Kerry's Honorable Discharge

[LATE UPDATE:  Fascinating comments thread at Beldar.  The Brain Trust is divided on this, but if Cecil Turner says there is no story here, I don't want to be saying there is.  The ascending theory - this was a routine administrative separation.]

The InstaPundit points us to this shocker from Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the Sun (we have met Mr. Lipscomb earlier, as he researched Kerry's medals): "Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge".

Mr. Lipscomb explains the *possibility* that John Kerry had a less than honorable discharge which was later upgraded under regulations put forth by Jimmy Carter.

Drama!  Glenn also links to the PoliPundit, where the point is made that Kerry had been admitted to the Massachusetts bar prior to 1978, which probably could not have happened if had a problematic discharge.  Commenters rebut this with, "Please - this is Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts right after the war - are they going to ding a war hero because he turned protestor?"

Left unanswered by Mr. Lipscomb:  Kerry's 1978 discharge letter also cites, as the basis for its conclusions, "BUPERSMAN 3830360 (?)".

That would be a reference to a Defense Dept. Bureau of Personnel Management manual, but what does it mean?  Perhaps knowing that reg would shed more light on the circumstances surrounding this letter.  Someone check a manual with a 1978 numbering scheme!

And one last point, this from a Freeper (not Buckhead), who has looked into the Carter-era clemency program:

Many aspects of the Presidential Pardon/Clemency process are matters of public record, in the Department of Justice. If Jimmy Carter pardoned Kerry, there should be a public record that Kerry shouldn’t be able to conceal. An applicant appears to be told in the application process:

  "A record of each Certificate of Pardon will be maintained in the Office of the Pardon Attorney as an official record, together with your application form and any other documents compiled in the course of processing your request. The Pardon Attorney may disclose the contents of such files to anyone when the disclosure is required by law or the ends of justice. In particular, public record documents that may be compiled in the course of processing an application, such as the judgment order from the criminal case for which pardon is sought, trial or sentencing transcripts, court opinions, and newspaper articles, are generally made available upon request by third-parties (including representatives of the news media) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, unless such disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the petitioner's personal privacy. In addition, unsolicited Congressional correspondence is treated in the same manner. On the other hand, non-public documents that may be compiled in the course of processing an application, such as the application form itself, are not generally available under the Freedom of Information Act."

The DoJ procedures indicate:

"Publicly available information for which a FOIA request is not required:

Publicly available information: Executive clemency statistics from the administration of President McKinley to the present; rules governing the pardon attorney and petitions for executive clemency published at 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.35-36 and § 1.1 et seq.; forms for applying for executive clemency; publication: Civil Disabilities of Convicted Felons: A State-by-State Survey (October 1996); copies of clemency warrants and proclamations for persons who have been granted executive clemency; description of clemency procedures contained in United States Attorney's Manual at § 1-2.110 et seq.; whether an individual has applied for executive clemency and action on such application."

Thus, I would urge any individual or member of the media with an interest in learning the truth about Kerry’s total military record to contact/visit the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice and inquire whether there are any records for John Forbes Kerry. Check variations of Kerry’s name (intentional misfiling?), things like “John Kerry Forbes.” Kerry’s Social Security Number appears to be shown, unredacted, on a 17 Dec 1970 document in his file but his Military ID number is not known. Finally, don’t limit inquiries to actions under Proclamation 4483, President Carter may have taken some clemency action because key party members may have required him to. Finally, From a reading of the above, it appears that certain information should be available on a “walk in” basis and other information must be requested via FOIA application.

"The offices of record are :

FOIA Contact:

Samuel T. Morison, Attorney Advisor Office of the Pardon Attorney 4th Floor, 500 First Street, N.W. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530-0001 (202) 616-6070

Conventional Reading Room:

United States Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney 4th Floor, 500 First Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530"

Is he right?  I have no idea.  But there are several threads to pull on here, so reporters or casual researchers are invited to pursue this.  Better hurry - I know the Times will be all over it.

And yes, if Kerry had signed the Form 180 a while back, these questions would have been answered (or never raised).  Of course, if he signs it now, there may not enough time for the Navy to gather his records, so he can run out the clock.

UPDATE:  Check Michelle Malkin's UPDATE for an innocent explanation - this may have been a standard "up or out" review, of a force-reduction review.

UPDATE 2:  Beldar cites the relevant statutes in full, and has lots of links.  To my untrained eye, the second statute cited is a jaw-dropper, but let's see what people make of it.

Comments

[Beldar]

Tom, I've trackbacked this post from my own post on the topic, which includes quotes from and links to the relevant statutes (which are otherwise kind of hard to locate because they've since been superseded and are no longer in the U.S. Code).

[Geek, Esq.]

Kerry was not discharged until 1978. In 1972, he entered the inactive reserve.

The Pentagon likely had a ton of inactive reservists as of 1978, since that was an indefinite commitment. The 1978 discharge was simply a purge of unneeded officers from the Pentagon's forces.

This is a complete nothing of a story.

[Cecil Turner]

There's no real way of telling, absent the records, but I don't see anything here. The letter says he's "hereby honorably discharged." If it were an upgrade to a previous discharge, it ought to reference the earlier discharge--and it doesn't say that. Looks like an involuntary separation to me, with an honorable characterization.

[Frank]

I am afraid I have to agree with Geek as to the non-significance of this matter (but also with the desirability of releasing Kerry's records completely.)

A reserve officer who did not participate in any sort of activity/training after release from active duty would have been carried on the books for a number of years as a normal matter of course. (Nothing wrong with non-participation once you had met your active duty commitment and weren't in one of the unusual specialties where reserve participation might be ordered.) But then after some number of years of inactivity, the officer would as a matter of administrative routine have been asked to resign since whatever experience he or she had would have become valueless. If the officer responded and accepted the discharge, an honorable discharge would have been issued if the officer was elegible for such a discharge at the time of his last release from active duty. But if the officer did not respond or refused for some reason, then it would have been necessary to convene a board which would rubber stamp the issue of an honorable discharge, probably to dozens or hundreds of people at a time. I left active duty in 1970, and it seems to me it took 6 or 8 years before I was asked to resign and received my discharge, but I was in the guard for a while which may have delayed things.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Kerry's agreement called for six years. Three on active duty, two on ready reserve with 48 drills per year plus a two week "summer camp", and one year in standby reserve. After he met those commitments he would have been discharged.

But he wasn't discharged until 1978. Because he only met the first of the above: he served three years on active duty from December 1966 to January 1970. No evidence at all he ever put in even one day after that. He should have been discharged in December 1972.

Michelle Malkin's explanation of him being passed over for promotion doesn't wash. He wasn't participating in ANY Naval duties. He, unlike W, didn't meet his commitments.

[Geek, Esq.]

Patrick:

He entered inactive status in theNaval Reserve in July of 1972.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Transfer_To_Standby_Reserve.pdf

Naval officers, from what I understand, were not discharged until they resigned or were administratively separated under 10 USC 1163, which is what happened here.

[Roofer]

The question of whether or not someone who aspires to be commander-in-chief ever received a less-than-honorable discharge from the armed forces is certainly relevant, IMHO.

If the MSM won't ask the question, I suggest that we do. Spend a few minutes and a dollar or two calling the national Kerry campaign HQ or the DNC, and ask this question: "Has Senator Kerry ever received a less-than-honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Navy Reserve?"

A "no" answer puts this to rest immediately. Anything else would be quite telling.The question of whether or not someone who aspires to be commander-in-chief ever received a less-than-honorable discharge from the armed forces is certainly relevant, IMHO.

If the MSM won't ask the question, I suggest that we do. Spend a few minutes and a dollar or two calling the national Kerry campaign HQ or the DNC, and ask this question: "Has Senator Kerry ever received a less-than-honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Navy Reserve?"

A "no" answer puts this to rest immediately. Anything else would be quite telling.

[TM]

I see Mr. Turner is doing some heavy lifting over in the comments at Beldar - someone has tracked down the mysterious "BUPERSMAN" reg, and this does look like a routine administrative separation.

Here is a bit of backwards logic, and a question I can't answer - Kerry has been in the public eye, and attracting critics, for decades. Could he have kept a less-than-honorable discharge quiet for all this time? Wouldn't some disgruntled vet have a buddy with access to the records? Or is the record-keeping too buttoned-down?

[norespecterofpersonages]

The board in question is most likely what used to be called the Board for the Correction of Naval Records?

[Cecil Turner]

Almost certainly not. BCNR wouldn't have the authority to issue a discharge, nor would they be involved except in upgrading a characterization, which this apparently wasn't. I suspect it was one of those Retention Boards (or the equivalent)--and there sure doesn't appear to be much here.

Thanks TM.

[Cecil Turner]

Here's a mouthful. It's a "Naval Reserve Officer Mobilization and Disposition Board" run by the BUPERS Reserve Officer Status Branch.

[atwilson]

Regarding the possibility that John Kerry, "war hero", might have been less than honorably discharged and in so doing, had his commendations rescinded: Do you think that might explain why he "threw away his medals"? Might it be possible that in throwing away his medals, he could use that as an excuse to friends and family for why he no longer had them, instead of admitting that he was involuntarily discharged and had them taken away from him? Would it not also explain why after many years (after 1985's miraculous record change to honorable discharge, and assumed reinstatement of his commendations...thank you Bill Clinton)that he then admitted that he only threw away his ribbons and still has his medals? Curious.

[buy angels gold]

So no matter how much I have spent to buy angels gold, I never regret.

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!