28 October 2004 By Earl Lively There is overwhelming evidence that John Kerry got a dishonorable discharge from the Navy, and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website! Kerry’s oh-so-clever handlers evidently depended on the ignorance of the public and the press about military records when they posted his 1978 “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves” on his site as part of a carefully selected partial release of his Navy records (the Navy says it is still withholding about 100 records). However, one diligent reporter, Thomas Lipscomb of the New York Sun, saw through the scam and exposed it in a story on October 13.
Predictably, the major media has shunned the story.
What Mr. Lipscomb noticed (and I overlooked when I first read the document) was the date of the posted discharge, Feb. 16, 1978. This was six years after Kerry’s six-year (1966-1972) commitment to the Navy ended. The anti-war detractor of our military did not re-up for another six-year term in 1972, so why the delay of his discharge? The only logical conclusion is that the 1978 honorable discharge was a second discharge given to replace an earlier undesirable discharge.
I was a colonel assigned as Director of Operations of Headquarters, Texas Air National Guard when George W. Bush was a lieutenant in the Air Guard. Since 1999, I have been besieged by the media, from the London Guardian to CBS’s Sixty Minutes, NBC, the Boston Globe, and others, with allegations and questions about Lt. Bush's service in and discharge from the Texas Air National Guard and USAF. I recently appeared on Fox & Friends twice to shoot down CBS’s phony memos about Lt. Bush and allegations about his discharge.
In the interest of fairness and equal time, it is time that scrutiny of John Kerry's discharge(s) is demanded. Senator Kerry has said that his medal certificates were reissued because he lost them (and his dog ate his homework, I suppose). Rewards are certified in one’s permanent personnel record jacket. If you lose a medal, you can get a replacement medal if your records show the award. The only way awards would have to be reissued is if they were rescinded and deleted from your records. And this narrows the possibilities down toward a dishonorable discharge, rather than a lesser form of undesirable discharge. As Mr. Lipscomb noted, “There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. … (W)hen 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.”
The experience of my thirty-plus years in the Navy, U.S. Air Force, and Air National Guard tells me that the late-issued honorable discharge was obviously a cover-up whitewash. Ditto for the re-issuance of Kerry's medals shortly after he became a member of the "Ol' Boys Club" in the Senate.
One of the top dogs in that club, Sen. John Warner, has amnesia about "any representation" about Kerry receiving a less than honorable discharge, even though he was Nixon's Secretary of the Navy when Kerry delivered his diatribe against the Navy and other services in the Senate in April, 1971. In May of 1970, Kerry conferred with the Viet Cong in Paris, and in July of 1971, he demonstrated in Washington to sell their peace proposal—while he was in the Naval Reserve. This variety of amnesia is common among Republicans asked to stand up and testify to Democrat crimes and injustices (see the GOP Senators' "support" of the House impeachment prosecutors).
The Nixon/Ford presidency gave way to Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1977, which tends to explain the six-year delay in getting the revised discharge. Mr. Lipscomb adds some insight: “Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive 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.”
A document on Kerry’s website is a form letter from W. Graham Claytor, Carter’s Secretary of the Navy, which grants his Honorable Discharge. .http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf . Secretary Claytor’s letter says that this action to award an Honorable Discharge Certificate is taken in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 1162 and 1163, which deal with grounds for involuntary separation of a reserve officer and provide for the action of “a board of officers” to examine an officer’s records and review previous actions. Obviously, this was the aforementioned board for appeal resulting from President Carter’s executive order.
Unless Lt. Kerry had previously received an undesirable discharge, he had nothing to appeal and would not have come before this board.
When he became a Senator in 1965, his clout as a senator got his medals back, even though Reagan was president, but the restoration of the medals was one more piece of evidence, as Mr. Lipscomb noted, that his previous discharge was dishonorable.
The Navy is stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch for the rest of Kerry's records—not surprising, because ever since the Tailhook flap, the Navy has had a P.C. virus. Feminist Rep. Patricia Schroeder (Dem-CO) figuratively castrated the Navy's top brass, and the Navy cringed from political correctness. Pressure and morale at the top was so low that a Chief of Naval Operations committed suicide. The Navy doesn't want to admit that it succumbed to political pressure to restore honors stripped from a discredited turncoat. In hiding the truth, the Navy Department dishonors even the lowest-ranking sailor who ever swabbed a deck.
It is time for those who care about the truth, and about the integrity of our electoral system, to demand all of the facts hidden in the records of the man who may be elected President.
Friday, October 29, 2004 Interview with Troy Jenkins Filed under: Politics and War — Chad Evans @ 1:49 am :: InTheBullpen.com Exclusive :: I recently had the pleasure to discuss the newly found Vietnam documents with Troy Jenkins, a researcher for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who personally found the documents within The Vietnam Archive at Texas Tech University. As a former student of Texas Tech University and one who has visited the Archive, I can attest that Jenkins finding these documents was no small task.
Troy Jenkins Bio: I recently retired from the US Navy as a CTIC (Cryptologic Technician Interpretive Chief Petty Officer). For short: A Chief. Navy Linguist with Russian and Spanish background. I personally served with Senator Kerry on the US/Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAs from 1994 to 1998. Senator Kerry was MIA during my whole tour with the POW/MIA office to let you know some of my motivation in getting involved.
Evans: First off, what are your affiliations? Are you a member of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth?
Jenkins: I Joined the Swift Vets site in August of this year after being disgusted by the media’s ignorance of “Official Navy Documents” and the speech given by former President Clinton at the DNC. At the time I did the research in the Vietnam Archives, I was a consultant for the Swift Vets. They paid my Hotel, Airfare, rental car and copying fees. I am too young to actually be a member of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, however I am obviously a supporter.
Evans: Are you working for any type of political campaign? Are you a registered Republican, Independent or Democrat? Who have you casted your last five presidential ballots for?
Jenkins: I do not work for any political campaign, but consider myself a lifelong Republican. I voted for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and Bush senior.
Evans: When you entered The Vietnam Archive, what exactly were you looking for? Did you know where to find it? How long did it take you to find the information?
Jenkins: I had wanted to go to the Vietnam Archives back in early September to look into Admiral Zumwalt’s personal files but didn’t have the appropriate time or finances to do so. My original intent was to see if Admiral Zumwalt had the mysterious missing paperwork for John Kerry’s Silver Star. The online working aids had a match for John Kerry and Silver Star but it turned out to be someone else. While I was there I came across a box full of anti-war material and began rummaging through it to amuse my curiosity. One thing that constantly side tracks me is more info. It’s in my nature because of my 20 years in Intelligence work. I flew down to Lubbock on a Tuesday and planned to stay until Thursday to complete my search. However, finding the volumes and volumes of material in the Douglas Pike collection made me stay a couple of days more. I had to call the Swift Vets to ask for additional help in going through the files and they sent an additional person on Thursday. He left on Saturday morning and I left in the afternoon. We were going through the material quickly and copying files of interest.
Evans: What was your reaction when you found these three documents? Did you expect to find something similar based on previous beliefs or pre-existing ideas or were you surprised?
Jenkins: What initially caught my attention to the captured documents was the cover page. It was from the CDEC – Document Exploitation Cell. Most of the material in the box was old newspaper clippings and brochures. But this was totally different. As I began to read the document, I got a gut feeling that this was serious. I began to put my analytical tools to use and carefully read the documents attached. Once I had determined this to be valid intell, I had the material copied. This was not my original intent to find this information but I brought it to the attention of the Swift Vets as an important accidental find.
Evans: In your opinion, what is the most important revelation that has already been or should be made concerning the documents?
Jenkins: The fact that this material was from the VC and had been captured “in country” was the most important to me. The details to which the Communists were directing U.S. protests and anti-war movements was absolutely astonishing. This wasn’t something I was reading in a history book – this was their own words.
Evans: Were there other documents that you found that have not been revealed by any member of the media thus far? If so, which ones and what do they contain?
Jenkins: I have a stack of approximately 175 papers that are all relevant to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and closely associated anti-war groups. Many of these papers are complimentary to the previously released documents, some are unique – my secret.
Evans: Was there anything else you were looking for specifically that you were unable to find?
Jenkins: I was disappointed in not finding the still missing Silver Star paperwork. We have searched the Naval Archives in Washington D.C. and the Vietnam Archives in Lubbock with no luck so far. My guess would be that Senator Kerry has a copy which has not been released to date.
Evans: What type of contact was made with The New York Sun and World Net Daily?
Jenkins: Jerome Corsi received a copy of the documents (as he would be an expert on the time period) and authored the articles in World Net Daily. I called Thomas Lipscomb (New York Sun), who had worked with me in the past on other articles – “Did Kerry Write Own Report of Disputed Clash?” and “Mystery Surrounds Kerry’s Navy Discharge". I had known that Lipscomb was very demanding and accurate in his reporting. He is well respected as a journalist.
Evans: Why were these two media organizations/newspapers contacted over other higher profile publications? Was there an effort made to contact higher profile publications? If so, what was the response?
Jenkins: I really can’t answer the question as to why other media didn’t pick up the stories (above my paygrade), other than to say I went with respectable writers, Corsi and Lipscomb.
Evans: Assuming you have publicized your efforts to try to show that there was at minimal some collusion between the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, what is your main reason for doing this?
Jenkins: I’ll revert to my revulsion of the media and Clinton’s speech at the DNC (specifically the SEND ME). I know, I was there when Kerry was suppose to be working on the POW/MIA issue. I don’t like it when I hear incompetency by the media or outright lies by public figures. My whole role in this was to set the record straight through the documentation. Whether this fell out on the Swifties side or Kerry’s side, I’ve always maintained that when I reached my conclusion – it was coming out.
Evans: What is your main purpose for wanting to expose the otherwise hidden truths from the Vietnam War?
Jenkins: I don’t really have other purposes except that I’ve met so many Vietnam Veterans now that I want to help set the record straight; as many of us have been given a one-sided story through history books and public figures.
Evans: Will you and other Vietnam Veterans ever be able to forgive John Kerry for his 1971 Senate Testimony?
Jenkins: I couldn’t possibly speak for the Vietnam Veterans, but my own experiences with the Senator leave me no doubt that he is unfortunately a hollow person. He could be many things as a President, but I’m convinced none would be good for our country.
Evans: Why is this presidential election the first time that such a large group of Vietnam Veterans have banded together to strike out against a candidate?
Jenkins: The obvious answer is that this is the first candidate to run on his Vietnam record. At least he did until the Swift Vets challenged his record.
Evans: Do you and your fellow [ed. the] Vietnam Veterans have anything to gain by getting this information out in the open?
Jenkins: I know that the truth will be gained. So much of John Kerry has been hidden and manipulated from the American public. I don’t believe any of us can yet say we know what John Kerry is about. What does he truly believe? I think it unfair to the voters that John Kerry hasn’t been given the same scrutiny as the current President. Yet, if I found information about Bush – I would publicize that as well.
Evans: Is there anything you would like to add?
Jenkins: Thanks for the opportunity to address your fans.
There you have it. I learned much from this brief interview with Mr. Jenkins and found him to be very helpful in trying to decipher how the documents were found and what his intentions were. Through several emails, I found Jenkins to be exremely personable and it was a pleasure in interviewing him.
It is my personal opinion that the best thing that has come out not only with the recent documents but with the advertisements and documentaries concerning the Vietnam War in this election cycle is that it gives Americans another side to what is written in our textbooks. As someone who considers himself a closet historian, I had neglected the Vietnam War era and believed the protrayals found in the movies and just glossed over by history professors.
While the Vietnam War tends to be a sore subject for this nation, we must not forget the heroic deeds as well as the lives that were given by so many. We must also begin to think for ourselves and do our own research to find the truths of an era that has shaped our nation. Thankfully, people like Troy Jenkins and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have shared their stories with all of us and I hope they continue to. We must learn from history and the truth must be shed in order to both move on as well as not repeast mistakes, for we all make them.
Again, I thank Mr. Jenkins for his time and his candor. Much can be learned from people willing to do the grunt work of research. I await word as to what was in the other documents Jenkins copied, but until that happens, it will just be his secret.
The Truth Behind Kerry's Military Discharge. What's Kerry Hiding?
HUMAN EVENTS - LT COL BUZZ PATTERSON "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 tête-à-têtes 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.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
