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.
Right. That's why I said he requested a release from active duty, rather than saying he's requested a discharge. 'Course I made so many TYPOS it was probably hard to understand. My typing muscles must be getting strained ;- )
Waitaminute, let me add something to that "release from active duty" statement : what bothers me is that the bulk of Kerry's subversive activites, including his false testimony to congress adn the illegal meeting in Paris with the VNC would have taken place between the time of his release from active duty - while still a uniformed officer of the US Navy - and the time of his first actual discharge, whether it was honorable or not. I believe that first discharge could not have been honorable.
Yes. Those activities would have occurred after he was released from active duty in January 1970.
At that time, Kerry would have still been a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, first in the Ready Reserve and then in the Inactive Reserve.
This Secretary of the Navy Instruction reveals that, while in such a status:
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.”
and
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.”
Exactly. It isn't hard to see what The Vietnam War Hero ® is covering up with his constantly shifting versions fo events. If he owned up to all of his activities, he'd have to own up to his treasonand he's NOT going to admit to being a modern day Benedoct Arnold (because he can't paint ol' Benny as a misunderstood patriot after all the "Benedict Arnold companies" schtick back in the first half of this year)
> I am sure that there is a clerk in the records center
> ready to release the information when & if form 180
> is signed within a few moments of it.
I found it interesting that when the 4 cartons of Kerry
stuffed was discovered at the USN Archives, it was already
organized into 4 cartons ...
... and the AP was already there copying it. Needless to
say, since only the SBVFT have gone public with any of
it, none of it supports the Kerry mythology.
It's all available at: http://www.swiftboatarchives.com/
He really doesn’t care. If a bad discharge does come out he will just scream “Dirty Politics” or “I was just a kid then” – at 28 years old.
He might even spin it as a good thing – he was brave enough to stand up for his anti-war convictions.
Apparently not until AP sues based on the Freedom of Information Act like they did for Bush's ANG records....holding my breath.
Well I don't make that kind of money either.... My only comments are trying to keep things in perspective based upon published data. The fact that all documents and info haven't been made public is the problem of trying to make sense of it all.....
But the document by the Navy dated 16 Feb 1978 refers to the enclosed Honorable Discharge Certificate thus to me means he received an Honorable Discharge... the details we don't know.
"Waitaminute, let me add something to that "release from active duty" statement : what bothers me is that the bulk of Kerry's subversive activites, including his false testimony to congress adn the illegal meeting in Paris with the VNC would have taken place between the time of his release from active duty - while still a uniformed officer of the US Navy - and the time of his first actual discharge, whether it was honorable or not. I believe that first discharge could not have been honorable."
=== wait a minute.
I agree.
This issue has been gone over and discussed here before, cake_crumb. I tend to agree with what you mentioned. But it never hits the mainstream media.
Kerry's military records are hiding some major story. I don't think he'll ever sign the release form, though.
BUT! I have hopes that not only will the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prevail - but that 'Stolen Honor' shown on Sinclair stations this upcoming week will expose him.
Thanks deport.
That's about all I have gleaned thus far too.
MSM are not about to delve into it.
Wasn't Kerry an assistant D.A. somewhere in MA. between the years 1972 and 1978? If so, wouldn't he have had to claimed or checked a box on his employment application what status he had currently or type of discharge from the military?
It seems that Kerry was a First Assistant District Attorney in the office of the District Attorney of Middlesex County from January 1977 until 1979.
Do any Massachusetts Freepers know if such employment applications are available to the public?
None of us believe Kerry dares sign a release form, but I share your hope that groups like the SBVfT will prevail. If we want any justice in this world, we have to fight for it.
I signed the petition and asked 4 of my friends to do so.
34 - "Then why does this Navy document refer to his "Honorable Discharge Certificate" and dated Feb. 16, 1978? It indicates an Honorable discharge although the DD214 hasn't been produced for viewing..... http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
His other two DD214s dated 15-12-66 and 03-01-70 are available here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf"
===
Guys - Please Note, Officer's DD-214's are not discharges, but Releases from Active Duty. Discharge normally comes separately at some later date. Deport, your first link, is a letter, saying there is a discharge certificate attached - (note the - Enclosure in the header of the letter), which is the actual discharge, not the letter of notification, which you have linked.
Polybius - when I was in the Reserves and Active too, back in the 60's-70's, I was always told (though I never looked it up) that my conduct in civilian life, while in the reserves (not on active duty) could get me court martialed, and I had to live up to the UCMJ, even though not on active duty, if I brought discredit to the military.
I also remember that General discharges and Other than Honorable (which I recommended for several), could be upgraded to honorable after a suitable period of good performance in civilian life.
I'm interested too. Some details HAVE to be public record in the Middlesex courthouse because he held a job of prosecutor or above. As it is, there are darned few details of Kerry's law school record OR law career at all. It sounds as manufactured as his The Vietnam War Hero ® persona.
bump
thanks.
Could there be an old news story somewhere in the archives regarding his discharge status?
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.