SwiftVets.com

[sv_Equinox]

Kerry's non-honorable discharge

By Earl Lively
© 2004

There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge – which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge without the felony conviction – and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!

Kerry's oh-so-clever handlers evidently depended on the ignorance of the public and the press about military records when they posted his 1978 "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" on his site as part of a carefully selected partial release of his Navy records (the Navy says it is still withholding about 100 records). However, one diligent researcher, Thomas Lipscomb, saw through the scam and exposed it in a New York Sun story on Oct. 13. Predictably, the major media has shunned the story.

What Mr. Lipscomb noticed (and I overlooked when I first read the document) was the date of the posted discharge, Feb. 16, 1978. This was six years after Kerry's six-year (1966-1972) commitment to the Navy ended. The anti-war detractor of our military did not re-up for another six-year term in 1972, so why the delay of his discharge? The only logical conclusion is that the 1978 honorable discharge was a second discharge given to replace an earlier undesirable discharge under less-than-honorable conditions, as unfit for military service.

I was a colonel assigned as director of Operations of Headquarters, Texas Air National Guard when George W. Bush was a lieutenant in the Air Guard. Since 1999, I have been besieged by the media, from the London Guardian to CBS' "60 Minutes," NBC, the Boston Globe and others, with allegations and questions about Lt. Bush's service in and discharge from the Texas Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force. I recently appeared on "Fox & Friends" twice to shoot down CBS' phony memos about Lt. Bush and allegations about his discharge.

In the interest of fairness and equal time, it is time scrutiny of John Kerry's discharge(s) is demanded.

The Navy is stonewalling Freedom Of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch for the rest of Kerry's records – not surprising, because ever since the Tailhook flap, the Navy has had a politically correct virus. Feminist Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., figuratively castrated the Navy's top brass, and the Navy cringed from political correctness. Pressure and morale at the top was so low that the chief of Naval Operations committed suicide. The Navy doesn't want to admit it succumbed to political pressure to restore honors stripped from a discredited turncoat. In hiding the truth, the Navy dishonors even the lowest-ranking sailor who ever swabbed a deck.

Sen. Kerry has said that his medal certificates were reissued because he lost them (and his dog ate his homework, I suppose). Rewards are certified in one's permanent personnel record jacket. If you lose a medal, you can get a replacement medal if your records show the award. The only way awards would have to be reissued is if they were rescinded and deleted from your records. And this narrows the possibilities down to a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge. As Mr. Lipscomb noted:

There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged ... 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.

Military sources tell me that an undesirable discharge under other-than-honorable conditions would also result in a loss of benefits and awards. Kerry could have received a dishonorable discharge, but that would have required a court martial and a felony conviction that might be harder to conceal, so the undesirable discharge is more likely.

The experience of my 30-plus years in the Navy, U.S. Air Force, and Air National Guard tells me that the late-issued honorable discharge was obviously a cover-up whitewash. Ditto for the re-issuance of Kerry's medals shortly after he became a member of the "ol' boys club" in the Senate.

One of the top dogs in that club, Sen. John Warner, has amnesia about "any representation" about Kerry receiving a less than honorable discharge, even though he was Nixon's secretary of the Navy when Kerry delivered his diatribe against the Navy and other services in the Senate in April, 1971. In May of 1970, Kerry conferred with the Viet Cong in Paris, and in July of 1971, he demonstrated in Washington to sell their peace proposal – while he was in the Naval Reserve. This variety of amnesia is common among Republicans asked to stand up and testify to Democrat crimes and injustices.

The Nixon-Ford presidency gave way to Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1977, which tends to explain the six-year delay in getting the revised discharge. Mr. Lipscomb adds some insight:

Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on Jan. 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977, it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases, the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case-by-case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.

A document on Kerry's website is a form letter from W. Graham Claytor, Carter's secretary of the Navy, which grants his Honorable Discharge.

Secretary Claytor's letter says that this action to award an Honorable Discharge Certificate is taken in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 1162 and 1163, which deal with grounds for involuntary separation of a reserve officer and provide for the action of "a board of officers" to examine an officer's records and review previous actions. Obviously, this was the aforementioned board for appeal resulting from President Carter's executive order. Unless Lt. Kerry had previously received an undesirable discharge, he had nothing to appeal and would not have come before this board.

When he became a senator in 1985, his clout as a senator got his medals back, even though Reagan was president, but the restoration of the medals was one more piece of evidence, as Mr. Lipscomb noted, that Kerry's previous discharge was not honorable.

A man who evidently has been found unfit for military service could become commander in chief of the armed forces. It is time for the facts hidden in his records to be disclosed.

[JB Stone]

EVIDENCE MOUNTS THAT KERRY DISCHARGE WAS OTHER THAN HONORABLE

ANALYSIS FROM TWO FORMER NAVAL ATTORNEYS AFTER EXTENSIVE RESEARCH

Veterans' groups and especially former POWs are highly skeptical that Senator John Kerry has posted a part of his naval service records which indicates that he received an honorable discharge but he continues to refuse to execute the release form that would allow public review of over 100 pages of other records. To these Vietnam Veterans, it is simply inconceivable that Kerry could have received the same discharge that they did after his 1970 – 1971 grandstanding as a lead propagandist against his fellow Americans serving in combat in a "shooting war. It is a basic rule of debate and of litigation (Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 107) that, that when a party relies on a part of a document as Kerry has done with his service record, fairness and the pursuit of the truth dictates that he produce all of the document (or, in this case, at least the non-medical performance-related documents.) Similarly, when a party in an argument or in litigation conceals or holds back something that he could readily produce for inspection, the inference is an adverse one, namely: that the concealed matter would, if produced, be contrary to that party's interests.

These adverse inferences come squarely to mind in the case of the Kerry campaign naval service records since the key document, Senator Kerry's honorable discharge, is dated 1978 in the midst of the wholesale correction of military and protestor-related records that occurred at the outset of the Carter Administration. On the very first day following Jimmy Carter's inauguration, he issued the first of a series of mnesties and pardons that initially extended to draft evaders who did not serve and ultimately extended even to service members if their conduct had been the topic of certain counter-intelligence surveillance.

The records posted by Senator Kerry reflect that he enlisted in the Naval Reserve as an officer candidate on February 18, 1966. He was a reservist on inactive duty until August 20, 1966, when he began Officer Candidate School.

Kerry was commissioned as an Ensign, the entry level for naval officers on December 15, 1966, and remained on active duty for three (3) years and eighteen (1 days until January 3, 1970. Under the "Universal Military Training & Service Act;" 10 U.S. Code § 651(a), and under his enlistment contract, Kerry was obligated to serve a total of for six (6) years, including both active and reserve time. In keeping with this statute, at the conclusion of his three (3) years of active duty, Kerry was not issued a Discharge Certificate but was transferred to the Naval Reserve. Having served in Vietnam, Kerry was permitted, but was not required to drill.

Lieutenant Kerry did not drill, and was placed in the "Standby Reserve Active (USNR – S1)," also known as the "Individual Ready Reserve." As a matter of law, contractual commitment and long-standing custom, Kerry was not just like civilian activist, Jane Fonda and other war protestors. He was still a naval officer (with a Top Secret security clearance) who was subject to call-up when, in 1970 and 1971, he engaged in his leadership role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War ("VVAW") and in the fraud-ridden Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit which featured fakes and phonies as alleged G.I. barbarians admitting atrocities in Vietnam. Per Kerry's records, no adverse action was taken against him administratively and, on March 1, 1972, after completing his six (6) years of mandatory service, Kerry was transferred to the "Standby Reserve – Inactive (USNR-S2)." The Kerry records reflect an adjustment of that transfer date to July, 1972, which may reflect a retention in an active status for some now omitted administrative action. However, it also may reflect an adjustment to comply with the six year mandatory service law, adding back the months of "inactive duty" in 1966 between Kerry's enlistment and his reporting to Officer Candidate School.

Taking the Kerry campaign at its word that nothing material has been omitted from the posted records, the provocative nature of Kerry's protest activities presents an obvious question: why was no action taken against Kerry while he was a reservist in an active status? Several explanations come to the forefront. The first involves a bit of legal history. During the period from 1969 until it was overruled in1987, the military services were constrained in their exercise of court-martial jurisdiction by the then-new, radical departure from tradition stated in O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969), an opinion by Justice William O. Douglas that is one of the very last opinions of the "Earl Warren Court." Under O'Callahan, the significance of one's status as a soldier or sailor, let alone the traditionally more demanding status of being an officer (and a gentleman), became secondary to whether one's criminal or subversive conduct occurred on duty or off duty. This was a difficult rule to apply to reservists and the military services exercised great restraint in asserting court-martial criminal jurisdiction, particularly in the case of reservists. The uncertain limits of the application to a reserve officer of the rule in O'Callahan would alone explain the lack of any punitive action against Senator Kerry for his VVAW and Winter Soldier Investigation excesses.

However, the criminal jurisdiction limitations of O'Callahan did not apply to administrative actions, raising the further provocative question why the Nixon Administration's Secretary of the Navy did not, at a minimum, proceed with administrative separation of Kerry based on the obvious grounds of his ineligibility to hold a security clearance. As any officer or former officer knows, personal reliability sufficient to warrant the retention of a security clearance is a basic requirement for any officer, active or reserve. Faced with a choice between: (1) the Nixon Administration supposedly "not being concerned" about the conduct of Fonda and Kerry, or (2) there being some other overriding issue or concern, the second choice is the far more likely option. The recent, highly-publicized revelations of then-Lieutenant Kerry apparently meeting with and coordinating anti-war activities with representatives of the North Vietnamese government presents a compelling reason for the Department of the Navy to have elected not to have taken disciplinary action against Kerry.

In a series of highly publicized hearings in the 1970s that reached their climax in the Carter years, Senator Frank Church (D.-Id.) and Congressman Otis Pike (D.-N.Y.) severely criticized the Nixon Administration for "spying on U.S. civilians" who engaged in protest activities less inimical to the interests of the United States than coordinating protest activities with the enemy.

Assuming that there must have been such surveillance of VVAW and the "Winter Soldier Investigation," it is a fair assumption that the interest of maintaining the investigative "cover," in and of itself, would have militated against taking any disciplinary action. At the insistence of the Church Committee and Carter Administration, the Department of Defense formed the Defense Investigative Review Council which reviewed all such "spying" on civilians, purging the offending files and, where they affected military personnel, correcting personnel records tainted thereby. Thus, if adverse action had been taken against Lieutenant Kerry based on any such surveillance, it would have been a prime candidate for "correction."

This then brings the analyst of the Kerry service records to the most intriguing documents on the Kerry campaign web page: (1) the issuance of an honorable discharge certificate effective February 18, 1978, and (2) the Silver Star Medal citation executed by Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, seven or eight years after the alleged honorable discharge and over fifteen years after the incident for which the medal was awarded. 1

Taking the Kerry campaign at its word that nothing material has been omitted from the posted records, the significant item begging for an explanation is the gap between Kerry's 1972 transfer to "Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2)" and the issuance of the posted honorable discharge six years later. A naval reservist in this inactive status cannot drill, cannot be promoted and is merely in a manpower pool. Under clear regulatory authority, including the Bureau of Personnel Manual article referenced in the February 18, 1978 letter that forwarded Kerry's honorable discharge (BUPERSMAN 3830300), Kerry should have been discharged no later than 1975, three years after the transfer to Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2), if not earlier.

The absence of the discharge that should be in the record in 1975 cannot be readily explained by blaming "bureaucracy." The military services faced significant force reductions in 1972 and again in 1974, making slow-rolling of separations unlikely. Under the law then in effect, 10 U.S. Code section 1163, Lieutenant Kerry would have been entitled not to be separated without his consent or, in the absence thereof, with review of the Secretary of the Navy's action by a board of officers. Separation based on "conduct unbecoming an officer" or on commission of an offense (whether or not prosecuted criminally) of even misdemeanor level severity from the perspective of a civilian (i.e., an offense that could be punished by confinement of 6 months) would alone be enough to result in a discharge under conditions other than honorable. The current allegations that Lieutenant Kerry collaborated with North Vietnamese representatives would be a patent violation of the Logan Act, 18 U.S. Code section 953, and as such would easily meet this threshhold.

Unlike enlisted members, officers do not receive "other than honorable" or "dishonorable" certificates of discharge. To the contrary, the rule is that no certificate will be awarded to an officer separated wherever the circumstances prompting separation "are not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of 'honor'." The absence of an honorable discharge certificate for a separated naval officer is, therefore, a harsh and severe sanction and is, in fact, the treatment given officers who are dismissed after a general court-martial.

Accordingly, in the absence of an explanation for the exceptionally late issuance of the honorable discharge on the Kerry campaign web site, the unmistakable inference is that the separation really occurred when it should have, i.e., in 1975, and that the discharge certificate was a mere "general discharge" which was removed from the service record or, if the campaign is telling the truth that there was no other certificate, that it was a discharge under circumstances not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of honor.

The inference of a discharge under such other than honorable circumstances is heightened by the odd and unexplained late re-issuance of Senator Kerry's silver star. Records of personal decorations are items subject to a 75-year retention by the Department of the Navy. Under SECNAVINST 1650.1G, the NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AWARDS MANUAL, a medal may be revoked if the service after issuance has not been honorable.
____________________
1 Note: Regarding alleged signature of Navy Secretary Lehman on the reported Silver Star for Kerry, as reported in the “Chicago Sun-Times” on August 28, 2004, former Secretary Lehman categorically denied signing such a citation.
(http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html )
As noted by other researchers, Lehman was not Secretary of the Navy when Kerry was in Vietnam.
( http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40149 )

VetsforBush.NET

http://www.vetsforbush.net/kerry-oth-discharge.pdf




edit for formatting

[Rustyb]

Good Job everyone, the word is getting out!!

Rustyb

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41200

WorldNetDaily Commentary
Kerry's non-honorable discharge
Exclusive: Earl Lively makes solid case senator left Navy under a cloud

[Track It Down]

Here is a good list of links to kerry's less-than-honorable discharge, and his switcheroo from dishonorable to honorable with the help of none other than Jimmy Carter.

John Kerry Anti-War Activities http://home.att.net/~trackitdown/anti-war.html

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Geesh, they've got almost as much anti-Kerry stuff there as we do!
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[barrysus]

On Monday morning, Feb 7, 2005 I heard a few minutes of an interview on the radio. Kerry was being questioned by Imus. After being asked several times, Kerry finally said he would sign the Form 180 "soon." He said something about the Navy sending him different documents and implied that was the reason for the delay in his signing the Form 180.

I thought a Form 180 released all your records unless there was a very good reason for some documents not to be released. It really sounded like Kerry was not going to release all his records. Will be interesting if his Navy medical records (Purple Hearts) don't show up or his first discharge - the one that Jimmy Carter apparently upgraded to honorable in 1978.

Also saw a short clip of Kerry on the Letterman show. In it, Kerry says that he did go into Cambodia "...maybe not on that day..." Obviously referring to the Christmas boat venture that really never happened although it was "...seared into my memory..." as he said in a speech to the Senate and apparently many times over the years.

Comments?
_________________
barrysus
USAF 1965-86
Vietnam 69-70

[Track It Down]

Just vintage Kerry, don't you think? Getting a straight, not to mention an honest, answer from him is like "nailin' Jello to the wall." He has no intention of signing the 180. He has no intention of discussing his request to go study in France to evade the draft either. He ran his campaign on his purported war hero status because he had nothing whatsoever to show for his 19 years in the senate.

John Kerry Anti-War Activities http://home.att.net/~trackitdown/anti-war.html

note: Link BBCode repaired
_________________
Track It Down http:home.att.net/~trackitdown/

[Harvuskong]

There is a lot of good stuff about the discharge.

Admin note:

Please refrain from commenting on matters relating to the administration of this forum. If you have a question/complaint/observation/suggestion, please direct it to a moderator or administrator via private message (PM).

Please see my PM in response to your question.

Thank you.

[Harvuskong]

Several years ago during the Vietnam War time period, I was told that If some one was discharged with a less than honorable dishcharge, the Armed Froces would contact the local newspaper of that person's hometown with the information for publication in the paper.

The person claimed that it had been done in his area.

I have no way of verifying this, so it could be just babbling idiot talk.

[RogerRabbit]