Navy:Undesirable/General Discharges for Civilian Misconduct While on Inactive Duty Reserve Status

SECNAVINST 5420.174C ^ | 17 Oct 2004 | Original Freeper Research

[Polybius]

Until now, it has been the conventional wisdom of former military Freepers, including myself, that any misconduct committed by John Kerry while a civilian in an inactive duty status while still a member of the U.S. Naval Reserves would have had no impact on his discharge status.

I, along with others, believed that, after release from active duty but while still a member of the Naval Reserve, Kerry could only have been held accountable for misconduct while on active duty for training or for previous misconduct committed prior to his release from active duty.

Well, we have all been proven wrong.

On 4 September 2004, I wrote and posted an essay documenting how the John Kerry Official web page had succeeded in deceiving the news media into believing that John Kerry had been “honorably discharged prior to joining Vietnam Veterans Against the War”.

Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com

The fact of the matter is that John Kerry still had Ready Reserve and Inactive Reserve obligated service after his January 1970 release from active duty date and was not even eligible for discharge until 16 December 1972.

The Honorable Discharge Kerry received, however, was dated 16 February 1978, during the Carter Administration.

Today, I received Post 155 on that thread from Freeper “rolling_stone” which included a link to Secretary of the Navy Instruction SECNAVINST 5420.174C whose subject is: Review at the Level of the Navy Department of Discharges from the Naval Service.

SECNAVINST 5420.174C

Section 9-1 of SECNAVINST 5420.174C has an extremely important piece of information:

**************************************

“d. The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the NDRB shall either re characterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:

(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;

(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.

**************************************

There it is, Freepers and all you lurking bloggers and journalists.

Kerry could have received a general discharge as an inactive duty reservist based upon “civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.”

Kerry could have received an other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge as an inactive duty reservist based upon “civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;.”

Thank you to “rolling_stone” for finding SECNAVINST 5420.174C.

[Polybius]

FYI

[mattdono]

Bump for reference

[SteveMcKing]

Assuming Kerry never signs 180 - when would his record have to be released? Never? After his death?

[SmithL]

Hours before the election, Kerry will sign his form 180 and prove us all wrong.

Yeah, right.

[SteveMcKing]

I find it interesting to guess that SEVERAL PEOPLE must have had direct dealings with his discharge, if only office workers and administrative staff. Wouldn't the officers at his hearing know what the real gossip is? Or would they be breaking the law just talking about it?

[Petronski]

What SECNAVINST regarding this issue was in effect at the time in question? Was this one in effect then?

And BTW, what IS the time in question? Late seventies? Or am I confused?

[charleston1]

BTTT and keep it there.

[Mike Fieschko]

The link to SECNAVINST 5420.174C opens a document dated 22 August 1984.

How would this be relevant to Kerry's 1970 separation, his 1970s reserve status, and his 1978 discharge?

Perhaps the folks digging through the DRB files from that time will locate something else.

[Boundless]

> Or would they be breaking the law just talking about it?

It would.

Kerry is counting on the honor of honorable people to
protect the secrets of his dishonors.

[moonpie57]

Ping

[Polybius]

I find it interesting to guess that SEVERAL PEOPLE must have had direct dealings with his discharge, if only office workers and administrative staff. Wouldn't the officers at his hearing know what the real gossip is? Or would they be breaking the law just talking about it?

I presume that it may be the case that, when a discharge has been upgraded, the Navy is not allowed to reveal the former status of the discharge without the permission of the individual involved.

It may be analogous to your doctor's office staff blabbing about your medical record.

That would be the purpose of Form 180 and that may be why Kerry refuses to sign it.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[tomnbeverly]

I would love Kerry to try and explain this away.... Well I'm John Kerry and that stuff shouldn't matter...blah./..blah... blah... Post this on DU... See what they say...

I would start getting all the Demoheads on the record of the well what if it is determined that John Kerry received an other than honorable discharge from the military.. Would you still be supporting his candidacy?

[Ironclad]

Breaking the law, ruining their careers, endangering the future of the armed services in which they serve, and possibly their own lives as well.

[UCANSEE2]

Someone on another thread posted that Kerry was (and this in uninvestigated, and unproven) given the DIS DISCHARGE because he married a vietnamese woman while over there who turned out to be a viet cong spy.

Have you heard anything about this? Or is it pure b.s.?

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump.

[Boundless]

> Hours before the election, Kerry will sign his form 180 ...

Not gonna happen, for three reasons:

1. It would be seen for what it was, a meaningless ploy,
since there wouldn't be time to follow up.

2. It could reveal info that would prove Kerry is
legally ineligible to serve as POTUS (should he
win the election).

3. It could reveal info that will cause him to lose his
next senatorial election, if not face an immediate recall
(should he lose on 02 Nov).
_____________

And he won't sign the 180 any earlier, either. Suppose
he did so on 28 Oct. There might not be time for the
USN to release the docs and for the honest press to
analyze them ...

... but current and former Navy people with now-privileged
info would be immediately at liberty to blab about it.

[Nov3]

BTTT

[edchambers]

The fact that Kerry got an honorable discharge in 78 means that it was something other than honorable to begin with.I don't know about the Navy but in the Army soldiers that were discharged for discipline reasons that did not warrant a dishonorable discharge received a General discharge.A general Discharge could be upgraded at a later date after a period of good behavior and a review by some sort of board.The only other possible reason for that date could be reenlistment's or extensions but that doesn't make sense because because it would show multiple honorable discharges because you would have one for every reenlistment or extension.