• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

funky discharge

peptoabysmal

Illuminator
peptoabysmal
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,466
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be instersting if, after all the rantings about Bush being AWOL from the National Guard, that Kerry had a dishonorable discharge which was 'fixed' by Pres. Carter?
 
You actually made me wonder what a gyno exam had to do with the elections.
 
peptoabysmal said:
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge



Wouldn't it be instersting if, after all the rantings about Bush being AWOL from the National Guard, that Kerry had a dishonorable discharge which was 'fixed' by Pres. Carter?
Click to expand...

Ha! I'm whipping up a memo right now! Got my ole IBM Selectric all warmed up! ;)

-z
 
TragicMonkey said:
How odd that the issue would suddenly come up two weeks before the election.
Click to expand...

I read about this for the first time several weeks ago. It made sense when I read it but since there was no rebutting view I pretty much ignored it. As of now I'm given to believe it is probably true but since I already support Bush, it doesn't matter.

Kerry could nip this in the bud by providing the documentation. So far he has refused to do that. I can't think of a better reason for him to refuse than a initial general or dishonorable 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.
Click to expand...

How interesting, in light of all the howling by Kerry supporters for Bush to release his service record.
 
Rob Lister said:
Kerry could nip this in the bud by providing the documentation. So far he has refused to do that. I can't think of a better reason for him to refuse than a initial general or dishonorable discharge.
Click to expand...
If he can nip this in the bud, he'd be crazy not to, because this looks like the kind of thing that starts with one little story and just keeps building and building. Last thing JFK needs in the short time before the election is a story that crests and breaks on his head three days before the election.

Of course, this story could also turn out to be a 24-hour flash in the pan.

Scenario three (which kinda conflicts with my first paragraph above, but foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds): Kerry tries to nip it in the bud by releasing documents but that raises other troubling allegations that feed the flames.
 
BPSCG said:
If he can nip this in the bud, he'd be crazy not to, because this looks like the kind of thing that starts with one little story and just keeps building and building. Last thing JFK needs in the short time before the election is a story that crests and breaks on his head three days before the election.

Of course, this story could also turn out to be a 24-hour flash in the pan.

Scenario three (which kinda conflicts with my first paragraph above, but foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds): Kerry tries to nip it in the bud by releasing documents but that raises other troubling allegations that feed the flames.
Click to expand...

You'd think with all these swift boat vets (for and against Kerry) running around who knew Kerry that one of them would know about his discharge. And you would think one of the ones against Kerry would have said something about it by now.
 
Then again, Kerry's discharge would have occurred several years after he left 'Nam.

But somebody out there must know.
 
BPSCG said:
If he can nip this in the bud, he'd be crazy not to, because this looks like the kind of thing that starts with one little story and just keeps building and building. Last thing JFK needs in the short time before the election is a story that crests and breaks on his head three days before the election.

Of course, this story could also turn out to be a 24-hour flash in the pan.

Scenario three (which kinda conflicts with my first paragraph above, but foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds): Kerry tries to nip it in the bud by releasing documents but that raises other troubling allegations that feed the flames.
Click to expand...

Actually, not responding seems to be working very well.
 
Luke T. said:
You'd think with all these swift boat vets (for and against Kerry) running around who knew Kerry that one of them would know about his discharge. And you would think one of the ones against Kerry would have said something about it by now.
Click to expand...

It has been said for a number of weeks now...and by ignoring it, Kerry seems to have lost no support.

The people most likely to get excited over the fake medal, the inconsistent mission claims, the mysterious enlistment contracts, and the meeting with enemy officials while still a commissioned officer, aren't going to be voting for him anyway, and those who are loyal to him will dismiss such heresies as 'thoroughly discredited partisan dirtbag attacks', so it is win-win for him to keep quiet, and not release anything that could support his critics.
 
As is usual Dark Helmet is spinning away, selectively editing to re-enforce his position. Go to the link read the whole story.

Now try to reassert the implication that Kerry was ~almost involuntarily discharged from service.


From the National archives

"The National Archives and Records Administration has located Mr. Kerry's official Agency record; it is enclosed. Mr. Kerry registered with Selective Service on December 11, 1961, at Local Board #7 in Concord, New Hampshire. He was given Selective Service Number 19-59-43-209. Mr. Kerry was classified "2-S" (Registrant deferred because of activity in study) on May 26, 1964, and was subsequently awarded this deferment four more times, through April 5, 1966. On April 6, 1966, he was reclassified "1-D" (Member of a Reserve Component). He was separated from active duty on March 1, 1970, and was reclassified "4-A" (Registrant who has completed service) on April 29, 1970. This was the last action taken by Selective Service concerning him."

Your Mystery occurred on February 16, 1978. You were implying something about political motivation in re this event?

So.........
<snip>
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.
<snip>

Hmm active service till '72..um Nixon white house....uh-huh Colson..ya..O'Neill hmmm...Nixon "give it to him , give it to him "..uh_Huh

Keep digging DH , I'm sure we'll find out the bastard used a magnifying glass on ants when he was a kid...........

Meanwhile back in Iraq.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
As is usual Dark Helmet is spinning away, selectively editing to re-enforce his position. Go to the link read the whole story.

Now try to reassert the implication that Kerry was ~almost involuntarily discharged from service.


From the National archives

"The National Archives and Records Administration has located Mr. Kerry's official Agency record; it is enclosed. Mr. Kerry registered with Selective Service on December 11, 1961, at Local Board #7 in Concord, New Hampshire. He was given Selective Service Number 19-59-43-209. Mr. Kerry was classified "2-S" (Registrant deferred because of activity in study) on May 26, 1964, and was subsequently awarded this deferment four more times, through April 5, 1966. On April 6, 1966, he was reclassified "1-D" (Member of a Reserve Component). He was separated from active duty on March 1, 1970, and was reclassified "4-A" (Registrant who has completed service) on April 29, 1970. This was the last action taken by Selective Service concerning him."

Your Mystery occurred on February 16, 1978. You were implying something about political motivation in re this event?

So.........
<snip>
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.
<snip>

Hmm active service till '72..um Nixon white house....uh-huh Colson..ya..O'Neill hmmm...Nixon "give it to him , give it to him "..uh_Huh

Keep digging DH , I'm sure we'll find out the bastard used a magnifying glass on ants when he was a kid...........

Meanwhile back in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I'm rather slow today so I'm having difficulty figuring out what you are ranting about. Do you think the allegations of a less-than-honorable discharge are untrue? Do you think them true but politically motivated? I honestly can't tell --- but like I said, I'm slow today (as most days).

Do you think Kerry should release the remainder of his records so this can be put to rest? This is, after all, what the Kerry campaign requested of Bush concerning his activity, or lack there of, in the ANG. And I needn't remind you what kind of allegations surrounded that subject.
 
Rob Lister said:
I'm rather slow today so I'm having difficulty figuring out what you are ranting about. Do you think the allegations of a less-than-honorable discharge are untrue? Do you think them true but politically motivated? I honestly can't tell --- but like I said, I'm slow today (as most days).

I would hardly characterize my post as ranting but You did say You were slow.

In answer to Your questions.

I'm not sure of the allegations, they may indeed be fact.
They are perhaps true but DH raised the possibility of political intersession naming J.Carter. The truth being that Kerry was separated in '72 so Carter has no relevance. The issue of political involvement raised by DH is possible but the involvement would seem to be more probable one of Nixon's whitehouse with the usual assortment of felons trying to "give it to him , give it to him "
So yes I believe that IF there was a political motive it was circa 1972. The National archives gives lie to any conjecture involving a Democratic President some 6 years later.


Do you think Kerry should release the remainder of his records so this can be put to rest? This is, after all, what the Kerry campaign requested of Bush concerning his activity, or lack there of, in the ANG. And I needn't remind you what kind of allegations surrounded that subject.

I believe that would be the wisest thing to do , some politicians ( most?) seem to be unable to learn the lesson that stalling and covering their ass is the worst possible approach to persuading the public as to their honesty.
Click to expand...
 
And all you have to do to swallow that load, is to believe that the Selective Service and the US Navy are exactly the same organization, and that Kerry was commissioned on active duty without incurring the same *additional* 6 year commitment after his original hitch as everyone else.

Shouldn't be hard to do for anyone who has already swallowed the load about Kerry's .... ahem, 'unique' Silver Star, Cambodia, etc..

Now as for the skeptics here, they might have a hard time swallowing any of it.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Rob Lister said:
I'm rather slow today so I'm having difficulty figuring out what you are ranting about. Do you think the allegations of a less-than-honorable discharge are untrue? Do you think them true but politically motivated? I honestly can't tell --- but like I said, I'm slow today (as most days).

I would hardly characterize my post as ranting but You did say You were slow.

In answer to Your questions.

I'm not sure of the allegations, they may indeed be fact.
They are perhaps true but DH raised the possibility of political intersession naming J.Carter. The truth being that Kerry was separated in '72 so Carter has no relevance. The issue of political involvement raised by DH is possible but the involvement would seem to be more probable one of Nixon's whitehouse with the usual assortment of felons trying to "give it to him , give it to him "
So yes I believe that IF there was a political motive it was circa 1972. The National archives gives lie to any conjecture involving a Democratic President some 6 years later.
Click to expand...

You are expressing an ignorance of how things work with respect to military discharges. Yes, the archives show Kerry was discharged in 1972 at the end of his obligation. If Kerry had received an honorable discharge, that should have been the end of it.

But.

If a veteran is discharged with anything other than an honorable discharge, he can appeal it later. This happens all the time. Apparently Kerry did just that, and appealed to the Carter Administration because that administration was very friendly to draft dodgers who ran to Canada (gave them amnesty in fact), and other war protest people.

This is how it appears. It raises questions. What was Kerry's original discharge level, and if less than honorable, why?
Click to expand...
 
Luke You are correct. I am ignorant of the way the military system functions in relation to ..actually most issues.

I did some research about this question and discovered a few things, one was that the original dd214 seems unavailable that is indeed troubling. I can't fathom why Kerry wouldn't release his records. I did see some grainey photo copies of questionable origin.

There is so much Bullsh!t in regards to this election the tendency is one toward dis-belief, However I think that the involvement of the Nixon white-house in regards to Kerry's standing and service record to be highly suspect. The good ole' enemies list re-surfaces as it were. I think that to be a much more credible synopsis of what went on in 1972 then any other account of Kerry's service by second and third hand reports trying to dis-credit him.

<snip>
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."
<snip>

The beat goes on...

Edit to add: It is my understanding that any reclassification is duly annotated on the revised dd214or in the official record.

Edit 2:
Kerry's site copy of his dd214
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
 
Luke T. said:
You'd think with all these swift boat vets (for and against Kerry) running around who knew Kerry that one of them would know about his discharge. And you would think one of the ones against Kerry would have said something about it by now.
Click to expand...

er...

like this?

October 13, 2004 -- It appears increasingly likely that John Kerry was given less than an honorable discharge by the U.S. Navy. In Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge, reporter Thomas Lipscomb notes that Kerry's discharge required a review by a board of officers, which suggests that he may have been involuntarily separated from the service. Of course, Senator Kerry could clear all this up by signing a Standard Form 180 to authorize the complete release of his military records...
Click to expand...
http://swift4.he.net/~swift4/index.php?topic=Latest

They have been after him for a long time to sign that 180.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom