Fact check: Did army soldiers get the 250th birthday off that weren’t in the parade

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources directly answer whether army soldiers not participating in the parade received the 250th birthday off. The available sources focus primarily on parade logistics, participation details, and general event coverage ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

However, two sources provide relevant administrative context: the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reminded federal agencies of available leave flexibility options for impacted employees during the Army's 250th birthday celebration ^[5]. Additionally, OPM specifically noted agencies' authority to approve situational/unscheduled telework and other workforce flexibilities for affected personnel, which could potentially include army soldiers ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements that the analyses reveal:

• Administrative framework: Federal agencies were provided guidance on workforce flexibilities during the celebration period, suggesting some level of accommodation was anticipated ^{[5] [6]}
• Scope of impact: The OPM guidance referenced "impacted employees," indicating the celebration affected a broader workforce beyond just parade participants ^{[5] [6]}
• Parade participation details: Sources mention specific information about which units were and weren't tasked to participate, such as the Oklahoma National Guard troops not being assigned to the June 14 military parade ^[1]
• Event scale and logistics: The celebration involved significant logistical considerations that would affect military personnel scheduling and availability ^{[2] [3] [4]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an assumption that may not be accurate - it presupposes that there was a standard policy of giving army soldiers "the day off" for the 250th birthday celebration. The analyses suggest this assumption is not supported by available evidence ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

The question also oversimplifies the administrative reality of military scheduling during major commemorative events. The sources indicate that workforce management during the celebration involved flexible arrangements and case-by-case considerations rather than blanket policies ^{[5] [6]}.

Additionally, the framing implies a binary distinction between parade participants and non-participants, when military operations and commemorative events typically involve multiple levels of participation and support roles that aren't captured in this simple categorization.