Or, you have been doing this...
Needless to say, I would like to see some more substance to where this information comes from.
Posted on 08/21/2004 5:54:00 PM PDT by Tacis
The truely troubling failure/refusal of Kerry to release, without exception, his military records after he's made such a big deal about his weeks in Nam, has to permit folks to guess what is in them that he is hiding.
First, it is important, because Kerry has emphasized these weeks as being the basis for his qualification to lead the nation (nothing else in his record since does). The focus has been on his falsification of events in 1968 and 1969. He never expected this and, as an arrogant elitist, didn't take early steps to defend against it.
What Kerry has been worried about and is trying to hide is the post Nam material in his record. He requested and received a discharge from the USN, maybe, 1970, to run for Congress. He failed and as a result of his treason, was involuntarily recalled to the USNR.
In post 1970, Kerry was court martialed, maybe more than once, and discharged "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions" in 1978. His records clearly show and are marked thay he is not suited to be a naval officer. As a very quiet Senator, guaranteed to vote for the left, he did some special favors for Clinton (use of the Georgetown mansion for a little loving with a black hooker from DC?). Clinton got Kerry's discharge changed, in early 2001, to "Honorable."
Thus, Kerry can't release his military records by signing a Form -180 because they would prove that while he may have had a good several weeks in Nam, the Navy, in later years, branded him as the worthless dumb crud we all now know him to be.
Certainly, we can say thet Kerry was tried for treason and has warrants for his arrest that will be served as soon as he leaves the legislative branch (I like that - he has been a Senator solely for the immunity it gives him against punishment for military crimes), but only his attack dogs will respond.
mark
Or, you have been doing this...
Needless to say, I would like to see some more substance to where this information comes from.
red herring - suitable only for the UFO/time travel crowd
Quite a spliff, mon...
Oh ? His discharge is dated 1978.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
LOL!
> His discharge is dated 1978.
What is the topic of the redacted line on that form?
By the way, 1978 means that either he was still enlisted
during all his treasonous activities in the early 70s,
or he was discharged and then recalled. If the latter,
then there is another discharge form somewhere, and I
wonder what it says.
> Howard Dean would call that an interesting theory.
And if Howard were making such a claim against Bush, the
"seriousness of the charge" would trump the entirely
speculative nature of the charge.
I'm not ready to swallow it, but I'm willing to chew
on it for a while.
Here's Kerry's claimed timeline:
January 3, 1970 Kerry requests discharge
March 1, 1970 Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty
April 29, 1970 Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service
Notice no actual claim of "discharge".
The posted discharge is 1978.
So was he still under UCMJ during the VVAW and meetings
with the enemy, or is there another discharge form
somewhere?
Timeline is here http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf
Switched to Reserve in Jan 1970, Standby Reserve July 1972, discharged for US Naval Reserve Feb 1973.etc. I don't know the implications of the various categories. I do notice single redacted items on many docs, don't know what that means.
I don't know if there's anything else out there or not but if someone is going to make claims of courts martial and the like they need to show credible source(s) or else we'll all get labelled as wackos.
> I don't know if there's anything else out there or not
> but if someone is going to make claims of courts martial
> and the like they need to show credible source(s) or
> else we'll all get labelled as wackos.
Well, I'm not asking for court martial, but I am asking
what Kerry's military status was while he was involved
in activities that are probably court-martial offenses.
> Timeline is here http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf
1970-01-03 Release from ACDU/Trf to Naval Reserve
1972-07-01 Trf to Standby Reserve - Inactive
1978-02-16 Discharged for U.S.Naval Reserve
"Release" is not "Discharge"
"Trf" (Transfer) is not "Discharge"
"Inactive" is not "Discharged"
He wants us to think he wasn't in the military
during 1970-1972, but unless there's another
"Discharge" somewhere, he was.
And if there was another discharge, let's see it.
OK sorry, by courts martial I was referring to the original post item. Yes, I read the timeline as saying he was in some continuous Navy Reserve capacity until 1978.
Nope, if the records were changed there is nothing there.
He was not "enlisted", since he was an officer. He was still on the inactive reserve list from 1970 to 1972, and then on the standby reserve list from 72 to 78. Is military service obligation would have expired in '72 which is probably what triggered his transfer to standby status. There are other ways to get put into standby, but that would be a typical progression. If he had resigned his commission in '72, which I think he could have, he'd not have gone to standby status. Perhaps there was some political advantage to still being a commissioned officer? In any event he still held his reserve commission when he lied to Congress and met with the enemy. But that's neither here nor there, since reservists not on active duty, nor performing inactive duty training (which is different than being an inactive reservist, it's typically the "weekend" in "weekend warrior") are not subject to the UCMJ. Meeting with the Vietnamese communists was still illegal, a felony I believe, for anyone, reservist, or active duty military, and if he was under oath when he testified before the Fulbright committee, it was still perjury.
Probably his service number, which would (I think) have been his social secruity number.
There isn't alot of difference between being an inactive status reservist and a standby reservist. In Kerry's case he would have been subject to recall until '72, when his military service obligation (6 years) would have expired. That likely triggered the change to standby status. They don't like you to be on standby status for too long, although I'm not sure of the statutory or regulations for that. I know when I'd been inactive for about 4 years, they asked me to resign my commission. Instead I found an active reserve assignement. (A cat B assignment, meaning I only had to do the equivalent of 6 weekends of inactive duty training, although I usually did 7 or 8, the excess for points only, no pay. Cat B also did a slighty shorter annual 12-14 day active duty "tour", depending on travel requirements. Unit Reservists, did 12 weekends (or equivilant, more for pilots) and 14-16 days active duty.
Inactive and standby status is sort a "sleeper" status, with no training requirements, no inactive duty training, and no annual tours. Standby reservists are not subject to involuntary recall, IIRC. Neither Standby nor Inactive status reservists are subject to the UCMJ. Active status reservists (as oppossed to reservists on extended active duty, which is what most junior officers are) are not subject to the UCMJ except when on active duty or doing inactive duty training. The exception being "failure to go" should they receive activation orders, but then again it's not really an exception, since on the effective date of the orders, they *are* on active duty. Some inactive resrvists have recently been involuntarily recalled to active duty for the war on the Jihadies.
> ... not subject to the UCMJ ...
Thanks for clarifying that (on both threads).
Since there's no evidence of a recall, there would have
been no standing for a court martial. There's also no hint
of another discharge hidden somewhere. So both of these
lines of speculation are just that until someone develops
some hard info.
Of course, an SF 180 from Kerry could put all such
speculation to rest :-)
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.