Posted on 10/13/2004 6:31:04 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
Is the Kerry Discharge Question a Red Herring?
On another thread there is a long discussion of the New York Sun story about the Kerry 1978 discharge from the Navy by Thomas Lipscomb.
Reviewing the US Code Sections, I am concerned this may be a non-issue story. Before we make a big deal of it we must eliminate an important possible explanation:
The US Code Sections cited, 10 USC 1162 and 1163 are no longer in effect, having been repealed in 1994. The replacement sections are 10 USC 12681-12683. The relevant section is 12683, which provides in relevant part:
(a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least five years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except -
(1) under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(2) by the approved sentence of a court-martial.
Under 10 USC 14513, an officer who is not selected for promotion may be (among other things) discharged from his appointment:
Section 14513. Failure of selection for promotion: transfer, retirement, or discharge
Each reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who is in an active status and whose removal from an active status or from a reserve active-status list is required by section 14504, 14505, or 14506 [NB - failure of promotion] of this title shall (unless the officer's separation is deferred or the officer is continued in an active status under another provision of law) not later than the date specified in those sections -
(1) be transferred to an inactive status if the Secretary concerned determines that the officer has skills which may be required to meet the mobilization needs of the officer's armed force;
(2) be transferred to the Retired Reserve if the officer is qualified for such transfer and does not request (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned) not to be transferred to the Retired Reserve; or
(3) if the officer is not transferred to an inactive status or to the Retired Reserve, be discharged from the officer's reserve appointment.
And, under 10 USC 14516, that separation would be involuntary:
Section 14516. Separation to be considered involuntary
The separation of an officer pursuant to section 14513, 14514, or 14515 of this title shall be considered to be an involuntary separation for purposes of any other provision of law.
Thus, it is quite possible that Kerry simply did nothing with respect to his reserve obligations and, after several years, finally came up before a promotion board from Lieutenant JG to full Lieutenant in the reserves for the second time, and (having done nothing) was found not qualified for promotion. As a result, as shown above, he could be separated from the service involuntarily. This separation would not result in a less than honorable discharge.
People, be very carefule with this one, it could be a sucker punch by the sKerry people to take the wind out of all of the Kerry military stories!!!
You're absolutely correct that the ore worth mining is the antiwar activities while holding a commission.
I agree. The Swifties have already been partially neutralized because when they first went public they made a few accusations that couldn't be substantiated to the satisfaction of the MSM. I don't doubt that those accusations are true, but the MSM has managed to throw enough doubt on them that many voters now probably dismiss all the Swifty's allegations as partisan political mudslinging.
Just one major accusation concerning his military record that could be prove false would totally destroy the Swifty's credibility on their other accusations, and make Kerry appear to be the innocent victim of a politically motivated hoax. If that happens say hello to President Kerry.
Personally, I received my DD-214 when I was released from active duty in 1972. I received my HD in 1978 and there was no DD214.
"He can clear it all up by signing 180"
The MSM, in all their objectivity in search of the truth, should have been pounding this drum relentlessly for the past several months. However, they have been far too busy reporting on other urgent matters such as Bush's NG duty.
Kerry is a traitor.
Agreed, general discharges and OTHs for involuntary separations, from AD, in the Army, are the rule; but not necessarily during the 70s drawdown, from standby reserve status, or in the Navy. This is why I'd like to track down the regs that were in effect at the time.
To see about the hypothesized 1972 DD214, I called the Navy's FOIA manager this morning, and she told me (a) there wouldn't have been a DD214 because he was released from inactive reserve status in 1972, and (b) discharge papers are exempt from FOIA due to privacy concerns, including any info about discharge characterization. Weird, but okay.
However, the question remains: what is that 1978 memo all about? Why does it exist?
Assuming it's the only thing to be hiding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.