Posted on 10/17/2004 11:26:05 AM PDT by 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.
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.
Did Kerry ask for an "early discharge" or an "early release from active duty"?
Those are two very different animals and there is a world of difference between the two.
Kerry's game is to deceive the news media into using the terms "discharge" and "release from active duty" interchangeably.
How could a Naval Officer possibly get an Honorable Discharge from the Navy in 1970 and then get a SECOND Honorable Discharge from the Navy in 1978 ?????????
1978 was his 3rd discharge paper.....
That is a pretty safe bet.
YOu siad there is proof that Kerry fulfilled his obligations.
My point is that no, there isn't, unless he signs a 180 and releases ALL his records so people can really see what's in there.
There may not be proof that he did not fulfill his obligations, precisely because he isn't releasing his records, but that does not constitute proof that he did fulfill his obligation.
IMHO the signing of 180 should not be an option. By running for the Presidency which would make him Commander in Chief is in my mind the same as asking to be promoted to C n C and therefore his prior military record should be a matter of public record. Why in heaven's name should we, the American people, be asked to put a man in charge of our military forces and be denied the revue of his military record?
Right, but shouldn't the Navy have done that so many years ago? It's like the whole Clinton thing, it made us look bad, and it turned alot of people off. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Don't get me wrong though, I think Kerry is wrong for what he did, and he'll have alot of explaining to do when he has to be held accountable to the Lord in Heaven, for what he did to those poor boys that died over there. My heart goes out to them, THE REAL HEROES! May we never forget.
Uh - - up his sleeve? - - - lemmee see - - - being President and being able to tell everyone with Teresa,
"Shove it!"?
"Why isn't anyone investigating it. "
why isn't everyone booing Kerry off the national stage as obviously Unfit -- by even the longest stretch of the imagination -- to be even considered for the Presidency?
I hope someone IS investigating the Lehman signature bit. I heard, when the recent Navy inquiry into whether Kerry's awards were properly awarded came back as: the proper procedures had been followed so the awards are ok -- that there was still something else being looked into. You would think the Navy would care if the signature were forged, even if no one else did!
BTTT
My statement about proof only refers to a Navy document that indicates he was completing his time as required and was being offered an option to remain in the Ready Reserves or be transferred to the Standby Reserves - inactive.... Apparently that is what occurred base on the following two documents at this URL....
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Transfer_To_Standby_Reserve.pdf
All I'm questioning is that nothing has surfaced to indicated otherwise.... Everything is trying to put pieces together without the entire scope of all the material. Thus the confusion on all sides.
What I'm so confused about is why some Navy Officer with the knowledge of how things worked back in the 70s hasn't came forward to expain it. Secondly, there are too many people involved, documents created, typed, hearings, filings, transfers of files to the DOD for archivial purposes, political races, enemies made, for someone not to have seen the 'smoking gun' info and slipped it under someones door, transom, or left it on some desk for others to find.... jmo. Agreed it would be nice to find a complete paper trail and then all the speculation could end.
Come clean, Mr. Kerry, come clean.
That could be the very reason that he refuses to sign the SF 180. Were he to do so it would be fully out there and he'd be Toast to all but the hard lefties of politics.
Time to turn the pressure up to get him to sign it and get it all out there in the final campaign days.
When Kerry claims that he was "discharged early", I believe that that is nothing but a bald-faced lie.
Kerry has deliberately confused the news media into using the terms "release from active duty" and "discharge" interchangeably. Those terms are NOT interchangeable and they have drastically different meanings.
As I asked in a previous post: How can a Naval Officer get an "early" Honorable Discharge in 1970 and then get a SECOND Honorable Discharge in 1978?
You can't.
Kerry may have gotten an "early" release from active duty in 1970 but he couldn't have gotten Honorable Discharges in 1970 and then again in 1978.
The entire matter of "Kerry fulfilling his Reserve obligation" is a separate matter and a red herring.
Some people want to know where Kerry drilled and where his Reserve Fitness Reports are.
They are barking up a nonexistent tree.
Kerry's service obligation, IAW his contract was 3 years of active duty, a period in the Ready Reserve (that when added to his active duty time would amount to 5 years) and then a period in the Inactive Reserves until a total time of 6 years after his commissioning as an Ensign.
What is the drill obligation of a Ready Reservist?
Absolutely zero.
All that being in the Ready Reserves means is that you have to keep the Navy informed of your address so that, if Uncle Sam wants you back in the Canoe Club in a national emergency, they recall you to active duty.
When you go into the Inactive Reserves, your call back priority drops even further.
Once you are discharged, you become a civilian. (Retired folks however have to read the fine print....As my USN, retired grandfather-in-law found out, to his great dismay, after Pearl Harbor.)
I say this from personal experience.
I spent, 8 years on Active Duty, 12 years in the Ready Reserve and the Inactive Reserve and, after 20 years, the Navy gave me a Certificate of Retirement and informed me that I could now keep the title of my rank and was now USNR (ret.)
During my non-active duty Reserve time, I kept my medical skills up in my medical practice and the Navy gave me a call during the Gulf War when my obligated service time was zero.
I never once spent a single minute in a drilling Reserve unit.
Do I get a retirement check?
No. If I had wanted one, I would have had to join a drilling unit.
As the Navy clearly said, I was been issued an "Honorary Retirement" ......... Translation: You are entitled to the honor but are not entitled to any retirement money.
If I ever run for office, the Democrats will call me AWOL because I have no record of any drills or Fitness Reports during my Reserve time.
bump to the top
This is what makes the discharge upgrade the most likely explanation.
I.E.: that the awards were revoked at the time of the unfavorable discharge. He could not claim those awards in his public "did you know I am a war hero?" appearances. Hence, took action after the upgraded discharge in '78 to get the awards back.
This would only be necessary if the awards had been revoked. His merely replacing the copies of the citations or medals themselves would not require reinstatement of the awards.
Check your cards, guys; I think we have a BINGO !!
This begins the period when he met with the VNC, lied to congress and published the New Soldier.
There it is again.......The use of the terms "release from active duty" and "discharge" interchangably.
A "release from active duty" is NOT a "discharge".
You are only entitled to a "discharge" when your obligated service equals ZERO. When you are "discharged" you become a civilian with ZERO military obligation.
Kerry was not entitled to a discharge until 16 December 1972.
As far as I can tell, he resuested an early release from active duty in order to get out of Vietnam early and become an attathe to an admiral...later he requested an early discharge to run for office...I believe that was 1972 but am going by memory and so might be wrong.
It must be BS, no marriage record has surfaced ..even from Vietnam, only his first marriage before Tehreezah.
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.