Skip to comments.Navy:Undesirable/General Discharges for Civilian Misconduct While on Inactive Duty Reserve Status
Posted on 10/17/2004 11:26:05 AM PDT by Polybius
Until now, it has been the conventional wisdom of former military Freepers, including myself, that any misconduct committed by John Kerry while a civilian in an inactive duty status while still a member of the U.S. Naval Reserves would have had no impact on his discharge status.
I, along with others, believed that, after release from active duty but while still a member of the Naval Reserve, Kerry could only have been held accountable for misconduct while on active duty for training or for previous misconduct committed prior to his release from active duty.
Well, we have all been proven wrong.
On 4 September 2004, I wrote and posted an essay documenting how the John Kerry Official web page had succeeded in deceiving the news media into believing that John Kerry had been honorably discharged prior to joining Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com
The fact of the matter is that John Kerry still had Ready Reserve and Inactive Reserve obligated service after his January 1970 release from active duty date and was not even eligible for discharge until 16 December 1972.
The Honorable Discharge Kerry received, however, was dated 16 February 1978, during the Carter Administration.
Today, I received Post 155 on that thread from Freeper rolling_stone which included a link to Secretary of the Navy Instruction SECNAVINST 5420.174C whose subject is: Review at the Level of the Navy Department of Discharges from the Naval Service.
Section 9-1 of SECNAVINST 5420.174C has an extremely important piece of information:
d. The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the NDRB shall either re characterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Courts Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:
(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;
(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.
There it is, Freepers and all you lurking bloggers and journalists.
Kerry could have received a general discharge as an inactive duty reservist based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.
Kerry could have received an other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge as an inactive duty reservist based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;.
Thank you to rolling_stone for finding SECNAVINST 5420.174C.
Bump for reference
Assuming Kerry never signs 180 - when would his record have to be released? Never? After his death?
Hours before the election, Kerry will sign his form 180 and prove us all wrong.
I find it interesting to guess that SEVERAL PEOPLE must have had direct dealings with his discharge, if only office workers and administrative staff. Wouldn't the officers at his hearing know what the real gossip is? Or would they be breaking the law just talking about it?
What SECNAVINST regarding this issue was in effect at the time in question? Was this one in effect then?
And BTW, what IS the time in question? Late seventies? Or am I confused?
BTTT and keep it there.
> Or would they be breaking the law just talking about it?
Kerry is counting on the honor of honorable people to
protect the secrets of his dishonors.
I presume that it may be the case that, when a discharge has been upgraded, the Navy is not allowed to reveal the former status of the discharge without the permission of the individual involved.
It may be analogous to your doctor's office staff blabbing about your medical record.
That would be the purpose of Form 180 and that may be why Kerry refuses to sign it.
I would love Kerry to try and explain this away.... Well I'm John Kerry and that stuff shouldn't matter...blah./..blah... blah... Post this on DU... See what they say...
I would start getting all the Demoheads on the record of the well what if it is determined that John Kerry received an other than honorable discharge from the military.. Would you still be supporting his candidacy?
Breaking the law, ruining their careers, endangering the future of the armed services in which they serve, and possibly their own lives as well.
Someone on another thread posted that Kerry was (and this in uninvestigated, and unproven) given the DIS DISCHARGE because he married a vietnamese woman while over there who turned out to be a viet cong spy.
Have you heard anything about this? Or is it pure b.s.?
> Hours before the election, Kerry will sign his form 180 ...
Not gonna happen, for three reasons:
1. It would be seen for what it was, a meaningless ploy,
since there wouldn't be time to follow up.
2. It could reveal info that would prove Kerry is
legally ineligible to serve as POTUS (should he
win the election).
3. It could reveal info that will cause him to lose his
next senatorial election, if not face an immediate recall
(should he lose on 02 Nov).
And he won't sign the 180 any earlier, either. Suppose
he did so on 28 Oct. There might not be time for the
USN to release the docs and for the honest press to
analyze them ...
... but current and former Navy people with now-privileged
info would be immediately at liberty to blab about it.
We need some Pajama People to dig that up. This, however, was a 1984 SECNAV Instruction which referenced past discharge policies.
And BTW, what IS the time in question? Late seventies? Or am I confused?
The linked SECNAV Instruction specifically mentions those "who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971".
Kerry was not eligible for discharge until 16 December 1972.
Most people would whisper it to their spouse in bed. That person would tell their best friend over a drink at the bar. That person would tell everyone they know, one of whom would tell the DrudgeReport, who would tell the entire planet!
I knew that. I was just stirring the pot a little.
That sounds like an urban legend to me.
However, since Kerry refuses to sign his Form 180, ANYTHING your imagination can come up with is possible. ;-)
I think that this should be explored and that Kerry should be made to release his records regardless of the election results. If and when Bush wins, it could still be a reason to get him out of the Senate. If Kerry (God forbid) wins, then it would be a definite cause for impeachment I would think, especially the visits to Paris.
You think YOU'RE confused?? I can't keep track of how many times Kerry received his "honorable" discharge", how many different decades he was awarded the same Silver Star, how many people awarded that particular medal OR which people awarded that particular medal in which decade!
re: SF 180
>> Not gonna happen
> I knew that. I was just stirring the pot a little.
Roger that. The fundamental observation here is that Kerry
refuses to even address, in any material way, the challenges
to his Vietnam mythology and later betrayals.
Why would anyone think he's about to answer honestly,
when he shows zero signs of being willing to answer at all?
Because this particular SECNAV Instruction dealt with the reviewed of General and Undesirable Discharges issued during the Vietnam era.
"The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971"
< Indignant Kerry Voice> "ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY PATRIOTISM?!?!?" < /Indignant Kerry Voice>
What was her net worth at the time? If she was a multi-millionaire, maybe its true.
Then why does this Navy document refer to his "Honorable Discharge Certificate" and dated Feb. 16, 1978? It indicates an Honorable discharge although the DD214 hasn't been produced for viewing..... http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
His other two DD214s dated 15-12-66 and 03-01-70 are available here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Does this sum it up?
Kerry: "I received a dishonorable discharge before I received an honorable discharge."
And it's intersting that the 1978 date of the sKerry discharge as shown on his web site seem to fit in so well with the operative period of that program.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
Kerry's obligated service would have been completed on 16 December 1972 so why does his Honorable Discharge carry a 1978 date?
Kerry only provides documentation for a 16 FEB 1978 Honorable Discharge.
Why the six year delay?
Most likely, Kerry had a General or Undesirable Discharge that was upgraded to Honorable Discharge in 1978.
Kerry could clear all this up by signing his Form 180.
Instead, Kerry refuses to let America know the truth about his service record.
Kerry please sign form 180 ~ you gutless punk ~ Bump!
It would explain a lot..Of course he COULD clear this all up...Wonder WHY he doesn't..hmmm
This is why the Kerry campaign had the media focus so much on Bush being "AWOL" and a "deserter" etc. Very smart of them.
Attn Mr Koppel: "You've been had, Ted"
There's a website for all SECNAV Instructions, but it only provides the current versions of instructions. Someone would have to have 174A or B in hard copy, I would guess.
Wrong. It was conventional wisdom here on FR that he was not subject to the UCMJ while in civilian status. His discharge status is a different sort of administrative proceding.
Why the six year delay?
I have posted this on a couple of previous threads in the last few months but will do so again.
First: The actual Navy Honorable Discharge Certificate issued at the time when all duty including reserve obligation was completed was a DD256N. The DD214 is a form issued at the time of separation from active duty.
On the Kerry website is a copy of a letter notifying him of his honorable discharge. It refers toTitle 10, U.S.Code Section 1163 and says that a board of officers was convened pursuant to that statute to determine whether a reservist should be kept in the reserves. There is a DOD regulation that explains how this works. It is at 32 CFR section 100.5. At the beginning it states:
(a) Unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.
(3) When a member of the Selected Reserve is identified as an unsatisfactory participant and considered a possible candidate for involuntary transfer to the IRR or for discharge, a board of officers shall be convened, as required by 10 U.S.C. 1063 to consider the circumstances and recommend appropriate action.
Since this statute (10 USC 1063) is referenced in the honorable discharge letter one must assume that this regulation as it existed in 1978 was the one under which the discharge was granted. In other words he was discharged for being an unsatisfactory participant in the reserve.
Here is a link to the regulation:
Freepers on a roll with research today ping
Cough it up, guys.
let's say all of these things prove to be true, and documented...
obviously Kerry knows all about it. what do you think he has prepared to defend himself? he's got to have something up his sleeve.
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.