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.
There it is again.......
I joined the U.S. Navy in 1979 right out of high school got out in 1982 but i still had 3 years of inactive reserve so i was actually in for 7 years 4 active 3 inactive
I was told right off the bat that i could and would be held accountable for any trouble in civilian life through my reserves and that it could be held against me later changing my Honorable to General or worse depending on the mishap !
Polybius, this is unbelievable work! Excellent. May I post this on Blogit.com, and of course I would give you full credit. And can I post your other post,too -- the one about Kerry deceiving the media which you link to in this post? I'm a newbie and wasn't around when you did that, and Blogit is a closed site (you pay to join, and get paid also by your readership)and I would like for your fantastic, blistering research to get wider readership. Also I would be certain to give credit to rolling stone for his/her contribution. I would just be the delivery person. This stuff needs to get out and there are a lot of liberals on that site. Great work, Polybius. Kudos!
Errr...make that *requested and *attache. Sheesh.
It may well be that the Navy did do something (dishonorable discharge?) so many years ago - and Jimmy Carter undid it with his amnesty move.
If a potential Commander-in-Chief was a turncoat, meeting in Paris with Madame Binh, etc., testifying before Congress that American soldiers were village-burning, baby-killing rapists, so many years ago don't you think that it is important that the voters know this fact - before they cast a vote for someone they have been led to believe is an America-loving hero? I do.
That would explain the Reagan-era signatures on his award documents.
See Posts 134 and 138.
OFFICERS DO NOT GET "DISCHARGED" WHEN TRANFERRING FROM ACTIVE DUTY TO A RESERVE COMPONENT.
Kerry only got two discharges in his career.
The first discharge was when he was discharged from the enlisted rank of Officer Candidate (E-5 equivalent).
That terminated ALL of his enlisted obligation.
He then became a commissioned officer and assumed an entirely different set of service obligations.
After that, an officer can only get "discharged" ONCE, and that is at the end of his obligated service time as specified by his contract.
The transition from Active Duty to Ready Reserve and the transition from Ready Reserve to Inactive Reserve are not "discharges".
The term "discharge" is only used when a servicemember with ANY military obligation left becomes a civilian with ZERO military obligation left.
Since I am a retired Naval officer with a direct commission, I have never been "discharged", ever.
I have, however, gone from Active Duty, to Ready Reserves to Inactive Reserves to Retirement. None of those are "discharges".
Although this may seem like a nit-picking point, it is very important because it is such confusion in terminology that allows the news media to claim that Kerry was "Honorably Discharged" in 1970 when he was merely "Released from Active Duty" in 1970.
He used the "three Purple Heart" policy to cut his Vietnam tour short. After returning to the U.S., he would still have been on active duty.
See Post 147. It explains the difference between the terms "discharge" and "release from active duty".
There is a lot of confusion with the terms "realease from active duty" and "discharge" being used improperly.
You do not need a "discharge" to run for office.
There are three active reservists in Congress: Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., is in the National Guard.
You do, however, need a "release from active duty" to run for office. You can't very well tell your Commanding Officer that you won't be showing up for duty any longer because you were elected to Congress.
Sorry if it seemed as if I were picking on you. There was a time lag in relying to posts.
It is such confusion in terminology that has allowed Kerry to baffle the press with B.S. and then lean back with a grin and watch the news media do his lying for him.
here is quite a bit of info/regs following the case captioned "Wood v Secretary of Defense".....the dates here are interesting as well as the lengthy directive here:
(snip of header)
DODD 1332.28, Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards,
August 11, 1982 ASD(MRA&L), thru Ch 2, April 14, 1983
**** Text of the Regulation ****
Refs: (a) DoD Directive 1332.28, subject as above, March 29, 1978
(canceled as provided in Section G., below)
(b) through (l), see enclosure 1
full doc @ http://arba.army.pentagon.mil/Documents/D133228P.htm
I will continue to look for the actual case, Wood v SECDEF
Yes, you may.
It is my hope that somebody in the Mainstream Media will give the Kerry deceit some "legs".
Also I would be certain to give credit to rolling stone for his/her contribution
Without Freeper “rolling_stone” who brought SECNAVINST 5420.174C to my attention this thread would not exist.
Good work, rolling_stone. :-)
bump for later
I don't know the specifics in regards to the FIA.
However, since there is such a stink about Kerry signing Form 180, it would seem as if information relating to a specific person's military record may be protected by privacy laws.
This is all above my pay grade ...lol.
Please splain it to me deport.
It appears that the SECRETARY OF THE ARMY handles this stuff for all services.....therefore no "Navy" records??? just a thought...
below snipped from:
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 32 National Defense
PART 70—DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (DRB) PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
(c) The Secretary of the Army, as the designated administrative focal point for DRB matters, shall:
(1) Effect necessary coordination with other governmental agencies regarding continuing applicability of this part and resolve administrative procedures relating thereto.
(2) Review suggested modifications to this part, including implementing documents; monitor the implementing documents of the Military Departments; resolve differences, when practicable; recommend specific changes; provide supporting rationale to the ASD(MRA&L) for decision; and include appropriate documentation through the Office of the ASD(MRA&L) and the OSD Federal Register liaison officer to effect publication in the Federal Register.
(3) Maintain the DD Form 293, “Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States,” and republish as necessary with appropriate coordination of the other Military Departments and the Office of Management and Budget.
(4) Respond to all inquiries from private individuals, organizations, or public officials with regard to DRB matters. When the specific Military Service can be identified, refer such correspondence to the appropriate DRB for response or designate an appropriate activity to perform this task.
(5) Provide overall guidance and supervision to the Armed Forces Discharge Review/Correction Board Reading Room with staff augmentation, as required, by the Departments of the Navy and Air Force.
(6) Ensure that notice of the location, hours of operation, and similar types of information regarding the Reading Room is published in the Federal Register.
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title32/part70.html
If Kerry wins, the records will probably be released sometime between Nov-03 and Jan-19, if only to prevent their destruction after Jan-20.
Bump/ping
BTTT
No problem...we'll just write the Navy a letter and tell them to have them ready!
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.