Discharge suggested for anti-war Marine

Associated Press ^ | 5 June 2007 | Heather Hollingsworth

[Racehorse]

A military panel recommended that an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during an anti-war protest should lose his honorable discharge status, brushing away his claims that he was exercising his right to free speech.

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, argued that since he removed his name tag and military emblems from his uniform, he did nothing wrong by participating in the March protest in Washington, D.C.

. . . a three-person Marine board recommended he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions, one step below an honorable discharge. It would let Kokesh keep all of his benefits.

. . .

"This is a nonpunitive discharge," said Col. Patrick McCarthy, chief of staff for the mobilization command. "The most stringent discharge that could have been received is other than honorable, and the board chose to raise that up to a general discharge."

After the hearing, Kokesh criticized the panel for not taking a stronger stand on the issue. He said he might appeal the board's ruling.

"I do not think it was in the Marine Corps spirit to take the easy road or to not take a stand. In the words of Dante, the hottest layers of hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality, and I think that's what happened here today."

. . . he was identified in a photo caption in The Washington Post. A superior officer sent him a letter saying he might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. Kokesh had already received an honorable discharge from active duty before he was photographed at the protest.

An investigating officer had recommended that the board immediately discharge Kokesh under other-than-honorable conditions, the toughest such penalty it could impose.

[L98Fiero]

“and the board chose to raise that up to a general discharge.”

Pathetic.

[goldstategop]

Yeah... its like a slap on the wrist.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[American_Centurion]

If you are disappointed in this, you will be even more disappointed when he wins his appeal and this decision is overturned.

That’s what I think will happen.

[Hazcat]

He was already out (discharged) when he did this?

If so I see no reason to change his discharge status. JMHO

[mbynack]

He was already out (discharged) when he did this?

He was still in the reserves.

The military really stresses this during basic training and I was briefed again before I was discharged. You can't wear your uniform during any protests, political activities, or activities that would bring disgrace on the service - even after you're discharged.

[Hazcat]

OK, he was in the reserves. I will agree that when still in service you should not do as he did.

But once discharged and no insignia what is the diff? Heck you can go into any Army/Navy store and buy pretty much any uni you want.

BTW just so you know, I was in the USArmy for 10 years (73-83) and was a Drill Sergeant.

[L98Fiero]

A “release from active duty” and a discharge are two different things. When folks sign up for a 4-year enlistment, they are really in for 6 years. They are released from active duty after 4 years. The last two years are in the inactive reserves, meaning you check in with your local reserve center and then go home but the possibility of recall remains for two years. There is a briefing you have to go through that covers protesting in uniform. It’s a definite no-no.

[Hazcat]

As stated above I was in the service myself and I understand the rules. That is why I aked if he was discharged.

[Equality 7-2521]

If you are disappointed in this, you will be even more disappointed when he wins his appeal and this decision is overturned.

That’s what I think will happen.

I agree...

---

UCMJ 1-802. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who--

(1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority;

(2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority:

(3) received military pay or allowances; and

(4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-

(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);

(B) trial by court-martial; or

(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was

(A) on active duty; or

(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.

(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.

(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not--

(A) be sentenced to confinement; or

(B) be required to serve a punishment of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).

---

Since Kokesh had already received a discharge, he is not punishable under the UCMJ for his actions. The Marine Corps has no standing, and he will win on appeal.

[real saxophonist]

What has happened to others who have protested in uniform? If they've gotten Other Than Honorable, so should this guy.

BTW, I may have told you this before, my Senior Drill Instructor on Parris Island in 1989 drove a red Fiero.

[L98Fiero]

“What has happened to others who have protested in uniform?”

I’m not sure. I was in personnel in the Navy during the Gulf War. I did process a few OTH discharges but none for protesting in uniform. DUI, homosexual, UA, stuff like that. Oh, and the guy who couldn’t keep it in his pants and got like 4 girls pregnant.

There was a Perot rally near our base. We were told that if we wanted to go, not to be in uniform. Obviously, nobody felt froggy enough to disobey that order.

[cubreporter]

He knew he shouldn’t have participated in the protest.
He took his hardware off his uniform
He disgraced himself by doing that
He knew the rules
He broke them anyway
He DIDN’T get what he deserved
He should have been dishonorable discharged.

How can he get what he did and still receive his benefits when he was protesting against the very thing he was serving for? His peers are dying and he is wearing his uniform without his medals and protesting?

I am shocked at the Marine Corps for being weak on this issue. It is shameful!

[Shots]

“If you are disappointed in this, you will be even more disappointed when he wins his appeal and this decision is overturned.”

Since he was not Court martial ed there can be no Appeal. The reviewing General or Bush lol, might overturn it but as I understand it this type of discharge cannot be appealed.

[Gay State Conservative]

BTW just so you know, I was in the USArmy for 10 years (73-83) and was a Drill Sergeant.

OK then...as a DI you know that if you order your recruits to place their toothbrushes in their foot lockers with the bristles facing to the right and any recruit were to fail to comply that recruit would be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for failure to obey a lawful order.

This Marine..who *is* subject to the UCMJ...violated rules set forth by either the DoD or the Department of the Navy (not sure which) regarding how and when he can and cannot wear the uniform of the United States Marine Corps.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to why the UCMJ forbids the wearing of a military uniform at any event that could be considered "political"?

[Popocatapetl]

I have to agree that the Marine should not have been punished, but solely because this is an unfair application of the regulation. That is, for many years it has been the practice that removal of insignia made a military uniform “just clothes”.

This came about because of the sale of enormous amounts of surplus military clothing for civilian use.

Plus, there is the additional problem that there is a consensus that especially decorated combat veterans should be allowed to wear their old uniforms for any number of public occasions.

And though these Marines might be subject to recall, since they were not on active duty *and* made the standard gesture of removing all insignia, accepted as compliance with the rules, they should not be held accountable.

On appeal, it should be overturned. But the appellate authority, if it chooses to do so, should publish that the rules have been changed, and that the policy will now be enforced.

This will also have to be determined individually by the other military branches, unless a Pentagon determination is made, or a directive issued by the SecDef.

[oh8eleven]

When folks sign up for a 4-year enlistment, they are really in for 6 years.
I do believe the 6 year requirement is now 8 years.

[Hazcat]

OK, let me go through this one more time. In my original comment I said that IF he was already discharged I saw no problem.

As he was (is) still in the service, yes there is a problem.

Got it?

[eyedigress]

When I was released in ‘89 (Honorably)I was told that if I wanted to wear my uniform in public all insignia must be removed. This was by the separations NCOIC.

[L98Fiero]

“I do believe the 6 year requirement is now 8 years.”

You know, I was thinking about that. I think that actually started when I was in but did not apply to me.