The article says "There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged." Technically incorrect.
Unless the law was very different in 1972 (and I doubt it was), an officer like Kerry could not have been "dishonorably discharged." He could have been "dismissed" (the functional equivalent of a DD), but only pursuant to a court-martial. I see no indication that he was ever court-martialed, and since courts-martial are a matter of public record, we would all know about it if he had been.
On the other hand, he could have received an involuntary administrative discharge, which could have been characterized as "honorable," "general," or "under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)."
These may sound like technical points, but unlike the MSM, we need to be accurate and credible. A DD (or dismissal) implies a criminal conviction. An administrative separation does not.
That is what I always thought as well. Officers get OTH's and a dismissal. Pretty serious stuff. Only saw a couple of zero's get hammered like that and they seriously deserved it. I've read that Hanoi John applied for an upgrade to his dischrge under Slick Willie's Admin. Truth to this anyone?
But the record states that his medals were reinstated in '78. That means they were taken from him or declared invalid, null and void in '70. Why would the Navy do that? Because he'd been dishonorably discharged? Would they take your medals away on a lesser classification? One wouldn't think so.