Chapter II - - SOUTH VIETNAM

1965-1967

The controversy surrounding the Garwood Case began long before the WSJ article
of 4 December 1984 appeared and continues to this day. Indeed, the case began
in controversy on 28 September 1965 when Pvt. Robert R. Garwood, USMC, was found
absent at the 2300 hours bedcheck. Although he was absent, no Unauthorized
Absence (UA) was reported since Pvt Garwood, a motor pool driver (MOS 3531) [14],
was initially thought to have been absent because he had a "late run". He
would not be reported as being UA until he failed to report for muster at 0730
on the 29th. Although this manner of accounting was clearly unauthorized, other
marines stationed in DaNang during the same timeframe have suggested that this
was "standard operating procedure (SOP)." [15] Following Pvt Garwood's reported
absence on the morning of the 29th, the USMC immediately began an investigation
of his whereabouts.

Several actions were quickly initiated: 1) on 30 September the Secretary of the
Navy (SECNAV) was informed by message from the Commanding General (CG), Third
Marine Division (MarDiv), that Pvt Garwood was missing [16] and that an
investigation would be conducted; 2) Pvt Garwood's next-of-kin were notified of
his disappearance; 3) a counterintelligence (CI) investigation was opened to
determine the exact circumstances surrounding Pvt Garwood's disappearance and to

----------

14. MOS=Military Occupational Specialty

15. See debriefs of PFC Geill, PCF Braverman and LCpl Smith of 1979.

16. In the same message, SECNAV was notified that there was a possibility that
Garwood was UA and not missing. This presumption was based on Garwood's
current Service Record Book (SRB) entries of violations of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ): two violations of Article 86 UCMJ (Failure to be at
appointed place of duty), one violation of Article 86 (AWOL), and one violation
of Article 143 (Breaking Restriction).

<-- Chapter I

<-- Page 14

Page 16 -->

Chapter III-->