Posted on 10/13/2004 12:54:03 AM PDT by politicket
Edited on 10/13/2004 1:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Excerpt:
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/3107
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.
The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?
I agree.
To tell the truth, I don't know. I wish we could find some ex military personnel types that dealt with separtions, discharges, etc., that could shed some light on the subject. These terms are not interchangable. I have always understood that only enlisted actually are discharged from the servicem, officers are separated. But everyone who leaves the military receives a DD Form 214, Record of Service. On that it states the character of service. This character of service can be described as Honorable. So perhaps this is what people are referring to when they talk about Kerry's Honorable Discharge.
PING
The much awaited October surprise is here.
It's gobbledegook, but 1163 looks mostly bad. I can't imagine that Kerry would reinlisted, so why was he being discharged in 1978 under a clause dealing with involuntary discharges?
I just had the thought. Maybe the "Navy Chief" has docs obtained through FOIA which do reveal the whole truth and the story is going to unfold one bit at a time. Just enough rope for Kerry to hang himself on in each story. Just a thought but it is possible.
Has anyone sent this to Drudge? Any other media outfits?
Are there any other post-military benefits he could've received... USAA membership, maybe?
Hours ago.
I guess this is one reasons JF'nK will not sign his 180 Navy release form. Also, I suspect that putting YOURSELF in for medals would not play well with the American electorate. I wonder how long it will take CBS and the NY Times to pick up on the story? LOL!
"Liberal groups and antiwar politicians assailed the "inequities" of military justice and the "randomness" of its characterization of service when one left the military, despite the fact that 97% of those who served during Vietnam had been discharged under honorable circumstances. Within weeks of pardoning all the draft evaders, Mr. Carter invoked his powers as commander in chief and ordered that the "bad paper" military discharges of hundreds of thousands of deserters, malcontents and nonperformers be mandatorily upgraded, so long as they met one of six easily attained criteria."
"Again President Carter had upset a delicately balanced apple cart among the Vietnam generation. By wiping the slate clean for those who had dodged the draft or created problems while in the military, he signaled to those who had served honorably during a horribly emotional period that their self-discipline, loyalty, wounds and even deaths did not matter."
Just another reason why Jimmy Carter may have been even more corrupt and dangerous to America than the Clintoons were.
Great job!
Sorry Chief. An officer doesn't "enlist", nor do they re-enlist, but when an officer separates from the service, a DD214 is issued and and discharge certificate awarded.
Drudge is awake. He's posting anything BUT this story. Guess he's mad he didn't scoop it.
Tom,
I read the subject article. Although I wholeheartedly agree that Kerry needs to sign an SF 180 authorizing the release of his military records, I don't think there is an issue concerning his Honorable Discharge. Based on my personal experience, Kerry received his Honorable Discharge under the standard process, which obtains for naval officers transitioning through the Reserve process.
On July 1, 1972 Kerry was transferred from the Inactive Reserves (subject to recall, but no drill obligation), to the Standby Reserves. Similarly, I was transferred into the Standby Reserves in November 1972 after resigning my commission and being released from active duty in November of that year. I did not receive my Honorable Discharge until Feb 16, 1978, the same date as Kerry. I received the same letter as Kerry.
The Navy has a board, which meets annually I believe, that decides what officers should be retained in the Standby Reserves or removed and given an Honorable Discharge. The decision is based on skills and Navy personnel requirements. Officers are involuntarily separated as a standard procedure. I think you are reading to much into the Clayton letter, which contains boilerplate language.
The story about Kerry's Reserve status should be about his activities in the antiwar movement, including meeting in Paris with the Vietnamese Communists while still being a member of the Naval Reserves subject to recall. Initially, Kerry's website listed his military service as 1966-1970 --Active Duty and 1972-1972--Navy Reserves. This was revised to the current timeline, John Kerry for President - John Kerry's Service Timeline, which contains some questionable entries and his meant to obscure his status during the period 1970-2.
Kerry's new timeline states that January 3 Kerry requested a discharge. This is incorrect. Kerry was released from active duty on Jan 3, 1972 and transferred into the Inactive Reserves. (See http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/releaseactduty.pdf and
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rqsthistserv.pdf)
Kerry's new timeline also lists March 1, 1970 as his "date of separation from active duty." This is clearly incorrect. Finally, they use the date of April 29, 1970 to indicate that Kerry was a "Registrant who has completed service." This designation means that Kerry is no longer subject to the draft. Obviously, the Kerry campaign is deliberately trying to create the impression that Kerry was out of the Service entirely after April 1970. No mention is even made of his Reserve status or Honorable Discharge. This is being done because Kerry realizes he is vulnerable to criticism concerning his participation in the antiwar movement while still a member of the Naval Reserves subject to recall.
I hate to rain on your parade, but the timing of Kerry's honorable discharge tracks with my personal experience. The Internet has been filled with the speculation you mention in your article, i.e., the Carter connection. It just doesn't jibe with the facts and documents we already have.
Re Kerry's medals: As I have previously written to you, Kerry requested his new medals in 1985 as replacements for the ones he threw away in 1971. He admitted he threw them away at the time and then changed his story subsequently that the threw away his ribbons and someone else's medals. He was telling the truth in 1971 and is lying today. What we really need is a copy of his request in 1985 for replacement citations/certificates/medals. Kerry claims they just requested replacement citations and certificates because he knows that replacement medals would undermine his current story, which was most recently mentioned to Charles Gibson on GMA earlier this year.
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.