10

that the USMC did not discontinue the DD 1173's issuance un~ December
1959), or, if it is ever determined that USMC regulations had indeed
prohibited the issuance of the DD 1173 I.D. card by then, reflects
administrative errors resulting from bureaucratic inertia, not evidence
that Alexander Ayers, Nelson Delgado, Richard Call, and William Trail were
intelligence operatives.

Lead * 9/Allegation: That Oswald was issued his DD 1173 I.D. card 7 days
early, since its unique serial number appears on his passport application
dated September 4, 1959,(2) one week prior to 11 September, 1959, the date
of his discharge.

Findings: Not necessarily the case. The La Fontaines are correct that the
unique serial number on Oswald's DD 1173 appears on his passport
application (attachment 9), but may have incorrectly interpreted when and
why it was placed there. They also mention an accompanying memo addressed
"To Whom It May Concern," dated 4 Sept1959 (attachment 10), which they
assume was turned in concurrently with Oswald's passport application, and
go on to suggest that since 1st LT A. C. Ayers' typed name appears on the
memo below the signature of a 1st Sergeant Stout (a person whom he has no
recollection of whatsoever), that the signed name of 1st Sergeant Stout
may represent a fictional identity. (This Stout allegation is patently
untrue; Zack Stout was stationed at both MACS-1 in Atsugi, Japan and at
3rd MAW at MCAS El Toro concurrently with Lee Harvey Oswald.) Oswald's DD
1173 I.D. card, his passport application, and the memo dated 4 September
are likely related, but not in the way the La Fontaines imagine. Author's
hypothesis follows:


 (2)Ibid.,page 84.


              Document

         Oswald's Passport Application


Remarks/Discussion

Submitted September 4, 1959 (see attachment 9, page 2).


         "To Whom It May Concern"

Remarks/Discussion

Typed on September 4, 1959, but not submitted to the passport office until
September 9, 1959 (see attachment 10). Even though the date typed on this
memo is "4 Sept 1959," there is evidence on the document that September 4
is not the date it was





Go to page 11 - Summary of Allegations