John Keri AWOL ???"Shame ! Shame ! Shame !" says Gomer ! ....
Posted on 04/25/2004 8:05:21 PM PDT by waRNmother.armyboots
John Kerry signed an agreement as part of his naval officer commission to serve at least 3 years on active duty and the remainder of his obligated 6 year service in the Ready Reserves. Ready Reserves are those who must attend drills.
This is the agreement he released with his military records:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/offcandagr.pdf
You will note that Kerry obligated himself to at least 3 years active duty, and the remainder of a 6 year obligation in the READY (not Standby) Reserves.
He further agreed that while in the READY Reserves (from discharge to 1972) he would perform no less than 48 drills per year and up to 17 active duty days per year, or alternatively 30 active duty days per year.
None of the released records shows any record of his performing these Ready Reserve obligated days in 1970, 71, 72, after which he was transferred to the Inactive Reserves. (This is as of 22 April - he may have released more since then). The only Performance of Duty form released covers 1966. There should be one for every year.
Nor is there any excusal from drilling status in his records, or alternatively, pay and attendance records indicating that he performed any drills in 1970-72 as required of a Ready Reservist.
It was George Bush's alleged non-performance of his obligated reserve duty that caused all the furor last February, yet Kerry apparently can not show his performance of his obligated Reserve duty.
The Kerry campaign has said that his separation from active duty put him in the inactive, non-drilling Naval Reserve so he could run for Congress. This is NOT true, as follows:
This following website record shows his transfer from the Ready Reserves to the Standby (Inactive) reserves did not occur until March 1972, NOT upon his release from Active Duty to run for Congress (1969/70).
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/trnsfr2stndyrsrv.pdf
And this following form indicates the official transfer from the Ready Reserves to the Standby (Inactive) Reserves did not formalize until July 1972.:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/servicercrd.pdf
Contrary to what Kerry's minions say, the wording on his Release from Active Duty (to run for Congress) does NOT put him in the INACTIVE RESERVES - it puts him in Inactive Duty status, which includes Ready Reserves with attendant drill obligation. BIG difference - and the confusion is understandable. The legal specifics are Title 10 duty (Active Duty) Green Card) vs.. Title 32 duty (Inactive Duty) Red Card).
Had he been placed in the INACTIVE RESERVES in 1970 upon his release from AD, as Kerry's people suggest, there would not have been the 1972 Transfer to the Standby Reserves form that I show above - he would have already been there.
Also, if the timing of these records is correct, as a drilling Ready Reserve naval officer, in 1970-72 he was somewhat restricted by military regulations in what comments he could make in public regarding statements on the military leadership and the National Command Authority. Yet this is the period of his most public protests and anti-war demonstrations. In fact, his hairdo in the 1970-72 period would not meet Navy standards, and he would be sent home from drill if he had ever attended one.
Kerry was released from active duty as a Naval Reserves LT (O-3) to serve the rest of his obligation in the Naval Reserves in an inactive status.
He could have, if he chose so, participated in a Reserves unit - changing his status to active - and gained promotion and retirement points. He did not.
When he became eligible, he was sent a request to continue in the inactive Ready Reserve, he did not and was transferred to the Standby Reserve.
Save it for yourself and keep passing it on! hehe!
That's something you'll never get from a Liberal like Kerry.
The way they put it was this:
"If you had a combat tour in Vietnam, you would get first crack at having an active reserve posting. Otherwise, the active reserve slots would be filled by those who had not been on active duty."
I spent my active reserve time on inactive reserve.
When that commitment expired, I went to the end of the line behind the women and children.
John Keri AWOL ???"Shame ! Shame ! Shame !" says Gomer ! ....
He enlisted in the Navy Reserves for a six year term in Feb 1966.
His OCS Agreement states a requirement for a maximum of 3 years active duty with a combined 5 years active/ready reserve and the last year eligible for standby reserve.
He requested release from active duty Nov 1969, and was released in 1970 to the inactive Navy Reserve.
Inactive Naval Reserve means he was not required to drill. All the fuss about paragraph 5. of his OCS agreement willfully overlooks "may", "alternative", "other appropriate Reserve training as may be authorized", etc. Kerry was authorized to be in the inactive Naval Reserve after being released from active duty.
He was required to notify the Navy of any travel to a foreign country for more than 30 days and would still be under UCMJ.
The foreign travel notification requirement is interesting in that after his wedding in May 1970 he traveled to Jamaica for his honeymoon and then before his April 1971 Senate testimony to Paris where he met North Vietnamese negotiators, perhaps as part of the VVAW peace meeting with the NLF.
I doubt that these requirements were strictly enforced by the Navy for inactive reservists, and the FBI seemed to be keeping pretty good track of Kerry between 1970 and 1972 based on his VVAW activity - so I would think if they wanted to go after VVAW members (at least those that ACTUALLY were vets) they could have.
I understand, it happens from time to time when people confuse optimistically conservative with optimistically gullible, optimistically self-deceiving, optimistically prevaricating, ....
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!
DAMM! We should have seen this coming.
They ALWAYS accuse others of what they are guilty of themselves.
Always.
Prove it. Were his teeth there?
Then he should be eager to prove it, shouldn't he???
As the lib-uh-rhuls say, "It's the seriousness of the charge, not the credibility, that requires investigation..."
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.
