Posted on 10/10/2004 9:13:59 AM PDT by finnigan2
Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, Kerry has adamantly refused to authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary, and highly suspect. There are 5 classes of Discharge:
Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable.
My guess is that he was discharged in the '70s, but not honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted. His file is probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire. This will blow up in his face before October 15th. On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6-year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime). On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years - 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & 5). Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Cod! e of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972. Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states, "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year." On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland. Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per yea r training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released? Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled? On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -Inactive. On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.
Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War: 1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy. 2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate. 3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam. 4. Lt . Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry by his own words &actions violated the UCMJ and the US Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ’s Article 104 part 904, and US Code 18 U. S. C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, 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."
A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL Director, AuthentiSEAL "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs" http://www.authentiseal.org/
DD-214. Page 2, dead center. Honorable discharge. Sep Code 638: Strength & Adjustments.
Kerry forgot to request release until 1978?
Today is October 11. Dudn't look like it...
Do you folks yet understand that there is no "original discharge" and that Feb 1978 is the first, last, and only one?
I've posted multiple pointers to Findlaw, go over and read the docs.
Just keep in mind that (a) Naval officers are never "discharged" from their commissions, they must request separation, and (b) until such a request is made, commissioned Naval officer remin in the Inactive Reserve in perpetuity.
What do you mean "forgot"? There's no downside to being Inactive Reserve. It requires no action, there are no penaties or obligations, and many Naval Officers remain in that status until their 60's.
The actual question is why anyone would go to the trouble to request formal separation from SecNav.
I hadn't given this document, a cover letter for an Honorable Discharge Certificate, a second glance until today. It appears to be a mostly preprinted form in proportional font (NAVPERS 1926/2 (Rev 3-77) Part 4), with monospaced personal information dropped in, as you say. But check this document of 1986 (years later from the cover letter for the Honorable Discharge Certificate) ...
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_History_of_Service.pdf <--
That letter is all monospaced. I'd like to see a copy of an actual NAVPERS 1926/2 (Rev 3-77). I was able to find some forms, none of them had that appearance.
BUPERSINST 1001.39D (pdf) <-- 2.5 Mb
See Fig 1-3 on page 1-17 (35); Fig 7-1 on page 7-6 (89); a few others.
Nary a proportional font among them.
See also, http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Acceptance_of_Discharge_Naval_Reserve.pdf <--
A form letter with "fill-in-the-blanks," dated July 13, 1978; acceptance of discharge, monospaced.
One of those things that makes one go "Hmmmmmm." Maybe perfectly typical, as you say.
On the other hand, the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy, the President, personally or in effect, may have elected to administratively separate John Kerry, for cause, from the Navy, and then, he would also have received notfication of his separation, though, then, there may be some exception on the arrival of any certificate of discharge --- that is, it, the certification and certificate, may be "administratively hung up" and take some time getting to John Kerry.
Possibly, that 1978 certificate of discharge, is the said, same document that "took some time."
On the Internet, there is no evidence, yet, of the moment of John Kerry's request for separation, if any was made, or of the administrative and legal matters which may have "hung up" the proceedings.
On the matter of "re-upp"'ing, yes, Navy officers do; they enter agreements to serve periods of duty obligations.
We used to ask each other, "Are you staying in?" "Will you re-up?" Enlisted. Officer. We knew the distinctions, but used the same terms.
bttt
Which was my point to begin with, given, again, that he, or somebody, had put in the paperwork to that end.
Yet, given that such a document has not surfaced, the point included that, John Kerry, absent such a certificate of discharge, had elected to remain in the Navy or the Navy, the President, had elected to hang on to him presumably for administrative reasons.
Again, the point being, that given John Kerry's attitude toward the U.S. Military, he does not seem to be a likely candidate for remaining in the service of our country, back then.
Given that, then why the delay in getting any discharge certificate ... until one finally shows up in 1978?
That, is for the most part of the wonderment on this webpage, the big question.
Here we go again. This Nash crap must have been posted a dozen times at least. It is baloney and we have the official documents to prove it. Let's concentrate on the real vulnerabilities of Kerry, not this bogus stuff.
No they are not. Read 'em again.
Where's the DD214?
This is a cover letter releasing him from the inactive component. This has little, if anything, to do with his inital discharge. I want the paperwork from '72.
My guess-timate is that John Kerry did not ask to resign, and there is some probability that he fell into a pool of officers who were roughly and/or loosely contientious objectors, about whom the Navy did not wish to complete a less than Honorable Discharge. The group administratively languished.
When President Carter offered amnesty, the group members who cared to, probably proceeded down some administrative openings and resigned, in order to put it all behind them, receiving Honorable Discharges.
Probably, something like that, is what transpired for John Kerry.
Unless he was "a person of administrative interest," and thus, because of his not-so-stellar post-Vietnam duty performance, he'd gotten himself into "administrative hot water."
President Carter's order, "cool it," ended the matter and probably the Navy was happy to rid itself of the paperwork.
The slim chance that Lt. Kerry was administratively of interest because he did something about which the U.C.M.J. would come into play, is tantalizing for some, but not likely; mostly because, the Navy did not do anything more to him, than the Navy did to the bulk of the group, which was to let them go quietly and on paper, Honorably.
As bumpy as John Kerry's career in the Navy may have been, there is no significant Navy challenge to it, indeed, there is the Navy official stamp of approval on it.
Absent a significant evidentiary find that would satisfy a U.C.M.J. participation, the case is closed.
That does not mean that the participants and witnesses are wrong, though such a conclusion is for what the leftists have produced in the public eye.
This is a ridiculous assumption. Once he was out and Inactive, he was out and Inactive. Maybe dealing with the Navy gave him a headache. Maybe he didn't know how to make the request. Maybe he was busy in law school. Maybe maybe maybe a hundred other valid reasons.
Your reasoning requires an explicit disgust for the U.S. Navy, an idea which Kerry never to my knowledge expressed. He was disgusted with the Vietnam war.
Not two documents?
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.