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.
post to all of us what you find out.
I also read somewhere that the Navy seals the documents of
discharge proceedings, something about not wanting to affect the life of the soldier if he has in fact qualified for an upgrade, maybe that is part of the Carter amnesty package, I do not know, but I'm sorry Kerry is clearly hiding something
for example I was reading the infamous Harvard Crimson Tide
interview of Kerry in 1970 and as the original post suggests Kerry lied about his discharge status when he was campaigning for the Congressional nomination in Mass in 1970
he was telling everyone that he was honourably discharged in Jan 1970
we all know from his very own website, that is a lie, he was honourably discharged in 1978
funny how come ABC News didn't pick that one up, too obvious
One question. If he was told he was getting a less than honorable discharge would he not have had an opportunity to challenge or appeal the decision in some sort of military court of law? It's been 30 some years ago and it was the army and not the navy, but back then if you got into trouble the Army would offer you a less than honorable discharge and you could either accept it or go to a courts martial and challenge it, but also accept the consequences (stockade time, same bad discharge, etc) if you lost.
There's more all of us can do to defeat Kerry! Actions speak louder than words.
See the highly regarded conservative website The Federalist http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/. They have a petition all of us can sign - 178110 signers so far.
Petition to Indict and Disqualify John Kerry from National Office
The petition will be sent to the Senate President , Senate Majority Leader and Attorney General after the election.
"Though John Kerry has an extensive and well-documented record of anti-American activities over the past three decades, it is his acts of treason in 1970-71 that are the subject of this petition for indictment. Our appeal notes both Kerry's violations of the UCMJ (Article 104 part 904) and U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953), and calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
"Why prosecute John Kerry now? In October 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency; this has been especially true since his primary victory in March 2004. In response, more than 165,000 signatories of the above-referenced petition for indictment have made his war record the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify Kerry from public office. We understand that no action is likely to be taken on this petition until after the 02 November election. 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. We are thus committed to holding Mr. Kerry accountable for his actions, as there is no statute of limitations for acts of treason."
There is more background at their site.
Send the petition to as many as possible and have them do likewise!
Officers do not reenlist. They can extend the tour on active duty as a reservist or national guard officer if there is a need by the military service. If I were a betting man, I would surely say kerry received a less than hnorable discharge for the Navy. Jimuh carter the commie punk help this anti-american traitor have his discharge up-graded. Carter and Kerry two POE's. Bush/Cheney 2004
My old generic Hotmail account may have expired.
Before I set up a new one, has anybody already e-mailed the thread information to Thomas Lipscomb?
"I am glad to see that others are finally reaching the conclusion I reached months ago, the only thing that explains Kerry's continuing refusal to be honest with America is that his military records hide some terrible, terible stain. That could only be a discharge under other than honorable conditions."
When the Navy learned that Kerry had met with the NVA/VC in Paris, I would wager that an officer was assigned to conduct an Article 32 investigation to determine if Kerry had violated one or more provisions of the UCMJ. The results of this investigation would have been used as a basis for taking administrative or disciplinary action. My theory is that Kerry accepted an Article 15 or was given a letter of reprimand and that his security clearance was revoked. In addition to other documents, I would be looking for a copy of the Article 32 and/or the officer who conducted the investigation.
"He became Seantor in 1985, and he got his citations reissued, which presumably lost, when he was dishonorably discharged in 1972."
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.
If we're waiting for Kerry to do the right, moral and legal thing by signing his 180, we'll all grow old and die first.
That is exactly what this pariticalar Secretary of the Navy Instruction deals with:
Review at the Level of the Navy Department of Discharges from the Naval Service
he's got to have something up his sleeve.
Hanoi John needs nothing up his sleeve. His supporters will vote for him regardless of his type of discharge, his lies, or his behavior for the last 36 years.
sKerry will sign Form 180 after Sandy Burglar has had a look at his records.
bttt
Where is evidence that Kerry didn't fulfill his reserve duty as directed?....... Nowhere do I find that enumerated... Here's a document showing he did fulfill it and was then transferred to the Standby Reserve-Inactive July 1, 1972. This document is indicating he has or was completing his service and is being offered the option to extend it and if not he would be transfered to the Standby Reserves - Inactive...
Your quote is for action regarding someone who hasn't fulfilled their duty which I don't find evidence that it applies.....
100.5 Procedures. (a) Unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve. (1) Members of the Se-lected Reserve who have not fulfilled their statutory military service obliga-tion under 10 .S.C. 651 and whose par-ticipation has not been satisfactory may be: or (ii) Discharged for unsatisfactory performance under 32 CFR part 41 when the Military Department concerned has determined that the individual has no further potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization.
Missed that one somehow. Had to go back to read it. Makes sense. Anyone else?
Add to it, that Kerry's Silver Star citation is signed by Lehman, who said he never saw it, never signed it and doesn't know anything about it.
So it IS A FORGERY! But that info, after being mentioned was buried.
Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief (John Lehman)
Aug. 28, 2004
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201664/posts
Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.
"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.
See #96....... I don't think any evidence exist that he didn't fulfill his obligation....
Exactly. If he weren't hiding something absolutely devestating, he would have signed it, then he and all his cronies would be on every single talking head show and print interview, gravely informing the voting public 100 times a day that "John Kerry is a Vietnam War Hero who Did the Right, Moral and Legal Thing"
They're not, and that speaks volumes.
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.