> 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.
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.
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.