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?
"What is missing is documentation of his release from the naval reserve. "
yes
A officer punitive discharge is called a dismissal and has the same effect as a dishonorable discharge.
In any event, the evidence suggests Kerry was administratively, not punitively, discharged involuntarily. The reason for the action is not clear from the records. That seems to be what Kerry is hiding.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but with the dates on that 214 he posted, wouldn't he have been giving aid and comfort to the enemy while still on AD status?....or at least while an inactive reservist.....and I'm reasonably certain that there are sections in the UCMJ specifically written for people who do this sort of thing.
The time in question is during his reserve commitment between 1970 and 1972. He seperated honorably from Active Duty, but he didnt seperate from the reserves until the Carter Administration, even though his reserve commitment expired in 1972.
My opinion is he didnt attend the reqired amount of drills and a board was convened to involuntarily seperate him.
is this possible? I know reserve personnel matters are different than Active matters.
J/M
USN vet
1978-1987
From my read of 1163, Kerry was either AWOL or was discharged in a less than honorable manner. (We can only wish he was convicted of a crime and was in jail, but we know better). In either event, it doesn't look good for sKerry.
Now wouldn't that be ironic after all these libs claimed Bush was AWOL that it was really sKerry who was AWOL?
"while an inactive reservist.....and I'm reasonably certain that there are sections in the UCMJ specifically written for people who do this sort of thing."
That is the key thing. That is what makes this whole thing believable!!
His actions were egregious -- so wouldn't the Navy have done something about it?? The evidence is pointing to the fact that the Navy DID something about it; and he got it upgraded in 1985.
"wouldn't that be ironic after all these libs claimed Bush was AWOL that it was really sKerry who was AWOL?"
No, not ironic - calculated.
Accusing Bush of being AWOL was INSURANCE against the same charge against Kerry. Fortunately, it did not work, due to the fake memo scam.
The "Sun" is guessing that Nixon might have arranged a less than honorable discharge. The easiest grounds to prove would be absent for more than three months (as in travelling to Paris).
I like this line of speculation because it explains the frenzy to claim Bush was AWOL.
" it explains the frenzy to claim Bush was AWOL."
Exactly. And the decision to use that term, even tho it did not apply.
I believe you are absolutely right. I think that his separation was for cause, perhaps still officially categorized as honorable, but not quite up to certified war hero status
This is not his final DD-214 ... All this is is from his OCS school to his comission date... This is useless...
IMO Rathergate was an attempt by the DNC/Kerry and CBS, to set a example.....In other words now when anyone comes forward with info about KERRY, ALL NETWORKS will not run item fearing them to be fake. All this Rathergate was a hit Rather took for the team. Notice how nothing the Swiftboat say and this discharge info is no longer in the MSM.
The enclosed brings up a new issue. I had noticed that his discharge >was dated in 2001 but didn't think much about it. The enclosed raises >some interesting aspects.
>
"Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to >authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because >of his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was >not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years >after his ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of >the ordinary, and highly suspect.
>
There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, >Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. My guess is that he was Discharged in >the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton >was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was >applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted. His file is >probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the >appeal, reports of his "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along >with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire.
> This will blow up in his face before October 15th.
OOPS: timeout --- hold the phone --- I just went to a co-worker and he discovered that I didn't see the second DD214 on sKerry's web site... I'll have to withdraw my remarks at this time.
okay, bump!!
it's always been safe to ask. but no one has.
There's a second one?! Ping me when you see it. I'd like to have a peek.
bump
Fess up JF'nK ~ fess up now!
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.