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?

The article said But when a dishonorable discharge is issued,all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S.Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

Then you said: This is the most revealing paragraph in the article. It explains why the medal certificates were re-issued.

I agree 100%. It explains a lot, finally drawing together a number of loose ends that have been bothering me. I've felt that the Swifties had something really shattering on Kerry and were stringing out their ads before releasing it.

This is why the title of the Swift Boat vets book is so revealing, and must be giving Kerry nightmares waiting for their last shoe to drop.

For me, and I've been saying this for some time, the last shoe is a copy of some document that says this - either a dishonorable discharge, or explaining why the medals had to be reissued, or maybe even using the official language of "unfit for command". Said document was probably authored by one of the swifties.

When they do place said document before the American public, I think it would be only fitting if they were to fax copies of it to the media houses - from a Kinko's in Abilene, Texas.

Just poking around the internet a little bit, I found this at http://www.landscaper.net/discharg.htm#Upgrading%20Discharges

Upgrading Discharges

Over 400,000 veterans who received "less than honorable" discharges between 1964 and 1973, may be eligible to have them upgraded to Honorable. (This does not include Dishonorable or Bad Conduct discharges)

Postal applications:
Joint Liaison Office
Attn: Army Liaison Team
USARPAC
St. Louis MO 63132

Phone calls:
The Joint Liaison Office 1-800-325-4040
Alaska, Missouri, Hawaii, & Puerto Rico 1-314-428-3500

National Personnel Records Center - Military Personnel Records

When Kerry's records were first posted on his website, I remember reading something about JAG or Judicial review, a letter from JAG, or something to that effect on one of the documents. May have been a cover letter or something, I just don't remember now. Could this also be a smoking gun about his discharge? I have tried to find it again, but my computer keeps locking up when I try to open up a PDF file at the moment. Perhaps an industrious person could see if they can find this notation on one of his records, including those that have been removed from his website. I commented to my husband at the time, wondering why JAG would have been involved.

All former Navy o with legal seperations experience (legal o for my ship/assited base jag on seps)
There are 7 classifications of discharge for officers
Dishonorable
Bad conduct
Dismissal (officers only)
other than honorable
honorable
General (under honorable conditions)
Uncharacterized
The first 3 DD/BCD/Dismissal can only be awarded at a court-martial. However, this did not need to be a trial jury as a Summary CM can be handled at a COs level if they are at the appropriate command level.

An OTH is not uncommon for those who have been in trouble. Administrative boards may be convened by any CO and must contain a minimum of 3 persons. They make 2 determinations: retain/not retain. If not retain, characterization of the discharge. For enlisted members the minimum senior officer was a LCDR (O-4) one member could be enlisted - and we normally chose this option for two reasons (they were harder and they understood the sailors situation better). I never saw an officer seperated via this method but it was possible. It would likely require a more senior officer to chair.

If he was seperated involuntarily via this method then it could have either Uncharacterized or General. It is very difficult to upgrade an OTH to an Honorable; however, I have seen Generals upgraded several times to Honorable after a few years of seperation. Have never heard of an Uncharacterized discharge being issued.

Having worked on about 100 admin discharges from 1991-1994, I would guess that he was subjected to an administrative board and received a general, or was subjected to a Summary CM and a Dismissal. If it was any type of CM then it should be open to FOIA requests as these are trials - just under UCMJ jurisdiction. Would start with his last command and work up through the command chain. If it was administrative in nature then this would be closed as part of his record, but command retention records (open to FOIA) may be able to piece together if any officers were released under other than normal means. In addition command logs may note convening of CMs if local - I know we had to note on the deck logs if convened onboard ship.

Given all this I would guess that the situation was likely handled administratively - tends to be quieter and is a LOT quicker. The review board convened later would be able to upgrade his characterization after reviewing. I see this as the most likely scenario.

Also I do not believe I ever received anything besides my DD214 - no special certificate or anything. The DD214 would be the official documentation. I was seperated for failure to promote - passed over twice (used to be 3 times) - no special documentation required for that they just notify you and that is it. My committement was 5 active, 3 reserve - which I extended beyond the min for reserve purposes. Again nothing special when they seperated me just notification and normal outprocessing.

Sorry for being so windy. Just my 2 cents.

USNA '89
LT (USN 89-94/USNR 94-01)

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.