Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It Aint Over Yet!! Former Navy Secretary to Speak Out on Kerry Discharge!
The New Conservative Voice ^ | 11/1/04 | Tov B. Brog

Posted on 11/01/2004 5:09:42 PM PST by ConservativeVoice

A post on the Swift Vets' forum contained the following startling announcement:

A TO THE POINT HEADS-UP

I had a conversation with Bill Middendorf earlier today. Bill was the Secretary of the Navy from April 1974 to January 1978. I got to know Bill well when he was Ronald Reagan\'s Ambassador to the OAS and we worked together on support for the Contras.

Bill has agreed to publicly state that to the best of his knowledge and recollection, John Kerry was dishonorably discharged from the military and fought to have this reversed while he (Bill)was SECNAV, which Bill of course refused to do. When Carter became president, Kerry secured the honorable discharge from Bill\'s successor.

The OTH (Other Than Honorable)discharge story has been out for a while, but for a former Secretary of the Navy to confirm it is major news. WorldNetDaily will be headlining it, as should the Washington Times tomorrow, and possibly Drudge. For some reason, Drudge, whom Jerry Corsi (coauthor of Unfit for Command) just talked to a few minutes! ago, is resisting. I also gave the story to Neal Cavuto at Fox.

Jack Wheeler

If this is true, it could be a dream come true for our side.

Let's hope it's real and that it comes in time to have some effect.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: kerrydischarge; napalminthemorning

1 posted on 11/01/2004 5:09:43 PM PST by ConservativeVoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Oh please, Let this be IT!!!!!!!!!!!


2 posted on 11/01/2004 5:11:44 PM PST by fastattacksailor (Friends don't let friends vote sKerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Sorry, forgot the link to teh Swift Vets' forum.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=124753&highlight=


3 posted on 11/01/2004 5:12:13 PM PST by ConservativeVoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fastattacksailor

It would be a nice counterattack to the NYTimes piece in the morning ... Let's start out the Big Day 11/2 with the news that sKerry was dishonorably discharged.


4 posted on 11/01/2004 5:13:04 PM PST by mrplind (The greatest threat to the United States is not "terrorism," it's "liberalism!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

bump


5 posted on 11/01/2004 5:14:10 PM PST by kimchi lover (When will the left learn that Bush is NOT the enemy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

BUMP


6 posted on 11/01/2004 5:15:23 PM PST by spotbust1 (Gun control is when you use both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice; WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
For some reason, Drudge, whom Jerry Corsi (coauthor of Unfit for Command) just talked to a few minutes! ago, is resisting.

WHY??

7 posted on 11/01/2004 5:15:46 PM PST by cgk (I'll keep posting it until you READ IT. Pay attention!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Even if true, what difference will it make now. The election will be over before a significant number of Americans know about this.


8 posted on 11/01/2004 5:16:31 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Oh please.
It's too late for anything like this.
I'll believe it when I see it (someplace other than Newsmax.)


9 posted on 11/01/2004 5:16:48 PM PST by counterpunch (The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection - www.counterpunch.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice
This article, or something similar, appeared earlier this evening on FR. I responded with my usual succinct and informed view only to find that the post had been pulled by one of our over zealous moderators as "unsourceable". Frankly, on election eve, with the 'Rats pulling every BS unethical deal possible ... FR has to get studiously ethical on every anti-Kerry post? Give me a (expletive) break!
10 posted on 11/01/2004 5:17:19 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk
WHY??

The timing, for one. Second, the Secretary's "to the best of my knowledge" qualifier leaves something to be desired.

This one ain't gonna happen, honey.

11 posted on 11/01/2004 5:18:38 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (liberals loathe humanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Too late.


12 posted on 11/01/2004 5:21:55 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Because Kerry did not sign Standard Form 180 anybody, and I mean ANYBODY who speaks from knowledge that Kerry received a less than honorable discharge is facing felony charges.

That's why the Swifties keep pulling these threads off their site.

This story is too little and way too late to be of any use.


13 posted on 11/01/2004 5:22:26 PM PST by Yo-Yo (John Kerry: The wrong candidate in the wrong election at the wrong time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

I agree , way to late. If these people wanted to voice their concerns over Kerry they should have done it last week, not the night before the election/day of the election! that is why Drudge isn't doing anything about it cause he knows it is to late!!


14 posted on 11/01/2004 5:23:53 PM PST by Halls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice
I would like to know which classification of "less than honorable" discharge Kerry had.

Kerry claims to own a number of firearms and having a dishonorable discharge could be a federal firearms violation on his part, which is a felony. But hey, democrats are all above the law and I am sure his treason and other crimes far exceed this lowly crime.

15 posted on 11/01/2004 5:31:28 PM PST by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

I posted it to our site a little while ago. Let's hope that someone runs with it!!!

I'm going to call it in to one of our talk shows. I'll more info if available.

Let's get the word out - we don't have to get it to that many people - it'll take care of itself. Get it to all veterans that you know - they'll take care of it.


16 posted on 11/01/2004 7:05:03 PM PST by mumzie (www.combatvetsagainstkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

kerry had to resign his commission in 1978 or face a court marshal-on his web page is his honorable discharge with the bupers number 3830300
kerry is busted- he needs to show the full paperwork-he was basically charged with treason!

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/secnav.pdf
bupersman 3830300
SECNAVINST 1920.6A CH-2
17 MAR 1993
3. BOARD OF REVIEW
a. Purpose. The purpose of a Board of Review is to review
the reports of Boards of Inquiry which recommend separation for
cause of regular commissioned officers, other than temporary
LDO's and CWO's, and make recommendations to the Secretary.
b.(2) If the Board of Review closes the case, all
proceedings will be terminated.
(3) If the Board of Review recommends separation, the
Secretary of the Navy may:
(a) Direct retention, or
(b) Direct separation of the respondent for the
specified reasons, and



8. Dropping from the Rolls
a. Under sections 1161, 1163 and 6408 of reference (a), the
President or the Secretary bf the Navy, depending upon the
applicable statute, may drop from the rolls of an Armed Force a
Regular or Reserve officer who:
(1) has been absent without authority for at least three
months, or
(2) has been sentenced to confinement in a Federal or
State penitentiary or correctional institution after having been
found guilty of an offense by a court other than a court-martial
or other military court, and whose sentence has become final.
b. Action to initiate dropping an officer from the rolls
shall normally be undertaken by the Chief of Naval Personnel or
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, on a case-by-case basis,
after a finding that one or both of the above conditions exist,
and that the return of the officer to military control for
processing for separation for cause under this instruction will
serve no useful purpose.
(1) Dropping from the rolls of officers of Regular
components or Reserve officers of flag or general rank will be
accomplished by action of the President.
(2) Dropping from the rolls of officers of Reserve
components, other than officers of flag grade, will be
accomplished by action of the Secretary.
6
Enclosure (4)

SECNAVINST 1920.6A
21 NOV 1983
c. Neither a hearing nor a Board is required in order to
drop an officer from the rolls. However, the officer so
considered shall be notified of such prospective adverse action
(or reasonable efforts shall be made to provide such
notification if actual notification cannot be made) and provided
the opportunity to respond within 30 days of receipt of
notification. Upon completion of the dropping from the rolls
action, notification will be addressed to the officer
concerned. No certificate of discharge is issued upon
separation by dropping from the rolls since such service is not
characterized. For purpose of any Federal benefit based upon
characterization of service, dropping from the rolls shall be
considered as a discharge under Other Than Honorable
conditions. Except for members who are absent without
authority, members who are entitled to retired pay may not be
dropped from the rolls unless they are ineligible to receive
their retired pay under authority of subchapter II, chapter 83,
Title 5, United States Code.
9. Special Provisions
a. No officer shall be discharged under Other Than
Honorable conditions, pursuant to this instruction, without
first being afforded the opportunity to have his or her case
heard before a Board of Inquiry.
b. If proceedings by a Board of Inquiry are mandatory in
order to release an officer from active duty or discharge, such
action will not be taken except upon the approved recommendation
of such a board.
10. Limitations
Subject to subparagraph 10c,
for a separation because of Substandard
an officer who is processed
Performance of Duty
(subparagraph 1a of enclosure (3)) or Parenthood (paragraph 6 of
enclosure (3)) and who is determined to have established that heor
she should be retained on active duty may not again be
processed for separation for the same reasons within the oneyear
period beginning on the date of that determination.
b. Subject to subparagraph 10c, an officer who is processed
for separation for Misconduct, Moral, or Professional
Dereliction (subparagraph 1b of enclosure (3)) or in the
Interest of National Security (subparagraph 1c of enclosure (3))
and who is determined to have established that he or she should
7
Enclosure (4)
SECNAVINST 1920.6A
21 NOV 1983
be retained on active duty may again be required to show cause
for retention at any time.
c. An officer may not again be processed for separation
under subparagraphs 10a or b solely because of performance or
conduct which was the subject of previous proceedings, unless
the findings and recommendations of the board that considered
the case are determined to have been obtained by fraud or
collusion.
d. Whenever evidence of preservice misconduct is presented
to a board, the board may consider it only for the purpose of
deciding whether to recommend separation or retention of the
respondent. Such evidence shall not be used in determining the
recommendation for characterization of service. The board shall
affirmatively state in its report that such evidence was
considered only for purposes of determining whether it should
recommend retention or separation of the officer.
e. Performance or conduct identified more than five years
prior to the initiation of processing for separation under
paragraph 2 of this enclosure shall not form the basis for
processing under this enclosure.
11. Final Disposition of Cases processed under Board procedures.
Final action in any case wherein the commission or
warrant of an officer is to be terminated or discharged pursuant
to board action shall be taken by the Secretary. In addition to
directing retention on active duty the Secretary may take the
following actions:
a. Retirement and Resignation. Any officer (Regular or
Reserve, Temporary or Permanent) who is being considered for
removal from active duty in accordance with this instruction
who is eligible for voluntary retirement under any provision of
law on the date of such removal, may, upon approval by the
Secretary, be retired in the highest grade in which he or she
served satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary under the
guidelines of enclosure (6). Such a retirement is considered
voluntary for purposes of determination of the officer's
retirement. An officer who is not eligible for retirement may
submit a qualified or unqualified resignation or a resignation
for the good of the service. Eligibility for retirement pay of
officers convicted by a court other than a court-martial or
other military court shall be determined in accordance with
subchapter II, chapter 83, Title 5, United States Code.
8
Enclosure (4)

Unless the case is already before a Board of
Inquiry, the officer's record, including all applicable
information, shall be forwarded directly to a Board of Inquiry
for a recommendation of whether the officer should be retired in
the grade currently held, or in the next inferior grade,
following the guidelines of enclosure (6). The procedure for
such a board is described in enclosure (8). All requests for
retirement submitted by officers who have been convicted at
general court-martial shall be referred to a Board of Inquiry.
All recommendations from the Board of Inquiry shall be forwarded
9
Enclosure (4)
SECNAVINST 1920.6A
21 NOV 1983
to the Secretary via the Chief of Naval Personnel or Commandant
of the Marine Corps, as applicable.
b. Discharge. Any officer (Regular or Reserver, Temporary
or Permanent) discharged for cause in accordance with this
enclosure, if ineligible for voluntary retirement under any
provision of law on the date of such removal, shall, at the
direction of the Secretary, be:


(3) Conduct in the civilian community of a member of a
Reserve component who is not on active duty or on active duty
for training and was not wearing the military uniform at the
time of such conduct giving rise to separation may form the
basis for characterization of service as Other Than Honorable
only if the conduct directly affects the performance of military
duties and the conduct has an adverse impact on the overall
effectiveness of the service, including military morale and
efficiency.

b. Action is taken to terminate the appointment of a
Ytemporary limited duty officer or warrant officer for any
specified in paragraphs 1 (Separation for Cause), or 6
(Parenthood) of enclosure (3).
c. An officer is processed for separation for any reason
specified in paragraphs lb (Misconduct, or Moral, or Professional
Dereliction), 1c (Retention is not Consistent with the Interests
of National Security), or 6 (Parenthood) of enclosure (3) and a
separation with an Honorable or General characterization of
service is recommended by the CHNAVPERS or Deputy Chief of
Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs under the provisions of
paragraph 3a(3) of enclosure (4).
d. Action is taken to remove a Reserve officer from an
active status under the provisions of paragraph 12 of enclosure
(3).
(R

d. That the officer may tender a resignation in lieu of
separation processing in accordance with subparagraph 11a of
enclosure (4).

b. If there is sufficient factual basis for separation, the
Secretary may order the officer separated. If the officer
tenders a resignation, the Secretary may accept or reject it.
c. If the Secretary determines that the recommended
R) Honorable or General characterization of service is
inappropriate, he may refer the case directly to a Board of
Inquiry.


17 posted on 11/01/2004 9:36:20 PM PST by Guncarver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Why didn't he come forward before this? The election coverage
will drown this out.


18 posted on 11/01/2004 10:21:00 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

BUMP


19 posted on 11/01/2004 11:17:11 PM PST by IM2MAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IM2MAD
It is pretty obvious why Drudge is reluctant to run with the story no that I look ad the WND article:

Ex-Navy sec to Kerry: Open up your records

"..William Middendorf, the Navy chief from 1974 to 1977, told WorldNetDaily today that Kerry, who began inactive reserve status in 1972, would have been issued a document three years later either for a reserve reaffiliation or a separation discharge.

An "honorable discharge" from 1978 appears on the Kerry campaign's website, but a Navy lawyer who served under Middendorf believes that document is a substitute for one that would have been issued in 1975.

However, no such document can be found among the records Kerry has made available.

"I should think it would be in his interest to open up the files, to clear up any misunderstanding," said Middendorf, who later served as ambassador to the Netherlands, European Union and Organization of American States

Middendorf said he cannot comment specifically on any action taken on Kerry, because he is barred, under the 1974 Privacy Act, from discussing personnel matters.

However, he enthusiastically vouches for the character of Mark Sullivan, who formed the basis for a story today in the New York Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, the first to report discrepancies in Kerry's discharge record..."

So in other words he either knows the answer and won't talk, or he never knew at all, but endorses someone else who can't prove it either.

Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer

Sullivan, in the above piece makes a plausible argument based on normal Navy practice, but the only thing that will work is a witness or documents.

What Middendorf said in the WND article is a million miles from the quote below from the start of the thread:

"Bill has agreed to publicly state that to the best of his knowledge and recollection, John Kerry was dishonorably discharged from the military and fought to have this reversed while he (Bill)was SECNAV, which Bill of course refused to do. When Carter became president, Kerry secured the honorable discharge from Bill\'s successor."

20 posted on 11/02/2004 12:55:37 AM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
Yes, all the rest is hype and a misunderstanding of the fact that by law, he can't say beans. It is a violation of privacy.

The fact he is in his mid eighties and has no documents makes the entire thing a bit moot. IMO

This is why the Swifties would not get involved. There is no there, there that will go anywhere but a embarassment.

21 posted on 11/02/2004 12:59:43 AM PST by Cold Heat (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ImaTexan

Probably too late to affect the voting, but at least it might finally be out there.


22 posted on 11/02/2004 1:05:01 AM PST by bjcintennessee (Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
"Yes, all the rest is hype and a misunderstanding of the fact that by law, he can't say beans. It is a violation of privacy."

I'm sorry, but keeping John Kerry from becoming president is one hell of a lot more important than any "violation of privacy". If this person has first-hand knowledge and fails to act, then he is as bad as Kerry.

"The fact he is in his mid eighties and has no documents makes the entire thing a bit moot. IMO"

If he has "first hand knowledge" then no documents are needed. The fact that he is in his mid-eighties means zip as regards his testimony.

23 posted on 11/02/2004 8:09:51 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Won't make one bit of difference. We could have definite PROOF that Kerry is an axe murderer and that won't change any of the left's minds! In their minds, Bush is the demon and Kerry their savior.


24 posted on 11/02/2004 8:51:01 AM PST by HomeFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mumzie

Mark Levin spoke about it last night. But, it is probably too late. However, impeachment, if, God forbid Kerry is elelected, is a definite recourse.


25 posted on 11/02/2004 9:19:24 AM PST by Bushbacker1 (Former ARNG and son of WWII B-29 POW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Ok,You make him testify.

Apparently, they have been working him like a mule.

He is not going to be the one. I am quite sure that all those comments were made to him.

For some, there are bigger things than personalities, and I cannot bring myself to criticize his decision. I can only be disappointed.

26 posted on 11/02/2004 9:40:09 AM PST by Cold Heat (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
"For some, there are bigger things than personalities, and I cannot bring myself to criticize his decision. I can only be disappointed."

This isn't about personalities---it is about allowing a proven traitor to possibly become President of the USA---the very country he betrayed. THAT is about the biggest issue I can think of of a political nature. The only bigger issue would be another actual physical attack on US territory.

If this ex-officer KNOWS that Kerry got a "less-than-honorable" discharge, and fails to come forward with the information, the he is as big a traitor to his oath to the USA as Kerry ever was.

The same goes for any OTHER individuals with this knowledge.

27 posted on 11/02/2004 10:06:12 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeVoice

Could any comments be less useful than too late comments? This might have been significant a month ago. Now it is just noise.


28 posted on 11/02/2004 10:09:23 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (RATmedia will no longer control American politics if patriots have their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
I am sorry, but that logic won't fly.

While agree that Kerry is a traitor and scum, it does not follow that illegal acts be entertained to defeat him.

The proof would be negated, and the whistle blower law would be ineffective in this instance.

I don't want to belabor this point further. We are not getting any closer to destroying Kerry.

29 posted on 11/02/2004 10:20:59 AM PST by Cold Heat (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson