Kerry not Honorably Discharged?

"Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL Authentication Team -Director ^ | 18 Sep 2004 | Steve Nash

[grace522]

IF YOU ARE A KERRY FAN PLEASE READ THIS... YOU MAY NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IT, AND YOU WILL NOT LIKE IT, BUT YOU CAN CHECK THE RECORDS.. I know there's a lot of these going around, but this one is verrrrry interesting.... > [Original Message] Subject: Kerry's Military Record? Oh What a Tangled Web He Weaves...

Now that the Kerry team has again raised the issue of President Bush service in the Texas Air National Guard they should be held to answer the question below outlined by Mr. Steve Nash, US Navy, Retired. If Kerry would release all of his Military records, this issue could be put to bed.

"Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL Authentication Team -Director

Authentin SEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy Seals" http://www.authentiseal.org

Military Record

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore,,,, Kerry has adamantly refused to authorize the release of his military records. Most think it'because of his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended!

This is very much out of the ordinary, and highly suspect. There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct,and Dishonorable.

My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was in the Oval Office; Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted. His file is probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire.

This will blow up in his face before October 15th. ================================================================

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime). On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5). Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year,and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country,especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.. Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his not more than 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released? Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S.Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." ...........................................end..............

[aft_lizard]

Then where is Johnny Boys request?

[visitor]

see my post #196

do you know if kerry's website, where his released documents are posted, has a copy of his "honorable discharge" ?...rto

[editor-surveyor]

"You can't get a less the Honorable Discharge without due process and there is no evidence of a court martial."

Misleading statement.

If there has been a pardon, then the previous record can be sealed at the subject's request. This all could have occurred during 'Pardon-gate' and no records would be accessable on the following day.

[Robert357]

I am going to suggest a long shot.

To puchase a firearm one needs to not have been dishonorably discharged from the military. I am wondering if there might be any Mass. state records of Kerry being denied a firearms purchase or something similar in WA DC? These wouldn't be federal records.

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms? [Back]

Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her 8 citizenship;
(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. [18 U. S. C. 922( g) and (n), 27 CFR 178.32( a) and (b)]

[Robert357]

The National Guard belongs to the State not the Federal Government unless federalised. This is what allows for the use of the National Guard for law enforcement.

Could this mean that "less than honorable discharge" documents might still reside in Mass. State archieves and be subject to feedom of information requests?

[norton]

There are statutory limits on the number of regular officers in each branch. When more are needed, most newcomers are inducted into reserves and activated - the legal limits are not upset.

Also, I think that Kerry would have had to be reactivated or at least not in inactive or stand-by reserves in order to be punished for his post release from active duty activities.

And, I not others have clarified the NG/reserve thing - Guard is state but subject to federal call up, reserve is an integral part of federal force structure - now more than ever.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Robert357]

Thus, if my thesis is correct, Kerry’s offense must have occurred between 2 January 1970 and March 28, 1973. My thesis suggests that during 1977, Kerry made application for full pardon under the administrative procedures promulgated by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice. He almost certainly sought and received the support of Massachusetts Senator Kennedy who had much clout in the Carter administration. Kennedy may have been responsible for suggesting that the records of such a fine young man be embellished by Citations from the Secretary of the Navy, rather than a mere admiral, and in other details not yet known.

In my hypothesis, Kerry’s request for full pardon was granted. Kerry applied for his military records to be corrected accordingly, and applied for an honorable discharge. The Secretary of the Navy wrote to Kerry on Feb 16 1978, enclosing an Honorable Discharge Certificate and stating:

“This action is taken in accordance with the approved recommendations of a board of officers convened ... to examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve on inactive duty and determine whether they should be retained on the rolls of the Reserve Component or separated from the naval service pursuant to Secretarial instructions promulgated in reference [c].”

The reference, “[c],”is to “BUPERSMAN 3830300.” A Google search did not provide any information regarding the text of this provision. But, this might explain why he was discharged 12 long years after enlistment.

This hypothesis explains the inconsistencies in Kerry’s record and makes it clear why he acts like a three card Monte dealer in insisting that we watch his time in Nam very carefully and not pay attention to what happened afterward. It is exactly the position Benedict Arnold took with respect to what happened at West Point and afterward.

Ok, I think you have probably nailed this. However, I would suspect that Kerry/Kennedey would try very hard to make sure that the federal military records would completely expunged of all references and there would be no "direct" federal paper trail.

Therefore, I would suggest focussing any investigation on some kind of indirect paper trail that they forgot to cover and probably within State or District of Columbia records. Alternately, there might be references in some very very distant federal agency where John F'n Kerry had tried to get something and been denied because of his military record. This could range from being turned down on an ambasordorship, to turned down on a firearm purchase to being turned down on somekind of security clearance to being denied some license to pilot an airplane to just about anything.

[citizen]

This will blow up in his face before October 15th.

Meaning?

[jokar]

Bump for later analysis.

[Casloy]

That's true, but he has been a senator for a long time. Plus he ran for the presidential primaries before the pardon was extended. Our Capital is a sieve for scandalous information and it is difficult to conceive of something that big being kept a secret. Not denying it is possible, just seems difficult.

[Seadog Bytes]

Yes Ma'am!

[SunkenCiv]

This will blow up in his face before October 15th.

Oh, I think it has already blown up in his face. The explosion began way back before he had the nomination, when he made his mano a mano challenge to the President regarding their respective national service. This awakened the low-slumbering wounded. Their work against their old enemy, John Kerry, began, and was hopped up on caffiene by the time he finished his nomination acceptance speech.

I suppose he'll want another Purple Heart for this self-inflicted wound...

George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

[GunnyB]

Do you know if this is universal across the services, or does it differ across them? THe point about not being able to complete basic is a good one, since the government could hardly give you an honorable discharge. I always assumed you were seperated without any discharge, but I see how that would be somewhat impossible given that you have enlistment papers.

The classes of discharge are universally applied to our services. All US service members are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Having said that, each service does have a level of flexibility with regard to how and what sort of discharge is given - within reason (e.g. there are uniform guidelines that the Admin sections must adhere to).

For example, most discharges I saw that were related to a person not completing basic were COG (Convenience of the Government) discharges. This means that the person did not necessarily commit any offense, but had exhibited some trait that the military did not desire in its ranks.

[R. Scott]

Not being familiar with the Navy, I checked with navy vets – and that is what I was told. Fleet Reserve was the Navy term for the Army’s ready reserve. They could be mistaken, in which case I would be mistaken. I was unable to find the answer in Department of the Navy web sites. I have no problem wading through Army material – but Navy is a whole different world.
It would still appear that Hanoi John could be tried for those offences under 808.2 –
(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

There would still be the matter of his actions under 892.92, 907.107 and 910.10 – disobey orders and hazarding a military vessel – when he beached his vessel against standing orders, and false official statements.

[GOP_1900AD]

F102 was a beast, according to those who flew it. A very dangerous beast.

[Seadog Bytes]

Sure thing. No problem.

[Seadog Bytes]

Sure thing. Maybe his 'boat' will take on some more water with this one. Amazing, isn't it?

[wizr]

Hi, MistyCA.

[wizr]

Not another forged document? How could this be?