Skip to comments.More on Kerry's Questionable discharge
Posted on 10/31/2004 6:49:30 PM PST by RogerRabbit
I have been working with two retired Navy Captain Judge Advocate General Corps [attorneys for my non-military friends & colleagues] who have put exhaustive research into the circumstances surrounding Kerry's separation from the Naval Reserve after it was discovered that he was meeting with senior officials of an enemy government in time of war while he was still a naval officer. These two guys, Don Nelson and Mark Sullivan, have both put many MANY hundreds of hours of research into this effort and have produced the attached 4 page document of FACTS that all point towards an Other Than Honorable Discharge for Kerry--------- what makes it all the more credible is that both CAPT's Sullivan and Nelson were in active service when all this was going on and Sullivan was serving in a Pentagon action office that was taking action on these matters, including his being present to disgustingly watch the Carter Administration actions to give deserters and other traitors who had abandoned their units in time of war Honorable Discharges for their dishonorable service.
I've shared this information with everyone that I know in the news media, but if you have some contacts that might want to see it, feel free to forward the attachment on to them. While all this could be resolved with Kerry signing a standard form 180 to release ALL OF HIS MILITARY RECORDS, it's pretty obvious at this point that it's not going to happen------- and it is my concern that if Kerry is elected and the facts about this covered up discharge status are ever learned, the reaction of many in our nation will be much larger and more repulsive than the Jimmy Carter "malaise in America" disgust that most still attach to that administration.
Let us hope that all this will all be considered a moot point on Wednesday, but no matter what happens, I thought you would like to know about all the facts and details in the following 4 page document. And for my fellow Vietnam Vets, I know it will never be a moot point with us.
With all good wishes,
Rear Admiral [Ret.] Jim Carey
Veterans' groups and especially former POWs are highly skeptical that Senator John Kerry has posted a part of his naval service records which indicates that he received an honorable discharge but he continues to refuse to execute the release form that would allow public review of over 100 pages of other records. To these Vietnam Veterans, it is simply inconceivable that Kerry could have received the same discharge that they did after his 1970 1971 grandstanding as a lead propagandist against his fellow Americans serving in combat in a "shooting war. It is a basic rule of debate and of litigation (Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 107) that, that when a party relies on a part of a document as Kerry has done with his service record, fairness and the pursuit of the truth dictates that he produce all of the document (or, in this case, at least the non-medical performance-related documents.) Similarly, when a party in an argument or in litigation conceals or holds back something that he could readily produce for inspection, the inference is an adverse one, namely: that the concealed matter would, if produced, be contrary to that party's interests.
These adverse inferences come squarely to mind in the case of the Kerry campaign naval service records since the key document, Senator Kerry's honorable discharge, is dated 1978 in the midst of the wholesale correction of military and protestor-related records that occurred at the outset of the Carter Administration. On the very first day following Jimmy Carter's inauguration, he issued the first of a series of amnesties and pardons that initially extended to draft evaders who did not serve and ultimately extended even to service members if their conduct had been the topic of certain counter-intelligence surveillance.
The records posted by Senator Kerry reflect that he enlisted in the Naval Reserve as an officer candidate on February 18, 1966. He was a reservist on inactive duty until August 20, 1966, when he began Officer Candidate School. Kerry was commissioned as an Ensign, the entry level for naval officers on December 15, 1966, and remained on active duty for three (3) years and eighteen (1Cool days until January 3, 1970. Under the "Universal Military Training & Service Act;" 10 U.S. Code § 651(a), and under his enlistment contract, Kerry was obligated to serve a total of for six (6) years, including both active and reserve time. In keeping with this statute, at the conclusion of his three (3) years of active duty, Kerry was not issued a Discharge Certificate but was transferred to the Naval Reserve. Having served in Vietnam, Kerry was permitted, but was not required to drill.
Lieutenant Kerry did not drill, and was placed in the "Standby Reserve Active (USNR S1)," also known as the "Individual Ready Reserve." As a matter of law, contractual commitment and long-standing custom, Kerry was not just like civilian activist, Jane Fonda and other war protestors. He was still a naval officer (with a Top Secret security clearance) who was subject to call-up when, in 1970 and 1971, he engaged in his leadership role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War ("VVAW") and in the fraud-ridden Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit which featured fakes and phonies as alleged G.I. barbarians admitting atrocities in Vietnam. Per Kerry's records, no adverse action was taken against him administratively and, on March 1, 1972, after completing his six (6) years of mandatory service, Kerry was transferred to the "Standby Reserve Inactive (USNR-S2)." The Kerry records reflect an adjustment of that transfer date to July, 1972, which may reflect a retention in an active status for some now omitted administrative action. However, it also may reflect an adjustment to comply with the six year mandatory service law, adding back the months of "inactive duty" in 1966 between Kerry's enlistment and his reporting to Officer Candidate School.
Taking the Kerry campaign at its word that nothing material has been omitted from the posted records, the provocative nature of Kerry's protest activities presents an obvious question: why was no action taken against Kerry while he was a reservist in an active status? Several explanations come to the forefront. The first involves a bit of legal history. During the period from 1969 until it was overruled in1987, the military services were constrained in their exercise of court-martial jurisdiction by the then-new, radical departure from tradition stated in O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969), an opinion by Justice William O. Douglas that is one of the very last opinions of the "Earl Warren Court." Under O'Callahan, the significance of one's status as a soldier or sailor, let alone the traditionally more demanding status of being an officer (and a gentleman), became secondary to whether one's criminal or subversive conduct occurred on duty or off duty. This was a difficult rule to apply to reservists and the military services exercised great restraint in asserting court-martial criminal jurisdiction, particularly in the case of reservists. The uncertain limits of the application to a reserve officer of the rule in O'Callahan would alone explain the lack of any punitive action against Senator Kerry for his VVAW and Winter Soldier Investigation excesses.
However, the criminal jurisdiction limitations of O'Callahan did not apply to administrative actions, raising the further provocative question why the Nixon Administration's Secretary of the Navy did not, at a minimum, proceed with administrative separation of Kerry based on the obvious grounds of his ineligibility to hold a security clearance. As any officer or former officer knows, personal reliability sufficient to warrant the retention of a security clearance is a basic requirement for any officer, active or reserve. Faced with a choice between: (1) the Nixon Administration supposedly "not being concerned" about the conduct of Fonda and Kerry, or (2) there being some other overriding issue or concern, the second choice is the far more likely option. The recent, highly-publicized revelations of then-Lieutenant Kerry apparently meeting with and coordinating anti-war activities with representatives of the North Vietnamese government presents a compelling reason for the Department of the Navy to have elected not to have taken disciplinary action against Kerry.
In a series of highly publicized hearings in the 1970s that reached their climax in the Carter years, Senator Frank Church (D.-Id.) and Congressman Otis Pike (D.-N.Y.) severely criticized the Nixon Administration for "spying on U.S. civilians" who engaged in protest activities less inimical to the interests of the United States than coordinating protest activities with the enemy. Assuming that there must have been such surveillance of VVAW and the "Winter Soldier Investigation," it is a fair assumption that the interest of maintaining the investigative "cover," in and of itself, would have militated against taking any disciplinary action. At the insistence of the Church Committee and Carter Administration, the Department of Defense formed the Defense Investigative Review Council which reviewed all such "spying" on civilians, purging the offending files and, where they affected military personnel, correcting personnel records tainted thereby. Thus, if adverse action had been taken against Lieutenant Kerry based on any such surveillance, it would have been a prime candidate for "correction."
This then brings the analyst of the Kerry service records to the most intriguing documents on the Kerry campaign web page: (1) the issuance of an honorable discharge certificate effective February 18, 1978, and (2) the Silver Star Medal citation executed by Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, seven or eight years after the alleged honorable discharge and over fifteen years after the incident for which the medal was awarded..
Taking the Kerry campaign at its word that nothing material has been omitted from the posted records, the significant item begging for an explanation is the gap between Kerry's 1972 transfer to "Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2)" and the issuance of the posted honorable discharge six years later. A naval reservist in this inactive status cannot drill, cannot be promoted and is merely in a manpower pool. Under clear regulatory authority, including the Bureau of Personnel Manual article referenced in the February 18, 1978 letter that forwarded Kerry's honorable discharge (BUPERSMAN 3830300), Kerry should have been discharged no later than 1975, three years after the transfer to Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2), if not earlier.
The absence of the discharge that should be in the record in 1975 cannot be readily explained by blaming "bureaucracy." The military services faced significant force reductions in 1972 and again in 1974, making slow-rolling of separations unlikely. Under the law then in effect, 10 U.S. Code section 1163, Lieutenant Kerry would have been entitled not to be separated without his consent or, in the absence thereof, with review of the Secretary of the Navy's action by a board of officers. Separation based on "conduct unbecoming an officer" or on commission of an offense (whether or not prosecuted criminally) of even misdemeanor level severity from the perspective of a civilian (i.e., an offense that could be punished by confinement of 6 months) would alone be enough to result in a discharge under conditions other than honorable. The current allegations that Lieutenant Kerry collaborated with North Vietnamese representatives would be a patent violation of the Logan Act, 18 U.S. Code section 953, and as such would easily meet this threshhold.
Unlike enlisted members, officers do not receive "other than honorable" or "dishonorable" certificates of discharge. To the contrary, the rule is that no certificate will be awarded to an officer separated wherever the circumstances prompting separation "are not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of 'honor'." The absence of an honorable discharge certificate for a separated naval officer is, therefore, a harsh and severe sanction and is, in fact, the treatment given officers who are dismissed after a general court-martial.
Accordingly, in the absence of an explanation for the exceptionally late issuance of the honorable discharge on the Kerry campaign web site, the unmistakeable inference is that the separation really occurred when it should have, i.e., in 1975, and that the discharge certificate was a mere "general discharge" which was removed from the service record or, if the campaign is telling the truth that there was no other certificate, that it was a discharge under circumstances not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of honor.
The inference of a discharge under such other than honorable circumstances is heightened by the odd and unexplained late re-issuance of Senator Kerry's silver star. Records of personal decorations are items subject to a 75-year retention by the Department of the Navy. Under SECNAVINST 1650.1G, the NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AWARDS MANUAL, a medal may be revoked if the service after issuance has not been honorable.
Two days before the election... I just don't see this story really taking off.
After Kerry loses, the "him" that needs to be gotten is the press, for dereliction of public duty.
we need him got TONIGHT or early morning please :)
Which could explain the rewrite\rewording of the SS citation.
I agree with you !!!
This needs to be forwarded to some "conservative or liberterian" radio talk show host who has the b***s to run with it.
Actually, I don't even care if it's true !! Bush has been called everything but a child molestor, and I'm sick and tired of playing nice.
Let the scumbag Democrats and John Kerry defend this rumor by proving it isn't true !!
THE story that
ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times
DON'T WANT AMERICA TO KNOW!
John Kerry's Discharge
He won't sign Form 180
What is he hiding?
"There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge
or an undesirable discharge which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge
without the felony conviction and that, as a result of such discharge,
he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals.
And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!"
ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times
made sure you knew about the "Bush" documents.
Q) Why did
ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times
NOT ask Kerry about why he wouldn't sign Form 180?
A) Because they are AFRAID of the REAL story!
Don't let ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC
try to "give" the election to Kerry
like they did Gore in FL
Spread the word on the internet!
Post on internet boards AND e-mails!
Kerry's October Surprise (Missippi Press)
THE Next Smoking Gun - the "proof"
Kerry's Military Discharge. What's Kerry Hiding?
Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge
Editorial Comments about Kerry's Discharge
Kerry Military Discharge Deception, look at the online documentation!
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
The original article, posted 9/24/04
The whole 42:09 Stolen Honor online FREE right now! E-mail it NOW!
Stolen Honor nails Kerry and the VVAW
and how they lied at Winter Soldier.
And how Kerry lied to the US Senate in 1971
And how Kerry and his pack of liars caused our POW's to suffer!
Kerry and the DNC cannot stop
EVERYONE on the internet from seeing this!
E-mail the FREE xxcerpts clips to everyone NOW!
LATEST SWIFT BOAT VETS AD!
Swift Vets and POW's
We Have Questions
Hanoi Approved of Role Played By Kerry and VVAW
Timeline of John Kerry
Click Here for
All the Latest Swift Boat Vets Ad!
Click Here for
All the Swift Boat Vets Ads!
View for FREE!
Free online version of
John Kerry and the VVAW
"The New Soldier"
Banned by the DNC!
You can read it online right now.
The Swiftvets news conference on C-SPAN can be found here.
AND other valuable Video and Audio links.
The Children of Viet Nam Veterans Video (Not an easy one to watch)
Please remember the 58,000 + Names on the Wall on Nov 2
Please watch this video
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick
If he is elected, these facts will never see the light of day.
Im with you.....I just sent it to Fox and Drudge... maybe if we all send it, it will get noticed and picked up... heres my addys:
If he has an OTH (Other Than Honorable) discharge, will he be allowed to have a TOP SECRET Clearance?
I agree. This is coming out far too late to have an impact. With the story three decades old, you'd think we could have gotten it out a few months earlier.
Just did the same thing. thanks for the email address's
Thanks for the ping!
There is no way this gets out in the media without absolute proof. Perhaps Lipscomb has gotten the then Secretary of Navy to come forward, and will be publishing a story tomorrow. If not, this is going nowhere.
Yeah after he is elected.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (FOOTNOTE 1) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. The word ''who'' probably should not appear. (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
I really find it amazong that a Man who might be able to become the next President of the USA, would be allowed to assume that office without a credible background inspection. Especially one who we all know participated in demonstratitons against the foreign policy of the United States and who is suspect of the highest crime in the land next to murder.
It is totally unreasonable to ask a country to accept this or his legal claim to Senator let alone the Presidency of the USA and in the time of WAR no less. There must be some legal vehicle that that is available to the Congress, to demand that this information be brought to light, before the election.
I SWEAR I heard Rush say something about this last Friday.....course He's NOT the MSM......
I don't care if it doesn't come out until after the election, personally. I just want it to come out. Mainly so I can take satisfaction in all the kool-aid drinkers seeing who they really voted for.
Though it's hard, we/I have waited 30 years, I can wait another few months to make sure ALL the evidence is there and not just conjecture. If it goes out as speculation based on 'the history' of the time, then I would rather work to get all the information. I believe that sooner or later through the law we WILL get the documents. And, when we do, we will take down not only Kerry, but also the MEDIA whose job it was to do this, especially Dan Rather who spent 5 years on the National Guard Story and refused to do that same research on this one.
Not like the DUI story, eh?
Absolutely correct without documentary proof or someone of notoriety willing to state unequivocally as fact it's going nowhere. Even Drudge refuses to run with it.
But if we wait until after the election, and God forbid, Kerry is elected, we may be stuck with Edweards as president.
Scary thought !!!
P.S. Please tell your brother, there are thousands of us who thank him for his service to this country.
Presidents automatically get a much higher clearance than that. Whether SCI or codeword, I don't know.
Congresspeople get TS by default, regardless of what the background turns up.
Remember Ron Dellums? Scary, isn't it?
"Here's a scarey scenario for a Halloween night.
It is revealed he had a dishonorable discharge"
Reminds me of Louis Prima and Keely Smith's "Black Magic"
Now I have posting remorse :)
I was in the USN from '70-'74, there were a lot of BCDs given out back then. People just wanting out, not thinking ahead. It was the days of anything goes. Also back then I got to know quite a few 0-3s and below standing watch in CIC with them. Nobody got out 11 months early to run for congress. Even after the downsizing of the USN in Vietnam we were still fighting a cold war in the Atlantic.
Excellent Post....I hope it can get out onto the airwaves heavy tomorrow and I hope it's not to late to bury Kerry under a voter landslide!!!
I think there is a procedure for security clearance. I think the 9/11 commission made recommendations that cabinet members of new administrations be names asap after elections so that their security clearances can be completed sooner
After 2000, election which took longer than usual, the dems were so angry that the slow-walked the confirmation on a lot of Bush's appointments which put him way behind. I don't know if it was well documented but I think that is one reason given for some of the missed messages leading up to 9/11, which wasn't blamed on Bush. The just thought that the transition of administrations should be quicker.
Isn't it ironic that Kerry's cabinet picks would probably get a lot more scrutiny that Kerry himself. They have to be voted on a passed by the Senate. I don't think Kerry would be.
This coverup has no doubt been carefully orchestrated over the years by rat insiders, including Ted Kennedy. The combination of Carter's amnesty, laws passed to help, and Kerry now being a member of the Sinate (friends who will protect him) have all allowed him to weasel his way around the theoretical protections we have to keep us safe from a guy like him.
What's scary about it? The MSM would just laugh at us. They have no legal responsibility to the truth.
Such a scenario is just sad, because it will mean the public fell for it.
Remember that the Clinton Administration simply ignored the background checks for many of its appointees. If they wanted a certain somebody in a certain position (that didn't require Senate approval, as most don't), they just put them there, "security requirements" be damned.
You have got to come to this new thread showing the Bush team in Halloween costumes mocking Kerry's Elmer Fudd moment. They say laughter is the best medicine - I think you will feel much better!!!!!!!
where is it?
Truth is the only medicine that will sooth the ach in my heart. You may think this do deep, but the pain is deep.
"The new school of art and thought does indeed wear an air of audacity, and breaks out everywhere into blasphemies, as if it required any courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." Chesterton
No, not "legally". But when has that ever stopped, or even slowed down, the Left?
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.