Skip to comments.Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
Posted on 10/13/2004 12:54:03 AM PDT by politicketEdited on 10/13/2004 1:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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?
Here it is.
I was hoping the same thing... I'm not willing to pay $65 to find out the answer to the question.
go to http://www.bugmenot.com
I posted it on the previous thread. Check my last postings. If this violates any agreements, feel free to edit.
>>>go to http://www.bugmenot.com
They got none - try to look up, and it goes straight to the 'add' screen...
Worked for me.
ping to article text for discussion
I'm scared to hell that this guy just might win. Wow.
Well, well, well, sKerry can run, but he can't hide.
I just don't think anyone will ask the questions that should be asked. The questions they'll ask will be "President Bush, were you involved in the release of this story?"
He had a 'other than honorable' discharge changed by Jimmy Carter??
We will see if this story gets the national attention that it would if it involved a Republican.
I am convinced that President Bush will receive more legitimate votes in the Electorial College and popularly. I am not convinced that the MASSIVE voter fraud that the Democrats are orchestrating, even worse than their usual, can be overcome.
Work and pray.
(By the way to Admin Mod, if there is any issue with the article posting above please convert it to an excerpt. I did not see any, but just in case. Thanks.)
Not really an October suprise, but a nice clean article detailing how lurch gamed the system leading to the probable case that he originally had a less than 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.
This sentence strikes me as...odd.
If, and that's a BIG IF, this story gets legs then it could prove to be worth at least 5% - 10% in the polls.