Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

New York Sun ^ | 10/13/2004 | BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun

[politicket]

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?

[McGavin999]

I know this is going to drive everyone here nuts, but remember what we're dealing with here. The dem media had no problem with a draft dodger for president, why would they have a problem with someone who received a dishonorable discharge.

[AFPhys]

Amazingly enough, over a third of vets apparently support sKerry. That sKerry gamed the system after getting a less than honorable discharge, which was an absolutely EXPECTED RESULT in that era, will matter to many of them. It was quite difficult to achieve an other than honorable discharge, even if you had a tendency to really be a jerk-off while in the service.

[tdadams]

This is a pretty damning case. I hope this somehow works its way into tonight's debate. I'd like to see Bush point blank challenge Kerry to sign the form 180.

"What are you hiding, Mr. Kerry? The American people have the right to know before they trust you with the presidency."

[js1138]

So far, this story is speculation based on well known documents. We have a smoking gun, but no body. At least one Freeper has stated he received the same 1978 letter, and it was routine.

We need more info.

[OldEagle]

"I bet on further investigation we will find ties to Ted Kennedy in this crap..."

I believe we have a winner!

[JoeGar]

Has anyone sent this to Drudge? Any other media outfits?

The story is on the front page of the New York Sun.

[quadrant]

I read the October Surprise post, but it does not answer the question of the nature of Kerry's discharge.

[Aunt Polgara]

I think the SwiftVets have a lot more to come....

For one thing, they have been absolutely rabid about keeping speculation and rumors off their boards, so this is the real deal.

For another thing, I was kinda unhappy that they would break this story on the day of the last debate, but think about it. If Kerry doesn't know exactly what's coming, don't you think it will probably throw him off his game plan for tonight? This is a psyop attack, and it seems to be designed to drip, drip, drip until he cracks.

Of course, the MSM will try to bury it, but will be ultimately unsuccessful due to the efforts of the pajamahajeen. Are we ready, folks? It's gonna be a long night!

[Truth Table]

Interesting point. The president says that he is proud of his honorable discharge. Proud of his service.

[upcountry miss]

Thank you. Despite our passion, we don't want to lower ourselves to the DUers level.

[JLO]

Ping to you all, just in case you haven't seen this yet.

News we've been waiting for.

[madison46]

I'm skeptical this will get any traction..hope i'm wrong

[PatriotGirl827]

"Kerry has not released lots of stuff:

He has not released his war documents
He has not released divorce documents
His wife has not released her financial records"

And they are always claiming how secretive the Bush administration is.

[judicial meanz]

Ok....this old sailor remembers a few things now:

The two statutes(10 USC 1162 and 1163) concerned Revocation of Officers Commissions without consent of the officer. Both statutes were repealed in 1994 and several variants of the original statute have been in effect since then. The most current version is here:

10 USC 1162 was replaced with this statute:

____________________________________________________________
§ 12683. Reserve officers: limitation on involuntary separation


Release date: 2004-03-18

(a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least five years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except—
(1) under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(2) by the approved sentence of a court-martial.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) A separation under section 12684, 14901, or 14907 of this title.
(2) A dismissal under section 1161 (a) of this title.
(3) A transfer under section 12213, 12214, 14514, or 14515 of this title.
(4) A separation of an officer who is in an inactive status in the Standby Reserve and who is not qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve or is qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve and does not apply for such a transfer.

[Excuse_Me]

(6) When a member of the IRR, whose
enlistment or appointment provided
that the service concerned could be
performed entirely in the IRR (as opposed
to the Selected Reserve), is identified
as an unsatisfactory participant,
a board of officers shall be convened as
required by 10 U.S.C. 1163 to consider
the circumstances and recommend appropriate
action. When an individual is
retained as a result of an approved
board action, no further board action
shall be required before discharge if the
individual fails to take affirmative action
in an effort to upgrade the tentative
characterization of service.

[visitor]

Goat Locker
Freeper Since Sep 30, 2004

if goat locker reads this please post an image/link to this thread that is kerry's Honorable Discharge, if not available, please post an image of whatever you have that specifically says that he received an Honorable Discharge, thanks...rto

[Dante3]

BUMP

[judicial meanz]

FYI:

10 USC 1161 talks about the limitations on dismissal of Commissioned officers:

10 USC 1162 talks about Involunatary Seperation: This is the one the Kerry document references, as well as 10 USC 1163.

Which statute was he discharged under?

Just so the facts are straight.

____________________________________________________________

§ 1161. Commissioned officers: limitations on dismissal


Release date: 2004-03-18

(a) No commissioned officer may be dismissed from any armed force except—
(1) by sentence of a general court-martial;
(2) in commutation of a sentence of a general court-martial; or
(3) in time of war, by order of the President.
(b) The President may drop from the rolls of any armed force any commissioned officer
(1) who has been absent without authority for at least three months,
(2) who may be separated under section 1167 of this title by reason of a sentence to confinement adjudged by a court-martial, or
(3) who is sentenced to confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary or correctional institution after having been found guilty of an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other military court, and whose sentence has become final.

[Chuck54]

ping....

[Truth Table]

The contention is that Kerry was given an "under other than honorable circumstances" discharge, which would strip him the right to wear his uniform and medals. As a matter of fact, he did not lose his medal cititations as he contended, they were stripped from him because of his discharge. His medals were all reissued on the same day in the 1980's after he became a senator.

The paperwork in his navy file that he does not want exposed are petitions from him to the department of the navy to upgrade his discharge. The contention is that he did not serve his country honorably, according to the navy at the time they discharged him.

And nothing jimmah carter did while in office can change that fact.