Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

The New York Sun ^ | October 13, 2004 | THOMAS LIPSCOMB

[LOC1]

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.

snip

Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

[dennisw]

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008170.php

[Arkie2]

This has been floating around for awhile but this is the first documentation I've seen that appears to support it. 'Til now it's been hearsay. Looks like an October surprise brewing for Kerry.

A less than honorable discharge in his background would sink this fraud. Wonder when the Clintons will let the cat out of the bag? ;^)

[VNam68]

Bump

[Mike Fieschko]

My $0.02:

If (and it's a big if) this is true, fine.

But if Kerry's 'original' discharge (begging the question) was honorable, then the potential blowback is galactically enormous.

He can feign innocent injury and come out as the truthful victim of a genuine smear and Bush loses every ounce of credibility.

[Arkie2]

So let the pajama clad insurrectionists on the internet lead the charge. The Bush campaign doesn't have to lift a finger.

[greasepaint]

Why would Kerry NOT offer to resign his commission,
which, IMO, would have been the honorable thing to do
in 1972, not wait till 1978 to be dropped.

[sphinx]

I wonder how long it will take CBS and the NY Times to pick up on the story?

I checked the weather channel for frost warnings for Hell. No luck.

[Velveeta]

Keeping it bumped.

[cookcounty]

Bump to the very top.

[Mike Fieschko]

this is the first documentation I've seen that appears to support it.

Please point out the documentation Lipscomb supplies.

There's nothing ...

only the 1978 letter (which has been on Kerry's web site for months), and

the lack of a response to Lipscomb's inquiry from the Kerry campaign and

from Charles Colson and

the fact that the citation copies were issued on one day.

There is absolutely nothing new in this article.

[Mike Fieschko]

Why would Kerry NOT offer to resign his commission, which, IMO, would have been the honorable thing to do in 1972, not wait till 1978 to be dropped.

I have no idea. None of us here have any idea, only speculation.

Should publishing an article be based only on speculation? No (see the bogus draft rumors, the bogus story of Kerry using a PDA at the first debate, and the bogus story of Bush being wired in the first debate).

But your question begs the question of whether Kerry even resigned his commission. Carter was drawing down the military and it is just as likely, if not more so, that the Navy had no more use for Kerry's skills.

Bush was qualified on the F-102 and the USAF or ANG didn't want to retrain him. It is just as likely that the Navy felt the same way about Kerry's skills (his skills, not his character).

[Servant of the 9]

This is all gonna unravel on Kerry within 10 days.

As more and more Blogs and then FOX News begin to ask questions it will snowball like Rathergate.

SO9

[Mike Fieschko]

This is all gonna unravel on Kerry within 10 days.

So ... if Kerry signs the 180 tomorrow, do you think the Navy will produce all his records in the 12 business days left until the election?

[Fred Hayek]

"Bad Conduct Discharge" for consorting with the enemy originally.

Then he got off light. See Article 104 (Aiding the enemy)of UCMJ, also Article 80 (Attempts).

[Arkie2]

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.

[Aquinasfan]

Yeah baby! Bring it on!

[browardchad]

But if Kerry's 'original' discharge (begging the question) was honorable, then the potential blowback is galactically enormous.

I get the distinct impression, based on Kerry's refusal to directly answer charges by the SBV, his selective avoidance of press interviews, and the refusal to release all of his records, that the discharge was less than honorable.

The refusal becomes particularly stark in comparison to the flood of documents released by Bush in response to questions about his National Guard service, and the pathetically desparate attempt by Rather and the DNC to pass off forged documents impugning Bush's records always struck me as a preemptive attack mounted in fear of Kerry's records being somehow leaked.

Are there other explanations of Kerry's discharge record? Sure -- but if one of those alternate explanations is the truth, why not produce the proof?

After reading about this issue for months, it seems to me that Lipscomb's (and the SBVT's) theory ties up a lot of loose ends with regard to Kerry's puzzling documentation.

That said, I agree with your opinion that Bush cannot lead the charge in these accusations. The chances of the records being released are slim to none, since Kerry is the gatekeeper of the facts, and those in the 100 club, such as Warner, who may know the truth, are not about to break ranks from the smarmy, self-serving fellowship of the Senate.

[ex-Texan]

It's never going to happen, my friend. Kerry stonewalled and had a enginered a total cover-up of his background. His cover is 'Totaly Clintonesque.' Even more so. I know all about Bubba. A friend and co-worker of mine had a close relative who was in charge of White House security. He spilled the beans to me in private about what was really going on in Bubba's White House. Even showed me a private photo of Bubba under the influence taken by his relative. He was so high his forehead was boiling sweat and his nose was bright red. My friend had this small photo up on his wall and you had to get a close look at it to understand what was really going on. Also, I had friends who were working undercover in the Los Angeles area. Two Secret Service agents came into his resaurant and were visibly upset because Clinton had been with two 'very young' hookers in his hotel. These girls stayed in a private, well guarded room well away from Bubba. These SS agents were so upset that one of them was going to tender his resignation immediately.

Kerry is even worse than Clinton. But for other reasons: Clinton believed only in playing the role grandly, having a good time and stuffing his pockets with money. Kerry is more of a 'true believer' and was educated in Europe. Think about that for a minute. But this material will not be exposed before the election. 'True believer' means what it is supposed to mean. These secrets about Kerry's background are buried very deeply. Mr. K has kept these secrets buried for over 30 years. They will not come out before the election or even afterwards.

The year 2005 will shock and amaze Americans. Get ready for it and buckle your seat belt. A very hard ride is coming just over the horizon.

[Twinkie]

Has there been a Kerry Cover Up?

[Notwithstanding]

Nowadays the state bar application asks if you recieved an other than honorable discharge.

These applications are no small beans. They are the basis for admitting you to the bar.

I wonder if that information is in any way subject to FOIA requests?