[continued from previous message]   
      
   > background, and other military credentials.   
   >   
   > In any event, Sen. Kerry needs to end the stonewall, before the election.   
   > If — as seems entirely possible, and now perhaps even probable — there are   
   > still-hidden facts about his separation from the Naval Reserve, then those   
   > facts should be revealed, and voters should be entitled to make their own   
   > value judgments about those facts.  Sen. Kerry's refusal to address these   
   > issues squarely is in itself a strong basis for drawing inferences that   
   > reflect poorly on him.   
   >   
   > ----------------------   
   >   
   > Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 11:00am):  Power Line's post promises an update with   
   > comments from the SwiftVets.  Democracy Project has a post up, as do   
   > VodkaPundit, Milblog, Just One Minute, Little Green Footballs (also here,   
   > thanks for the link, Charles!), Wizbang!, PajamaPundits, Cranial Cavity,   
   > Posse Incitatas, Jawa Report, Dr. Zhibloggo, Michelle Malkin, Chasing the   
   > Wind, Travelling Shoes, Secure Liberty, INDC Journal, Ace of Spades, Media   
   > Lies, California Yankee, Pink Flamingo, Commonwealth Conservative,   
   > Political Junkie, QandO, and Captain's Quarters.  [Continuing to update   
   > this list as I find new posts; see also the trackbacks below — Beldar]   
   >   
   > Commenter Roland at CQ provides an interesting link to a current   
   > regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 70.9(b)(4)(ii), which provides that   
   >   
   > A General Discharge for an inactive reservist can only be based upon   
   > civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall   
   > effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.   
   >   
   > I haven't done the digging to confirm it, but I suspect that this or   
   > something very similar would have been effect in 1972-1978.   
   >   
   > "Navy Chief" apparently did some of the background digging that may have   
   > gone into Mr. Lipscomb's story; there's a thread on this story on the   
   > SwiftVets' forum that's picking up lots of comment.   
   >   
   > Human Events has a reprint of Mr. Lipscomb's article if you have any   
   > trouble accessing it on the New York Sun's website.   
   >   
   > ----------------------   
   >   
   > Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 4:30pm):  This update started out as a comment from   
   > me in response to other comments, but I've "promoted" it to text here.   
   >   
   > If, as initially issued, Sen. Kerry's discharge was a normal, fully   
   > honorable one after completion of his full active-duty and reserve   
   > obligations, then why would a board of officers — one convened and acting   
   > specifically under section 1163 — ever have been involved?   
   >   
   > As I understand it, Mr. Lipscomb's point is that section 1163 wouldn't   
   > have been cited in the Claytor letter, nor would that letter have referred   
   > to "a board of officers convened under authority of [that section]," if   
   > Sen. Kerry already had, or was entitled to get, an honorable discharge   
   > without such a board of officers' intervention.  I'll try here to make   
   > what I understand his argument to be, with more specific reference to the   
   > specific language and subsections of section 1163.   
   >   
   > Only subsections (a) and (c) of section 1163 refer to such a board:   
   >   
   > Subsection (a) involves separations from the Reserves without the   
   > separating officer's consent, and says that can only be accomplished   
   > pursuant to either an approved board of officers' recommendation or a   
   > court martial sentence.   
   > Subsection (c) says if an officer is separated from the Reserves "for   
   > cause" — a key term which normally roughly equates to being fired for   
   > screwing up and/or breaking the rules — then he's nonetheless entitled to   
   > an honorable discharge except in two situations.  The first situation, per   
   > subsection (c)(1), is if the discharge is under conditions other than   
   > honorable as per either a court martial sentence or the approved   
   > recommendations of a board of officers.  The second situation is if the   
   > officer consents to the discharge being under conditions other than   
   > honorable, and waives the right he would otherwise have to accept such a   
   > lesser discharge only after a court martial or board finding.   
   > We don't have any reason to believe that only subsection 1163(a) was   
   > involved.  That subsection would keep the DoD from booting somone who has   
   > more than three years' service and doesn't want to be discharged even with   
   > an honorable discharge (e.g., because he wants to stick around to qualify   
   > for greater benefits).  [Update: But see my 5:25pm update below for a   
   > speculative, innocuous scenario possibly involving section 1163(a) —   
   > Beldar.]   
   >   
   > So it seems more likely that subsection 1163(c), or both it and subsection   
   > 1163(a), were involved.  Again, note that subsection 1163(c) deals only   
   > with separations "for cause."  In most legal contexts, "for cause" means   
   > being fired for breaking the rules — it's being shown the door, not just   
   > asking and having it opened for you voluntarily.   
   >   
   > Geek, Esq.'s suggestion in the comments below, working backwards from the   
   > Claytor letter's language, presumes that a board of officers must always   
   > be convened in order to determine whether someone should be retained on   
   > the rolls of the Reserves, and that this was the normal method of   
   > separation for everyone dropped from the rolls with an honorable discharge   
   > when they're no longer needed.  But that's certainly not what the statute   
   > says; and if there's a different statute or regulation which says that, I   
   > haven't seen it yet.   
   >   
   > Rather, the board of officers referenced in section 1163(c) would only   
   > seem to come into operation if at least at some point the discharge   
   > involved was both less than honorable and without the officer's consent.   
   >   
   > The only discharge we've seen, from 1978, is indeed honorable.  But   
   > there's nothing in section 1163 to suggest that a board would be involved   
   > in approving a top-quality, consented-to (and indeed welcomed) honorable   
   > discharge that was unmixed with any prior complications.   
   >   
   > By contrast, the reference in 1978 to a "board of officers" acting   
   > pursuant to section 1163 would be explained in either of two   
   > circumstances.  First, Kerry could have consented to a less-than-honorable   
   > discharge back in, say, 1972, in which case no section 1163(c) board would   
   > have been involved then.  Second, Kerry could have refused to have   
   > accepted a less-than-honorable discharge back in, say, 1972, in which case   
   > the Navy Department couldn't have imposed it on him without an approved   
   > finding pursuant to section 1163(c).  But in either of those events, the   
   > statute could reasonably be read to require such a finding of an officers'   
   > board for an upgrade of a less-than-honorable discharge in 1978.  And — to   
   > repeat — I don't see any other explanation for why an officers' board   
   > acting pursuant to any part of section 1163 would otherwise have been   
   > involved in 1978, or referenced in the Claytor letter.   
   >   
   > I'll also repeat this important point:  I don't have the personal military   
   > experience to confidently argue that the fact that there was a board   
   > somehow involved necessarily means that there was a less-than-honorable   
   > discharge involved at some point along the line.  But if there's another   
   > explanation for a "board of officers" acting pursuant to section 1163   
   > being involved, I haven't seen or heard it yet.  [Update: But see my   
   > 5:25pm update below for a speculative, innocuous scenario possibly   
   > involving section 1163(a) — Beldar.] With due respect — and I have no idea   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)