John Kerry – Less than Honorably Discharged?

OPINION -- What a young man did more than 30 years ago shouldn’t be a primary criteria in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost four years now as Commander and Chief of the World’s largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic Left won’t give it up.

On almost a daily basis, Kerry says, "I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam [4 months/12 days] and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief." Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his Guard obligations. They have even forged documents to prove their point.

The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation.

Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points -- 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74 -- points far in excess of the service agreed to and that required to meets his obligation and be Honorably Discharged.

George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.

While the Left and the mainstream media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November.

We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Further he met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a Reserve Officer, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

From here, the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the mainstream press won’t demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records.

Records released by Kerry's campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was Honorably Discharged on Jan. 3, 1970, Feb 16, 1978, July 13, 1978 and even lately Mar. 12, 2001.

Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event? Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70’s because of his anti-war activities? And then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 (Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under?

Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an Honorable Discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And to date, John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow for this release.

If the Democratic Party, the mainstream press, and the Bush critics are going to demand -- as they do on almost a daily basis -- that George Bush release all of his records, shouldn’t they do the same for John Kerry?

As I documented in the essay I wrote and posted, Kerry's website is not simply "wrong". Kerry's web site is filled to the gills with Bravo Sierra purposely worded in such a manner as to deceive the news media.

I agree with you that Kerry's website contains a bunch of BS, which explains why they are constantly revising it as the truth comes out. Kerry even tried to take credit for the Jan 29, 1969 SB incident on PCF 94 before Kerry became the skipper. The point I was making is that we have the official Navy documents available to disprove what Kerry's website states. Kerry didn't request a discharge in 1970 and we have his own memorandum and Navy orders to disprove it.

That fact also remains that Kerry's obligated service obligation would have been completed sometime around 1972. Unless he voluntarily stayed in the Naval Reserve until 1978 (highly unlikely) the two remaining explanations were that Kerry was either, as Strzelec theorized, threatened with a Less Than Honorable Discharge pending investigation or that he was actually given one. During the Cater Administration that was then all swept under the rug.

This is where we disagree. I contend, based on my personal experience, that Kerry did not have to volunteer to stay in the inactive Standby Reserves until 1978. When he completed his reserve obligation in July 1972, he was automatically transferred into the Standby Reserves. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Kerry was pardoned by Carter. It sounds like some crackpot theory with no factual basis.

I suspect that Kerry is not signing the SF 180 because there are some things he doesn't want us to know about his medals, particularly the first PH (no action report and no casualty report), his Silver Star (why the Zumwalt citation on letterhead paper and why was the award presented two days after the incident and not prpoperly vetted), and the 1985 replacement citations/certificates signed by Lehman and BUPERS for 3 PHS (I believe Kerry got replacement medals and threw them away in 1971 despite his denials today).

Well, kabar, you are going to have to take that particular point up with John F. Kerry himself because Kerry claims in his own Official Kerry-Edwards Web Site that he did, indeed, request a discharge on 3 JAN 1970.....Polybius

I responded to that question in post #110. Basically, the website is wrong. The subject of Kerry's letter of 21 November is "Early Release from Active Duty; request for.".....kabar

If that were the case, why did Kerry's web site not list "Kerry Requests discharge" under a 21 November 1969 date instead of a 3 JAN 1970 date?

If Kerry had the gall to ask for a ticket home after only 4 months of duty in his Vietnam combat tour because of three Band-Aid Purple Hearts........

If Kerry had the gall to ask for an early release of active duty on 21 November 1969 ......

What makes you think that Kerry would not have had the gall to ask for an early discharge on 3 JAN 1970 before his obligated service was completed?

But, why quibble with the details of a web site that was written in way way that was purposely meant to deceive, as I documented in the FR essay that I linked.

The question would still remain:

Why would a man that equated his service in the U.S. Navy analogous to the conduct of Ghengis Khan delay getting his Honorable Discharge from U.S. Naval Reserves six years after his obligated service was completed unless he was never able to get an Honorable Discharge until the Carter Administration Amnesty Program came about?

I read it and it says that in 1969 Kerry says he would finish his Obligations at the end of that year, his enlistment contract states otherwise it says he signed up for six years with a six month attachment because he signed up during the Viet Nam war.

If you were an officer surely you would know that unlike enlisted men drafted during that time, a greater commitment was required to serve as an officer, in Kerry's case it was six years of his life and he gladly signed away those six years to wear the uniform of an officer, and then he lied to get out in three years.

It really is just that simple.

As for you serving on The U.S.S. Iwo Jima, so did I, tell me the famous rumor about it that only someone that had served on it would know and I might believe you.

According to The UCMJ that Kerry lied about finishing his obligated service is an offence

Well, Kerry did not need to lie about it. The Navy would have known when his obligated service would have been served. He asked for an early discharge and the Navy said, "No."

As I noted to kabar in Post 122:

If Kerry had the gall to ask for a ticket home after only 4 months of duty in his Vietnam combat tour because of three Band-Aid Purple Hearts........

If Kerry had the gall to ask for an early release of active duty on 21 November 1969 ......

What makes you think that Kerry would not have had the gall to ask for an early discharge on 3 JAN 1970 before his obligated service was completed?

The point I was making is that we have the official Navy documents available to disprove what Kerry's website states. Kerry didn't request a discharge in 1970 and we have his own memorandum and Navy orders to disprove it.

My point is that Kerry could very well have requested a discharge on 3 JAN 1970.

Kerry does not post the request for discharge document on his web site but, then again, Kerry has not posted a lot of things.

We can not prove a negative.

On 3 JAN 1970, Kerry could have written, "I hereby respectfully request an early discharge."

On 10 JAN 1970, the reply could have come back, "Request denied."

If that were the case, why did Kerry's web site not list "Kerry Requests discharge" under a 21 November 1969 date instead of a 3 JAN 1970 date?

The Nov 21 date is when he requested release from active duty and Jan 3 is the date of the actual release orders. I have no idea as to why they used the wording they did. All I know is that we have the official documents, which show that Kerry was released from active duty and not discharged. Perhaps they want to cover up the fact that Kerry was still in the reserves subject to recall while participating in antiwar activities with the VVAW. I will restate my point that regardless of what Kerry's website says, we have official documents that say otherwise.

What makes you think that Kerry would not have had the gall to ask for an early discharge on 3 JAN 1970 before his obligated service was completed?

I have no idea what he might have asked for, but we have official USN records, which list the chronology of his service. If he asked for it, it wasn't approved. Check out the May 1986 letter from the Naval Records Center listing the milestones in Kerry's service.

Your basic premise may be wrong. I didn't request an Honorable Discharge and I spent nearly six years in the Standby Reserves after being released from active duty in 1972 and received my HD on Feb 16, 1978, the same day as Kerry's. Could it be possible that Kerry received his HD in the same way that I did? I think it is more likely than some cooked up story about a pardon or intervention by Carter.

In Kerry's request to be released from active duty he states that his obligated service would have been finished at the end of 1969, that is a lie.

Had he been an enlisted man who had been drafted and joined the navy he would have had to serve only three years of active duty service (instead of the Army that only required two years).

He signed for six years to be an officer, and that is the commitment he lied to get out of, or we can say that perhaps the admiral that he was an aide for greased the ways to assist him to get out before he was supposed to. Which by the way is covered in the very next article of the UCMJ...

884. ART. 84. UNLAWFUL ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION

Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Kerry either lied to get out or got some help to get out while those shipmates he left behind in Viet Nam were getting shot at and killed.

Since I decided to stay in the Naval Reserve and not resign my commission, I must admit that I never paid much attention to the details of how much obligated service I owed after my release from active duty. I am now, officially, CDR, MC, USNR (ret.)

So, let's clear things up.

Kerry enlisted as an OCS candidate on 18 February 66.

Kerry was commissioned as an Ensign, USNR on 16 DEC 66.

How many years of obligated service including active duty, Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive Reserve was Kerry liable for?

Did the obligated service extend for 11+ years from December 1966 until February 1978?

Others who have looked into the matter claim that his obligated service would have been completed by 1972.

You should read it more closely. Kerry is tallking about his active duty service of three years. He states after noting that his "regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year" that "However, I voluntarily extended my active duty until August 1970...."

If you were an officer surely you would know that unlike enlisted men drafted during that time, a greater commitment was required to serve as an officer, in Kerry's case it was six years of his life and he gladly signed away those six years to wear the uniform of an officer, and then he lied to get out in three years.

Kerry fulfilled his active duty requirment and the Navy released him from active duty in Jan 1970. He stayed in the inactive reserves until July 1, 1972 and then was transferred into the Standby Reserves (inactive). If you were around at the time of the Vietnam war, you would know that there was a large demobilization of forces in 1971 and 1972. The Navy was involuntarily separating officers from the service to reduce the numbers. It was similar to the case of GWB in the ANG. The military just didn't need that many people. We were entirely out of Vietnam in 1973.

As for you serving on The U.S.S. Iwo Jima, so did I, tell me the famous rumor about it that only someone that had served on it would know and I might believe you. </>

I don't care if you belive me or not. I served on the original Iwo Jima (LPH-2) homeported out of San Diego. We took over BLT 1/26 at the start of our WESTPAC Cruise in 1966, including passing by the island of Iwo Jima on the way over. We held a ceremony on the flight deck with 1/26, which included a couple of gunneys who had been in the battle of Iwo Jima. During our WestPAC crusie, we also had BLTs 3/26, 3/3, 1/4, and 1/9. When were you on the Iwo? I have no idea what story you are talking about, but I sure as hell served two years on the ship, which was the first one designed from the keel up as an LPH. It is no longer in the fleet, but it has been replaced by the Iwo Jima (LHD 7)

How many years of obligated service including active duty, Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive Reserve was Kerry liable for?

I can only speak about the reserve officers I served with, but they had a six year obligation with three years active duty and three years reserves. That said, the Navy's manpower requirements declined abruptly in the early 70's as the Vietnam War wound down. I know that there was plenty of competition to get pay billets in the reserves. The units were oversubscribed. I looked into it when I left active duty and decided it wasn't worth it. Besides, I joined the Foreign Service making it difficult to attend drills etc.

Did the obligated service extend for 11+ years from December 1966 until February 1978?

I have no idea. I assume from my own experience that you spent six years in the Standby reserves as a matter of course. I had more than completed my four years of active duty (changed to five) and spent a total of 13+ years on active duty and in the Standby Reserves. Frankly, I paid no attention to it since it took no action or participation on my part. I think we would have to look at the Reserve rules at the time and see how they were administered. I suspect that they were administered loosely as the size of the military declined rapidly.

Others who have looked into the matter claim that his obligated service would have been completed by 1972.

I think that is correct in terms of being subjected to recall. Kerry was released from the inactive reserves on July 1, 1972, which is a milestone date. He immediately went into the Standby Reserves with no gap, which is why I believe it is a standard transition process leading to discharge. It is like the distinction between permanent and temporary rank.

Did the obligated service extend for 11+ years from December 1966 until February 1978?....Polybius

Well, the bottom line is that obligated service obligations come in all sorts of different packages depending on how you got your commission. It depends on whether you were Naval Academy, scholarship ROTC, non-scholarship ROTC, OCS, etc., etc.

Let go straight to the source in Kerry's particular case:

Officer Candidate Agreement between the United States of America, the Department of the Navy and John Forbes Kerry

Paragraph 1....."He will serve on active duty for a period not to exceed three (3) years following appointment to the commissioned grade."

Paragraph 3....."The Obligor agrees to serve a total period of six years in the Naval Reserve of the United States Navy, including active and inactive duty.

Paragraph 4....."Service in the Ready Reserve will be for a period which when added to his active duty will number five years. Upon completion of five years of satisfactory service on active duty and in the Ready Reserve, ....he will be transfered to the Standby Reserve for any remaining portion of his service obligation."

Summary:

Kerry had an obligated service for active duty, Ready Reserve and Standby Reserve, inclusive, for a total of six years following appointment to the commissioned grade.

Kerry was commissioned an Ensign on 16 DEC 1966.

Kerry's obligated service including three years of active duty, two years of Ready Reserve and one year of Standby Reserve, for a total of six years, would have been completed on 16 DEC 1972.

The question remains:

I'm beginning to understand why this might appear to be a non-issue. Although Senator Kerry appears to have received an honorable discharge much later than his obligation would've ended (i.e., 1972), without Senator Kerry submitting a form 180, we won't be able to know why this happened.

Without the press caring about the matter, it'll be destined for the dustbin of history.

I'm not convinced that a USNR Officer is not constrained by the USMCJ (aside from the exceptions you listed), but I'll have to look into it further. If he was not constrained by the USMCJ, it seems that the ball is in our court to assert some nefarious reason behind his late discharge (dang, I hate that phrase), absent any proof (form 180 references, once again).

Why was Kerry not Honorably Discharged until 1978 when his active duty, Ready Reserve and Standby Inactive Reserve service obligation would have made him eligible for an Honorable Discharge on 16 DEC 1972?

As far as his being discharged from the Naval Reserves, I agree that this seems to be the only question remaining. However, of course, there are several questions with regard to the medals he was awarded. Especially, questions remain with regard to the after-action report that resulted in his bronze star and final purple heart.

As an aside, I noticed an article today giving Senator Kerry a clean bill of health, which mentioned xrays showing shrapnel.

Based on his Reserve agreement, good question. I can only surmise that he either requested to stay in the Standby Reserves or the system worked in such a way that the officer had to request to be discharged otherwise he would remain in the Standby Reserve. In my case, I don't recall ever asking to stay in the Standby Reserve or to get out. This would be a good question to ask of BUPERS or whatever they call themselves today. It wouldn't even require a SF 180.

"I have no idea what story you are talking about."

It's an old sea story that anyone that ever served on The Iwo Jima would have known, and it has to do with why The Iwo Jima was designated LPH 2 even though it was the first of the LPH's.

As legend would have it The Iwo Jima was originally designated LPH 1, but as the island was being installed it rolled over on it's side and sank, because the shipwrights that had designed her didn't compensate for the added weight of the island, After The Iwo Jima was salvaged and refloated it was redesignated LPH 2 and Concrete was added to the port side bilge to offset the weight of the island.

Proof positive of this was said to be the way she always tended to lean towards port at anchor or underway no matter how many aircraft or how much equipement was on board and positioned on the Starboard side.

Frankly I never believed the story, and chalked it up as a myth of the sea, an urban legend best told to young Marines that didn't know any better, but I could never explain the list to port the Iwo Jima always had.

As for when I served aboard her, 1978-79, and riding aboard her in a winter atlantic storm almost killed me, or at least I wanted to die before we made it to port.

I'll be honest, you haven't shown me anything that would lead me to believe that you aren't a troll here to clear Kerry's obviously soiled record and sorted past, but that's just my opinion.

And yes, this formerly young Marine has pictures of his time on the Iwo Jima.

Thanks for the story. I never heard it. I also don't recall any permanent list to port at anchor. I ran S-2 and S3 Divisions during my tour onboard 1966-67. We had more than 10 months on our WESTPAC tour, which included more than 8 months off the coast of Vietnam and 65 days at sea at one stretch before we went into drydock in Sasebo to fix a fuel contamination problem. The ship was not that stable in a storm. It had a single screw and was somewhat top heavy with not that deep a draft, which made it unstable in high winds and storms. I slept under Spot 4, which also made it very noisy during flight ops with the H-34s.

During my time, the only permanently embarked Marines were in Operations and Administration and they were officers.

I'll be honest, you haven't shown me anything that would lead me to believe that you aren't a troll here to clear Kerry's obviously soiled record and sorted past, but that's just my opinion

You couldn't be more wrong. Read my posts. I just don't want to undermine legitimate attacks against Kerry by introducing bogus charges that can be easily refuted. I have read Unfit for Command, downloaded and read all of the military service documents released by Kerry, and written articles, letters etc to the media, Congress, and others. I have been exchanging correspondence with several media types providing them with data and analysis. I have also contributed money to the SBVFT and the RNC. It is an absolute travesty that someone like Kerry could even be a major party candidate for President of the United States.

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.