Mitch, Shouldn't that "Navy Service" hyperlink be to Swiftee's blog, not yours?

My Dad (now deceased) was a Navy pilot during WWII. I think the years were 1942 to 1946. All I know for sure about his service was that he flew Corsairs and was stationed at Alameda NAS after the war.

How can I find out more about Dad's Navy service, and what personal information do I need to make the necessary inquiries?

Thanks in advance for any helpful advice.

Contact the Naval Personnel Records Center. There is a form (the same one JF Kerry had some trouble with). Fill out the form. Send it in. Wait.

You can use the data therein (duty stations, squadrons, etc.) to flesh out his story. Good Luck.

An awful lot of the records from WWII were in the government warehouse in St. Louis (I think) that burned down some years back. You definitely should try the Naval Records, but you should also know that there's a good chance the Navy may not HAVE the records you're seeing.

Er, seeking.

Mitch,

You are correct; “Dumpster Dan” is in fact the “Dan” you banned from SOTD, as he notes on Swiftee’s site “Since I was banned from Mitchs (sic) site, I have no way to request that he remove my name and location”.

The problem with DD’s story is that the information is hard to verify. For example, according to one source the sub in question (S-44) might have put up a pillowcase as a flag of surrender, but other sources dispute this. Furthermore only two men are known to have been captured (Chief Torpedoman's Mate Ernest A. Duva and Radioman Third Class William F. Whitmore), and there is a possibility that six others may have escaped the sinking. However, the sub was not surrounded by Japanese ships ala the Simpsons submarine episode, and I doubt the beheading story. S-44 was ordered to abandon ship, and again only eight people possibly survived. As such, the beheading story loses a lot of steam and leaves a lot of logic problems.

The medal portion may have a grain of truth to it, as the sub may have received the Presidential Unit Citation, which I believe at the time was the highest honor a unit could receive. As a member of the unit, his uncle would have received it (albeit posthumously), assuming that S-44 was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (which I don’t know if it did or didn’t).

I’m not going to comment on DD’s not-so-nice comments about Swiftee’s military service except to say that just because veterans tease each other about their military service (“There are two kinds of ships: submarines and submarine targets!” or “You know what they say about submarines: 150 men go down, 75 couples come up!”) doesn’t mean that the respect isn’t there, or that non-veterans have earned that right. I too was in the Navy (on a submarine), and if Swiftee or another veteran wants to give me grief about it, they’ve earned it. Show some respect, DD. I respect those who have served.

It sounds like one of two things has happened. One is that the story of DD’s uncle’s death has been embellished over the years. He may well have been killed at sea, but the story has turned into family folklore rather than genuine fact. I know how it feels as my family told me that my grandfather was a member of the “Lost Battalion” of World War I. Imagine my surprise when I found out that he wasn’t. The other is that DD’s story is a fabrication. Considering that he has been banned from SOTD, it wouldn’t surprise me either.

Dan said...

It's a little too late there Swiftee.

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/006235.html

Since I was banned from Mitchs site, I have no way to request that he remove my name and location. Since you are the source, I would appreciate it if you contact Mitch and ask him to remove my identifying information from his site as well.

I have absolutely no problem with you attacking and insulting me in this or any other blog just as I've attacked and insulted you. I have thick enough skin to handle it but releasing my name and where I live to an audience that you can't control is beyond stupid. It's dangerous.

I'm keeping my word and I will cease posting here as of tonight with one exception. I have drafted a letter to my living Aunts and Uncles with a request to tell me any and everything they can regarding Tom's death including any posthumous awards he received. Their responses will my final post in your blog.

One final note. If you can clearly demonstrate that I attacked you for your military service as you claim rather than attacking your angry, impulsive and, from my perspective, strange actions, I'll gladly throw in an apology.

The boat's in in your tub Sailor.

EY: Yup, it's the Dan who has been here before. I don't know if Swiftee has contacted you, Mitch, but I think you should respect Dan's request.

"I think you should respect Dan's request."

Pfft.

Coming from the queen of the stalkers herself, *that* is rich!

So you "think I should respect Dan's request?"

I "requested" that he dial back the corrosive, mindless ire - no dice. I "requested" that he not carry out personal conversations in my comment section, that he knock off the insults, that he act like an adult in my comments. He didn't do it. It's why I banned him.

I owe that little weasel nothing. But I took his crap out anyway.

And after your little email stunt, Eva, you have no moral authority.

JFG -

You may have already done this, but...

The site for military records is the National (not Naval) Personnel Records Center.

There was a fire in 1973, but according to the site, losses were restricted to Army and Air Force records.

When you request the records, be as thorough and complete as you can regarding what you want. They generally assume that you want separation or discharge papers. It took me three tries to get them to send me the complete personnel file, and I am still waiting on that third try.

Personnel files had a lot of information in them: fitness reports, letters of commedation, action reports, duty stations, training (and scores), disciplinary actions (often the write-ups are fairly amusing). Health records are available separately, the site will direct you.

Good Luck.

Mitch,

I'm sure this won't last up here for long but at least it will be long enough for you to read it.

You said,

I "requested" that he dial back the corrosive, mindless ire - no dice. I "requested" that he not carry out personal conversations in my comment section, that he knock off the insults, that he act like an adult in my comments. He didn't do it. It's why I banned him.

You banned me because I refused to let go of the media survey thread.

Speaking of insulting, in one of my earliest posts here, you condescendingly call me "lil feller". As I said in a post to Swiftee, I have thick enough skin to handle the insults, I've dished it out plenty and I have been the target many many times here, from you and other posters. It's never bothered me and until he published my name and location, I falsly assumed that we all played by, more-or-less the same set of rules. Guess not.

If you held all posters here to the same standard that you held me, you would have about seven people able to post. The difference is if they are attacking or insulting someone of the liberal persuassion, their comments are not only allowed, they are encouraged and they are allowed to become more venemous and cutting as the attackee tries to defend themselves.

In fact Mitch, if insulting were the standard that determined non-participation, you might just be forced to ban yourself.

Just out of curiousity Mitch, take a wander over to Dump Bachmann and review some of Swiftee's posts. If his comments appeared in "Shot In The Dark", would they pass the Mitch Berg sniff test or would he be banned?

As for personal conversations, one of your posters was emailing me directions of how to bypass the disemvoweling trick.

I'm guessing one of the reasons you got as pissed as you did is you felt humiliated or maybe betrayed.

Finally, I sincerely apologize for crossing the line with you and Swiftee but remember, you both were in the game right along with me.

Have a good life Mitch.

"I "requested" that he dial back the corrosive, mindless ire - no dice. I "requested" that he not carry out personal conversations in my comment section, that he knock off the insults, that he act like an adult in my comments. He didn't do it. It's why I banned him."

"You banned me because I refused to let go of the media survey thread. "

No, Dan, I banned you because you kept regurgitating points that I'd already shredded. I rejected the premises under which the "survey" operated, and showed why - because they were flawed to the point of invalidity - and you kept jumping up and down like a two-year old yipping "but the survey said! But the survey said! Respect the survey's authoritah!" Pffft.

"Speaking of insulting, in one of my earliest posts here, you condescendingly call me "lil feller". As I said in a post to Swiftee, I have thick enough skin to handle the insults, I've dished it out plenty and I have been the target many many times here, from you and other posters."

Then why are you bringing it up?

"If you held all posters here to the same standard that you held me, you would have about seven people able to post."

Look around, moron. There are plenty of people who disagree with me. Read any of PB's stuff?

The difference is, PB - caustic as he gets, and wrong as he usually is :-) - has some basic manners. You do not.

"The difference is if they are attacking or insulting someone of the liberal persuassion, their comments are not only allowed, they are encouraged and they are allowed to become more venemous and cutting as the attackee tries to defend themselves."

Whiner. I've told many commenters to dial it back. I've even deleted comments critical of liberals that I thought were over the top - in fact, more than on the other side.

"In fact Mitch, if insulting were the standard that determined non-participation, you might just be forced to ban yourself."

Unfortunately, it's my blog and I can be as insulting as I want - if I wanted to, I could call you an inadequate, pathetic, vacuous, limp lying little sack of jag, and face no consequences. But I won't - because I'm better than that.

"Just out of curiousity Mitch, take a wander over to Dump Bachmann and review some of Swiftee's posts. If his comments appeared in "Shot In The Dark", would they pass the Mitch Berg sniff test or would he be banned?"

I've cut some of Swiftee's comments in the past.

"As for personal conversations, one of your posters was emailing me directions of how to bypass the disemvoweling trick. "

"I'm guessing one of the reasons you got as pissed as you did is you felt humiliated or maybe betrayed."

Then your guessing is as bad as your spelling. I banned you because you have the manners of a apoiled four-year-old.

"Have a good life Mitch."

I already do.

Mitch-

About Dan... I'd consider just letting sleeping dogs lie. I've spent over 20 years in as a psychiatrist, and he's got the mark of someone who can be dangerous.

Get the facts on the Avian Flu (Bird Flu) and possibly even order some Tamiflu - http://www.bird-flu-protection.net

Dental Plan the best dental plans on the web - http://www.bestdentalplans.biz

Dental Plan the best dental plans on the web - http://www.bestdentalplans.biz

csLook this mexican ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/
free anal s3x movies
http://anal.more-chicks.com/free-anal-s3x-movies.html
whipped ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/whipped-ass.html
anal penetration
http://anal.more-chicks.com/anal-penetration.html
fine ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/fine-ass.html