Gunco Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://conservativevoice.blogspot.com/


Thursday, October 28, 2004
John Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge
Through a very reliable source, I received a copy of the following e-mail to Sean Hannity asking his help in exposing the truth about John Kerry's discharge papers fromteh US Navy. The author is a retired former Navy lawyer and he references the former personal lawyer to then Secretary of the Navy J. William Middleton.

If these two gentlemen can shed light on the truth of John Kerry's record, then the American people have a right to know.


Subject: Fw: THE JIMMY CARTER LEGACY CONTINUES

Sean,

I was on active duty as a U.S. Navy lawyer when all of this was going on some 25 to 30 years ago, and so was Mark F. Sullivan, who at all relevant times was the personal lawyer to J. William Middendorf, then the Secretary of the Navy. We remember.

We are trying to break this absolutely true story nationwide, i.e., Fox News, C Span, and hopefully all the major networks. We are positive that John Kerry was one of those dishonorably dismissed from the Navy for collaborating with the Viet Cong, after he was released from active duty but still in the Navy, and for a totally unauthorized trip to Hanoi. He later got an "honorable" separation in 1978, some 12 years after joining the Navy, under President Carter's "Amnesty Program" for draft dodgers, deserters, and other malcontents who fled to Canada and Holland, among other places, to avoid military service to our country.

This is why he has refused, and continues to refuse, to release all of his Navy records: they reflect that he was Dishonorably Dismissed from the United States Naval Service. If they do not (which they do), he would have released them to the public. Again, he has not done so, because he well knows that the truth would kill his challenge to President Bush.

Sincerely,
DONALD L. NELSON
CAPT, JAGC, USNR
(Ret.)


Let's hope this story continues to develop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Yep, he?ll sign those papers to release his records when hell freezes over and not a day sooner. He knows he?ll be thrown out of the Senate and have to move to France.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The siwftvets are working on this and something else in connection with it.

One of their members that has broken several stories is trying to get through to Senator Bill Frist office. They have a campaign to call Frist going on Swiftvets and Free republic. They are bombarding his office with calls for him to call Troy Jenkins back right away. E-mails have been sent as well and faxes.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14954
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Not sure about his discharge, or his service records. I find it ironic that the media makes a big fuss about W's service record, while Kerry refuses to authorize the release of his own records. It begs the question: what is he hiding?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Custer said:
My guess is "other than honorable" category and then it was upgraded.

That seems to bethe case as it's been labled undesirable and then upgraded under the amnesty act that Ford put through.

I don't know if treason can be put into amnesty for draft dodgers and deserters though.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
It was very common in the 70's and 80's for EEOC and other such agencies to rule that asking about having an "honorable" discharge on a job application or during an interview was prima facie race discrimination as they deemed the question adversely affected blacks in the hiring processs.

You could only ask if a person had a dishonorable discharge and if the applicant had "other than dishonorable" he could then answer no.

A lot of people were been cashiered from the service for various things back then and I guess the military did not want to go through the big court martial fight except for very serious matters or perhaps is someone, like Kerry, had some serious clout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
I have a problem with some of this kind of stuff. The sourse is not reliable, maybe as bad a CBS and Rather. Problem is if it is wrong, it makes Kerry look like a victim and the Right Wing is out to get him. Jack
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
scubadvr said:
I have a problem with some of this kind of stuff. The sourse is not reliable, maybe as bad a CBS and Rather. Problem is if it is wrong, it makes Kerry look like a victim and the Right Wing is out to get him. Jack
I understand, but is there not a very simple solution for Kerry to put it to bed?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I have nothing to hide. I want you to ask me questions."
--John Kerry, Reuters, August 3, 2004

The only 180 John Kerry hasn't accomplished in his litany of flip-flops throughout his campaign is Standard Form 180, the paperwork necessary for the complete release of his military records from the Department of Defense repository.

The Kerry campaign and website continue to claim he has released all military records. In fact, they've released the few documents painting the senator in a favorable light. There are at least 100 pages, promising to be much more revealing, still unseen. Kerry controls their release. All he has to do is sign the Form 180. To date, he has refused.

It goes without saying the main stream media isn't clamoring for him to comply although they hounded President George Bush relentlessly to release his Air National Guard records. Bush, by the way, did the right thing--he signed his Form 180. Kerry has made his naval service the focal point for his election. Shouldn't we expect the war hero to open his military service to America? Where is the outrage (I ask tongue-in-cheek)? Where is the objective journalism? More realistically, what is Kerry hiding?

Thomas Lipscomb writing for the New York Sun and Geoff Metcalf of NewsMax.com have been pursuing Kerry's military record irregularities and his refusal to authorize their release tirelessly. Without Kerry's assistance, however, it will take a critical and very timely leak or we will never know the truth behind Kerry's military service in time for it to make the difference.

With true patriotism and integrity, John O'Neill and the Swifties have proven beyond any doubt that Kerry lacks the character and moral fiber to be the leader of our men and women in uniform. (As an aside, I've been touring the country with John O'Neill over the last several weeks, and I've never met a finer human being.)

The final element in Kerry's absolute failure to meet the standards our military deserves in a commander-in-chief, in this retired officer's opinion, is in the factual nature of Kerry's discharge (although I would love for some resourceful citizen find a way to republish and distribute Kerry's radical, anti-American tome The New Soldier -- which my publisher Regnery Publishing has offered to do for free -- and hand it out at the polls on November 2).

As for every veteran, the truth will be found the form DD214, the official Department of Defense document of release from military obligation given to Kerry when he exited military service on July 1, 1972. It is conspicuously absent from the documents released so far. Everyone serving in the military receives a DD214 the day they separate or retire from service. My suspicion along with a growing number of military personnel is that Kerry received an "other than honorable" discharge in the early 1970s as a consequence of his vehement anti-US, anti-military activities with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and his potentially treasonous t?te-?-t?tes with North Vietnamese Communist officials in Paris. If not, let him release his records. If so, America should demand the release.

Kerry's activities during his post-war political resume building efforts are expressly prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 104, Part 904; the United States Code Title 18, Section 953 (18 USC Sec. 953); and, arguably, the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3. In fact, the Constitution's 14th Amendment, Section 3 declares, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President . . . (who has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." In another time and another place, at a minimum, Kerry would have faced courts martial. In another time and another place, Kerry would be breaking big rocks into little rocks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the military penitentiary. Today, he stands on the brink of election as the leader of the free world.

Kerry has built an entire career based solely on four months in Vietnam and two years of post-war protesting. For a politician to have built so much on, and been so successful with, a foundation consisting largely of self-promotion, lies, and unpatriotic (some say treasonous) endeavors is utterly fantastic and extremely tenuous. And the Dems know it--ergo, the refusal on the part of the Kerry campaign to release the entirety of his military service records.

With what we do know, Kerry's paperwork doesn't pass the smell test. The few records so far released by his campaign identify FOUR "honorable" discharge dates (every other military member I know, myself included, received one). Kerry's released documentation notes discharges of January 3, 1970, February 16, 1978, July 13, 1978, and, most peculiarly, March 12, 2001. He has as many discharge dates as months he spent in Vietnam. In my twenty years in the Air Force and through the thousands of people I came to know and serve with, I have never heard of anyone in the military having more than one DD 214 with one discharge date. Kerry, according to his own campaign, has at least four.

There are five potential classes of discharge: Honorable, General, Other than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. Why does it matter? It's the sum total of one's military service boiled down in a phrase. Most employers require former military members to attach their DD214 to their employment application. Anything other than "Honorable" is seen as a character flaw. Bad Conduct and Dishonorable obviously are causes for additional concern.

Because Kerry is submitting his employment application to the American people and might become our military's next commander in chief, we may be asking our troops to support a man who held himself to lower standards than he would demand from our 2.3 million in uniform. (This is precisely what happened under Bill Clinton's stewardship when the military prosecuted servicemen for sexual infidelity and harassment while the commander-in-chief was committing similar crimes in the Oval Office). In fact, if a former military member applies for employment with defense related industry, he is required to sign and submit Form 180. Kerry, seeking to be CEO for our nation's defense, has refused.

Here's the crux of the confusion. On February 18, 1966, Kerry obligated himself to a six-year commitment to the Navy, and to the tenets of the military judicial system, with an expiration date of July 1, 1972. On January 3, 1970, Kerry asked for, and was granted, an early transfer from his active duty service to the Naval Reserve. As a reservist, he was still under oath as a commissioned officer and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He still carried a military ID card and was still a member of the U.S. armed forces. Kerry's service commitment came to an end, as scheduled, in July, 1972. As such, a DD Form 214 with a discharge status was due.

Kerry's "honorable" discharge, though, doesn't come until February 16, 1978. Why? Possibly because President Jimmy Carter, through Proclamation 4483, granted a full and complete pardon to all military personnel who committed offenses and violations of the Military Selective Service Act during the Vietnam War. He pardoned deserters, draft dodgers and those who went absent without leave (AWOL).

Interestingly, Kerry's honorable discharge letter from the Department of the Navy, dated February 16, 1978, notes that Kerry's discharge was taken "by direction of the President" and "with the approved recommendations of a board of officers convened under the authority of reference [10 USC Sec. 1163] to examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve.." This is extremely unusual. Review boards are not convened for discharges and certainly not "by direction of the President." The "authority of reference," 10 USC Sec. 1163, refers to "the grounds for involuntary separation from the service." What was being reviewed, then, was Kerry's involuntary separation from the service or, more likely, the disposition of his service. This simply would not have occurred if Kerry's discharge in 1972 had been "honorable." Why did Kerry's discharge meet a board? In all likelihood, he sought relief to improve his status of discharge from "dishonorable" or "less than honorable" to "honorable." If he signed his Form 180, we'd know. If he'd release his DD214 from 1972, we'd know.

Finally, and most bizarre of all of Kerry's military records so far released is a DD 215, "Correction to DD Form 214," initiated for John Forbes Kerry on March 12, 2001. Among other things, the new form changes Kerry's official US Navy separation date to March 1, 1970! As noted earlier, he wasn't eligible for discharge until July, 1972, and was so. Why, then, the new document in 2001? Why, 29 years later, is there the need to correct or change the record?

Here's why. By moving Kerry's discharge date to early in 1970, all of Kerry's post-Vietnam activities would be theoretically exempt from military justice. By moving his discharge date to March of 1970, Kerry's meeting with the enemy, North Vietnamese Communists in Paris in May of 1970, would be exempt. His joining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in June of 1970 and his radical, anti-war anti-government activities that followed would be exempt. The Winter Soldier Investigation in January, 1971, and Kerry's infamous testimony to Congress in April, 1971 would be exempt. His arrest for his protest activities in May, 1971, would be exempt. His attendance at a VVAW meeting in Kansas City where the assassination of several prominent and hawkish U.S. senators was discussed and voted on would be exempt.

Democratic presidential candidate Kerry has spent 35 years building a political career on four months in Vietnam. Apparently, he has spent 35 years covering up his post-war activities while still a member of the U.S. Navy many of which seem to be clear violations of the Constitution, US Codes, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Now, he stands on the verge of becoming our commander-in-chief, responsible for the stewardship of 2.3 million men and women in uniform. A former serviceman who won't come clean on his own record intends to command our forces and enforce the standards of military justice. We've been down this path before. America deserves to know. Our troops certainly deserve to know.

All it would take is for him to sign the Form 180."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Cephus said:
Well I have to agree with Jack that this could be bad for the Home team but what I don't get is why has nobody in the media ever looked into this, This is a carreer maker
if your the one that breaks it there has to be someone out there that can find out for sure.
Custer, try don't get me wrong, I love it if its true. My problem is that in this case I have to think like a lawyer. I need more that second hand or hearsay to convince me. I think it would be really crummy if this went too far and then ended up like the National Guard thing. Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
It looks like the Chief has something, they pulled the thread for now. It sounds like they have the secretary of the Navy from that time lined up to say Kerry didn't have an honorable discharge.

Who knows, but Chief has gotten other stories about Kerry out. Unfortunately some of it was not picked up my the MSM. If he did get the story of Kerry's real files out and what exactly it was that he did not get a good discharge due to his VVAW activities. It would get to Fox as the stories before did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Just to add there are people who know what is in his file, but to comment on it would not be legal.

There are people who know and people that have a lot to lose as well.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
scubadvr said:
Custer, try don't get me wrong, I love it if its true. My problem is that in this case I have to think like a lawyer. I need more that second hand or hearsay to convince me. I think it would be really crummy if this went too far and then ended up like the National Guard thing. Jack
Thinking like a lawyer is a dangerous thing in some cases. Too limiting. If you are not careful it turns you into a technician.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Custer said:
Thinking like a lawyer is a dangerous thing in some cases. Too limiting. If you are not careful it turns you into a technician.

Custer, I could not agree more. But it is hard to overlook that for which you have been educated and trained. But thats why I hang out here. Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Custer said:
Thinking like a lawyer is a dangerous thing in some cases. Too limiting. If you are not careful it turns you into a technician.
There are times to do what is legal and others to do what is right.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
AClay47 said:
There are times to do what is legal and others to do what is right.
And, as the law gets more complex and impossible to decipher or predict, all we have left is common sense.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top