Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-13 10:15am

Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004

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?

NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."

Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.

The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."

For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.

Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."

The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.

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 January 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.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. 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.

Devistating if true.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-13 10:49am

US Code TITLE 10 Subtitle E PART II CHAPTER 1221 § 12681

§ 12681. Reserves: discharge authority

Subject to other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned officers may be discharged at the pleasure of the President. Other Reserves may be discharged under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned.

US Code TITLE 10 Subtitle E PART II CHAPTER 1221 § 12683

§ 12683. Reserve officers: limitation on involuntary separation

(a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least five years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except—
(1) under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(2) by the approved sentence of a court-martial.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) A separation under section 12684, 14901, or 14907 of this title.
(2) A dismissal under section 1161 (a) of this title.
(3) A transfer under section 12213, 12214, 14514, or 14515 of this title.
(4) A separation of an officer who is in an inactive status in the Standby Reserve and who is not qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve or is qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve and does not apply for such a transfer.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-13 10:54am

Should have added this one first...

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART II CHAPTER 59 §§ 1162, 1163. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, § 1662(i)(2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2998

§§ 1162, 1163. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, § 1662(i)(2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2998

Section 1162, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 89; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(27), 72 Stat. 1450, related to discharge of Reserves. See sections 12681 and 12682 of this title.

Section 1163, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 89; Sept. 7, 1962, Pub. L. 87–651, title I, § 106(a), 76 Stat. 508; Dec. 30, 1987, Pub. L. 100–224, § 4, 101 Stat. 1538, related to limitations on separation of Reserve members from their reserve components. See sections 12683 to 12686 of this title.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-13 11:07am

The document in question:

Reserve Discharge Letter

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 11:18am

http:\\www.john-kerry-was-kicked-out-of-the-navy-without-honors-but-that-
doesnt-matter-at-all-for-his-qualification-as-a-politican-so-i-dont-give-a-
shit-and-will-vote-for-him-any-way-or-actually-i-already-have-voted-for-him.org

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-13 11:26am

salm wrote:<Respectfully Snipped>

Careful. Drinking all that Kool-Aid will give you cavities.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-10-13 11:35am

Whats this got to do with his running for president?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 11:37am

Augustus wrote:
salm wrote:<Respectfully Snipped>
Careful. Drinking all that Kool-Aid will give you cavities.

so, then tell my kool aid poisoned brain why it matters if he was kicked out of the navy or not. i know that americans tend to think that military records of their leaders´ pasts are somehow important and i know that this might have a great impact on the electoral outcome, but WHY the hell is crap like that important?

why is it important that kerry was opposed to vietnam after returning, why is it important that bush skipped vietnam entirely? and why is this piece of irrelevance important?

methinks that everybody who finds shit like that important and actually important enough to base his vote on must be a fucking moron.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-13 11:38am

Zac Naloen wrote:Whats this got to do with his running for president?

His fitness to be commander in chief possibly? It's kinda hard to lead if the soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines all know that you got kicked out of the Navy under other than Honorable conditions. Hell, most places wouldn't hire you if you got a discharge under other than Honorable conditions. What makes the Presidency immune to that?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-13 11:40am

Zac Naloen wrote:Whats this got to do with his running for president?

About as much as ripping on Bush's service does.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 11:42am

Beowulf wrote: His fitness to be commander in chief possibly? It's kinda hard to lead if the soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines all know that you got kicked out of the Navy under other than Honorable conditions. Hell, most places wouldn't hire you if you got a discharge under other than Honorable conditions. What makes the Presidency immune to that?

only if the soldiers are complete morons who can´t differentiate between kerry´s oppionon on the vietnam war and his capabilities of leading them now.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-13 11:46am

I find it ironic as hell that the same people making a hoopla about Bush and the National Guard are now trying to sweep this under the rug.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 11:55am

Stormbringer wrote:I find it ironic as hell that the same people making a hoopla about Bush and the National Guard are now trying to sweep this under the rug.

if by "the same people" you mean zac i don´t know what his oppionon on the bush - national guard thing was but personally i´ve stated several times on this board that i find it redicolous to claim that bushs leading abilities suffer somehow from it. the bush - national guard affair are just as irrelevant as this bullshit.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-13 12:18pm

salm wrote:
Beowulf wrote: His fitness to be commander in chief possibly? It's kinda hard to lead if the soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines all know that you got kicked out of the Navy under other than Honorable conditions. Hell, most places wouldn't hire you if you got a discharge under other than Honorable conditions. What makes the Presidency immune to that?
only if the soldiers are complete morons who can´t differentiate between kerry´s oppionon on the vietnam war and his capabilities of leading them now.

In fact we don't know why a board of officers was conviened to review Kerry's discharge. It may have been for his activities with the VVAW, meeting with the Vietnamiese in Paris, or something else. If Kerry would sign Form 180 and release ALL of his records he could clear it up.

It is without question that Kerry has used his experiance in Vietnam as the princple for the vast majority of his public service, and touted it as the main qualification he has to be Commander-in-Chief.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 12:28pm

the guy with the balck helmet on this photo, fighting this cop is our foreign minister in his young years. he used to be a quite radical leftist who threw rocks at cops and stuff like that.
he´s a pretty competent foreign minister now.
i guess that makes him a flip-flopper though.

for fucks sake, people can change.
it´s not like oppinions and attitudes are static by definition.

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2004-10-13 12:35pm

for fucks sake, people can change.
it´s not like oppinions and attitudes are static by definition.

Agreed. And irrelevant. Kerry is the one who brought up his service to begin with, to establish his qualifications in the face of years of antagonism to the US military, the intelligence community, and national security matters in general. If he received a less than honorable discharge, then his ability to command troops and that community is exceedingly hampered.

As for his attitudes, he hasn't changed. His record and actions demonstrates that clearly.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 12:37pm

Augustus wrote: In fact we don't know why a board of officers was conviened to review Kerry's discharge. It may have been for his activities with the VVAW, meeting with the Vietnamiese in Paris, or something else. If Kerry would sign Form 180 and release ALL of his records he could clear it up.

why care?

It is without question that Kerry has used his experiance in Vietnam as the princple for the vast majority of his public service, and touted it as the main qualification he has to be Commander-in-Chief.

yup, and it annoys me everythime he drags out his "i´m a vet, so vote for me" bullshit.
sadly he has to do it because there are apparantly enough morons who base their vote on shit like that..

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-13 12:50pm

salm wrote:why care?

Because John Kerry was an officer in the US Naval RESERVE when he
met with the North Vietnamese in Paris.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-10-13 12:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:I find it ironic as hell that the same people making a hoopla about Bush and the National Guard are now trying to sweep this under the rug.

I don't think i've ever said anything about bush's service. You can check my posting history and prove me wrong but i've never really cared enough about american politics.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-13 01:22pm

Wow. Republicans hopping up and down and screaming 'LOOK AT THIRTY YEARS AGO!'. Haven't seen that in at least a week. Honestly, you can set your calender by this shit.

It is mindboggling how convenient the timing on this is. The Swifties are yesterday's news, Kerry is catching up in the polls after Bush is shown to be no better than a retarded monkey in the debates, so presto! A 'Mysterious' incident that is completely ignored for several decades, but it comes up just in time to try and salvage Bush's flagging polls. Amazing, really.

Of course, when confronted on how this is bullshit, the only response is 'Dur, dur, dur, u talk bout bush hur hur hur', occasionally with a few grunts and the occasional rude gesture. Which is amusing, because it only comes up when Kerry's record gets attacked, most of the time.. And it doesn't even always show up then.

I do, however, love the 'dur, it makes him unsuitable for a C-i-C'. nonsense. 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...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-13 01:24pm

MKSheppard wrote:
salm wrote:why care?
Because John Kerry was an officer in the US Naval RESERVE when he
met with the North Vietnamese in Paris.

ok, what did he discuss whith these NV and VC people ot what is he believed to have discussed? i´m not familliar with that meeting.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-13 01:27pm

SirNitram wrote: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.

As a former Air Force pilot with 6,000 hours of flying time, including more than 3,000 hours in jet fighters, I know that whenever you strapped yourself into a jet fighter and took off, you were in harm's way. Your life was on the line. As fighter pilots, we did not feel we were in harm's way. Statistics proved us wrong.

During my first four years of military service as both a student and an instructor pilot in fighter aircraft, I experienced many close shaves and witnessed dozens of jet fighter pilots killed in my flying training wing due to air accidents. The next two years, I was on exchange duty with a Navy squadron of about 24 pilots. Two other instructor pilots checked into the squadron the same week as I did -- Navy Lt. Bill Charles and Marine Lt. Sam Murphy. Within eight months both Lt. Charles and Lt. Murphy, along with their pilots undergoing checkout, died in air accidents.

My 1952 West Point class sent approximately 100 graduates to the Air Force jet pilot training program. We experienced five fatalities (5 percent) in the first 20 months due to air crashes. By 1964 our numbers fell to 70 due to fatalities and resignations. From then until 1968, the year Lt. Bush joined the Air National Guard, we lost 10 more Air Force classmates, a 14 percent fatality rate. One was due to hostile action; eight were due to accidents. In total, we lost 18 classmates (18 percent) during our flying careers.

In contrast, of our 397 West Point classmates commissioned in the Army, 11 were killed in action or died in training accidents during their military careers, which included Korea and Vietnam. This is a fatality rate of 2.77 percent, versus the 18 percent fatality rate of the class of 1952 flyers in the Air Force.

Additionally, during the entire Vietnam conflict, Pentagon records show 3,403,000 military personnel served in Southeast Asia. The United States suffered 58,205 fatalities, a rate of 1.71 percent. Fatality rates varied substantially from unit to unit; nevertheless, over 98 percent of those serving in that conflict returned home.

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.

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.

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.

One final thought regarding fatalities in the current war in Iraq. Although our war casualties are always horrific, they are a product of war and must be kept in perspective. Do we eliminate our police forces because a valiant police officer might sacrifice his life? Clearly our answer is "No." For a war that has lasted about eighteen months, our fatality rate fortunately is very modest compared to past conflicts. See the graph above, which is derived from the Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac.

Brig. Gen. Charles D. Youree, Jr., USAF (Ret.) is former Strategic Air Command chief project officer for the B-1 bomber.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-13 01:31pm

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote: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!

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, 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.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-13 01:35pm

SirNitram wrote:we can't talk about the fact he's an ignorant cokehead who can't keep his doctor's appointment's in order? Amazing

No, what's amazing is that you think that someone who isn't flying jets at
the time should have to take a Flight Physical.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-13 01:37pm

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote:we can't talk about the fact he's an ignorant cokehead who can't keep his doctor's appointment's in order? Amazing
No, what's amazing is that you think that someone who isn't flying jets at
the time should have to take a Flight Physical.

If he was scheduled for it, he should show up. All records I've seen says he was, in fact, scheduled, points or non.

Of course, I'm not sure what is more sad about your pathetic rantings in these threads.

1) That you think this ancient shit is actually relevent.

2) That your partisan blinders are so turned up you can't bear to hear a single word spoken against Bush on this time period, even as you desperately mine for anything against Kerry that'll stick.

It's really pathetic to watch, but funny at the same time. Sort of like watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon. No matter how many times you get hit with a frying pan, you try again..