What public records verify Dan Flood’s military service and roles in operational intelligence?
Executive summary
Public, verifiable documentation that would confirm an individual named Dan Flood served in the U.S. military and held operational‑intelligence roles exists principally in federal personnel records — most directly a DD‑214 and the National Archives/National Personnel Records Center files — but none of the supplied sources contains an authoritative public record that conclusively proves Dan Flood’s operational‑intelligence assignments; contemporaneous reporting and résumé sites make claims, while federal guidance explains how to obtain official proof [1] [2] [3].
1. Where official proof of military service is housed and how to get it
The primary repositories and processes for verifying U.S. military service are clear: former service members’ DD‑214s and personnel files are obtained from the National Archives/National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) using tools such as eVetRecs or by submitting Standard Form 180, and the Department of Veterans Affairs will request a DD‑214 for benefits claims on an applicant’s behalf [1] [2] [3].
2. Legal access limits and archival rules that shape what can be released
Access to those records is governed by privacy law and archival rules: records for veterans who separated less than 62 years ago are subject to access restrictions and generally release only to the veteran or next of kin, whereas records older than 62 years are open to the public under NARA’s fee schedule; the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act constrain what can be released to third parties [2] [3].
3. What public records would show operational‑intelligence roles — and their typical contents
Operational or intelligence assignments show up unevenly in public personnel files; an individual’s service record and award citations, unit histories, officer registers, and certain personnel forms can reflect MOS/AFSC codes, duty stations, and special assignments that substantiate operational‑intelligence work, and researchers often consult NARA holdings, officer registers, and unit histories to corroborate such roles [4] [5].
4. The available reporting specifically about Dan Flood — what it asserts and its limits
The pieces of reporting provided include a profile-style entry claiming long protective and investigative work, including Secret Service and supervisory special agent functions (a resume-style listing on Bold.pro), and a profile article stating Dan Flood joined the Marine Corps at 17 and is a multigenerational Marine; these are secondary sources that assert military service but do not cite or include primary federal records such as a DD‑214 or NPRC file [6] [7].
5. Why those sources are suggestive but not definitive evidence
Resume postings and corporate/veteran features are useful leads but are not primary documentation; they can contain errors or be promotional in nature, and a social post identifying a man in a photo as “Dan Flood” is further removed from documentary proof [6] [8]. No supplied source is an original personnel record from NARA or the NPRC, so they cannot by themselves verify specific operational‑intelligence roles.
6. Practical next steps to obtain definitive verification
To establish Dan Flood’s military service and any operational‑intelligence roles definitively, request his personnel file or DD‑214 from the National Archives/NPRC using eVetRecs or SF‑180 (if the subject is the veteran or next of kin) or file a FOIA request where lawful; consult officer registers and unit histories for corroboration; and, if records were lost in the 1973 NPRC fire, follow VA and NARA guidance for reconstructing records [1] [2] [3] [4].
7. Caveats, alternative explanations and the risk of mistaken identity
Public reporting and social posts sometimes conflate individuals with similar names or recycle résumé claims without documentary backing, and at least one obituary in the dataset shows a different Daniel Flood with a distinct biography — underscoring the importance of matching identifying details (birthdate, service numbers) in archival requests rather than relying on names alone [9]. The supplied material therefore best functions as investigatory leads rather than conclusive proof.