Is there a genuine Question Of Fact here?

Did Kerry receive an Honorable Discharge from the USN?

Seems as how he did.

Was there just a possibility that Someone in the chain of command would have preferred he not get one? Perhaps. That happens, sometimes. When that happens, whoever is raising the issue gets to call for a hearing. Their case either wins or it loses.
Accusations are made, Evidence is considered, and the empaneled group of superior officers makes that decision.

The case, such as it might have been, seems to have lost, if indeed such a matter was raised.

As to the Honorable Discharge itself, did he get one?

Yes.

Now then — what’s the Mystery here?

Posted by: Don at October 13, 2004 03:08 PM

Don: if you really wanted to know what the Mystery is, you would have read the Sun report—something you should have done before posting a jackrabbit defense.

You’re trying to excuse the “review by a Board of Officers” statement in the cover letter posted on Kerry’s website, but you’re ignoring that cover letter’s date: 2/16/78, just after President Carter’s amnesty, six years after the end of Kerry’s service.

Of course, the issue could be resolved easily if Kerry would simply sign Form 180.

Nice try.

Posted by: Clyde McKenney at October 13, 2004 03:37 PM

A very smart response Clyde.

The only thing you forgot to leave out was this nice little quote towards the bottom.

“In those cases the directive [President Carters Amnesty] outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.”

Another key point this article points out is that, “And some of his [John Kerry] 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.”

all in all a very good read.

Posted by: Amadeaus at October 13, 2004 04:01 PM

Oh, I forgot this gem.

“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.”

Posted by: Amadeaus at October 13, 2004 04:02 PM

Well….this is a not so new tactic; vague, unsubstantiated and untraceable smearing through innuendo. There “might” be cause, which “possibly” has some grounds based on Nixon/Colson et al. shinanigans, though again it’s 20+ years old and again comes to nothing….how this kind of crap ever sees the light of day amazes me.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 13, 2004 04:05 PM

Think about this - if Kerry was the real hero that he claims to be, there would never, ever have been any question of receiving an honerable discharge at the end of his 6 year obligation. The mere fact that the 1978 letter exists shows that there is something very negative about his original discharge in 1972. The fact that Kerry has never signed a Form 180 to release his records also supports the supposition that he is hiding something. I am a retired naval officer and there is nothing in my (admittedly mundane) career that would warrant NOT releasing my records if I were to seek public office. Kerry’s failure to do so is a huge red flag to anyone with a military background (unless, of course, he is trying to hide an STD :-) )

Posted by: Bill at October 13, 2004 04:27 PM

The only thing there might be some Mystery about is the reason why folks really Want to make something mysterious about a Question of Fact.

Question: Did Kerry receive an Honorable Dicharge from the USN?

Answer: Yes.

And that’s an Actual Fact.

There is no Mystery here at all.

Posted by: Don at October 13, 2004 04:27 PM

“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.” posted by Amadeaus

Well now, this IS new. Seems like Kerry really is hiding something about his military records - apart from his bogus injuries that “earned” him 3 purple hearts.

Posted by: Jim at October 13, 2004 04:48 PM

      The signifigance of this story: it is quite possible that Kerry received a Dishonorable, General, Other Than Honorable, or Bad Conduct discharge in 1972.  (Were there general, etc. discharges in 1972?  I have no firsthand knowledge.)  After Carter became President, there was apparently a review of Kerry’s previous discharge that upgraded it to “honorable.”  This may have been as a result of a direct intervention by then-President Carter, or it may have been as a result of Carter’s Executive Order 4483, which amnestied draft dodgers and allowed for upgrades of less than honorable discharges.

      So what seems to have happened is that Kerry at some point probably got a non-honorable discharge, and then got it upgraded.  What that original discharge was, and why he received it , is buried in the personnel files he won’t release.

      The probable non-honorable discharge would also explain Kerry’s refusal to release his records.  If you’re going to run for President as a war hero, an other-than-honorable discharge is a considerable handicap.

      The signifigance of this probable non-honorable discharge for Kerry’s candicacy is something potential voters must judge for themselves.  I’m voting for Bush anyway, so it doesn’t affect me directly.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge at October 13, 2004 04:48 PM

Funny, Don, I don’t remember you endorsing such a definitive standard when it came to questioning Bush’s Texas Air Guard service. I must have missed it. Or does this ipso facto standard only apply to liberals?

As for it not being relevant, I respectfully disagree. There’s a rather large difference between somebody who received an honorable discharge by following the rules and not having met with the enemy government during wartime and somebody who did, in fact, meet with the enemy government, but was able to procure an honorable discharge as a result of a pardon. By your standard, there would be no difference between two people claiming to have faithfully paid all of their taxes, even if one of those people actually did so and the other is Mark Rich.

Posted by: TL at October 13, 2004 04:50 PM

Jim: Do you actually Know anything about the PH? It is not a medal that is “earned.” Its award is automatic — all you need to is receive any sort of injury attributable to Enemy Action. Major or Minor — doesn’t matter a bit. Doesn’t even require a cut. (Our BN Personnel Officer got one when a typewriter fell off a desk onto him during a mortar attack. Nice bruise! That was it. He was so proud!)

The usual means by which it arrives is that the medics fill out the paperwork, and the medal is awarded essentially automatically.

Does the PH mean much? No — not really. It bears mute testimony to the fact that the individual who got it fulfilled that most fundamental of actions that a combatant can fulfill — successfully Being A Target. Not even an intentional target. (See the PO’s award for the afforementioned typewriter.)

Was there any particular advantage in getting a PH? Other folks, after all, served in the same places, and if they didn’t intercept a large hard chunk of air pollution somewhere on their person, the PH was not awarded. Same risk; different outcome.

No — save for one. At the time, if a person got three of them, it was the Ticket Home. That was BuPers policy at the time, and it applied evenly to anyone who got them. Get three, hop on the Freedom Bird and leave. Most who could, did. Those who remained envied them.

True — there were those who elected to remain. But reasonable people also simply left — just because they Could leave.

Made all the sense in the world, at the time.

The available records indicate that Kerry’s PHs were received IAW USN regulations governing such matters at the time. They were signed off at the time by his CO, and at least one more signature at some higher HQ up the line as well.

You want to second-guess them Now? Sorry — that dog don’t hunt.

SMSO: It is equally Quite Possible that your hypothetical scenario is wrong, in whole or in part. Fact of the matter is, you just Don’t Know.

The USN gave Kerry an honorable discharge. That is a Fact. That you actually Do know.

On the rest, you have merely Wishful Thinking to offer. Which is OK — but it should be seen for what it is.

Posted by: Don at October 13, 2004 05:04 PM

TL: You did miss it, apparently.

Dubya should receive all the credit he is rightfully due for his service in the TXANG. No more; no less.

If the USN decided that Kerry deserved an honorable discharge, then he did. Had it not felt that way, it was under no obligation to award one.

Same thing with the medals. They were awarded by the USN. Had they not been deserved, it was the USNs call on whether or not to award them.

We have no indication that Kerry was “pardoned.”

Posted by: Don at October 13, 2004 05:08 PM

Even if Kerry was “pardoned”, so what?

Posted by: derby at October 13, 2004 05:22 PM

Guys, this is one of the few times that everyone is correct. Yes, he did get an honorable discharge from the Navy. Yes, he did get purple hearts. Yes it is actually quite easy to get a purple heart. My father has a friend that got one when he fell in a makeshift shower. Kind of like the story Don just mentioned with a typewriter. I think the real issue here is a matter of principle. Derby asked “so what?” Well, for months, John Kerry ran on a platform of “look, I fought in Viet Nam and I am a war hero.” That was his entire platform. Since the Swift Boat thing came to light, it is now only mentioned occasionally. However, the thing that I see from this is that he can’t be a war hero IF his first discharge was other than honorable. It would be quite hypocritical to call himself a war hero with a dishonorable discharge in his past that was only changed due to a pardon from Carter. It is interesting to note that this “other than honorable discharge” would substantiate the claims made by the Swift Boat Vets concerning how his commanding officers felt about him. Don, you are 100% correct in the assessment that we have no idea what actually happened other than he now has an honorable discharge. How he got it is what the argument here seems to be. It would strike quite the blow to his campaign should it come to light that he actually did get a dishonorable discharge first. Maybe that is why he won’t release his records.

Posted by: BH57 at October 13, 2004 05:59 PM

Don-

I actually do “know something” about the PH. The doubts regarding Kerry’s actions and claims of injury as challenged by the Swift Boat Vets remain.

Kerry could clear up many of the questions concerning his service by signing the From 180. Given this latest information being raised about his discharge from the Navy, we shouldn’t expect to see him do that anytime soon - if ever.

Posted by: Jim at October 13, 2004 06:06 PM

Kerry was about as high profile a soldier upon his initial discharge as they come. Surely, when he was testifying in the front of the Congress and otherwise carrying on SOMEBODY would have thought to check to see if he had been honorably discharged.

This is not a claim you can make by innuendo thirty years later on the eve of an election and expect to be taken seriously.

Posted by: rdelephant at October 13, 2004 07:01 PM

These are claims that Kerry has refused to address and refused to release the records that would allow others to make up their minds.

Vietnam was such a clusterf#$%, I don’t really give a damn about what anybody did back then, short of breaking the law. But when somebody offers their record of heroism and service as their primary qualification for CinC, then that record and its veracity are put at issue, and it stinks to high heaven that Kerry will not address these issues or allow others the means to put them to bed.

What’s amazing to me is that this kind of obfuscation doesn’t bother everybody. I would think liberals/Dems would want to know whether the guy representing them is legit. I guess not.

Posted by: TL at October 13, 2004 07:35 PM

Don,

Don’t you think the discharge Kerry recieved in ‘72 ought to be part of the record?

Don’t you think if it was upgraded as part of the amnesty program that is an important fact?

Suppose Kerry got a drug conviction and the records were sealed. It might not matter if you were hiring a roofer. It might be of some importance if the person was applying for the job of President.

Take Bush’s hidden alcohol conviction.

Posted by: M. Simon at October 13, 2004 08:06 PM

Although a PH is given for possibly incidental injuries, one factor remains…it must be in combat. That said, the degree of injury is probably irrevalent, however, the type of discharge a person receives is not! An honorable discharge is something to be proud of, but not as much as an honorable discharge that had been upgraded from one that was less than honorable. Had the man been given a less than honorable discharge, we should have that fact to put into the equation.

Posted by: Joe the Elder at October 13, 2004 08:54 PM

“The only thing there might be some Mystery about is the reason why folks really Want to make something mysterious about a Question of Fact.”

My,my. More mysteries for Don - Kerry wrote which After action Report? You know, Don… The one that Kerry refers to as being ‘the official record’.

yup. And I was awarded the Medal of Honor.

I signed up for four and got an HONORABLE DISCHARGE, Don. That’s a fact. When did I get it? THE DAY I COMPLETED MY SERVICE.

As usual Kerry has something to hide, Don.

Nice work on that double-standard, however.

The italicized portion (with no mysterious words)
Posted by: Don at October 13, 2004 04:27 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 13, 2004 11:18 PM

As a vet (USN 1967-1977) I know that you do not review Honorable Discharges. Even an Administrative Discharge could be handled without an officer board.

I have some other questions though. Why aren’t Senator Kerry’s Reserve records and his discharge as investigated as President Bush’s?

Why should his medals have to be re-issued unless he received a bad discharge? If he threw his medals away because he was ashamed of the things he did, why does he want them back anyway? (maybe to conveniently use them for his political advantage?) To a military man there is NO difference between his medals and his ribbons. They are the same thing. You CANNOT be awarded a medal separately from its corresponding ribbon.

Additionally, Don wrote:
“Was there just a possibility that Someone in the chain of command would have preferred he not get one? Perhaps. That happens, sometimes. When that happens, whoever is raising the issue gets to call for a hearing. Their case either wins or it loses.
Accusations are made, Evidence is considered, and the empaneled group of superior officers makes that decision.
The case, such as it might have been, seems to have lost, if indeed such a matter was raised.
As to the Honorable Discharge itself, did he get one?
Yes.”

How do you suppose a review panel of officers will respond when a lieutentant governor closely tied to a powerful US Senator requests a review of his less than honorable discharge? I will tell you, they will buckle. Politics is how the military gets its funding. There is no mystery about how he got an honorable discharge. It’s called guile. It is also called politics.

Don’t be disingenuous. Try some honesty. The DNC wants to question Bush’s military service, use Kerry’s pitiful 4 months in Viet Nam as his central point, and yet deny the same scrutiny of his records they wish to use with President Bush’s military record. What’s fair is fair.

TBNL

Posted by: ToBNamedL8r at October 20, 2004 02:39 PM

I’m in the military and I know …

1. An Honorable Discharge is a “no brainer” when you’ve served honorably. There’s no board that is convened — in 99.9% of the Honorable Discharges — there’s not even a question. Soooo, Mr. Kerry’s discharge must be in that .01 percent where the nature of his service posed a “question”. In such a case, it OUGHT to raise a question in your mind too. “Mr. Kerry, why is there NO QUESTION involved in 99.9 of the honorable discharges awarded — BUT — in your case there was?”

2. If I get out of the service and get elected to the Senate 15 years from now, no one will have to “reissue” my medals. In fact, (again) in 99.9 percent of the cases, servicemen do not need their medals reissued unless they’ve DONE SOMETHING to invalidate them.

3. The Navy is not witholding any Kerry records. That’s a preposterous statement. Every servicemember has the RIGHT under the Freedom of Information Act to get every scrap of information ever collected on them. That includes service record documents. This is another Kerry exageration. Yes, the Navy IS holding the documents — but only because Kerry has not asked for them!

4. Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam. I’ve seen cooks serve longer in the galley scullery on a 6 month deployment.

5. He claims he was in Cambodia for Christmas when Nixon said we had no troops there. Only problem with that story is — Nixon was not even the President on the Christmas that he claims. Oh, there is also one other problem — every servicemember who served in Vietnam that knew anything about the swift boats says that Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia, let alone on Chrismas when Nixon was supposed to be President, but wasn’t.

6. Kerry threw his medals away when he returned from the war. He admits to that.

7. Kerry gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong — the very folks who were torturing our POW’s.

8. FBI places Kerry at a meeting of VVAW when they discussed assasinating congressmen. They also say that Kerry left the meeting when the talk turned to assasinations. Good job Mr. Kerry — but did you TELL ANYONE in law enforcement about VVAW planning, or thinking about planing terrorist attacks? How can we expect Kerry to fight terrorists when he practically was one at one time?

But I guess the 4 months in Vietnam and all those purple hearts for self-inflicted injuries completely qualify him to be a commander in chief.

Posted by: Mark at October 26, 2004 02:35 PM