Posted on 10/17/2004 11:26:05 AM PDT by Polybius
45 - "an officer isn't automatically separated at the end of his duty but rather has to request separation. If it's not requested he goes into the an inactive Reserve status.... "
CORRECT
Note how many times I've had to explain the difference between "discharge" and "release from active duty" on this thread. :-)
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.
AndyJackson and I beat that topic to death on the thread I linked:
Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com
It seems that, while in the Ready Reserve or Inactive Reserve you can only be prosecuted under the UCMJ for actions committed while on Active Duty for Training or as result of prior actions committed while on Active Duty.
In the latter case, you could be recalled to Active Duty for such prosecution.
Now, with that in mind, remember that Kerry, in Congressional testimony, accused himself of war crimes during his Vietnam tour......."prior actions committed while on Active Duty".
Oooooops.
So, theoretically, the Navy would have been within it's legal rights under UCMJ to recall Kerry to Active Duty for court-matial for those war crimes. Kerry would have then had to plead that he was merely a liar and not a war criminal.
However, that would trigger the policy cited in this SECNAVINST that stated that a servicemember in a Reserve component may receieve:
"......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."
or
".....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."
He earned NO acedemic acheivements. He was promoted to management within a month of receiving his license to practice law by his boss, who probably needed Kerry's political clout to win reelection. He only ever prosecuted TWO actual cases in his career. Anyone who gets the type of preferential treatment Kerry got has been well insulated by the good ol' boy network of power families.
He only ever prosecuted TWO actual cases in his career.
CORRECT
**************
In Kerry particular case, his Navy contract specifically required him to be in the Ready Reserve after Release from Active Duty until the 5th anniversary of his commissioning and required an additional year in the Inactive Reserve until the 6th anniversary of his commissioning.
After the obligated service is completed, (16 December 1972 in Kerry's case) the statement applies.
That is how it was in my particular case. See Post 134
I never resigned my commission and a Navy Board never thought I was not needed so I am now USNR (ret.) but without retirement money because I never drilled.
I stuck around solely for patriotic reasons but nothing in Kerry's Navy career suggests to me that he would have stayed in the Reserves for patriotic reasons. Kerry would have had his Honorable Discharge in hand the minute he was eligible for it.
Yep, he did brag about all the evildoers he singlehandedly brought to justice. You're right though...a couple of cases is all he needs to cast himself as D.A.Man (he's DA MAN!), just like a couple of months is all he needed in order to cast himself as The Vietnam War Hero.
We should go to a Kerry Rally and do a citizen's arrest! That way he would have to answer the charges! :)
He was not discharged...the 214 merely transferred him to the Ready Reserve. His own site has conflicting information since he clearly claims to have been discharged in January, 1970 (which he was not) and also shows the document discharging him in 1978. Someone has to get ahold of his bum and make him answer the questions!
You so funny!
----
Thanks. I hope something becomes of the petition and get him out of office.
You said:
"Yep.... got an early discharge from Active Duty.... He got at least three discharges....
1] Dec. 1966 when he completed OCS and was separated from the enlisted ranks and commission an Officer
2] Mar. 1970 when he was separated from Active duty and assigned to the Ready Reserves-Inactive
3] Feb. 1978 when he was separated from the Standby Reserves- Inactive"
There are two versions of the 1970 reserve status. The first one shown below (from 1985) doesn't indicate "Inactive" in his 1970 reserve assignment. The second one (from 1986) differs in the addition of the word "Inactive" for the 1970 reserve assignment
Additional comments below.
found at: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf
This is the Enclosure (1) to some document that was dated January 25, 1985. It was written by LCDR D. W. Meyers, Office of Legal Counsel, Naval Military Personnel Command. It shows dates of different events.
Here's an excerpt from the .pdf file:
D.O.R as LT, USNR 1 January 1970
Release from ACDU/
Trf to Naval Reserve 3 January 1970
Trf to Standby Reserve - Inactive 1 July 1972
Discharged for U.S. Naval Reserve 16 February 1978
found at: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_History_of_Service.pdf
This is a letter dated 24 May 1986. This is almost a year and a half after the previous document.
Here's an excerpt of the .pdf file:
"Senator Kerry:
Your request of the 9th of May concerning documentation of your
Naval Service has been forwarded by the National Personnel
Records Center to this office for reply.
The follow (sic) statement of Naval Service accurately reflects the
documentation in your Naval Personnel Record:
..snip..
1 Jan 1970 Date of Rank as Lieutenant (O-3), United
States Naval Reserve
3 Jan 1970 Released from Active Duty, transferred to
the Naval Reserve (inactive)
1 Jul 1972 Transferred to the Standby Reserve (inactive)
16 Feb 1978 Honorably Discharged from the United States
Naval Reserve as a Lieutenant (O-3)
If additional copies of information is (sic) required from your
official Naval Records, please feel free to contact this office
or the National Personnel Records Center directly."
This letter is from the Naval Military Personnel Command Liaison Office of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.
Note the difference on 3 Jan 1970 between the two. The second letter includes (inactive).
The second letter is not signed by R. J. Schultz, LCDR who is apparently the author. That is extremely odd. Things get signatures in the military in order to become official.
The first was an enclosure to something. Was it a reply to a request from the Senator to document his naval service? If so, why from the Office of Legal Counsel of Naval Military Personnel Command? That's an odd place to get that sort of information. Did Kerry wait over a year before going fishing to get someone to write what he wanted?
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.
Right, but the Swifties are out making ads on this. I'm not defending John Kerry by any matter, I just think that a political movement towards this would be deemed as smear tactic. Possibly, a Clinton-Redux which made the Republicans look bad. Sure, Clinton deserved the impeachment for lying under oath, but going for blood hurt our image.
Truth is if you get an indepedent group with crediblity like the Vets on this, it builds credentials. Just look at the "Unfit for Command" book. It did alot to damage Kerry, and I gurantee if the Swifties keep at it, they will continue to do more.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/10/was_kerrys_orig.html
Good, lengthly, thorough discussion, "Was Kerry's original discharge less than honorable?", including this quote:
"Commenter Roland at CQ provides an interesting link to a current regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 70.9(b)(4)(ii), which provides that
A General Discharge for an inactive 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."
If Kerry is indicted now, Bush loses. Either the Democrats will manage to win with Edwards, or they'll make a sufficient stink to make 2000 look like a cakewalk. Either way, Bush is deprived of the mandate he very much needs.
"Hours before the election, Kerry will sign his form 180 and prove us all wrong.
"Yeah, right."
If there's some magical (legal or not) way to sanitize them reliably (how many copies could there be?) it just might happen.
Did you read the petition?:
"Be it known, however, that on 03 November, we will seek full recourse in an effort to have John Kerry prosecuted for acts of treason and disqualified from any future campaign for any national office."
May or may not be relevant:
eight court cases (circuit level) citing 1162 or 1163, and all involved officers canned for cause -- sexual misconduct, subversion, etc..
Sims v. Fox, 505 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. 12/30/1974) -- officer discharged for indecent exposure, court holds that under 1162 he serves at pleasure of President & has no property right to post. Interesting note with regard air force: "The exact terms of the discharge are important. At the time Sims was notified of his prospective discharge and at the time the Panel heard Sims' appeal, Air Force regulations provided that the discharge certificate (DD Form 214) would contain a code*fn3 which, upon inquiry, would reveal that Sims was discharged because of "fail[ure] to meet the standards of conduct and performance prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force",*fn4 and would further reveal that the discharge was related to Sims' "unfitness, unacceptable conduct or in the interest of national security."*.... Since the rendition of the panel decision, there has been a significant change in Air Force regulations. They now provide that the code explaining the reason for discharge will not be put on the discharge certificate.*fn6 The certificate "on its face" does not reveal the reason for discharge. Furthermore, the regulations specify that narrative reasons for discharge can be obtained only by a former "member furnish[ing] the original DD Form 214 for the period of service for which he desires the narrative reasons for separation".*fn7 As explained by Air Force correspondence, "narrative reasons for separation are to be furnished only to the member and then only upon his request and provided the member can furnish the original DD Form 214."
I assume Navy regulations must mirror this as well, since the overall authority is DOD regulations promulgated to the services.
The question I still have is: DD214 required when transferring from Ready Reserve to Standby Reserve?????
- Chief
BUMP
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.