The Military Service Personnel Photograph Collection Index, (circa 1938-1953) was created by Connecticut State Library staff to highlight and better utilize these unique archival photographs and honor those who served in the military.  Great effort was made to identify the individuals depicted using information provided with the photograph. Please keep in mind however that names, geographic locations, or other information may be misspelled or in error as a result. Branch of service, rank, military unit, residence, and other notations were included in the index to assist the researcher or family member to determine if there is an image for a specific individual. Please be aware that prior to 1947 the United Sates Air Force was a branch of the United States Army and as a result, images may be listed as Army Air Corps. Please keep in mind that names and locations may be misspelled as a result.   You may conduct a search in any of the columns, or any combination of columns to limit your search.  If a name of an individual of interest is found in the below Connecticut Military Service Personnel Photograph Collection Index, and a reproduction of the original record is desired, you may submit a request via E-mail or by contacting the History & Genealogy Unit of the Connecticut State Library at (860) 757-6580.  Reproduction formats and fees available, are as follows: Photocopy: black & white copy, 8 1/2 X 11″ or 11 X 14″ sized paper, 25 cents; 11 X 17″, 50 cents per photocopied page, plus a $3.00 handling fee and first-class postage charges. Photocopy: color copy 8 1/2 X 11″ or 11 X 14″ sized paper, $1.00 per photocopied page, 11 X 17″, $1.25 per photocopied page plus a $3.00 handling fee and first-class postage charges. Digital images (low or high resolution): PDF, JEG, TIFF, or DNG images, 25 cents per image, plus a $3.00 handling fee.  Digital file may be delivered via internet for no additional cost. Pre-payment is not needed as a bill will accompany the finished product, either in the mail with photocopies or with the digital images. Please include the military service person’s name and the box number _location in requesting a copy of the image.

This dataset lists the number of members affiliated with each branch of the service (i.e. nominated "home" branch locations for each member)

Connecticut State Archives Archival Record Group (RG) #069:050, Noble (William H. and Henrietta) Pension Applications General William H. Noble and his daughter Henrietta M. Noble, Pension Agents in Bridgeport, assisted veterans and their descendants to secure pensions from the United States Government. The collection includes correspondence and official papers that document their work with veterans of the Civil War and Spanish American War. The files are arranged alphabetically by veteran’s name. The database contains the following information: veteran’s name, rank, pension file application number, date enlisted, date discharged, and military unit. People may request a copy of a file by contacting the staff of the History & Genealogy Unit by telephone (860) 757-6580 or email. When requesting a copy of a record, please include at least the name of the individual, date, and residence. Abbreviations of Connecticut Military Branch of Service: · CLB – Connecticut Light Battery · CVA – Connecticut Volunteer Artillery · CVC – Connecticut Volunteer Cavalry · CVHA – Connecticut Volunteer Heavy Artillery · CVI – Connecticut Volunteer Infantry · CVLB – Connecticut Volunteer Light Battery

Purpose - The purpose of this dataset is to provide comprehensive and detailed information on 59 US military male citizens who have been charged with acts related to terrorism. This dataset aims to support researchers in understanding the profiles, backgrounds, and circumstances of these individuals, contributing to the broader field of counter-terrorism studies and policy-making. This dataset is intended to be a valuable resource for researchers, analysts, and policymakers interested in the intersection of military service and terrorism. By providing detailed and structured information, it aims to facilitate in-depth analysis and foster a better understanding of the factors contributing to terrorism among military personnel. Nature - This dataset is an Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) compilation, which includes publicly available information on the individuals in question. The data has been collected from various open sources, ensuring that it is accessible and verifiable. The dataset covers a wide range of variables, providing a multi-faceted view of each individual's background, military service, personal life, and criminal activities. Scope - The dataset includes 51 variables for each individual, covering aspects such as personal information, military background, criminal activities, and other relevant details. The variables are as follows: Name Partners Gender Military Branch Current military status Officer/Enlisted/Civilian MOS (Job) Rank Discharge Status WAR Service Time Convert to Islam? (Yes, No, Born, Unknown) Age at time of crime City State Arrested/Charged/Convicted (date) Month of Crime Day of Crime Year of Crime Race Citizenship Parent's Birth Country Marital Status (0 = Single, 1 = Married, D = Divorced, E = Engaged) Children Allegiance Domestic or International Group Anwar Al-Awlaki Attended terrorist training camp College University Degree Occupation Social Class Mental Health Illness Weapons Kill/Injure Sentence Special Recognition Involved Violence FBI (Undercover) Prison (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Prison City Prison State Prison Security Level Date Released Target Location Official Charges How Officials Were Notified Social Media

This is a cross-sectional dataset with 608 observations. Variables are organised thematically by respondent attitudes to international security threats, the importance of foreign policy goals and the European Union. The first sub-sample consists of 64 members of the Defence Academy, where the survey was fielded in December of 2016 (after the election of President Trump, but before he took office). Ninety-three percent are active military (including representatives of all branches). The second sub-sample consisted of 533 members of RUSI and the RUSI extended network, and that survey was fielded in March-April of 2017 (before the 2017 General Election was announced). Forty-two percent had served in the military (in all three branches).This project seeks to explain how security policy is developed in the UK, and suggest how relationships between different security and defence agencies can be improved. Security policies protect the borders of a nation-state and the security of its citizens and include military, economic, environmental and cyber security policies. These policies are designed and implemented by different agencies including military organizations, the intelligence community, and government departments such as the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. We live in a fast-paced world where security threats may unexpectedly emerge from state actors such as the Syrian government, or non-state actors such as terrorist organizations. In this rapidly changing security environment it is paramount that national security policies be designed with enough flexibility so as to increase the likelihood of success. Important constraints can hinder this need for flexibility. One such constraint is that members of the security and defence community might fear losing support, appearing as incompetent, or harming the reputation of their agency if they fail to implement a security policy they had previously committed to implementing. This can make them wary of significantly modifying a security policy, even in the face of important environmental changes such as budget cuts or the emergence of new information regarding the predicted effectiveness of its implementation. Such fear of domestic backlash likely played a role in American forces continuing to build up Iraqi security forces, even in the face of compelling evidence that suggested these forces were in fact fuelling sectarian conflict. The first part of this study combines theories of foreign policy decision-making with the real-life experiences of high-level practitioners developed during residencies in key government departments and military organizations. The applicant will interviews elite members of the security and defence community in the UK involved in the design and implementation of security policies. Although the interviews will be carried out with members of the security and defence communities from the UK, the theory will be pertinent to describe the development of security policy globally. In the second part of this study this theory will be tested using innovative experimental techniques to allow a detailed and empirically grounded exploration of the formation of security policy in democracies. Members of the security and defence community will be invited to participate in the online survey experiment. They will read about a hypothetical international security crisis, a policy that was initially proposed by a Whitehall agency, and whether the agency acted consistently or inconsistently regarding its implementation. They will then answer questions about their willingness to support the behaviour of the agency they read about. The answers of all participants will be analysed to determine if inconsistent behaviour is punished when it comes to the design and implementation of security policies. Knowledge will be exchanged with members of the security and defence community during the entire study. This will culminate in the third and final part of this study. Findings will be presented at agencies that design and implement security policy in the UK, so each agency can learn more about how other agencies operate and how they view each other. Also, the applicant will organize a two-day practitioner workshop. Here members of the security and defence community, members of the broader civil society such as non-governmental organizations, and representatives of the media and pressure groups will discuss how actors not directly involved security policy play a role in shaping it indirectly. The quantitative survey was fielded using Qualtrics survey software.

This dataset stems from the first systematic study on primary headache disorders in the German armed forces (Bundeswehr). A total of 1,189 active-duty service members participated in an anonymous online survey conducted between May and July 2023. The 33-item questionnaire collected information on demographics, headache types based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3), diagnostic awareness, treatment history, and headache-related disability (MIDAS score).

The dataset supports analyses on impact of primary headaches in military populations and underscores the need for improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Data format:
CSV / Excel export from https://www.questionstar.de

Variables include:

• Demographics (age, sex, rank, service branch)

• Headache types and frequency (ICHD-3 based)

• MIDAS scores

• Diagnostic history

• Treatment history (acute and preventive)

• Workdays lost due to headache

Keywords:
headache, migraine, military health, Bundeswehr, epidemiology, ICHD-3, MIDAS, occupational health

Summary Since 2017, GEO shares have fallen sharply from $30 to ~$8.50 per share, at one point below even the book value of $8.19 per share. President Biden recently signed an executive order that banned the renewal of Department of Justice contracts with private prisons, but the effect on GEO is way way less than the market thinks. The border crisis renders ICE dependent on GEO for capacity, making it near impossible for ICE to cut ties in the near future. With a market cap of just $1.02 Billion, GEO has the potential to increase 2-3x in the next 6-12 months. cropped image of african american prisoner reading book LightFieldStudios/iStock via Getty Images Thesis GEO Group (GEO) is a deeply mispriced provider of privately-owned prisons, falling from a price of $30+ in early 2017 to the current price of $8.50 per share. GEO has fallen primarily as a result of concerns about legislation regarding private prisons, a canceled dividend, the likely shift away from a REIT structure, and high levels of debt. These overblown concerns have created a pretty solid structural opportunity. kmosby1992@gmail.com password kmosby1992@gmail.com Subscribe Company overview GEO operates in several segments, such as GEO care, International services, and U.S. Secure Services. Source: Annual report 1 - U.S. Secure Services U.S. Secure services account for the majority of their revenue, 67%, and includes their correctional facilities and processing centers. Secure services manage 74,000 beds across 58 facilities as of the 2020 annual report. GEO transport is included in U.S. secure services, but we felt it warranted its own paragraph. GEO transport provides secure transportation services to government agencies. With 400 customized, U.S. Department of Transportation compliant vehicles, GEO transport drove more than 14 million miles in 2020. 2 - GEO Care GEO care is a series of programs designed to reintegrate inmates and troubled youth into society. They operate through reentry centers, non-residential reentry programs, and youth treatment programs. GEO care operates approximately 4-dozen reentry centers, which provide housing, employment assistance, rehabilitation, substance abuse counseling, and vocational and education programs to current and former inmates. Through their reentry segment, they operate more than 70 non-residential reentry programs that provide behavioral assessments, treatment, supervision, and education. GEO care made up 23% of total 2020 revenue. Geo monitoring is included in GEO care. Through a wholly-owned subsidiary, BI Inc., GEO offers monitoring technology for parolees, probationers, pretrial defendants, and individuals involved in the immigration process. As of the 2020 annual report, BI helps monitor ~155,000 individuals across all 50 states. 3 - International operations International operations made up only 10% of revenue in 2020, but it is showing signs of growth. GEO recently landed a 10-year contract with the United kingdom, which they expect to total $760 million in revenue over the course of the contract. They also landed an 8-year contract with the Scottish Prison Service, which grants an annualized revenue of $39 million and has a 4-year renewal period. Why is GEO Mispriced? While there are several reasons for the dramatic reduction in share price over the last 4 years, the main reason was the looming fear of legislation destroying privately owned prisons. To a degree, this fear materialized on January 26th, 2021, when President Biden signed an Executive Order ordering the Attorney General not to renew any Department of Justice contracts with "privately operated criminal detention facilities." At face value, this order seems as though it would have a devastating impact on GEO. However, only ~25% of total revenue is impacted in any form by this order. The executive order only concerns branches of the Department of Justice. Only 2 DOJ branches have business connections with GEO, the US Marshals (USMS), and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Source: Annual report It is imperative to note that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is not a branch of the DOJ and is therefore unaffected by this order. Individual states, as well as other countries, are unaffected by this order Bureau of Prisons GEO currently holds several agreements with the BOP relating to operations of prisons across the country. As of year-end 2020, agreements involving the BOP accounted for 14% of total revenue. All revenue from the BOP will not disappear, as the executive order does not impact reentry facilities. In 2Q21, after the executive order was made, GEO renewed 5 BOP reentry contracts. GEO even scored a new contract with the BOP, regarding the construction and operation of a new facility in Tampa. United States Marshal Service The United States Marshal Service does not own o... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A900514e651e0d2c774ad90f358c9db90884c2baf98c068f470b290b3c4b3103a for complete metadata about this dataset.