Kerry Discharged Twice?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by ballfan, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kerry's military commitment should have been over 18 Feb. 72. The discharge he has released shows a date of 16 Feb. 78. It didn't make sense until I ran across this article.

    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5339

    Kerry refuses to release all his records. This is probably why.
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    RIFs (reduction in force) separations are involuntary, but not in any sense punitive or less than honorable. I personally know many officers with good OERs, and no marks on their record, who were involuntarily separated after the Vietnam war.

    That's how it happens.

    This one is simply playing on people's ignorance of what such involuntary separations really mean.

    Hence the vagueness and pussy-footing around the truth in your links.

    Here's the link to the first section cited:
    http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1162&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00012681----000-notes.html

    The second was repealed, but has to to with warrant officers and enlisted men.
    http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1163&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_59notes.html

    As you can see, if you bother reading it, it has nothing whatever to do with any punitive or corrective action. It merely describes what the process will be when RIF of reserve officers is necessary.

    So why did your source post it, if it wasn't about punitive separation? Because they assumed many folks would be gullible enough to accept it without checking what it actually meant.

    Maybe so.

    I'd be a lot more careful who I believed, if I were you.
     
  3. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't even see the problem. Enlistments are for six years. Four years active and two in the reserves. His six years were up in 1972. The discharge he shows is dated six years later. Wrong date. Why? The article shows the most likely reason in my opinion.

    I know about RIFs. Got one myself. I went in the Air Force in 1966. Went off active duty eight months early. Still the six years had to be completed. My discharge is dated six years to the day after I enlisted. Kerrys is not. You can bet he did not extend his reserve commitment. I suspect his discharge was at first something less than honorable.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,086
    Likes Received:
    218
    Were you enlisted or officer? That does make a difference! Officers do not enlistd they are commissined.
    Maj B where are you?
     
  5. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Major B has a life--too much to do--, but was called in for this one.


    The only way for a commissioned officer to have an other than honorable discharge is if there were punitive action taken. A simple RIF will ALWAYS yield an honorable.

    The ONLY reasons for an officer to have a discharge review would be if there were a less than honorable discharge, or if there were a medical discharge either proposed or to be expunged. I don't think Kerry's massive wounds would have put him in that category.

    Back to life.
     
  6. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf

    Thats a link to Kerry's DD214.

    As you can see on line 18 the date for his six year commitment to be up was 17 Feb. 72. Thats the date his discharge should have on it. It has a later date. His discharge was reviewed for some reason and reissued with the later date.

    Where is the paperwork for the 17 Feb 72 date? It should tell an interesting story.
     
  7. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fact is, the section listed covers RIFs, but not any punitive discharge.

    If your site is right, then there could not have been a discharge other than under honorable conditions.

    But they were counting on people not knowing that, or just possibly, they weren't bright enough to look it up for themselves.
     
  9. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a real interesting link having to do with the US Code that was cited.

    http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/1244385/posts

    Also check out the United States Code button at the top of the page.

    [ October 17, 2004, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: ballfan ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...