Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/13/2004 4:21:28 AM EST
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun

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.

<snip>

The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 4:31:52 AM EST
Wow. Interesting. As a civilian with no first-hand knowledge of how the separation process works, this seems very peculiar. I'll be interested in what the ARFcom active-duty, reservists and veterans have to say about this. I've been skeptical of Kerry for a long, long time, and now it looks like we're finally starting to find out more about his questionable military service record.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 4:56:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:01:25 AM EST
yep...I've been saying it for years. This guy is a f*cking traitor and the idea of him becoming POTUS is direct testimony to the idea that today's America is not the same country I swore to serve and defend.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:24:50 AM EST
Finally something about his failure to sign his 180 comes up in the press.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:25:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:28:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 5:32:52 AM EST by Chaingun]
From WWII, anyone over a certain rank received "honorable", maybe sergeant. I would think it keeps getting easier to receive "honorable". Being a Lt, sKerry would have received "honorable" unless...
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:32:23 AM EST
why wouldnt someone with the info have come forward by now. seems like a tough secret to keep.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:36:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:19:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
From WWII, anyone over a certain rank received "honorable", maybe sergeant. I would think it keeps getting easier to receive "honorable". Being a Lt, sKerry would have received "honorable" unless...



Huh?

Your discharge is based on the character of your service. I.E. if you do your time without effing up tremendously you will get an Honorable discharge.


Your end of tour award is generally based on rank though.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:59:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:
... if you do your time without effing up tremendously you will get an Honorable discharge. ...


+1

An Honorable Discharge isn’t some form of award.

Do your job properly, no matter what your rank, and you get one.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 4:09:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 4:11:54 PM EST by LWilde]

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Bump in hopes Lwilde can shed some light on this!



Your humble servant, Sir!

I checked carefully and was unable to find any info that would definitely show that Kerry received a less than honorable discharge.

THAT SAID...I believe that he did not receive an honorable discharge in the early '70s and that he was successful in having that discharge upgraded by some of his Democratic Party friends then in power. Many such discharges are upgraded every year...and Mr. Kerry no doubt spread his influence and gold around in abundant amounts to try to clean up his service record. My reasoning is that his service record that is available is very incomplete. There are many pages one would normally find in a naval officer's jacket that are missing from the pages Kerry has released and are posted on the Internet.

Most troubling are those pages that refer to his service in the last couple of years, including his release from active duty and from his reserve commitment. During an officer's career, whether active or reserve, he serves at the pleasure of the president. He is subject at all times to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and may at any time be recalled to active duty. He is also subject to discipline under the code.

Bottom line is this: Kerry has refused to release some 100 pages of his service record. There are rumors of him being disciplined for his seditious behavior in the 1970-71 timeframe. There are rumors of him receiving a less than honorable discharge. His refusal flies in the face of logic and is, in my mind indicative of a man desperately trying to cover up a part of his past he believes could damage his chances of becoming president.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:01:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:06:46 PM EST
I still don't see how this could remain under wraps for this long without the beans gettin spilled...

Something aint right


- BG
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:08:36 PM EST
Did Kerry get the Big Chicken Dinner?

Wouldn't surprise me. Putz.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:17:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I still don't see how this could remain under wraps for this long without the beans gettin spilled...

Something aint right


- BG




3 words

Theresa Hienz Kerry. AKA Money. Lots of it.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:46:09 PM EST
Also made the WSJ on Wednesday. (Just as a summary of Lipscomb's article.)
www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005752
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:52:05 PM EST
It really bothers me that the mainstream media has totally ignored this.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 1:59:27 AM EST
Why doesn't the House of Representatives supoena his records? They could get arround the seal that way.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:22:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:08:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:

Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I still don't see how this could remain under wraps for this long without the beans gettin spilled...

Something aint right


- BG




3 words

Theresa Hienz Kerry. AKA Money. Lots of it.



Plus, by law as enacted under the Privacy Act of 1974, which was designed by liberals to protect liberals from their liberal past, certain records of a personal nature may NOT be released by any authority without the express written permission of the subject. In reality...this is a good thing...in this case however, when the presidency and the country are at stake, we should know what he is hiding.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 10:25:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:
<snip>
the Privacy Act of 1974, which was designed by liberals to protect liberals from their liberal past,
<snip>


Truer words were never written.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 10:37:47 AM EST
One question. I too think something was unusual about his discharge - but he did sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and you must pass a background check in order to get clearance to sit on that committee, and I believe anything less than an honorable discharge would throw a monkey wrench into that process. So, either there was nothing negative in the way he was discharged, or he somehow bypassed the regular background check process, which I do not think could occur.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 10:56:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Bump in hopes Lwilde can shed some light on this!



Your humble servant, Sir!

I checked carefully and was unable to find any info that would definitely show that Kerry received a less than honorable discharge.

THAT SAID...I believe that he did not receive an honorable discharge in the early '70s and that he was successful in having that discharge upgraded by some of his Democratic Party friends then in power. Many such discharges are upgraded every year...and Mr. Kerry no doubt spread his influence and gold around in abundant amounts to try to clean up his service record. My reasoning is that his service record that is available is very incomplete. There are many pages one would normally find in a naval officer's jacket that are missing from the pages Kerry has released and are posted on the Internet.

Most troubling are those pages that refer to his service in the last couple of years, including his release from active duty and from his reserve commitment. During an officer's career, whether active or reserve, he serves at the pleasure of the president. He is subject at all times to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and may at any time be recalled to active duty. He is also subject to discipline under the code.

Bottom line is this: Kerry has refused to release some 100 pages of his service record. There are rumors of him being disciplined for his seditious behavior in the 1970-71 timeframe. There are rumors of him receiving a less than honorable discharge. His refusal flies in the face of logic and is, in my mind indicative of a man desperately trying to cover up a part of his past he believes could damage his chances of becoming president.



This is a situation where I think it would be a good thing for someone in records to break the law and make those pages public, for the good of America.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:10:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
One question. I too think something was unusual about his discharge - but he did sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and you must pass a background check in order to get clearance to sit on that committee, and I believe anything less than an honorable discharge would throw a monkey wrench into that process. So, either there was nothing negative in the way he was discharged, or he somehow bypassed the regular background check process, which I do not think could occur.



Sorry...doesn't work that way. I know it sounds crazy...but not "passing" the background investigation or BI does not automatically disqualify a person from being cleared. In fact there are TONS of people in Washington who have done things that might get most people disqualified for life from being "read in" to a highly classified program. Unfortunately, because they are not military or contractors or minor functionaries...but elected officials with official jobs to oversee classified programs, they get a clearance anyway. The reason is because the ultimate authority on that decision is the person running the program. They can review the data...or not as they choose and then go ahead and grant access...just because they can! Silly isn't it?

The classic case of this was when the Clintons took over in 1992. During the initial few months of the administration, many of the White House staff were having trounbe during the clearance vetting process. They had some problems in their records, apparently related to their history of ingestion of certain chemicals known to be on the list of the DEA's favorite illegal drugs. In the end, the Clintons and their senior staff simply told the investigators to just back off and their staff was cleared.

So...there likely WAS and IS something VERY bad for Kerry in his service record...and he did not go "around" the vetting process...he was simply granted a clearance by his Democratic Party leadership when he was assigned to the committee decades ago. Remember who controlled the congress until 1994? Elected officials often don't have to live by the same rules as most of us do.

Sorry...just the way it is. Further...they leak this shit all the time...as it suits their political agenda. THAT would put most of us in the slammer for the rest of our natural lives.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:35:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:48:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 4:50:20 PM EST by paenutz]

Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I still don't see how this could remain under wraps for this long without the beans gettin spilled...

Something aint right


- BG



Read "Unfit for Command" it sheds a little light on the subject.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:48:51 PM EST
Top Top