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

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

[supercat]

When Kerry gave his "war crimes" testimony before Congress, and also when he met with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese representatives in Paris, he was NOT a civilian. However inactive his service status was, he was still enlisted in the US Navy as his commitment was not completed. So his actions in those two instances WERE subject to the UCMJ.

Would it be possible that Kerry requested, and received, a less-than-honorable discharge from a Navy that was more than happy to be rid of him, before going to Viet Nam? I'm not saying he'd actually do that, but if he did I would think that would make his Vietnam trip legal.

[Polybius]

If it hasn't been suggested already, Thomas Lipscomb (sp?) at the NY Sun might be interested to see this. Prairie

Do you have an e-mail address for him?

[rwfromkansas]

Thomas Lipscomb needs to know this. He wrote a good article about questions concerning Kerry's discharge, but not all the pieces fit and some allegations have been challenged by even Bush supporters. We need a smoking gun....something that proves he was put under review specifically due to something regarding his behavior, that is was not just some mass routine review, but due to Kerry's actions.

This may pave the way to getting to that if true since the document refers to what occurred to anyone during the Vietnam era that had their discharge reviewed due to behavior. We need to see if this is the type of review that Kerry went through, something an investigative journalist could help determine.

Here is how to reach Lipscomb:

tom@digitalfuture.org

and/or if that doesn't work...don't hit this one first:

tomlipscomb@MINDSPRING.COM

[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?

Because this particular SECNAV Instruction dealt with the reviewed of General and Undesirable Discharges issued during the Vietnam era.

QUOTE:

"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"

Tell me how a 1984 instruction can go back in time and affect a 1978 discharge already characterized as honorable.

Are you claiming that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge in 1978 (he does have a cover letter from the Navy saying he did)? (I'm not saying anything about discharge(s) he might have received before 1978.)

[prairiebreeze]

will try to obtain

[lancer]

It must have been a quick romance; he was only there for four months and spent most of those in Cambodia IIRC. (:-)

[Truth Table]

Well, this is probably it then. Good work.

[tubebender]

"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"

This sounds like it was written just for J sKerry...

[shield]

Very interesting. F'in skerry is a traitor....

[prairiebreeze]

post 63, if you didnt see it

[BIGLOOK]

Question; Kerry seems to have some legal hold placed upon him by the Navy under existing UCMJ or Federal laws at the time he was to be discharged, having completed his contract with the Navy.

Does the Carter clemency deny further investigation or prosecution for acts committed by Kerry during his contractual service period that were not related to evading or fleeing military obligations?

I suspect charges were brought against Kerry other than those covered by Carter's blanket clemency.

[AndyJackson]

However inactive his service status was, he was still enlisted in the US Navy as his commitment was not completed. So his actions in those two instances WERE subject to the UCMJ.

Sorry my friend, but you can look up the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. The acts of inactive reserve personnel, not in a duty status (covered by inactive duty for training orders) are not covered. Also, to put a fine point on it, Kerry was not enlisted. He was a commissioned officer, which is a different thing altogher, though not particularly relevant to this case.

[FairOpinion]

He got his honorable discharge in 1978, under Carter.

He became Seantor in 1985, and he got his citations reissued, which presumably lost, when he was dishonorably discharged in 1972.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatriotGirl827]

BUMP to the top!

[llama hunter]

my strong suspicion is a revelation on Kerry's military status and his cover up of same may just be one of those October surprises, though we only got what, two weeks to go, you can see that slowly but surely the issue is being broadcast and discussed, albeit in mostly the "new" media, but I see a trend......leading up to a crescendo? for example, John O Neill brought it up for the first time in his statement to ABC News......too bad no one in the Mainstream media is picking up on it, I mean if Judith Miller is risking Jail on another story....hmmmmm

but let's face it it would be particularly damning since the DNC et al have been acting like pit bulls on the Bush Guard story and I strongly suspect Kerry's offences make the Bush Guard Story pale in comparision

for example someone made a great point, someone who had committed treason isn't eligible to run for the office of President, as far as I am concerned Kerry admitted to committing treason

[kabar]

Thanks for the ping.

[rwfromkansas]

Send this to Thomas Lipscomb......e-mail in another post on this thread.

[rwfromkansas]

What does everybody think of post 46?

[AMDG&BVMH]

"< Indignant Kerry Voice> "ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY PATRIOTISM?!?!?" < /Indignant Kerry Voice>"

actually, well, YES

if the shoe fits, wear it

BTW, good post, Polybius and

BUMP