is not my patient. The information posted is permissible to be shared per the FOIA.   Posting facts on a blog does not constitute defamation.

Not true.  Hurt feelings does not constitute discipline. If so,  the Board of Nursing would be quite busy.

The man attempted to provide other "proof."  He posted an article which stated "Unprofessional conduct" could cause the loss of a licence.

Article 2
:Unprofessional conduct” can range from using inappropriate language around colleagues and patients to having an affair with a superior."

Posting facts on a blog and backing them up with evidence does not fall within the realm of unprofessional conduct. 

The easiest and simplest thing to defend himself would have been to provide evidence to debunk my statements. Instead, he went on attack, made threats, and harassed.

Protect and honor our troops - expose stolen valor.


  1. I FORGOT TO ADD. We know who this is, please do not post it here. If needed to make a comment, we can use "Mannie".

    In addition, "someone" made the claim I am stupid, cannot write and on "its" page put links to my unedited articles. I believe the best argument for a lie is the truth, so I have placed a link on all those articles to this one. If people read his article and links to one of my own, they will see the well written one on valor. Thus, they will see the truth that I am not poorly educated as "someone" implies.

    1. Debbie; This is another Excellent article! It used to really get my goat while debating people during the run up to bush's debacle in Iraq, some would claim to be ex military, so their opinion mattered more than others. My first query was what was the EOSD on your DD214? The people who had no clue to an answer would always say something rude before leaving the discussion group. BTW, mine is 11/23/1979. A very lucky date as it turned out....

      Thank you again for your facts. I don't ask anything for the 4 years I spent in the Navy, only the pride that comes from serving. I hate when others try to take this away by claiming to be a Vet without paying the dues.

  2. I have been doing some thinking. After reading various sites on stolen valor and talking with retired SF officers, I am having a strong moment of conscious. I do not like to be the catalyst for legal problems, but the act of stolen valor is such a horrid act.

    I believe in giving people chances to change bad behavior though. The 'man' in the story once made the claim that my outing his lack of medicine was 'hurting his business". His business site has multiple items for sale and services as well, along with a way to contact him. He also has his allegedly fake military credentials on the site. This can be construed as the man using fake military credentials to earn money, which is illegal in the eyes of the law.

    As I said, I don't like causing a person legal troubles. Even though I have drawn up the letter to send it, I want to offer a chance.

    I know you are reading this......
    REMOVE the FAKE credentials.
    APPOLIGIZE to the sevicemen you have disrespected
    STOP claiming to have credentials you do not

    I will allow you until Monday, August 4th prior to me sending out the correspondence with the evidence of your act. I will be contacting your local FBI field office and U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office.
    In case you think I am not serious, just research who to contact for violation of the Stolen Valor Act.
    This is a chance to allow you to self-correct. Remove the false claims from your business site.


    1. More applause!!!

      You're offer is excellent. This man has a almost a week to get this straightened out.

    2. Today's date is Feb 14, 2015. Nothing has happened. My website is still up and running, unaltered. No swat team has busted down my door to arrest me. Nobody has even contacted me about my military record. Why? Because everything I've claimed is accurate and true. As usual, Maran, you seem to have difficulty with information--after bouncing around in your brain a while, it comes out twisted and warped. Before accusing someone of lying, you'd better have more than a number on a page. Once more, I will demand you remove the DD-214 from your blog. It is not a public record, and you have no right or authority to publish it.

    3. Yes, she does. Learn our laws in the US fraud. She has every right to debunk you each time you lie your fat fugly face off filthy foreigner. You lose again COWard.

  3. Bravo!! Amazing work. Do they military put "expert" after every supposed thing you're trained in? I think not. You know the man claims to be an "expert" at everything so that was my first sign the man is full of it. Shame on him!

  4. Well done Debbie. Coming from a family with many members of the military, thank you.

    1. Kitz, that is why I struggle with the decision. I don't want to cause anyone legal heart ship, but by ignoring the issue is the same as permitting it. I wish no ill will towards the man, if so there are other things I could have legally done and I didn't I support truth.
      I do not think it really hit me as to how bad stolen valor is until I read more up on it. I suggest that anyone considering embellishing military facts read about stolen valor and speak to a few ex military men. Then go to the wounded warriors project site.....

    2. Every man in my family has served in the army and during service served during wartime (any time of service is honorable!). Almost every man in my family came home injured physically and emotionally. My dad's survivor guilt is so severe that he doesn't think he deserves his purple heart.

      Stolen Valor is an egregious act. It is unforgivable.

      I respect and honor every soldier who has served their country, regardless of when and where they served. There is no need for a soldier to embellish his or her service record. None. Which is another reason why Stolen Valor is so egregious.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. RS has been doing a little editing. I've seen him do this before. He likes to hide things on his site instead of deleting it all together.

    http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Innocence_Essay_Report.php to the right he changed his list.



    1. I was just reviewing that as well!

      Dick is workin' hard.....

      I guess Debbie hit a nerve. :(

  6. I have 2 children who have served, my oldest did 2 tours of the middle east ( Iraq and Afghanistan) and he has ptsd from his last deployment

  7. I think he is making changes his comment section is back. You know he threatened to sue people on JDT for their comments yet he put the comments on his business website, the same website he claimed was harmed by those comments, if that was the case why post comments that he claims are hurting his business on his website.

  8. I'm curious why a soldier in the SF would leave the military. Usually those in SF intend to be career military.

    Dick would typically be all over a new blog posts on this site

    1. My thought is that his changes in his site and his act of ignoring of recent posts are admissions of guilt. His actions are so transparent.

  9. Shooting yourself in the foot + irony =
    The man shot himself in the foot by providing a document in hopes to prove he was not a liar and support claims as an army medic. However, the same document proved he was a liar as the coding did not match his Special Forces claim. Isn't that ironic?

    1. If Dick wasn't so vicious, I'd feel sorry for him.

    2. Debbie, time to blog again. Dicky is back at peddling his ignorant report online. What a con-artist!

  10. Mar 25 14 2:29 AM

    Richard Speights I want the (real) names and addresses of Victorious, Seabreaze, Musicman, Brad Justa (Facebook name), and anyone else who defamed me on Just da Truth. I have warned about a lawsuit. I am now actively seeking the participants to bring them into court.

    He sent me this in a PM back in March

    1. What a coward. A judge would look at him, roll his eyes, and then tell him to get out of the courtroom.

  11. Then he posts those same comments he is threatening to sue over on his webpage in a tab called Just Da Truth Pages. If those comments were causing him to lose money why would he post them on his webpage?

  12. Instead of removing his bull shit. He actually added more horseshit that does not prove Jodi innocent. Jodi sent the e-mail. Richard is too stupid to know because like all the other degenerates thinking with their small peni, did not follow the case. LOL@it's HLNs fault...NOT! http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Signed_John_Doe.php

  13. Tick tock ... Tick tock ... Tick tock, Dick.

  14. More insanity from the insane one. http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Defensive_Wounds_Hands.php

  15. More bs from Speights: By Richard Speights

    Trained In
    Offensive and Defensive
    Knife-Fighting Skills BULL CRAP!

  16. Today's date is Feb 24, 2015. Nothing has happened. My website is still up and running, unaltered. No swat team has busted down my door to arrest me. Nobody has even contacted me about my military record. Why? Because everything I've claimed is accurate and true. As usual, Maran, you seem to have difficulty with information--after bouncing around in your brain a while, it comes out twisted and warped. Before accusing someone of lying, you'd better have more than a number on a page. Once more, I will demand you remove the DD-214 from your blog. It is not a public record, and you have no right or authority to publish it.

    1. Wait a minute.... You said your website was still up, UNALTERED.... What happened to the statement you had on there about being a second generation Green Beret? It's missing now. I guess that means you removed it which means your website was altered.

      If it is no longer there, it gives the impression that something you claimed is not true. But of course, the fact that it appears to be missing could be that I overlooked it. Go ahead, prove me wrong and that your comment about a second-gen Green Beret is still there.

  17. The owner of stated DD 214 publicly posted the information with their name and birth date intact. Once freely and publicly posted by the owner for anyone to see, it no longer falls within the realm of "private fact." Even though the owner of said DD 214 chose to leave the name and birth date intact, I removed it.

    The codes noted on the DD 214 can be investigated by anyone who wishes to do so. 91A10 is used to indicate a clinic medic who has not yet reached the status of sergeant. I encourage anyone to go to a stolen valor website and ask if 91A10 on a DD 214 supports a statement from an individual that they were a special forces medic. I have listed a few but there are others out there as well.

    1. The good people at guardianofvalor shared a bit more information. SF MOS (military operation specialties) are series 18, not series 91. The posted DD 214 shows series 91 which is not a special forces MOS.

      I encourage everyone to verify the MOS code on their own. Gaurdianofvalor is a website which is a wealth of knowledge.
      They appear to have the resources to fully investigate claims and they take it seriously.



    2. What a doofas that one is. He puts out his junk for all to see on the net and thinks it's private. ROTFLMAO

  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

  19. You are mistaken, Maran. You have neither the right nor the authority to publicize a service member's DD214. Take it off you blog. Publishing a service member's DD214 puts you into a whole new category, well beyond simple defamation and libel—The DD214 is a federal military document and not for public consumption in a public forum. No matter the name of the service member, you are publicizing a military document.

    In addition, you don't know as much as you think you know. You are making assumptions and then accusing me according to the product of your own imagination and poor research methodology. You have only bits and pieces of fact, and then you start making emphatic assertions according to those bits and pieces.

    That you claimed to have reported me months ago for Stolen Valor, if my claims had not been truthful, then someone would have contacted me by now. No one, not a soul has contacted me about my assertions. All my shouting will not convince you, but you having "reported" me proves my case with all certainty. If I were lying, someone would have done something by now.

    But posting the DD214, it’s the posting-my-grandmother's picture thing all over again. What goes on in your mind that makes you think you can do this sort of thing? Where do you get the right? What if someone started posting pictures of your daughter? Would you be happy or unhappy? You may think the rightness in your argument allows you to do whatever you want--but rightness does not give you such liberties. Take down that DD214.

    1. Again, the owner of the DD 214 was the one who publicly posted the DD 214. And, the owner of the DD 214 left the name and birth date intact -- which I removed. They claimed to be in the special forces and a medic, but the MOS does not match those claims. The MOS used, 91A10, is not a special forces medic. The folks at gaurdianofvalor can confirm this. They shared some interesting information I did not know, so I updated my article for accuracy. The MOS for Special Forces is series 18, not series 91. I encourage everyone to verify the information on their own at

      It's an interesting website and these guys are pretty serious about the prevention of stolen valor. They are a wealth of information and I am guessing they can assist anyone who has concerns.

    2. You are making a bad bet, Maran. You are not as smart as you think. You do not have the right or authority to post a service member's DD214 no matter who posted it before hand. You need to take that down.

    3. More than one Stolen Valor site would disagree with your statement. In fact, it seems that they like to post publicly displayed DD214 forms with the names still intact. The DD 214 forms they post are a mixture of ppl who lied about an entire military career and servicemen who had embellished their own. All one has to do is Google "embellished DD 214" to find links. The DD 214 stays.

      Of course, the owner of the DD214 is also welcome to try to explain away the discrepancies. Such as:
      1. Why did the owner claim SF status when the MOS on the DD 214 is not SF. (18 series, not 91, is SF).
      2. Why did the owner claim to be an SF medic when the MOS on the DD214 is for a starter level clinic medic?
      3. If the owner was allegedly good enough to get in SF, then why couldn't they obtain Sergeant in their 7 years stay? (The average is only 4.2 years)
      4. How does the owner explain away the time discrepancy? Enlisted in 1978, served 7 years (1985), went to a community college, went to a university, obtained a degree, and graduated in 1985 (the same year the owner left the service).
      5. How did the owner participate in the trial for the EFMB when the owner was a beginning level clinic medic, not a field medic?
      6. How did the owner obtain the difficult to get EFMB when the owner could not make it to Sergeant in 7 years?
      7. How is a newly enlisted considered worthy of the SF when the enlisted failed to make it to Sergeant in 7 years?

      Anyone is welcome to go to any Stolen Valor website and ask what a MOS of "91A10" indicates and the highest rank it could reflect. If fact, I strongly encourage ppl to do so.

    4. Please refer to www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/foia-info.HTML

      The FOIA allows members of the general public to obtain and share certain military information without consent of the individual. Included in the list is the military person's name, their awards and decoration, their final rank, branch of service, and their past and present positions.

      The DD214 posted ONLY includes information which is sharable. In fact, the name of the individual who claimed ownership and posted the DD 214 could have been left on without being a violation of privacy .

      I have now shared the link and evidence which shows it is well within my legal rights to post the DD214. I have noticed all you have done is make broad statements not backed up by fact. Freedom of speech allows you to do so but it does not make it true.

    5. I have the habit of doing "overkill" when it comes to sharing resources. I already included one source, The National Archives and Record Administration (NARA), which supports that the information I shared was public information per the FOIA. http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/foia-info.html

      Even though the site included the information I shared as "Public", it did not literally say "DD 214". "Home of the Heros" does:

      "The ONLY information on a DD-214 that is NOT publicly releasable information is the Social Security Number and Date of Birth of the Veteran. "

      I have updated my article with steps as to how to obtain military records and a link to the "Home of the Heros" page. I strongly encourage anyone to do their own research to validate the statements I have made as to how the MOS on the presented DD 214 does not reflect a person who was a Special Forces Medic.

    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    7. How is Deborah making a bad bet? Is that supposed to be a threat? We know what that means. "All talk". For someone to be pretend to be so smart Bunker Boob, you really are an idiot. Law 101, you already failed. It was you who made the bad bet by inserting yourself in the Arias case, lied your face off about your military history and being a pretend knife expert and slandering Dr. Horn. You are responsible for your seedy actions. Buck up Bunker Boob. You were and still are out of your league.

  20. RS, you have no right to fake to fudge military records and make them your own. You are busted. You put it out there, it is within our right to find out you lied. You also don't have the right to commit fraud via Ebay, but yet, you did that too. Like the coward you are, you would not answer those customers who paid for the goods and got nothing. They tried to contact you, you ignored them. Like a coward you posted total bs on your dumb site. No, it was not PayPal's fault. You're a con-artist! How is that finding a lawyer to sue not working out too well for you, fraud?

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

  22. P.S. Don't forget you post on this one too:
    You know, seeing how you've posted the same message on 12 different article... Ummm... obsessive much? It's funny how the imposter saying "defamation" doesn't seem to understand the word "harassment." But, maybe that is why you are apparently too cowardly to post as yourself. After all, guessing that the real Richard Speights knows both where he is from and where he is living.

    1. The foreign fraud is now whining like a wench on http://realentertainmentnews.com/is-airing-jodi-arias-expedition-to-perryville-correctional-facility-dangerous/

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Thank you for this one too. I will have to add it to the article as well because it fits hand in hand with the "harassment" statement.

  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. yes, I absolutely insist that you do do that. It would be extremely helpful if you did. Extremely helpful.

  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

  29. Umm.... it's been almost 15 minutes. Could you please post that message on your page so I can screen grab it?

  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Um... it's been 20 minutes now. Could you pretty please do what you promised and post that message at the bottom of your page like you promised? It's not there yet.

  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Oh come on. You promised to post it on your page. Your really making it look like you lied. How come you haven't posted it yet?

    2. I updated the Fraud, Lying, and manipulation article. It shows
      you didn't follow through with your promise and add "High Sheriff." Now is your chance to do it. I will add it to my blog if you do.

  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Why have you not posted the words yet? Did you lie?

  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Awwww... come on.. Just do it. Do it like you promised, please muffin? Could you please post those words "High Sheriff" like you promised to verify your identity?

    2. BTW, have you ever heard of google analytics?

  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Nope, still not on your Herr website.

    2. If you want to email me the screen shot to show me exactly where it is, you can.

  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Link? Because, like I stated, it would be very helpful to have that.

    2. Ah, there we go. Found just what I needed. It is all coming together very nicely now. The 29 same post with an address and phone number, the threat to make the letter writing campaign, and the fact you do not have a leg to stand on behind your claims. What's most interesting is how your "style" changed and the multiple grammar errors you had made. And google analystics... neat thing.

      As stated before, the code on the DD214 does not match a code for a person who served as a SF medic. It's plain and simple and no way of getting around that. SF is series 18, not series 91. The name is not on the DD 214, and neither is the birth date, so there is no issue there. If the owner of the DD 214 claims it, well.. that's his own doing, isn't it?
      However, when a person posts 29 of the same messages in 9 minutes which is an address and a phone number, threatens to call work places, schools, and neighbors.... well that's called harassment, isn't it? And, since my job allows me to travel about so much... maybe I might decide to "target" my next assignment in a specific area. See, I am familiar with jurisdiction. I can't believe you really said "I called the high sheriff and I can sue you from my area. I don't have to travel to yours." Really? You really didn't look up jurisdiction before you said that? It's almost as bad as the eatable and edible mushrooms.

    3. "Again, Maran has misrepresented me. I did not graduate college in 1985. I never claimed, WROTE, or said I graduated college in 1985. This is her key evidence, by which she declares me a fraud. That’s defamation."

      I do have screen shots where you posted "Studied PR at LSUS, graduated in 1985" so... um... uh... I am not too sure if it is defamation if YOU posted it.

    4. I am all about having correct information, and it looks like I am going to have to do some updating. It appears the MOS was changed in 1983 and the 18 series for Special Forces was added.


      I am finding a lot of interesting information about the basic 8 week medical course, 91A which was followed by the 12-week clinical specialist course, 91C C, not A. After the 91C course, students moved on to an six-week "internship" working in emergency rooms and wards... Seems like they had to make it past a 91A before doing that. From there, they moved on to the medical Procedures course which was unique to SF medics... Seems like they would have had made it to that "91C" standing first.

      Something else I found interesting... I kept looking because I know sometimes that gosh darn wikipedia isn't right.


      Interesting military paper written by Lieutenant Colonel James Moore about the SF....

      The CMF designating SF as 18 changed in 1984.

      I am going to have to add a lot with a lot of links.

  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Hey dumb ass fraud. Your lies are as pathetic as you are. So who did you call succubus? No one. You lie lunatic.

      Richard Speights Arizona Sky • 20 hours ago
      Sky, I wasn't able to record all my warnings of defamation. Could you send me that list of "SSs". I could sure use them. Thanks. (Honey, all American sheriffs are considered high sheriffs. Only a few keep the title proper, but the sheriff is the chief law officer in his or her county, therefore the high sheriff). You are making noise, but you are not making sense.

  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a232083.pdf

      SF CMF was changed to "18" in 1984.

      91A is an enlisted man during the Nam era who only made it through an 8-week basic medical aid class....

      Updates will come soon.

    2. Uh oh... those sites kind of hurt the credibility of the above DD 214.

      You may want to correct your FB page for Richard Speights MT. You wrote that you graduated from LSUS in 1985. When you write "I never wrote I graduated in 1985" and post "Graduated in 1985" on your Facebook page", it makes you look like you are being dishonest.

  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Umm.... if you joined the army in 1978, and was a 91 A for 7 years and 1 month... isn't that 1985???? "When I joined the Army in 78, I had to list all my previous addresses for my security clearance."


  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Yes, 1984.... not 1991. And again, if you joined the Special forces in 1978, was a "medical specialist for 7 years and 1 month (1985)" how can you leave in 1984?????

    2. Wow... speaking of "qualification" courses, why doesn't that DD214 have a SQI on it? I mean, it should if a person took the Special Forces Qualification course.... interesting stuff one finds.

  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

  48. 10 Ways to Lose Your Nursing License

    7. Unprofessional Conduct

    This broad term allows state boards to be subjective in judging why a nurse might get his license revoked. “Unprofessional conduct” can range from using inappropriate language around colleagues and patients to having an affair with a superior. Although it seems obvious, many nurses fail to understand why their conduct may be called into question. The level of professionalism in the nursing field is of the utmost importance, and employers won’t take kindly to those few nurses who exhibit inappropriate behavior of any sort. First-time offenders may only be reprimanded or suspended temporarily, but keep it up and you may be out of a job before you know it.


    1. Talk about desperate. You fail again. She can't lose her license for exposing you as the filthy fraud you will always be. ha ha!

    2. I make it known to Richard Speights that the following violations of Montana codes 45-8-213; 45-5-220, used in an attempt to harass, intimidate, threaten, and/or annoy, are not wanted:

      Richard Speights posted my name, an address, and phone number 29 separate times in the comment page of 29 articles

      Richard Speights used profane and obscene such as bitch and dumbass directed towards me. He also has made several derogatory comments towards me using words such as moron, idiot, and knuckle-dragging troglodyte.

      Richard Speights made threats to contact my neighbors who have no relation to his false civil claim of defamation

      Richard Speights made threats to contact my past educational institutions that have no connection to his false civil claim of defamation.

      I have not treated Richard Speights or any member of his family in a professional manner. The following actions are considered to be an attempt to intimidate, harass, threaten or annoy in order to cause substantial emotional distress and are in violation of Montana Code 45-5-220.

      Richard Speights has contacted past employers regarding his false civil claim of defamation

      Richard Speights has threatened to seek out present employers regarding his false civil claim of defamation.

      Richard Speights has made threats that he was going to get my professional license's revoked and contacted professional license boards for a false civil claim not related to a violation of the nurse practice act.

      Richard Speights has posted my professional license numbers, which are not connected to his false civil claim, and continued to make threats to complain about a false and non-actionable civil claim.

      Upon posting of this notice, I make it known that the ongoing cyber-harassment/ stalking is unwanted. I demand Richard Speights cease and desist at once. I demand Richard Speights stop violated behaviors considered to be cyber stalking/ and harassment per MT code 45-5-220; 45-8-213. Included in those behaviors, but not limite to, are:
      Richard Speights will not contact past or present employers regarding his unfounded civil complaint.

      Richard Speights will not contact anybody associated with me including neighbors, friends, and family.

      Richard Speights will not contact any past or present educational institutions to inquire about me.

      Richard Speights will not contact licensing boards for any matter that is not in violation of the nurse practice act.

      Richard Speights will cease from posting any information about me, as it is done to intimidate, threaten, harass as evidenced by his actions of posting the same address and phone number 29 times within nine minutes.

      I reserve the right to request criminal charges be taken against Richard Speights for his prior actions. The evidence has been preserved in screen shots and his comments, which many he removed as noted by the "removal comment" on this board, have been preserved in my email.

      Again, the cyber-stalking/ harassment actions as noted per the MT code are not wanted.

  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

  54. This comment has been removed by the author.

  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

  59. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. You never answer the question... Why does the MOS lack a SQI? 91A1O is not a SF medic.

  60. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. you didn't answer the question on your other post. However, I'll take it it's possible you missed it given the amount of posts you've done. So, I will say it again. I do not know what you are referring to regarding offending/ defamatory comments on other sites. Saying you are wrong about something does not fit within that category... If you could please provide a link? Otherwise it looks like you are just making unfounded allegations.

  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. you do realize that even if you remove your comments they still go to my email account right? And that the time stamp will match up with the email? I tend to save alot of stuff. I have to warn you, you are treading on a serious harassment issue when you threaten to write neighbors, contact work, licensing boards, etc etc. And, as for all the alledged Facebook libel, I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you please provide an example? Saying someone is wrong
      is not libel.

      I am in the process of updated the article to include the lack of the SQI which is needed for the SF medic. It should be up soon. I provided a lot of links to back up the data. You have the opportunity to do the same. I suggest if you find a link that indicates a 91A1O is a special forces medic, please post it.

    2. And, defamation has to be something that is false. If someone says "I trained as a Special Forces medic in the 70's" and "I am a second-generation Green Beret" then post a DD 214 with the MOS 91A1O 7 years 1 month, it's not false to say the truth is not being told.

      Where is the SQI showing SF status?

  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

  70. This comment has been removed by the author.

  71. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. I notice ppl turn to threats and harassment when they cannot defend their stance. SO again, show me how saying your claim of being a Special FOrces MEdic in the military does not match up with the DD214 is defamation? Again 912A1O is NOT the MOS for a SF medic. You can continue w/ your harassment and threats but it is only going to hurt you in the end. Nothing I have posted is untrue. Your the one who said "Fraud" I am the one who posted the information to show your statements do not match the DD 214.

    2. What a desperate troll they are. LOL@get you fired from your job. At least you have one unlike that foreign fraud.

  72. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Again, the DD 214 was posted publicly. And, according to the FOIA, the only thing not allowed to be shared on a DD 214 is SSN and Birth date. I did not identify the owner of the DD 214 - you did.

  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

  74. This comment has been removed by the author.

  75. This comment has been removed by the author.

  76. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Ugh, maybe it will come out twice -I replied once and don't know where it went.
      . Hi, I am all for freedom of speech but because of the recent harassment I have taken on some new rules. Unless it is in a direct reply to another poster, I am asking folks to use psuedonymns to identify others IE "The guy" "That man" "Jodi supporter" etc etc. I feel I should so it is known the harassment is not desired.

      ANyhow, if you want to repost ur comment with a psuedonymn, please feel free.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.