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?

The REAL Reason WHY KERRY WON'T REVEAL HIS ENTIRE MILITARY RECORD. Thank you for posting the Lipscomb article, because now the obvious can be seen: Libscomb mentions the fact that Kerry's record had to be "reviewed before discharge." The author found that unusual. He continued to question, but went in the wrong direction. My husband is a retired military officer so I asked him what such a review by a board would mean. He jumped up, clapped his hands, laughed and said, "Now THAT'S why Kerry won't reveal his military record!" The fact is - the military has Officer Promotion Boards every year to determine who gets promoted and who does not. If Kerry was discharged as a result of the review board's review it means it was because he was PASSED OVER TWICE FOR A PROMOTION. Getting passed over twice means - YOU'RE OUT! So, thus ended Kerry's illustrious military career. They tossed him out, because he couldn't cut it!

The article also mentions "order signed by the President" and the author questioned "why?" Not unusual, rather the custom. All military officers' promotions are commissioned by the President and they "serve at his pleasure," to state it in the formal military language. That is the military standard. So, any recommendations by the review board (for or against promotion) are accepted by the President. When their findings are presented to him, (and in Kerry's case he was evidently not recommended for a higher ranking commission) the President would have had to sign the review as he is the Commander in Chief. Then it is passed to the Senate for advice and consent. It is a military formality, really.

The fact is that Kerry was an "O3"- a grade in the military - Lieutenant. Reaching 04 grade would mean he would have been guaranteed the right to finish his service time to retirement if he desired, guaranteed pension, etc. and all that goes with retirement benefits. Kerry remained at 03 level where one does not have that choice to continue, nor is offered any life benefits. Since he was passed over twice for that promotion to 04 - he was out. That is the regulation.

Remember this: When Kerry graduated from college he applied for a deferment from the draft. His request for deferment was turned down. Which meant, if he got drafted he would have entered the service as an Enlisted man. Therefore, realizing this, he applied for a commission to become an officer. That was a good move, since as a college graduate he was entitled to do that. He probably only volunteered because he knew that he would have been drafted anyway and earn much less, etc. as an Enlisted. Plus, his ego would not have allowed him to be an enlisted man.

Then he was assigned to the guided missile frigate - which means he never got shot at. Pretty easy duty - lots of sun (more tanning?). Anyway, he probably realized he would eventually go to Viet Nam, the writing was on the wall. So, he volunteered for the Swift Boats - that is a volunteer position, and usually pretty easy. When he got there, it was not what he expected. He wanted out. Self-inflicted wound, easily gained those purple hearts (shooting a dead teenager), etc. After 4 months he was out of Viet Nam.

During the course of his required time that he had to serve (at that time I believe the Navy obligation was 8 years) he mostly spent it (probably) in the Naval Reserves which he was allowed to choose to fulfill his obligation. Now, there are only 4 ways that an officer is released from the service: 1. Resign the Commission. 2. Retirement
3. Not being selected for advancement twice - and, 4. Death. Those are the only ways one can get out of the service - if he is an officer. An officer does not have an expiration date as does an enlisted man has. An officer, even retired has a military ID that shows "Indefinite" in essence - for life. Unless, of course, he is separated based on one of the four items I noted previously.
These are things the military knows. But, military personnel are usually quiet about this stuff. It's a sort of code for them.

My husband served 26.5 years in the military. After reviewing all that is known about Kerry, combined with all he knows about the military his feeling is:

Kerry is not releasing his military records because - Kerry's actions after coming back from Viet Nam, and his “whoopie doo” against the war, would have made Resigning his commission a sensible follow up to his protests. Resigning his commission would be something people would accept and would understand today. Basically because his protests are known and one could comprehend him wanting to Resign his commission. That would have made sense.

However, with the information in the article about being "passed over" it is now VERY obvious that Kerry did not WILLINGLY resign. His ego wouldn't let him, and he probably thought he was going to be promoted. So, he stayed. Then, after his second review, he did not receive the promotion. His options were concluded. Failing to be promoted twice is the reason for Kerry's discharge. It is still an Honorable Discharge, just not very illustrious. Not a record an officer is happy with. Simple.

The other thing that alerts my husband's attention is: Kerry is always referred to as Lt. Kerry - and has never been referred to as Lt. Commander Kerry. That would have been his rank had he made the 04 grade. So you have it. He never made the grade as an officer. He never willingly resigned. He is, simply, "Unfit for Command" as the review board recognized by not promoting him, and they ended his career.

Hope this clears up the question. Naturally Kerry would not want anyone to know the review board's decision, which is on his military record.

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.