Anonny Moose wrote:
"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...

escapee wrote:

.. However I do believe it

presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1, 1970.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but sets
the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his original
separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have been no need
for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of
discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.



You are just wrong.

Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Navel Reserve
(inactive status) in 1970. In 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve
(inactive) and in 1978 was honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve.
Check it out:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...of_Service.pdf

Karen




Thanks. I'll forward this to my Air Force buddy and see what he says.
I still think the "board of officers" thing is weird, because a board
review shouldn't be necessary for a routine discharge -- but I don't
know what kind of legal b.s. are perhaps always on these forms.

Best regards,
Bob