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?
I have a link to the Kerry sites copy of kerry's discharge certificate:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
Is John Kerry capable of playing rope-a-dope? Even if he is, is it possible for the Republicans to fall for it? Surely someone has peeked at the files and would wave this one off before it crashes.
Yes, but I think what is shown on his web site is a copy of 2 DD 214's. The first was when he was an enlisted man and was discharged to accept his commission. The second was when he was separated from active duty. Both of his 214's have a statement of character of service being honorable. I don't think Kerry has a Honorable Discharge certificate like you have.
Yep. I thought so as well. Was looking into the navy reg:
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/5420174c.pdf
And it looks like that is what the paperwork in kerry's file is that he does not want anyone to see. They are applications to review his record and change his status.
Several people have wondered how sKerry's Release from Active Duty documents compare with a run of the mill officer of that era.
I just took the trouble of getting out my DD214 and posting certain specific information from it. I entered active duty 8yrs after sKerry did, but I apparently was discharged before he got his final discharge in 1985 or so... I have gotten NO other official communications regarding my release from Active Duty from DoD since my separation in 1981. This DD214 was the last official action they took on my behalf regarding whether or not I was honorably discharged.
You might like to take a look at the items I posted, in #238...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1243544/posts?page=238#238
I like Arizona Carolyn's take on this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1243544/posts?page=27#27
I now believe it is absolutely safe to state that sKerry DID NOT get an honorable discharge. After he became a liberal politician in Massachuetts he managed to buy or wheedle one somehow. He can prove me wrong by producing his original DD214 as I am able to myself, instead of records from later than 1973.
Sen.Kerry: Please SIGN STANDARD FORM 180 and show us the truth.
[[Please feel free to copy this to other threads if it seems appropriate.]]
So, why not post the Certificate it self?
BTTT!!!!!!!
I'm going in circles here, but the question remains, why was he separated under 1162 and 1163? Is this common, or not?
See posts 317 and 321
He could not have recieved a dishonorable discharge without a courts martial
Bert:
I would be interested to see if he has a DD-215 ( which means his original discharge has been upgraded or changed) or a DD-214, which is an original seperation document.
Thats where the rubber hits the road.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when my ex retired from the Navy, he was told he had to stay in reserve status for 10 years. He retired about 1980 with 20 years.
I'll show anyone that wants to see it my DD-214 (both of them), and my retirement certificate signed by the President....and I didnt need a board of officers to review it either!
Too bad the most liberal senator in the land wont do the same thing.
I think by the end of the day it will be safe to ask Kerry very bluntly, what happened? Why not post the certificate?
If one reads the statute carefully, there are two ways that Kerry could have received less than an honorable discharge sometime prior to 1978:
(1) under 1163(c)(1) "he [was] discharged under conditions other than honorable ... under the approved findings of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned" OR
(2) under 1163(b)(1) he had been found to "... [have] been absent without authority for at least three months ...."
I am far from an expert in military law, but the (b)(1) approach sounds easier to do than the (c)(1) approach particularly in light of Kerry's "notoriety" at the time. The convening of a formal 'board of officers' and the suibsequent 'approval' of their findings without a public leak (when Kerry was as widely loathed within the military as he was) seems unlikely.
So my money (if it happened) is on a simple (b)(1) determination by his commander that, with all his 'diplomatic' travels he had been "absent without authority for at least three months."
Same question though: if Kerry received a LTH discharge prior to '78, (knowing what a scumbag he is) why didn't someone leak it (and stopper his 'career' for good)? Remember, he didn't exactly keep a low profile. Instead we have to believe that he received the kiss-of-death LTH discharge, kept it quiet and got a corrupt Democrat administration to quietly reverse it 6 years later. Possible but not likely in my view.
I am not sanguine that this is our October surprise.
Is there are difference in the wording of a Upgraded Honorable Discharge from a regular Honorable Discharge?
If so, it would explain why Kerry didn't post the actual Certificate.
Kerry 180 disclosure BUMP!!
Sorry Js. Its confusing...LOL
Apparently the guiding references for his original discharge were 10 USC 1162 and 10 USC 1163, as well as BUPERSMAN 383 9300. ( Naval Bureau of Personnel Manual)
All of these deal with involuntary seperation, which is a different category than Honorable Discharge.
Hope that helps.
bump to the top!
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.
