Replies

There is not much to touch.

That the Navy chooses to proceed with an "involuntary separation" of an officer, from the Navy, is at the Navy's discretion.

Such an involuntary separation may occur at any time.

It may occur immediately after the officer becomes an officer, such as, when something really bad is discovered, about that officer, and the officer is "excused," to put if very mildly.

Or, the involuntary separation may take place AT ANY TIME later on ... some years AFTER the officer had any active duty, let alone reserve duty, or inactive duty obligations or standby obligations.

There is no "logical conclusion" though one is proposed by the author of the article, that Lt. Kerry received a less than Honorable Discharge, because his name came up, was brought up, drove up, whatever, before a Navy Board of Review of any type.

The best argument that you have, is that Lt. Kerry's "career path" through the Dept. of the Navy, was not stellar, and that it was subject to, what you might call, an examination of his less than honorable activities, such as associating with, even negotiating with, the enemies of the United States during wartime and while a commissioned officer --- that is a very serious offense.

Yet, given the serious offense, the Navy did not, in the end, produce for the public, any record of its investigation(s).

Furthermore, President Carter wrote out an amnesty regarding the Vietnam War, and Lt. Kerry fell under its umbrella (though, perhaps, not on all matters, we do not yet know for certain).

So, there is nothing that has so far turned up, that is subject to U.C.M.J. participation, for which, in other words, the case (if any) would be re-opened.

President Bush, for your information, has directed that this will not happen on his watch, and he has not flinched from that position; indeed, he has not challenged the record of Lt. John F. Kerry at all.

President Bush considers the matter closed and not worth pursuing, because it is damaging in unexpected returns --- it may richochet.