I guess it is time to get my feet wet (lurked around here long enough).
found at: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf
This is the Enclosure (1) to some document that was dated January 25, 1985. It was written by LCDR D. W. Meyers, Office of Legal Counsel, Naval Military Personnel Command. It shows dates of different events.
Here's an excerpt from the .pdf file:
D.O.R as LT, USNR 1 January 1970
Release from ACDU/
Trf to Naval Reserve 3 January 1970
Trf to Standby Reserve - Inactive 1 July 1972
Discharged for U.S. Naval Reserve 16 February 1978
found at:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_History_of_Service.pdf This is a letter dated 24 May 1986. This is almost a year and a half after the previous document.
Here's an excerpt of the .pdf file:
"Senator Kerry:
Your request of the 9th of May concerning documentation of your
Naval Service has been forwarded by the National Personnel
Records Center to this office for reply.
The follow (sic) statement of Naval Service accurately reflects the
documentation in your Naval Personnel Record:
..snip..
1 Jan 1970 Date of Rank as Lieutenant (O-3), United
States Naval Reserve
3 Jan 1970 Released from Active Duty, transferred to
the Naval Reserve (inactive)
1 Jul 1972 Transferred to the Standby Reserve (inactive)
16 Feb 1978 Honorably Discharged from the United States
Naval Reserve as a Lieutenant (O-3)
If additional copies of information is (sic) required from your
official Naval Records, please feel free to contact this office
or the National Personnel Records Center directly."
This letter is from the Naval Military Personnel Command Liaison Office of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.
Note the difference on 3 Jan 1970 between the two. The second letter includes (inactive).
The second letter is not signed by R. J. Schultz, LCDR who is apparently the author. That is extremely odd. Things get signatures in the military in order to become official.
The first was an enclosure to something. Was it a reply to a request from the Senator to document his naval service? If so, why from the Office of Legal Counsel of Naval Military Personnel Command? That's an odd place to get that sort of information. Did Kerry wait over a year before going fishing to get someone to write what he wanted?
We'll never see him sign an SF 180. There are too many oddities in what he has already released.
Going back to that first listing of Kerry's dates done by the Office of
Legal Counsel, Naval Military Personnel Command. The Naval Military
Personnel Command's name was changed back to Bureau of Personnel (BUPERS) in
1991. They are now located in Millington, Tennessee.
BUPERS maintains a detachment in Washington with a specific liaison mission.
found at:
http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/Instructions/545052.htm ..snip..
2
BUPERSINST 5450.52
28 Sep 99
Mission and Functions of the
Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) Washington Liaison
Detachment
MISSION. Acts as liaison between the Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS)
and Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) departmental leadership
geographically located in Millington, Tennessee. Provides ready and
real-time staff support and advice to the Chief of Naval Personnel, as the
senior advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations for personnel matters.
FUNCTIONS.
..snip..
2. Advises CHNAVPERS and makes recommendations on legal matters.
Initiates, develops and evaluates proposed and enacted legislation for the
overall administration of Navy personnel. Monitors litigation against the
Navy involving personnel matters. Coordinates legal matters with Judge
Advocate General (JAG) and other offices.
..snip..
I don't know when BUPERS moved from Washington to Tennessee. BUPERS' legal
department would advise CHNAVPERS, though, no matter where they were
located.
It would make sense that the enclosure written in 1985 was part of a letter
going back to the Chief of Naval Personnel via the Washinton Liaison (or directly if that was before the Tennessee move).
The key question is, of course, is what caused the main letter to be written.
This is a real short line running from the Office of Legal Counsel, to the Chief of Naval
Personnel, to the Chief of Naval Operations (who is the guy in charge of the
Navy). That enclosure appears to be something within the description of
function 2. And that sure doesn't look like a routine personnel query (when
the Office of Legal Counsel has to answer).