PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry's Honorable Discharge



ljb5
10-20-2004, 09:32 AM
Please read for yourself. Do not allow people with an agenda to lie to you.

These document are from FindLaw, which is not associated with the Kerry campaign.

Kerry's DD-214 --- "Honorable" (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/dd214.pdf)

Kerry's Record of Discharge --- "Honorable" (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rcrddischarge.pdf)

Kerry's Notification of Honorable Discharge (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/hondisres.pdf)
Subj: Honorable Discharge from U.S. Naval Reserve.....

Encl: (1) Honorable Discharge Certificate

....you are hereby honorably discharged from the U.S. Naval ReserveKerry's History of Service (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rqsthistserv.pdf)


Honorably Discharged...

DavesFlatsBoat
10-20-2004, 09:43 AM
But, what I'm looking for is the release from active duty in January 1970 and the accompaning DD214 that would have been issued. It is probably honorable, because he was promoted just days prior to discharge, but it is not there to review.

Mark Van
10-20-2004, 09:45 AM
WHO CARES?

paladin
10-20-2004, 09:48 AM
Would someone explain to me please...I don't understand.....He was commissioned in 1966...the discharge says honorably discharged in 1966 to accept commission, normally his date of final active reserve time should have ended in 1972 (as per the document).......he did not rcve an Honorable discharge until 1978...and he only was discharged as a Lt......
I know guys that were passed over for promotion with a fraction of Kerry's time and were..."honorably released) from duty ...LIEUTENANT!!!!.....could not have had a very successful military career....in my opinion...and I am not trying to make a political statement here...

ljb5
10-20-2004, 09:55 AM
Here is his Release from Active Duty --- Janurary 2, 1970 (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/releaseactduty.pdf)

Looks pretty normal to me.

My understanding is that when released from Active Duty to the Reserve, no discharge certificate is issued because the person has not been discharged. They are still in the Navy, just under a different status.

seafox
10-20-2004, 09:56 AM
Their is a strange question here that yes he got an honerable discharge in 78, after fellow democrate issued an aminesty to the draft dodgers and war protesters they question is was the honerable discharge in 78 a revission of something else recived earlyer because he consorted with enemys of america. and gave them sid and comfort by his actions while still a navel officer in the resurves.
jeffery

ljb5
10-20-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Mark Van:
WHO CARES?This thread is for Kev, who has started several threads on the subject.

Mark Van
10-20-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Van:
WHO CARES?This thread is for Kev, who has started several threads on the subject.</font>[/QUOTE]Then you should have posted this on his thread instead of cluttering up the board with ANOTHER thread.

DavesFlatsBoat
10-20-2004, 10:04 AM
You are right - no "Discharge Certificate" would have been issued, but a Form DD214 would have been created - for each time you leave active duty or move from Regular Navy Enlisted to accept a Reserve Commission.

I've recieve 3 DD214s and two Discharge Certificates.

ljb5
10-20-2004, 10:05 AM
Kerry's History of Service (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rqsthistserv.pdf)

As you can see, he commenced active duty in 1966, promoted from Ensign to LTJG, then to Lieutenant.

In 1970, he was released from Active Duty to Naval Reserve.

In 1972, he was transferred to the Standby Reserve.

In 1978, he was Honorably Discharged.

It seems that a lot of the confusion is about the difference between Active Duty and Reserve -- and specifically the difference between Ready Reserve and Standy Reserve.

ljb5
10-20-2004, 10:12 AM
This document explains the difference between Ready Reserve and Standy Reserve. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/trnsfr2stndyrsrv.pdf)

paladin
10-20-2004, 10:13 AM
O.K. I understand that he should have been "released" from active duty in 1970 to the active or inactive reserves for two years....and recieve the final discharge in 1972.....to me...this is still a wee bit late....
NOW...at the time...there was a 6 year committement...in the Army you served 2 years active duty and 4 years reserves....
in the Airforce you served 4 years active duty and two years incative reserves......so I guess the Navy is sorta wierd and do things a LOT differently..........and he still finished after 12 years a Lt...I did better in 4 years than he did in 12 and I wuz a wire twister.....sorta...and my career field wuzzint a good place fer promotions (actually my branch of service) until they volunteered me for extra time because of Vietnam....when rank wuz REALLY easy to come by....so still the question....why only Lt.....and 12 years....

ljb5
10-20-2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by paladin:
so still the question....why only Lt.....and 12 years....Because you don't get promoted while in the Inactive, Standby Reserve.

My understanding is that the only requirement is to maintain a current mailing address and be ready in case you get called.

This was spelled out in the agreeemment in 1972.

paladin
10-20-2004, 10:40 AM
O.K. Active duty for 4.....in a combat zone...

and why 12 years?

brad9798
10-20-2004, 10:45 AM
Oh my G*D!

Does this really matter? Not to me.

What he did 30 years ago is of little consequence to me now.

It has absolutely NO influence on how I'd vote ... no influence for either candidate.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-20-2004, 11:19 AM
Paladin,
Officer's commissions run for the life of the individual. They can be called to duty at any time "at the pleasure of the government".
Enlisted men have a fixed term contract which has been honored until the present hostilities.
Charlie

htom
10-20-2004, 11:44 AM
It's possible that someone may come to understand how this is like the allegations that Bush was AWOL.

paladin
10-20-2004, 11:46 AM
Charlie...I understand that.....BUT.....
Why did Kerry's discharge come at 12 years....either he completed his obligation to the government with an "Honorable Separation" or he was discharged....why? after 12 years....

Kev Smyth
10-20-2004, 11:50 AM
Yup- the dates are all wrong. There's something out of the ordinary going on. Kerry needs to release the remaining 100 pages of records (which include appeals?) to clear this up.

What about Kerry having his security clearance pulled? If proven, that won't look good.

Can we expect some "leaks" late this week or early next? :eek:

paladin
10-20-2004, 01:18 PM
Fellows...I am honestly not trying to pick a quarrel...just asking (to me) a simple question.....and (again..to me) I haven't heard an acceptable or proper answer...I don't give a rat's behind what he did or didn't do 30 years ago...or what Bush did or didn't do.....I am just trying to satisfy myself....simple questions...simple answers......and I respect everyones position on this manner...but please don't get upset because I ask the questions...if you don't like my questions, or the answers....just go to another posting somewhere...no one is forcing you to read this and...again ....no offense meant.

Kev Smyth
10-20-2004, 02:11 PM
The only reason Kerry has to not sign form 180 is the desire to hide whatever would come to light. Given his post war activities, it seems likely there are issues surrounding the nature of his discharge. One hundred pages is a lot of information, not just a few medical records or such. The transcripts from an appeal process is a more reasonable summation.

From Bush's perspective it is irrelevant, since Kerry's senate record and recent flip-flops provide more than enough material for comparison. But the curiosity about this issue is hard to shake.

ljb5
10-20-2004, 03:52 PM
This issue was dead long ago. Lipscomb said, "Top Republicans in Washington are trying to determine whether or not John Kerry received an honorable discharge from the Navy."

As I have shown, and as everyone can see for themselves, Kerry did, without a doubt, receive an Honorable Discharge.

This establishes beyond all doubt that Lipscomb is a liar.

Bearing this in mind, I am extremely skeptical of everything else he has said -- and you should be too.

Why do you tolerate someone who lies to you?

[ 10-20-2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

George H.
10-20-2004, 03:59 PM
You're using this place for your own little study in Political Science aren't you LJ?

ljb5
10-20-2004, 04:10 PM
I'm just dumbfounded that some people will listen to a person who has repeatedly lied to them.

George H.
10-20-2004, 04:17 PM
Well you're not changing anyones mind in here. Give it a break. We used to have a pretty good forum until is was consumed with all this BS.

seafox
10-20-2004, 04:28 PM
ljb5
funny how you idgnored my strange comment but your right on one point in some ways what kerry did aiding and suporting the expansion of comunism 30 years ago isn't nearly as importian. as his horable record in the senate perverting the freedoms america used to have and you have to admit that bush is the second worst choice to be president but kerry is the very worst. if kerry is elected the chance of getting rid of the incometax and the IRS is nill. with bush we at least have a chance of getting rid of this evil and detriment punishment for being productive
jeffery

Tom Galyen
10-20-2004, 04:37 PM
Actually it is very important when he was discharged and what he did in 1971. If he did indeed give "aid and comfort" to the enemy during a time of war, especially while a Naval Officier then he is guilty of a crime that has no statue of limitations and cannot serve as president even if elected. Check the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Now the North Vietnemese think he did give them aid and comfort as they honor him in their "War Museum" in Ho Chi Min City (Saigon).

Maybe this is why he has never signed a Form 108. Because he has something very important to hide.

Just something more to think about.

Tom Galyen (Seaweed)(23Years service in USN and USNR).

htom
10-20-2004, 04:43 PM
The question is not whether or not he has an Honorable Discharge now, but whether or not he had some other kind in the past that was upgraded to Honorable (he wouldn't be the first person to have had that done), back when George was or wasn't AWOL. Neither can prove that they weren't, and there the matter rests until they sign the 180s.

And at this point, paper brought forth by either side on either side of either argument isn't going to be believed.

So you should understand why I ain't gonna hold my breath in anticipation of revelation or resolution.

ljb5
10-20-2004, 04:49 PM
He got an honorable discharge. Anyone can see that for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There is no reason at all to think he ever got any other type of discharge.

Lipscomb's accusations don't amount to a pile of spit.

Alan D. Hyde
10-20-2004, 04:55 PM
Why then, pray, why, is he refusing to release his records???

IF there is nothing worth hiding, why does he persist in concealment?

Do we wish to elect a President who won't level with the American people? About matters which may touch so nearly on his character and loyalty?

Alan

imported_Steven Bauer
10-20-2004, 04:58 PM
Do we wish to elect a President who won't level with the American people? About matters which may touch so nearly on his character and loyalty?
Alan, don't you mean "Do we wish to elect another President who won't level with the American people? About matters which may touch so nearly on his character and loyalty?

Steven

ljb5
10-20-2004, 04:59 PM
I don't know that he is concealing anything.

He has released hundreds of pages of records, which you may read for yourself on this independent website. (http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html)

The records cover his entire period of service from recruitment to discharge.

There is not a single complaint or criticism against him.

(Bush has refused to sign a Form 180.)

[ 10-20-2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

ljb5
10-20-2004, 05:12 PM
Part of my skepticism on this issue is based on the fact that I can't find any reputable news organizations that seem to think that Kerry hasn't released all of his records.

All I find is stuff from CNS News, Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh.

More interesting, there was this thing from The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) about a Freedom of Information Act. This seems to be what everyone is talking about when they say that there are about a hundred unreleased pages.

The Washington Post says that they were given six pages, but told that about a hundred other pages were being withheld. However, as you have seen, there are many more than six pages available on Findlaw.com. In fact, there are more than one hundred pages available for everyone to see.

Kev Smyth
10-20-2004, 05:20 PM
True enough. But we don't care about the 100 pages we can see. We want to see the 100 pages that are withheld.

Why? Because Kerry is hiding something.

ljb5
10-20-2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Kev Smyth:
True enough. But we don't care about the 100 pages we can see. We want to see the 100 pages that are withheld.What makes you think a hundred pages have been witheld? (please provide a source.)

[ 10-20-2004, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Gary Lee
10-20-2004, 05:55 PM
Pass along a message to John Kerry. Tell him to address the Swift Boat vets, in open forum, instead of sending his lawyers to shut them up. Release all of his records to put egg on the faces of the Republican party. These are just two small acts that can show true leadership when addressing the opposition.

He does not have the backbone to address a bunch of veterans, armed only with words. Will he run from words by terrorists, and video tapes aired on primetime tv, sending his lawyers to file suits to remove the tapes from the Arab networks?

ljb5
10-20-2004, 05:59 PM
He debated O'Neill already -- thirty years ago, and beat him soundly.

It wouldn't be presidential of him to waste his time on such idiocy.

Gary Lee
10-20-2004, 07:35 PM
It wouldn't be presidential of him to waste his time on such idiocy.

He is not the president, but has worked towards this dream since leaving Vietnam. It is a well known fact few guilty persons will take the stand in their own defense.

htom
10-20-2004, 11:28 PM
I have read (don't remember where) that the hundreds of pages on Kerry's own page demonstrate that there are pages missing. There are (again, supposedly) several documents that are incomplete, missing an interior page or an initial page or having a duplicate page from one document in another, taking the place of a missing page (IIRC, these are his FITREPs.)

Don't remember where I read this (it is unlikely to have been a left-wing page, though, even though I do read some of those.)

The Washington Post story with the claim that there are a hundred pages unreleased: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

Mark Van
10-21-2004, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by ljb5:
He got an honorable discharge. Anyone can see that for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There is no reason at all to think he ever got any other type of discharge.

Lipscomb's accusations don't amount to a pile of spit.You keep repeating yourself, so I decided that I'd help out a bit.

Mark Van
10-21-2004, 12:22 AM
He got an honorable discharge. Anyone can see that for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There is no reason at all to think he ever got any other type of discharge.

Lipscomb's accusations don't amount to a pile of spit. He got an honorable discharge. Anyone can see that for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There is no reason at all to think he ever got any other type of discharge.

Lipscomb's accusations don't amount to a pile of spit. He got an honorable discharge. Anyone can see that for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There is no reason at all to think he ever got any other type of discharge.

Lipscomb's accusations don't amount to a pile of spit. He got an honorable discharge. Anyone can see that for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

There is no reason at all to think he ever got any other type of discharge.

Lipscomb's accusations don't amount to a pile of spit.

Mark Van
10-21-2004, 12:23 AM
Sorry, I just get tired of seeing the same thing over and over again, on four different threads. Give it up already.