Talk:Army of the United States

Source for the article

What is the source for any of this information? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? --Vidkun 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Military Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and review of hundreds of service records from the AUS. -Husnock 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please, cite --Vidkun 21:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If this came from a review of service records by the Wikipedian who wrote this, that would be original research. It may be true, but absent a secondary source it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. 208.20.251.27 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gave the sources today to quell the claims of original research. -Husnock 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions, Husnock. Any of those available online yet?--Vidkun 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are electronic publications available only through a system called NARA-Net, which you must be an employee of NARA to access. The "Case Reference Guide" is an NPRC online publication which is not open to the public. We've had a few people write to the agency, wanting copies, and all of these have been refused mostly becuase of the size of the document. Pretty much the only way to see it is to actually go to a NARA facility or call 314-801-0800 and have it explained over the phone. -Husnock 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then your references violate WP:Verifiability. Sources must be published and generally accessible without unreasonable expense or trouble. Please provide valid sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:14, 5 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)

Please read WP:V. It isn't that these things aren't published on the Internet, it's that they are not published at all. Validation by phone call is against Wikipedia policy on numerous grounds, not least because there is no guarantee that the person I get will be the same person that Vidkun gets. Even so, unless Customer Service gives out the real identities and Curriculum vitae of their personnel, there is no way to verify that one is speaking to a qualified person. The requirement is publication, and these sources do not qualify. I am sure there must be valid published sources out there. Please find us some. Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:34, 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)

A Wikipedian has requested sources: no justification for that request is needed. Checking sources, even for articles that look plausible, is a normal and highly-encouraged process, and is part of the road to Wikipedia 1.0. The burden is on the person providing or defending the information (i.e. you) to provide valid, published, secondary sources that can be examined by members of the general public. If the information is accurate, those should be available. If such sources do not exist, the article probably does not belong in Wikipedia: the only exception is the rare case where primary sources are widely available and require no interpretation. Since the sources you cite are provided at discretion, it is unlikely they are in my local library or University Library, and if they are in mine, they may not be in many others.

The process of calling an agency and interviewing its personnel is the generation of a primary source, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The process of obtaining documents that cannot be found in research libraries and interpreting them is called original research, and while perfectly wonderful for other purposes, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In fact, given the size of the document you describe, you should really provide page references; otherwise, the process of fact-checking is unreasonably burdensome. If the information is too scattered for this, then this article would constitute a novel synthesis and would be original research within the meaning of the policy.

Unreferenced material may be deleted by any editor. I'm not looking to destroy your hard work or get into an edit war, and I am perfectly content to wait for a reasonable time (weeks, if need be) while you find sources that are valid for Wikipedia. My personal project for the summer is to provide/improve citations for a number of articles with no active editor but that I believe to be mostly factual. In at least one case, I have found serious inaccuracies that I plan to correct when I get time.

Since you are an active editor of this article, I am following the standard procedure of challenging the information in the article and requesting citations. Thank you for your hard work so far, and I am sorry if this request is inconvenient for you, but producing a quality Wikipedia is what I hope we are all after. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:39, 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)

• That is unfortunate. We have a lot of articles with good information and bad references. I came to this because this looks like the sort of technical-sounding-but-meaningless distinction that tax-protestors like to make (distinctions between states and States, the United States and the united States, whether a flag has a gold fringe, etc.). I wanted to check it out, and was going to look up your citations at leisure, but now find that is impossible. The issue is not whether there is a publication by the name you cite, the issue is that it is not publicly available, so I cannot verify that it contains the information you say it does. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What is unfortunate is that you do not recognize a publication of the National Archives as valid. It is also not that difficult to obtain. You either call the number I have given or write the agency that published the instruction. No matter, I have 2 books which explain the difference between the Army of the United States and the Regular Army and have added them to the article. I could probably find more when I return in the U.S. I still *really* have no idea why this article is being called unsoruced orginial research. But, now you have the sources unless someone chooses to challenge those as well (I hope not). -Husnock 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You stated above that the publications originally cited are essentially never sent to non-employees because of the size and cost. Now you say that the publications are not that difficult to obtain. Which is it? Both statements cannot be true. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Obtianing a hardcopy of the entire Case Reference Guide would be difficult since it is over 2000 pages long. However, writing to the agency with a question about it or calling NPRC would not be difficult. Anyway, I found the two Army books that also talk about the AUS and the RA. Those are not difficult to obtain at all. -Husnock 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the better sources. That is the sort of thing I was looking for. Calling an agency and asking questions would make the source the person being interviewed, not the publication they claim to be using. It would be like reading someone's book report instead of the book. Not acceptable. I am sorry that I have not been able to make that clearer to you. Again, thanks for the references, which I will check at my leisure. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Note

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)

I've seen such modern references as well. Mostly on Discharge Certificates, where all enlisted discharge certificates will say "Discharged from the Army of the United States", but then have a componetn, such as RA or USAR written right after the name. I have also seen the commissioning orders for officers say AUS but then the actual component in the record will be listed as USAR. I think, in the modern Army, "Army of the United States" might be a generic term different from the old Army of the United States which was a draft force. Good points to consider for future article updates. -Husnock 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still unclear, because http://www.army.mil/cmh/faq/oaths.htm shows that it is Army of the United States . . . that's what my DA 71 shows . . . yet, in the Army Officer's Guide 48th edition, dated in 1999, shows the Oath as being United States Army. I'm going to hazard a guess, that RA officers, who were specifically commissioned with a branch assignment (which no longer happens, I believe) took the oath in such a form:

"I, (name), having been appointed a Second Lieutenant of Infantry in the United States Army, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

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)

• To add another interesting tidbit, retired Generals (and some Colonels) are listed as "AUS retired". I think its so they can hold a temproary rank on the retired list but get higher pay. I actually think the Army is kind of neat with these components. Over in the Navy all we have is USN and USNR...boring! -Husnock 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

general rank temporary?

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)

• See 10USC§601: [1] Robert A.West (Talk) 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what that section says. What that section says is that the President can designate certain positions as requiring a general officer and that while someone holds that position, he has that rank. That is very different from what the previous sentence is asserting. Roadrunner 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

However, if you read further, you see that the rank of General, Admiral, Lt. Gen, and VADM are temporary:

(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.

They hold it while in the job or another for the same rank, hospitalized, or between assignment and dy of retirement. That rank ends on day of retirement. They may only retire at the O-9 or O-10 if approved by SecDef, meaning it's not automatic, and, therefore, not guaranteed permanent rank. -

(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)

Regular Army/ National Guard

"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 somewhat condradicts what is stated in National Army (USA). What exactly is meant by incorporated?. - Matthew238 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Need citation for this

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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/ii/chapters/69/sections/section_1370.html and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000601----000-.html --Vidkun 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Retirees designated as AUS Retired no longer supported

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:

a. All Army personnel, active or reserve component, retired for service, age, or physical disability and all personnel on the Army of the United States Retired List, including regular Army personnel and nonregular Army personnel on the Temporary Disability Retired List will use “USA Retired” (for example, A. B. Smith, COL (USA Retired)).

b. All personnel on the Officers Honorary Retired List will use “U.S. Army Retired (Hon).”

c. All Army reservists assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired) will use “USA Retired.”

d. Army retirees serving as DA civilians will not use or refer to their military grade or rank except when referring to their personal retirement actions.

--Vidkun (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting

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)

It was indeed a distinct entity, separate from the Regular Army and National Guard, and established by statute. Like them it was part of the United States Army. It is normally linked from articles displaying ranks and dates of promotion eg. Leslie Groves. I intended to undo the deletion of the article, but hit the wrong button. My apologies for that. No need to trust OberRanks, everyone familiar with the subject knows that it is correct. I will overhaul the article and add references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If you need proof, here's the statue (10 U.S.C. 3012): "United States Army. The Regular Army, Army of the United States (AUS), Army National Guard (ARNG) of the United States, and the United States Army Reserve (USAR)." [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)