How closely does this hearing coincide with his (Kerry's) visit to Paris to talk with the North Vietnamese?

Wow, rightwingers are really getting desperate now.

Kerry entered the inactive reserve in 1972.

He got an administrative discharge in 1978. There is NOTHING to suggest that this was a reversal of a discharge. Kerry haters are imagining it.

He couldn't have gotten a "bad" discharge as an officer without a huge paper trail, including court proceedings (if I understand correctly).

Oh, and the statute itself stated that such administrative discharges were presumed to be honorable discharges.

But maybe he was dishonorably discharged for killing Vince Foster. Y'all will believe anything you want to anyway, so why stop at the physically possible.

Hey, Geek, why won't he sign form 180 then?

Why are documents about Bush's service still trickling out, months after Bush claimed he had released everything. Why are there FOIA suits still ongoing?

I could give a shit about what Bush did in the TANG. Apparently folks on the right are still obsessing about Kerry's service. I guess the election is going our way after all.

And, given the disingenuous distortion that the right wing punditry and press has indulged in while discussing the released records, I don't blame Kerry for turning over his entire life story.

Btw, here's a one sentence summary of the story:

"Kerry received administrative discharge in 1978."

Yawn.

NO MERCY

on this issue. Remember, Terry McAuliffe said Bush was "AWOL" then ran the "Fortunate Son" ad campaign despite the fact all the evidence says Bush performed all his duties (and then some) in a fairly hazardous position (five of his unit died in training exercises) while receiving no special treatment while serving or special consideration to be admitted.

If Kerry was dishonorably discharged (and it sure looks that way; they'd be SCREAMING if it weren't true) then that is a FAR more legitimate issue than the massively over-covered (and sometimes fabricated) Bush Guard service allegations.

"I could give a shit about what Bush did in the TANG."

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes do, enough to use forged documents!

And Bush signed form 1809, which means if documents are still held up somewhere, it's bureaucratic, not his doing. It would have been far better politically for him to get them all out early, so evil-genius-Rove or other Bushies weren't responsible for holding them up, even if they had any influence over the bureaucracy in question.

That's "form 180", not "form 1809"

Geek, you're simply wrong. Kerry COULD NOT have received a normal honorable discharge in 1978 (sorry, Presidents doesn't get involved in those). It's impossible based on the evidence.

Most likely, Kerry was dishonorably discharged and his medals (most fraudulently obtained in the first place according to most eyewitnesses and also Navy-authenticated documents) were rescinded for actions unbecoming to an officer: the meeting with the N Vietnamese delegation during a time of war.

>>>Why are documents about Bush's service still trickling out, months after Bush claimed he had released everything.
You're either being disingenuous or you're very poorly informed. Bush had no control over those documents being released. They were dug up and released by the Pentagon.

Tall Dave:

Why am I wrong? Because you say so?

The statutes in question state, verbatim, that:

An officer of a reserve component who has at least three years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers . . . A member of a reserve component who is separated therefrom for cause, except under subsection (b), is entitled to a discharge under honorable conditions

This was an involuntary/administrative discharge.

Have conservative bloggers ever heard of Occam's Razor?

My take on the Lipscomb article includes quotations from and links to the relevant statutes (which are otherwise kind of hard to locate because they were superseded by a 1994 reorganization of Title 10 of the U.S. Code).

While I'm viciously curious as to what's in the unreleased military files on Kerry, I'm not terribly worked up about that.

The man treated with the enemy while an officer. Little else would surprise me.

>>>Why am I wrong? Because you say so?
No, because the facts say so. Have liberal bloggers ever heard of facts?

Let me repeat, since you didn't get it the first time: Presidents don't get involved in ordinary discharges.

Your theory has numerous other holes, the most gaping of which is that it requires us to believe Kerry re-upped in the Naval Reserves while founding VVAW and discussing whether to assassinate U.S. Senators. The fact his medals were re-issued also indicates they were probably rescinded.

The simplest explanation is that Kerry committed a court-martial offense (unauthourized meeting with the enemy during war) and was dishonorably discharged, then had his case reviewed under Carter's policy.

Of course, Kerry could end all this by finally filing form 180 and releasing all his records, instead of shamelessly lying to the American people by saying he has released them all while the Pentagon says he hasn't authorized release of around 100 pages.

Geek - Occam's Razor? Wow! You smart. We dumb. But while such a principle may work when trying to get a job at your local trial attorney's office, I think the standard may be a wee bit different for the Presidency.

I was honorable discharged from the military in 1992. If I heard that someone was challenging that, I'd jump down their throat with the military documents that I have that prove otherwise, then I'd call John Edwards and sue them for libel.

Kerry can end all debate and make us conservative bloggers look like the redneck fools you think we are by signing SF 180. My guess is he won't.

*honorably

Read the freaking text of the discharge, Tall (tale) Dave:

"This action is taken in accordance with the approved board of officers convened under the authority of reference (b) to examine the official records of officers of the naval reserve on inactive duty and DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE RETAINED ON THE ROLLS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENT OR SEPARATED FROM THE NAVAL SERVICE . . ."

This was one of many administrative discharges. This board was not convened just for John Kerry. It was part of a larger process to remove inactive officers from the Naval Reserve.

I have a statute, logic, and official documents to back me up. You have a dishonest hit piece by a right wing rag and your own imagination.

I win.

Geek -

I know the reporter, and FYI, he may have written the piece for the Sun, but he's no right-winger.

In fact, the rest of the piece speculates that a dicharge other than honorable may have been retribution by the Nixon Administration for anti-war activity.

In any case, Kerry's not being upfront.

MT:

He has produced official documents showing he was honorably discharged in 1978. This was not a revision of a prior discharge--it was his first and only discharge.

Kerry haters just can't accept the truth.

Geek:

That's a nice little fantasy, but like most liberal fantiasies it ignore those inconvenient little things called facts.

Sadly for you, your little fantsay ignores the six-year gap, the medals being re-issued, and the mention of the President.

You lose.

Bill

If someone writes for The Nation, I assume they are serving a left-wing agenda. Ditto for this guy, except that he writes for a right wing publication.

This piece is dishonest and just ignores the painfully obvious answer to its own questions.

Lipscomb didn't even realize that Kerry entered the reserves in 1972. That is gross incompetence or blatant dishonesty. Take your pick.

Geek:
>>>This board was not convened just for John Kerry
No one is claiming it was a special discharge just for Kerry. There was a Carter policy that directed reviews of all Vietnam-era discharges.

Again, if Kerry would stop suppressing his military records (and stop lying about suppressing them) this could all be put to rest. Since he's not, there's almost certainly something to hide there.

Tall Dave:

THERE IS NO SIX YEAR GAP.

He was on inactive reserve from 1972-1978.

Timeline:

1972: Kerry changes status to inactive reserve.

1978: Kerry is honorably discharged from inactive reserve pursuant to 10 USC 1163, as part of a larger administrative process to purge inactive officers from the ranks.

Those are F-A-C-T-S. They are based on official Navy documents. There is no discharge in between. Lipscomb is just imagining one where none exists.

TDave: This was not a review of Vietnam-era discharges. Can you read?

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

"This action is taken in accordance with the approved board of officers convened under the authority of reference (b) to examine the official records of officers of the naval reserve on inactive duty and DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE RETAINED ON THE ROLLS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENT OR SEPARATED FROM THE NAVAL SERVICE . . ."

Do you understand the difference? This is part of a process of administratively discharging officers in the naval reserve, not looking at old discharges.

That is gross incompetence or blatant dishonesty. Take your pick.

I'd probably go with incompetence or inaccuracy, if you are correct.

Given the numerous existing problems with Kerry's record, it's not surprising new questions are being raised re his discharge.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal "bizarre."

"Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973. However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."

Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush. "

Geek: LOL I can read, but can you?

You said:
>>>>>This is part of a process of administratively discharging officers in the naval reserve, not looking at old discharges.

and posted this to support it:
"to examine the official records of officers of the naval reserve on inactive duty"

Gee, I think a discharge might be part of the "official records."

Again, normal discharge hearings are not ordered by the President. You just can't get around that.

TDave:

He went into inactive reserve. He didn't formally resign. He remained in that status until the Pentagon started going through and purging/weeding out the inactive officers who were unneeded after the war.

Bill:

Lipscomb didn't even consider the possibility of an administrative discharge, even though that's plainly what the 1978 discharge was, on its very face.

He also didn't realize that Kerry changed status in 1972 to inactive, but still remained a member of the Naval Reserve.

It took me 10 minutes to figure that out . By going to Kerry's website and looking at the documents there.

This is poor journalism. It makes Mary Mapes look like an all-star.

TDave:

Do you know what a discharge means?

He wouldn't be a member of the Naval Reserve if he had been discharged. Duh.

Geek -

1. Lipscomb didn't even consider the possibility of an administrative discharge

You did read the whole thing, right? Why doesn't the Kerry camp clear this up?

2. I haven't had time to analyze your claim yet, so ...

3. It makes Mary Mapes look like an all-star.

Don't be ridiculous.

Geek:

Why wasn't he discharged? Are we supposed to believe he voluntarily decided to stay in the Reserves while throwing back his medals, writing "The New Soldier" about how awful and unnecessary the military is, and founding VVAW? Ridiculous. More likely, he was held to have not fulfilled his duty and forced to stay in the reserves, although I don't know the protocols and am just speculating in that regard.

Sorry, but your analysis doesn't come close to answering the questions raised.

I didn't see any forged documents in Lipscomb's article, but I guess that's what it takes to be an All-Star in your book.

Geek:

Wrong, you can be discharged from active duty and remain in reserves.

It doesn't make sense, if the Navy was happy with his service he should have been FULLY discharged in 1972.

TDave:

You've established one thing: that he didn't resign from the Navy. I don't see how that helps you.

And going into reserve status is just that--a change in status. It is not a discharge, and it does not require a discharge.

Bill:

What is there to clear up regarding this issue? He entered inactive status in the Naval Reserve in July of 1972. He left the Naval Reserve in 1978.

As far as the form 180 stuff is concerned, I have no idea what is in there. However, and this is from a partisan perspective (which he shares, of course), his political opponents are more than willing to distort and mislead about the documents that are released. The NY Sun is pretending that his honorable discharge is evidence of a dishonorable discharge. Even if there is nothing in there that reflects poorly on him, there is very possibly stuff that could be distorted and misrepresented, and outfits like the NY Sun would be sure to pull a stunt like this given their release.

>>>You've established one thing: that he didn't resign from the Navy. I don't see how that helps you.
It is EXTREMELY unlikely Kerry would voluntarily commit to another six years based on his statements at the time. It points again to a high probability that he was disciplined or dishonorably discharged from active duty.

>>>>And going into reserve status is just that--a change in status. It is not a discharge, and it does not require a discharge.
A quick google reveals they are considered commensurate terms. There's even a Navy term for it: "discharge/release from active duty (RELACDU)."

Kerry's own website says he "requested discharge" in 1970:
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.

This also raises the question of why Kerry attempted to suppress the fact he was not discharged until 1978, as it was NOT mentioned in his website timeline. This also suggests there is something untoward somewhere in there.

Geek - ok, assuming he was on inactive reserve status until February 1978. According to his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, Kerry said he "talked with both delegations at the peace talks [Paris], that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government..."

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the communist government of North Vietnam and the PRG was better known by the name "Vietcong". In other words...the enemy in 1971.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 953: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

I bet it's even worse if I go dig around in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which according to yourself, was the code that John Kerry was violating.

TDave: Kerry got hammered by conservatives (rightly so) for including his request for a discharge in a timeline without including the fact that it was denied. It was reported in the pressthat he was discharged in 1970--which was inaccurate.

MT:

"with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof"

From what I've seen, he did not attempt this. Thus he's off the hook for that.

As a reservist, he was not subject to the UCMJ.

I'm "Gee" and I should add that Kerry was not subject to the UCMJ as a reservist unless he was in active duty.

See update.

>>>>TDave: Kerry got hammered by conservatives (rightly so) for including his request for a discharge in a timeline without including the fact that it was denied.

EXACTLY. The question is, what did Kerry do that he was turned down and not allowed to leave military service entirely until 1978? It must have been something bad, or he wouldn't have tried to hide it. Remember, this is guy who claimed being 50 miles over the Cambodian border at Christmas was "seared, seared" into his memory; it's certainly not outrageous to consider he may be hiding something.

>>>>>>>>>>
"with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof"

From what I've seen, he did not attempt this. Thus he's off the hook for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>

You're basing this on what, exactly? Did he meet with them to get the recipe for the Vietnamese rice dish he'd been obsessed with since coming back Stateside? For what purpose other than influencing them would he have met with the VC and NV?

Comment on the update:

Yes, legal proceedings are supposed to confidential, but if you've noticed the last few years: ONLY REPUBLICANS FOLLOW THAT RULE. We had Bush's 30-yr-old DUI on the front page of every newspaper 2 days before the 2000 election, we have Jack Ryan's custody hearing testimony spewed all over the pages of the Chicago Libune during his primary, and Bush is criticized even though he authorized the release of every scrap of his record but Kerry is given a pass on 100 pages of his (and to boot, Bush is served with forged memos while Kerry's allowed to publicly claim he released everything without barely any contradiction or questions from the "objective" media).

Saw the update, Bill.

Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with the privacy of courts martial during the 1970's.

The bottom line is that 10 USC 1163 authorized administrative, honorable discharges, but did not authorize an "upgrade" of prior discharges. I'm going to assume that the Navy did not act illegally.

As a former Army Judge Advocate, let me weigh in a bit on types of discharge:

There are three characterizations of service for an administrative discharge: (1) Honorable, (2) General under Honorable Conditions (a/k/a "General Discharge"), and (3) Other than Honorable (a/k/a "OTH"). (there is alos an "uncharacterized discharge for those who are discharged within their first 6 months).

There are also two discharges that can be given as part of the sentence following a court martial conviction. These two discharges are: (1) a Dishonorable discharge, and (2) a bad conduct Discharge. Note, these can only be given where the person (1) was convicted of a crime in a court martial; (2) the UCMJ allows for auch a discharge as part of the maximum penalty for that crime; (3) the convening authority for the court martial has the power to approve such a discharge (which will depend on whether it is a summary, special or general court martial); (4) the Judge or court martial panel (if demanded)decided to include the discharge as part of its sentence; and (5) the court martial convening authority approves a sentence which includes such a discharge.

Additionally, as I recall, Commissioned Officers are not given bad conduct or dishonorable dishcrages, rather officers are "dismissed."

>>>>The bottom line is that 10 USC 1163 authorized administrative, honorable discharges, but did not authorize an "upgrade" of prior discharges. I'm going to assume that the Navy did not act illegally.

It didn't need to as that was authorized by the President, which also explains why the President is speciifically mentioned.

You Just Gotta Love the IRC

What brought this on was

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...34,00.html

My take?

The Red Cross met today with former fuehrer of Germany Adolph Hitler to review the conditions under which he is being held. The international organization promised a full review of Hitler’s living conditions and healthcare within a two- week timeframe.

“Herr Hitler is weak,” said Red Cross spokeswoman Gudrun Gundstaffson of Malmo, Sweden, sorrowfully.

goldwater.mideastreality....10_16.html

“But he is soldiering on as he has since the first World War and we believe that he will receive that emergency surgery so vitally needed to correct the suspected cancer in his testicles. The International Red Cross remains committed to protecting this man’s basic human rights,” Mrs. Gundstaffson concluded before returning to Spandau to maintain the IRC’s vigil over the comfort of the Third Reich’s former leader.

Reports vary over the situation of Herr and Frau Hitler (nee Eva Braun), but German employees of the US occupiers claim that the couple are denied French-milled soap for their baths and are subjected constantly to Wagnerian overtures although they’ve repeatedly stated their preference for P Diddly Puff’s hip hop sound over Richard Wagner’s “Waltz of the Valkyries.”

The International Red Cross has vowed to monitor the Hitler couples’ situation as Nuremburg looms and the worldwide press gathers to view trials into charges of military aggression against neighboring countries and genocide against Jews by Mr. Hitler’s Third Reich.

Views worldwide vary. Polls in the United States suggest that Americans still disapprove of Herr Hitler as a former adversary. On the other hand, a young Baathist in Iraq, Saddam Hussein celebrated the death of jews everywhere as “Inshallah, these sub-human monkeys are going to perish along with their American sponsors. It may take time, but we will triumph in the end. After all, Schlumberjee is pumping our oil. Allah is great and the French. They are on our side.”

Calls to Foreign Ministers Tariq Aziz of Iraq and French Minister Dominique de Villepin were not answered as this story goes to press.

There have been several comments in this thread concerning the involvement of the President. But this may simply reflect that formally it is the President who commissions and promotes officers. In practice, except for very senior ranks, the authority is delegated, either expressly or implied. There are court decisions in which a lower-ranking officer is put on the list for promotion as slots open up, and then the Secretary pulls the person off prior to a slot opening up, and the officer argues that it was improper to pull him off because only the President could do that. The courts typically find that the Secretary properly exercised the authority of the President. Thus, absent evidence that the President was acting personally and directly here, I suspect that the reference to the President reflects the formalities generally applicable to all officers.

I'm pretty sure that, contrary to what some have stated, Bush has actually not signed Form 180. Can anyone point me to a link that confirms he signed it?

Taken from:
http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/milpers/1910-400.htm

Note in 2004 the Navy reorganized it's manuals. An example is BUPERSMAN 3830300 became SSIC 1920-160

MILPERSMAN 1910-400
Administrative Separation (ADSEP) Processing Notification
Responsible Office
NAVPERSCOM
(PERS-832)
Phone: DSN
COM
FAX 882-XXXX
(901) 874-XXXX
882-XXXX
1. Two Types of Administrative Separation. A member may be processed for administrative separation by either Notification or Administrative Board Procedures. The primary difference between these two procedures is as follows:
a. Notification Procedure - The member is notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is General; and that he or she has a right to elect an administrative board only if he or she has 6 or more years of total service and/or reserve military service. MILPERSMAN 1910-402 provides notification letter and statement of awareness formats for Notification Procedure.
b. Administrative Board Procedure - The member is notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is Under Other Than Honorable; and that he or she has the right to elect an administrative board regardless of the number of years of active and/or reserve military service. MILPERSMAN 1910-404 provides notification letter and statement of awareness formats for Administrative Board Procedure.

NOTE: Processing commands, separation authorities, and separation activities are urged to pursue adherence at every level to the established Navy administrative separation processing goals in MILPERSMAN 1910-010.

While I would like to see Kerry roasted, this particular story is most certainly a red herring. The situation described is very routine for any officer who leaves the military and is routinely added to the Inactive Reserve. Sorry folks, there really is nothing to see here.

According to "Unfit for Command", Kerry originally enlisted in the Navy Reserve in 1966. Not the Navy.

The book claims (page 23) that Kerry petitionned draft board for student deferment.

and, "when he approached his draft board for permission to study in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

This statement is footnoted to a 1970 article about Kerry, from the Harvard Crimson, by Samuel Goldhaber: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196423/posts

"John Kerry's service record indicates that on Feb 18, 1966, he enlisted in the US Naval Reserve, status "inactive", not in the US Navy. These details are conveniently left out of all Kerry biographies."

Scary Kerry:

It may well turn out to be a red herring. And if that's conclusively proved, I'll be the first to move on. But let's not drop it until it's more clear that that is in fact the case. Yes, Kerry presents a target-rich environment, but rehashing known facts is never as productive as digging up new ones.

How are you going to feel if this gets dropped, and Kerry is elected, and 2 years later we find out there was major impropriety here? Let it play out. If nothing else, this generates pressure for Kerry to
1) acknowledge the many inconsistencies and fabrications in his military record
2) stop lying about having released all his records and
3) release all his records

I'm a bit confused, but it seems Kerry joined Naval ROTC or an equivalent in 1966, and when his deferment was not extended formally signed up circa 1970 rather than wait for the Draft Board to call him up. If this means his date-of-service is the acceptance of him as an officer, 1978 is about right for discharge: two years active, six reserve.

As much as I hate to say it, I think people are making too much of an issue of his discharge. Even though I am currently in the Regular Army, I did leave active duty after my initial enlistment, then later returned. Like EVERYONE who has ever joined the military, I had a total obligation of (then) 6 years (now it is 8 years). Because I had only served 4 years, I was going to be involuntarily in the Inactive Reserves for the remaining 2 years (I joined the National Guard instead even though I didn't have to). I received a DD214 and an Honorable Discharge when I left Active Duty. Kerry would have owed the government some time in the Inactive Reserves if he had not fulfilled his TOTAL obligation, which could have been 8 years because of some of his Navy Schools (some schools accrue a service obligation, at least in the Army). The reason for the administrative board could have been due to the major RIF (reduction in force) going after Vietnam clearing out the rolls of those who just plain weren't needed. As much as I hate to say it, this scenario makes sense and fits the facts, as we know them, about his discharge. It does NOT excuse his conduct or answer about his medals, but only helps answer about the discharge.

Hmmm... sounds like THE October surprise to me for Kerry. Dishonorable discharge, heh? Talk about "reporting for duty" !!!!!!!!

Clancy, I think you're right.

But as CiC he can _order_ the Pentagon to release the records - which the Pentagon claims he's done.

Form 180 is a personal records release _request_, so it should actually be less binding on the Pentagon than an order to do the same thing. (Failing one is an 'oops', failing the other isn't).

Al,

The Pentagon says Kerry has not authorized release of 100 pages of his military record.

You can bet if an born opportunist like Kerry is hiding something, there is something to hide.

Hey, at least the guy actually served his country, instead of taking the easiest possible route and STILL going AWOL.

But it's a lot of fun to watch how desperate you guys are getting. So keep it up. We enjoy the laughs.

Much speculation could be avoided by simply asking the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and/or the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for Kerry's records.

They're public records, and should be available to anyone who wants to see them.

Kerry became a Massachusetts attorney in 1976, and I know from experience that applications to practice law or take the bar exam specifically ask for detailed information (and documentation) about military discharges.

To John Anderson: You are a bit confused about the dates of Kerry's service. Kerry graduated from college in 1966 and enlisted that year; he didn't join ROTC that year. 1966-1970 was the period he spent on active duty, with the time he was actually in Vietnam occurring from 1968-69. I don't know what, if anything, Kerry was required to do as a reservist from 1970 to 1978, but his active duty was definitely before that time. Check out JohnKerry.com for Kerry's own timeline of his military service, which ends in 1970. (Disclaimer: I am citing JohnKerry.com for reference purposes only, not as proof that anything stated thereon is complete and accurate.)

3528 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org

6043 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker

1703 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps