Posted on 10/13/2004 12:54:03 AM PDT by politicket
Edited on 10/13/2004 1:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Excerpt:
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/3107
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.
The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?
6 years. Wouldn't his inactive duty be included?
This has been floating around for a while.
I think this sentence hits the nail on the head .... "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service."
BUMP!
This is the most revealing paragraph in the article. It explains why the medal certificates were re-issued.
Holy exotic dancers, Batman, what is he looking at?
And if the were reinstated in 1985 it now makes sense why John Lehman the seretary of the Navy at that time signed the citations. hmmmmmm
I was an "officer" in the Navy and received my HONORABLE DISCHARGE in 1972 and proudly display it for all to see...rto
APD, you got it nailed, my FRiend. Webb is also quite an author and several of his books deal with honor and duty. I'm disappointed in his stand against elements of the WoT but his perspective on the Vietnam era is right on.
Is this the October surprise?
bump
Bingo
Many people and certainly the MSM and libs won't read past the words "Nixon", "enemies list" and "dirt" before they conclude or spin that this is just a hit piece and sKerry was indeed a victim.
Interesting article but I have doubts it will see much action.
Prairie
The records may be purged (and it all could be quite legal) but there seems to be enough here to justify some very specific and direct questions to the candidate.
I think Bush knows what's up, and I think he has deliberately avoided the issue. He would prefer to win without this kind of mudslinging.
But it is beyond his control.
Thanks!
Our Navy Chief friend on the Swift Vets site promised this last night.
THOMAS LIPSCOMB may be the only honest and real reporter in the USA and maybe the world. He is like pit bull on steriods when he gets on a story.
If I am wrong please help me to understand. I was under the believe that an officer did not receive a discharge the same as an enlisted member did. While enlisted had specified periods of enlistment and officer did not. He may have a minimum period he must serve, but he did not have an enlistment contract as an enlisted did. Is that correct?
When an enlisted member's period of enlistment expired that individual was discharged. But an officer's commission was valid until death, retirement, or separation. Is that correct?
So when an officer leaves the military is he separated or discharged? I may not used the term the way I understood it but I thought that only an enlisted member was actually discharged. An officer may receive a certificate attesting to his Honorable service but is it the same as for an enlisted member?
There has also been several comments stated that perhaps Kerry received a Dishonorable Discharge or a Bad Conduct Discharge. Are these not punitive discharges given only to enlisted as a part of the punishment from conviction by a general Courts-Martial?
If I am wrong please tell me.
Thanks,
FYI
and
Ping
Lists.
If you agree or not, the only way this is going to get play is for "US ALL" to force feed the MSM with Demands do investigate, if not it will not get coverage.
EMAIL THIS ARTICAL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!!!!
Well, the fact that the Kerry flack was struck dumb by the question is certainly interesting, isn't it?
Bush has to understand that there is more than his personal feelings at stake. The security and survival of the country could very well hinge on the outcome of this election.
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.