Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking the code on Kerry's Service Commitment

Posted on 09/08/2004 5:18:05 AM PDT by scooter1

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.

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.

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 Bainbridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 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

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.

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

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.

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: kerry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2004 5:18:05 AM PDT by scooter1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scooter1
No amount of additional training was going to make Kerry any more decisive than he always was.

Give it up.

BTW, virtually everyone who did 2 years active duty during the Viet Nam War was granted whatever exemption from reserve duty he or she sought.

We weren't really wanted. The reserves were bloated with folks hiding out from the draft.

2 posted on 09/08/2004 5:21:39 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

We should give it up just after the msm gives up on Bush's guard record. I think the hypocrisy is terrible


3 posted on 09/08/2004 5:27:01 AM PDT by CONSERVE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scooter1
This article is filled with misinformation. Kerry had no drill requirements when he was transferred into the Inactive Reserves on Jan 3, 1970. His only obligation was to keep the Navy informed concerning his whereabouts since he was subject to recall. Check his release from active duty orders, which spell out his obligations.

Kerry received his Honorable Discharge on Feb 16, 1978 not March 2001. He spent almost 6 years in the Standby Reserves. A Navy Board determines when to remove officers from the Standby Reserves. Coincidentally, I was released from active duty in 1972 and did not receive my Honorable Discharge until Feb 16, 1978.

4 posted on 09/08/2004 5:28:19 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scooter1

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.

Read this again.

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.

What's up with that?


5 posted on 09/08/2004 5:28:56 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; scooter1
"No amount of additional training was going to make Kerry any more decisive than he always was... Give it up.

What the F... are you trying to say here?

6 posted on 09/08/2004 5:29:07 AM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Thanks for clearing that up.


7 posted on 09/08/2004 5:29:51 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CONSERVE
No, we have to go after the individuals in the MSM who tell lies ~ there are certainly enough of them to keep us busy.

That AP POS Freepers nailed this weekend should be an example.

Now, has the bank that holds his mortgage been contacted about how he's endangering their ability to get paid back? It's certainly time to put them on notice so they don't sit there waiting for him to miss 3 or 4 months worth of payments before they act.

8 posted on 09/08/2004 5:29:52 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CONSERVE

Ditto that. I would bet Kerry's original discharge was General rather than Honorable.


9 posted on 09/08/2004 5:30:24 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (I'm Conspiracy Guy and I approve this message. "John Kerry is a liar!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scooter1
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"

Kerry received his commission in December 1966. He would have completed three years of active duty in December 1969, which was his obligated active duty requirement.

10 posted on 09/08/2004 5:32:35 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Hey, read it again. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

Bet you thought I was defending Kerry didn't you?

Fact is I was defending all the other guys who had some serious active duty time during the Viet Nam War and were then shut out of the marvelous opportunities available to us as reservists.

11 posted on 09/08/2004 5:34:56 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
Ditto that. I would bet Kerry's original discharge was General rather than Honorable.

I would bet not. An officer cannot receive a General discharge. Officers can only receive 3 types of discharges - Honorable, OTH (Other than honorable) and Dishonorable. A dishonorable can only be awarded as a result of a General Court-Martial. An OTH is a special admin board.

I still don't understand what Kerry's status was after he was discharged from active duty. Was he subject to the UCMJ?

12 posted on 09/08/2004 5:45:54 AM PDT by Credo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Credo

An officer is liable under the UCMJ UNTIL he RESIGNS his commission. Even after retirement, Off/Enl are STILL liable as we are taking "retainer" pay.

Kerry was chargeable under the UCMJ not only for murdering the wounded VC but also for Art 88, Contempt towards Officials. Also, for Aiding the Enemy in a time of war for VVAW part.

Not charged simply because he is from a RICH family with ties to the Kennedy scum.


13 posted on 09/08/2004 5:50:16 AM PDT by gunnygail (Founding member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. (I fly the black helo):.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Hey, read it again. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!"

Okay..."No amount of additional training was going to make Kerry any more decisive than he always was... Give it up."

I still don't understand your message, I guess I'm just not cynical (aka; 'smart') enough to understand your wit.

14 posted on 09/08/2004 5:55:45 AM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
We weren't really wanted. The reserves were bloated with folks hiding out from the draft. I was in the reserves in the 60's and tend to agree with you. But our unit also had a lot of reservists that joined early in the 60's. I joined in the summer of 63 and the US had less that 15,000 troops, one of which was my brother, in Viet Nam at the time. It was widely perceived as a non-issue when I joined. Latter on, as the war progressed in 64 and 65, a lot of draft avoiders joined. We also had a lot of college students who could have been deferred if they chose. One thing to remember about the reserves in that time was that 10 years earlier the reserves were called to duty in Korea where the casualty rate for reservists was extremely high. A reservist exposure to war lasts for 6 years while a 2 year enlisted is exposed to much less than that since tours are for 13 months and must start before a soldier has finished his first year.

The problem in this argument is that the Viet Nam war should not have been brought up.

. It doesn't matter to me why Kerry took the path he took. The ad says 'be all you can be' and that is reason enough to join. He did well on that score. The problem began when he decided to make the cornerstone of his campaign something that he seemed to hold in such disdain.

15 posted on 09/08/2004 5:56:56 AM PDT by SpeakingUp (Kerry lied, The NYT lied, and 1,800,000 Cambodians DIED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Uhh, harpu, you must have been an officer. If you were an enlisted man you'd know exactly what I meant!

Even though folks are quite happy to perform any required military duty, it doesn't mean they like it, or want more of it, or that they want to do additional service in a unit filled with draft evaders.

16 posted on 09/08/2004 5:59:12 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: harpu

Let's put it this way, Kerry is an inferior product who further training wasn't going to improve. That's all reserve drills are ~ training. So why waste perfectly good training on him.


17 posted on 09/08/2004 6:02:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

---BTW, virtually everyone who did 2 years active duty during the Viet Nam War was granted whatever exemption from reserve duty he or she sought.---

Not necessarily true. I was in the same USNR program as Kerry. It was made clear to me at the time I enlisted that I would have two years of active duty, three years of drills/two week activations, and a final year of inactive status. I was required to fulfil my committment. I did not receive my honorable discharge until after my last year of inactive status.

Kerry's record makes no sense to me. It never has. He enlisted for 6 (or possibly 7 due to Officer Training) years in 1966. There is no indication that he re-enlisted, because there is no record of additional drills etc. So why does his honorable discharge occur in 2001, or in 1978, as reported in other places?

Something smells and the truth needs to come out.


18 posted on 09/08/2004 6:05:44 AM PDT by Rocket1968 (Democrats will crash and burn in 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SpeakingUp
Yes, reserve exposure can be greater than that of folks who are drafted, but even the draftees had a follow-on reserve obligation.

When I got out of the Infantry I was offered a reserve position in an NG unit in Indiana (Dan Quayle managed to get it). Living in Arlington VA was not compatible with that position and there were NO reserve billets available anywhere within 100 miles of DC ~ all the Capitol Hill geeks had them tied up as they evaded the draft.

My reserve time was spent INACTIVE!

Glad you remember the guys who flooded the reserve components during the Viet Nam War. Some posters here think that was just our imaginations.

19 posted on 09/08/2004 6:07:30 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Uhh, harpu, you must have been an officer. If you were an enlisted man you'd know exactly what I meant!"

First, I must say that I am offended by your ignorant-assed assumption in your statement. I enlisted in the USN, served proudly as a Navy Corpsman (2 tours in Vietnam) assigned to the USMC's 3rdMARDiv FMF

"Even though folks are quite happy to perform any required military duty, it doesn't mean they like it, or want more of it, or that they want to do additional service in a unit filled with draft evaders."

This bullshit statement probably applies to a lot of draft dodging pukes from the late sixties but I doubt very seriously if you'll be able to put this tag on those who served as enlistees versus those drafted.

FWIW, I would strongly urge you to watch your mouth when it comes to 'slamming' a Vietnam era Vet - knowingly or unknowingly!

20 posted on 09/08/2004 6:09:51 AM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson