Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

[Gil Hamilton]

After reading that whole article, Augustus, I haven't seen any evidence that Kerry was, in fact, dishonorably discharged.

[Augustus]

Yea, I was in shock when I saw how out of it you were as well. So because there's some danger associated with being a pilot(Holy shit, you think this is news, you ignorant shitstain?), and because he ducked out of a champagne squadron by accumulating enough points,...

The fact that Kerry was involuntarily (see US Code) seperated from the service under terms that required a board of review to upgrade his discharge status is the issue. Not Bush's service record.

There are more than a few questions this raises about Kerry's service record:

When Kerry should have been seperated in 1972 under his enlistment contract, why did the Navy wait until 1978 to finally discharge him? Why was the board of review even nessesary for a officer awarded the Silver Star? What was Kerry's original discharge status in 1972? Who ordered the Navy to convene the board of review and why?

Like it or not He put his service front and center in his campaign. To be present himself as a credable choice for CNC he is going to have to address this...even if he's elected. It will come back to bite him.

...we can't talk about the fact he's an ignorant cokehead who can't keep his doctor's appointment's in order? Amazing. You know, Shep, it's always nice having the Right Wing Mouthpeice that you are around. You're always good for a laugh.

I'm getting sick of this cocain slur, lets see the proof...if you have any.

[SirNitram]

Yea, I was in shock when I saw how out of it you were as well. So because there's some danger associated with being a pilot(Holy shit, you think this is news, you ignorant shitstain?), and because he ducked out of a champagne squadron by accumulating enough points,...

The fact that Kerry was involuntarily (see US Code) seperated from the service under terms that required a board of review to upgrade his discharge status is the issue. Not Bush's service record.

And I once again ask: So what?

There are more than a few questions this raises about Kerry's service record:

When Kerry should have been seperated in 1972 under his enlistment contract, why did the Navy wait until 1978 to finally discharge him? Why was the board of review even nessesary for a officer awarded the Silver Star? What was Kerry's original discharge status in 1972? Who ordered the Navy to convene the board of review and why?

Like it or not He put his service front and center in his campaign. To be present himself as a credable choice for CNC he is going to have to address this...even if he's elected. It will come back to bite him.

Because the Republican propaganda machine is adept at finding the tiniest things, even those with no hard evidence, when it's most convenient. Yes, I noted this laughable state of affairs in my earlier posts.

...we can't talk about the fact he's an ignorant cokehead who can't keep his doctor's appointment's in order? Amazing. You know, Shep, it's always nice having the Right Wing Mouthpeice that you are around. You're always good for a laugh.

I'm getting sick of this cocain slur, lets see the proof...if you have any.

What, you mean like the thing no one can provide against Kerry? I notice all the 'investigations' into his medals have quietly shut up...

[Beowulf]

Because the Republican propaganda machine is adept at finding the tiniest things, even those with no hard evidence, when it's most convenient. Yes, I noted this laughable state of affairs in my earlier posts.

Most convenient? This has been in question for a couple months. It only that it's just now that a mainstream media outlet picked up on this. And normally, you don't have an officer board to determine whether you should have an honorable discharge.

[Augustus]

After reading that whole article, Augustus, I haven't seen any evidence that Kerry was, in fact, dishonorably discharged.

The authority cited in the memo on his website stating he is discharged, is for involentary sepeartions from the service. A board of officers review would not have been required to review the discharge if it had been honorable.

To be fair the article does not say Kerry was dishonarably discharged - but that his seperation was involentary. Something which would not be nessesary with an routine seperation at the end of his contract in 1972.

[SirNitram]

Because the Republican propaganda machine is adept at finding the tiniest things, even those with no hard evidence, when it's most convenient. Yes, I noted this laughable state of affairs in my earlier posts.

Most convenient? This has been in question for a couple months. It only that it's just now that a mainstream media outlet picked up on this. And normally, you don't have an officer board to determine whether you should have an honorable discharge.

Ah. So in the decades since the incident, it sat quietly until Kerry was beginning to gather momentum for a shot at the Presidency? This is supposed to be evidence against my point how?

[Keevan_Colton]

So, the dishonourable discharge thing is basically just nonsense appealing to an unknown reason for a review. Well done, ever considered a career in sociology?

[Durandal]

Who gives a shit? I thought that we were past all this garbage since the debates began and the candidates actually started arguing the issues.

[Augustus]

So, the dishonourable discharge thing is basically just nonsense appealing to an unknown reason for a review. Well done, ever considered a career in sociology?

Board reviews under the cited authority are not required for Honorable seperations.

[Darth Wong]

Who gives a shit? I thought that we were past all this garbage since the debates began and the candidates actually started arguing the issues.

Bush is not doing well in the debates, so it's time to attack Kerry's war record again. Fairly obvious, really.

[Keevan_Colton]

Board reviews under the cited authority are not required for Honorable seperations.

[Darth Wong]

So, the dishonourable discharge thing is basically just nonsense appealing to an unknown reason for a review. Well done, ever considered a career in sociology?

Board reviews under the cited authority are not required for Honorable seperations.

Unless you know why this board review occurred, you're just blowing smoke. For all you know it was just bad paperwork.

[Augustus]

So, the dishonourable discharge thing is basically just nonsense appealing to an unknown reason for a review. Well done, ever considered a career in sociology?

Board reviews under the cited authority are not required for Honorable seperations.

Unless you know why this board review occurred, you're just blowing smoke. For all you know it was just bad paperwork.

From 1972 to 1978?

[Darth Wong]

Board reviews under the cited authority are not required for Honorable seperations.

Unless you know why this board review occurred, you're just blowing smoke. For all you know it was just bad paperwork.

From 1972 to 1978?

Let me repeat: unless you know why this board review occurred, you're just blowing smoke. For all you know it was just bad paperwork. Explain how your response satisfies my demand for an answer rather than wild speculation.

PS. You don't seem to understand how this "burden of proof" thing works, so let me explain it to you: this review concluded that he should be given an honourable discharge. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that he did not deserve one, not on me to explain or support the findings of people who obviously knew more about the situation than either you or I.

[Augustus]

Let me repeat: unless you know why this board review occurred, you're just blowing smoke. For all you know it was just bad paperwork. Explain how your response satisfies my demand for an answer rather than wild speculation.

I suppose it doesn't, but it directly was'nt meant to either. If you want a more formal response then I would respond like this:

Having been in the military it strains credibility for me to accept that the officer board of review brought under Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163, which are specifically worded to address the involuntary separation of an officer from the reserves could be passed off as "paper work" problems that also apparently delayed Kerry's discharge from the service 6 years.

[Darth Wong]

Let me repeat: unless you know why this board review occurred, you're just blowing smoke. For all you know it was just bad paperwork. Explain how your response satisfies my demand for an answer rather than wild speculation.

I suppose it doesn't, but it directly was'nt meant to either. If you want a more formal response then I would respond like this:

Having been in the military it strains credibility for me to accept that the officer board of review brought under Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163, which are specifically worded to address the involuntary separation of an officer from the reserves could be passed off as "paper work" problems that also apparently delayed Kerry's discharge from the service 6 years.

Once again, you are merely mumbling about uncertainties and assuming that they must support something nefarious, when a far more well-informed inquiry concluded that he deserved an honourable discharge. If you are going to contest their conclusions, you had better come up with something more than this.

[Augustus]

Once again, you are merely mumbling about uncertainties and assuming that they must support something nefarious, when a far more well-informed inquiry concluded that he deserved an honourable discharge. If you are going to contest their conclusions, you had better come up with something more than this.

Hardly mumbling.

I'm not contesting their conclusions.

What I want to know is what Kerry's service status was when his enlistment contract ended in 1972 - before the board changed it in 1978 and why was it nessesary for a officer holding a Silver Star at all( the Navy does'nt give many of theose out even in that day and age). What did he do between 1968 and 1972 beyond the public events as a reservist that pissed the Navy off so much.

[Glocksman]

It all comes back to the question of why Kerry won't sign the Form 180?
After the Democrats called for the release of all documents relating to Bush's AWOL ANG service record, Bush signed his 180. Even Al Gore did so back in 2000.

It's hypocritical for Kerry to refuse to do the same.

[The Dark]

Yea, instead of a guy who actually did serve in some capacity, we should follow the cokehead who couldn't keep up to date on his doctor's appointments...

Durr Duur look a fuckwit who doesn't know what was going on! SHOCK!

Linka

In defense of Lt. Bush

By Charles D. Youree, Jr.
Published October 11, 2004

President Bush's military service is being unjustly vilified. I feel a sense of anger and frustration when I hear that instead of volunteering for Vietnam, Mr. Bush "hid out" flying fighter/interceptor jets in the Air National Guard (ANG) for four years.

Well, when your "squadron" consists of two senator's sons, a representative's son, and the Dallas Cowboys football team, it does seem a tad unlikely that they'll see active service. Particularly when they're flying craft that can't be sent overseas. Especially in an era when the regular Air Force called the reserves FANGers (Fucking Air National Guard), because they did jack shit during the war.

*snip personal anecdotes that have no basis in objective argument*

Comparing these data, it is obvious that Lt. Bush, as a jet fighter/interceptor pilot in the Air National Guard, was more than twice as exposed to fatal danger than he would have been if he had taken his chances on an average tour in Vietnam. Most of his first two Air National Guard years were on active duty for training with the Air Force, undergoing basic training, flight school, survival training, combat-crew training, etc. Because the draft was for two years, he was not avoiding hazardous military duty being an Air National Guard pilot.

Given that, to the best of my knowledge, there were no more casualties during Vietnam than during normal flight status, Lt. Bush was at less relative risk than a person on a tour in Vietnam, as he was at a peacetime risk level, while they were at a wartime risk level.

During the Vietnam era, guardsmen were required to accumulate 50 points to meet their yearly obligations. After training, Lt. Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets performing his squadron mission. According to his military records released this year, he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 points the second year, 137 points the third year and 112 points in his fourth year of duty. In other words, Lt. Bush showed up a lot, earning more than four times the required duty points in his first four years.

In Lt. Bush's fifth year -- which included parts of 1972 and 1973 -- the Vietnam War was winding down due to President Nixon's Vietnamization program. Many pilots had difficulty obtaining flying slots. According to Col. William Campenni (Ret.), a former fighter/interceptor pilot with Lt. Bush in the ANG, there was then "an enormous glut of pilots." At that time, I was a B-52 Wing Commander and recall this Air Force-wide pilot surplus developing. When Lt. Bush requested a transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard for employment reasons, his superior officers granted this routine request. "In fact, you were helping them solve their [glut] problem," said Col. Campenni.

Unfortunately, that transfer was REFUSED by the Air Reserve Personnel Center. When Bush was in Alabama, it was against orders from the Director of Personnel Resources.

Since Lt. Bush's Alabama Air National Guard unit did not have F-102s, he stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned 56 points -- more than enough to meet his annual requirement. Since he would not be flying, there was obviously no need to take an annual flight physical, which some accuse him of avoiding. Then, from May through July 1973, Lt. Bush accumulated 56 points, enough to meet his minimumrequirementsfor 1973?74, before requesting and receiving permission to attend Harvard Business School. It was not unusual for such requests to be granted. He received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment -- although he had accumulated enough points to cover six years of service.

Actually, from May 1972 to May 1973, he logged 0 days of duty. If he got any flight time, it was on his own. (And the Alabama unit had no planes or pilots; if Bush's transfer had been approved, he would have been the only pilot...they were a postal unit). It also seems rather unusual that the first physical Bush missed was the first after the implementation of random drug tests. Perhaps it is entirely a coincidence; I merely have a suspicious mind.

During the period in question, Bush was still assigned to the 111th Texas. His AWOL status is confirmed by his annual evaluation report, written by Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr. and Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. According to Lt. Col. Harris, Bush had been transferred to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group, which occurred in September 1972. Lt. Col. William Turnipseed (I kid you not), the officer Bush was to report to on the weekends of 7-8 October and 4-5 November, never saw the pilot. After the November election, Bush was to return to the 111th. While he was in Houston, his two supervising officers never saw him. After his entire escapade occurred, Bush had six months tacked on to his discharge date to make up for the time he had missed (it went from May 26, 1974 to November 21, 1974). He was transferred to a paper unit after enrolling at Harvard and finished out his "duty" in a classroom. Bush served 68 days of active duty over his enlistment period.

In fact, the Texas Code of Military Justice, section 432.130 reads in part: "A commissioned officer of the state military forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away permanently is guilty of desertion."

George W. Bush was "not available for signature" on his resignation form from the Texas Air National Guard. Given that he applied for discharge on September 5, and went to Harvard immediately [size=0](I was looking for semester start dates, but their website sucks)[/size], it seems that George W. Bush was, in fact, a deserter under the TCMJ.

[Augustus]

...Bush was "not available for signature" on his resignation form from the Texas Air National Guard. Given that he applied for discharge on September 5, and went to Harvard immediately [...], it seems that George W. Bush was, in fact, a deserter under the TCMJ.

Newsflash..."not available for signature" appearing on a document is not equal to desertion.

Of course we all know Bush's service record has everything to do with the involuntary separation under 10 US 1163, Kerry recieved from the Navy. Oh wait ...darn it!

[SirNitram]

...Bush was "not available for signature" on his resignation form from the Texas Air National Guard. Given that he applied for discharge on September 5, and went to Harvard immediately [...], it seems that George W. Bush was, in fact, a deserter under the TCMJ.

Newsflash..."not available for signature" appearing on a document is not equal to desertion.

Of course we all know Bush's service record has everything to do with the involuntary separation under 10 US 1163, Kerry recieved from the Navy. Oh wait ...darn it!

If one candidates actions thirty years ago are relevent, the other's must be relevent. Take your partisan blinders off and realize that. Actually, even better, extract head from ass and realize neither really matters, as we live in a different bloody century.

[The Dark]

...Bush was "not available for signature" on his resignation form from the Texas Air National Guard. Given that he applied for discharge on September 5, and went to Harvard immediately [...], it seems that George W. Bush was, in fact, a deserter under the TCMJ.

Newsflash..."not available for signature" appearing on a document is not equal to desertion.

Did you bother to read the section I posted from the Texas Code of Military Justice? If he left before his resignation papers were completed (which would seem rather likely, given that his signature is not on them and the time frame of a week or so between notice and departure), he was a deserter under the TCMJ.

Of course we all know Bush's service record has everything to do with the involuntary separation under 10 US 1163, Kerry recieved from the Navy. Oh wait ...darn it!

And I was responding to Shep's post, which you quite nicely managed to avoid by your selective quoting, hatfucker.

[Elfdart]

As usual, Shep's friends at the Paper Moon are full of shit:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410120001

Wash. Times columnist wrong on Bush's Vietnam record
In an op-ed column in the October 11 edition of The Washington Times, Charles D. Youree, Jr., defended the Vietnam-era Air National Guard service of then-Lt. George W. Bush by citing an irrelevant standard that allegedly proves Bush met his obligation. Recent reports by U.S. News & World Report and The Boston Globe have detailed Bush's failure to fulfill his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard.

Youree incorrectly wrote that "guardsmen were required to accumulate 50 points to meet their yearly obligations." In fact, no such requirement existed; rather, members could fulfill their service obligation only by attending "drill and instruction ... at least 48 times each year, and participat[ing] in training at encampments ... at least 15 days each year," according to the statute then governing National Guard obligations. Bush did not attend enough drills to meet his requirement, as both U.S. News and the Globe detailed.

The Times described Youree as follows: "Brig. Gen. Charles D. Youree, Jr., USAF (Ret.) is former Strategic Air Command chief project officer for the B-1 bomber." From Youree's October 11 column:

According to his military records released this year, he [Bush] earned 253 points in his first year, 340 points the second year, 137 points the third year and 112 points in his fourth year of duty. In other words, Lt. Bush showed up a lot, earning more than four times the required duty points in his first four years.

In fact, the Air National Guard's system of assigning retirement points was entirely unrelated to the completion of duty; retirement points merely signify that the guardsman was accruing retirement pay. Yet, even if one accepts the retirement points as a measure of whether Bush fulfilled his service, Youree relied on a flawed and discredited accounting of the points Bush earned in his final two years of service that was released by the Bush administration in February (as Media Matters for America has noted). In fact, while Bush did receive the points he claims for his first four years of service, he accrued only 36 and 12 points, respectively, in the final two years of his six-year obligation.

Moreover, Youree's offered no support for his assertion that Bush's stateside service was more hazardous than serving in Vietnam. Youree concluded: "t is obvious that Lt. Bush, as a jet fighter/interceptor pilot in the Air National Guard, was more than twice as exposed to fatal danger than he would have been if he had taken his chances on an average tour in Vietnam." But the evidence he provided in support is anecdotal and immaterial. He based his claim on his own West Point class and included deaths occurring in training and during combat over at least a 12-year span; confusing things further, he grouped both "deaths and resignations" in one accounting of losses from his class. Youree then misleadingly contrasted this anecdotal evidence with the total fatality rate among all personnel who served in Vietnam, both combat and non-combat forces. Finally, with no support, he suggested that the danger faced by active-duty Air Force pilots was comparable to that faced by National Guard pilots serving on U.S. soil.

— G.W. & A.Z.

Posted to the web on Tuesday October 12, 2004 at 12:15 PM EST

[Edi]

Augustus, you spend an inordinate amount of time wondering about the review board of officers and why it was called, yet you do not find it remotely suspicious that President Nixon and his staff are on record discussing the possibilities of destroying Kerry because of his opposition to the war. The Secretary of the Navy and other high ranking people, up to and including the President, who according to your quoted exerpts has the possibility of ordering that very board of review, and who just happen to have it in for Kerry, and the possibility that they did indeed order that? So real evidence of a dishonorable discharge please, not just this Republican partisan bullshit?

Edi

[buzz_knox]

So real evidence of a dishonorable discharge please, not just this Republican partisan bullshit?

Whether the charge is valid or not can only be answered by seeing the records in question. Was Kerry framed for a crime by Nixon or did he actually violate the UCMJ but said violation was given a pass in order to separate him from the Navy with minimal fuss (which happens today frequently)? We don't know, and it is partisan to argue either case without the evidence. Given Kerry's reluctance to release the records, we'll never know. His reluctance is strange because if the records state what he says they state, then the Swift Boat vets and those arguing that he was DD'd would instantly and publicly be discredited and vilified by the press and the public.