Want Your Veterans Benefits? Then Sit Down and Shut the ---- Up.

Today, a United States Marine Corps panel delivered a message to all recently discharged veterans: if you want to maintain all of your benefits, you better sit down and shut the ---- up. The Marines, apparently unfamiliar with the concept of the freedoms of speech and free assembly, decided to penalize an Iraq war veteran for speaking out against the war by taking away his honorable discharge. Corporal Adam Kokesh will instead, if the panel's recommendation is upheld, receive a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

For those who are unfamiliar with the military, a general discharge (under honorable conditions) is not the same thing as an honorable discharge. Honorable discharges are given to those who have flawless service. General discharges - including those characterized as "under honorable conditions" are given to those whose service has been been marred by some sort of substantial poor conduct. Servicemebers receiving general discharges are barred from receiving some veterans benefits, including GI Bill education benefits. If they contributed the required $1200 to qualify for the GI Bill, they forfeit that money. The general discharge will follow them into civilian life, and may adversely impact future employment possibilities. In short, a general discharge is not a good thing.

Why is Cpl Kokesh losing his honorable discharge? His offense is simply this: after a tour in Iraq, and after being discharged from active duty, he appeared at an anti-war function wearing parts of his combat uniform that had been stripped of all insignia. After being informed that he was being investigated for doing this, he sent an email to the investigating officer and the one-star general in charge that apparently included a suggestion that they perform a biologically impossible act of self-impregnation on themselves.

The Marines are claiming the right to discipline him for this because he is currently a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. Like most people who are discharged after serving one enlistment, Kokesh had a remaining reserve service obligation. Like most, he was fulfilling this obligation in the IRR - a branch of the reserve where reservists spend zero time on active duty, are part of no chain of command or organized unit, and receive no pay of any kind. In short, they are in everything but the letter of the law civilians.

The decision to discipline Kokesh is absolutely outrageous for any number of reasons.

First of all, it's outrageous because the Marine Corps spokesman who described the board's recommendation lacked both the courage and the integrity needed to honestly describe what was happening:

"This is a nonpunitive discharge," said Col. Patrick McCarthy, chief of staff for the mobilization command. "The most stringent discharge that could have been received is other than honorable, and the board chose to raise that up to a general discharge."

For that one, Colonel McCarthy should award himself the golden shovel medal, with extra cluster clusters. General discharges are, in fact, punitive, even when they are not reductions in already awarded discharges. In Kokesh's case, it is likely to come with a substantial financial penalty. The loss of the honorable discharge means that Kokesh will no longer be eligible for GI Bill benefits. He may be required to repay the money that he has already received under the bill, and he will almost certainly be denied the remainder of his benefit. He is not losing as many benefits - not being penalized as harshly - as he would had he been given an "other than honorable" discharge, but he is still being penalized for his actions. This discharge is punitive, given any rational definition of the word. Col. McCarthy should have the strength, guts, and decency to say so. Unfortunately, he's chosen to act like a gutless bureaucrat instead.

Second, the decision is outrageous because the Marines are exercising authority over someone based on flimsy, overly legalistic grounds. Kokesh is, by any reasonable definition, a civilian. He is subject to recall to military service under certain circumstances, but the only military responsibility that members of the IRR typically have is the duty to make sure that the military has up-to-date contact information for them. The military typically does not try to exert any sort of authority over the members of the IRR, and appear to be doing so in this case simply because they did not like the content of what Kokesh said.

Thirdly, the decision is outrageous because it will have a chilling effect on the ability of recently discharged veterans to express their views about the war - at least if they disagree with the administration's views. Most recently discharged veterans will have some sort of IRR obligation remaining, and are theoretically subject to the same sort of garbage that the Marines have elected to inflict on Cpl. Kokesh. It is likely that those who oppose the war will be less willing to speak out, if they know that what should be the simple exercise of their free speech rights may jeopardize their veterans benefits.

Finally, the decision is outrageous because it sends the message that the Marine Corps supports the rights enshrined in the First Amendment only as long as the speech and assembly are not intended to advance positions that the Corps finds distasteful. Every officer in the Corps has sworn an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It would have been nice if Colonel McCarthy, Brigadier General Darrell Moore, Major John Whyte, and the rest of those who made the decisions in this case had actually meant it.

More like this

"Military courtesy is especially needed when dealing with higher ranking idiots."

Great line,,

A point that needs to be brought up, however, is that Cpl. Kokesh was brought up on charges before he made his (ill-advised) suggestion. He is being persecuted for his political demonstration, not for his lack of Military Courtesy. It is being done not just to Cpl. Kokesh, but in order to prevent/intimidate other veterans who might be getting any ideas for the upcoming election season. Any suggestion otherwise fails to address this fact.

By Brianm0122 (not verified) on 05 Jun 2007 #permalink

You're ass still belongs to the Marine Corps until you get your discharge. You know what USMC stands for. U SIGNED THE MOTHER FUPIN CONTRACT.

By thestumps (not verified) on 19 Feb 2008 #permalink

Wow! That is not surprising! The upper echelon lives to fight wars whether their just or unjust. It is their only chance to play with their war toys: Human lives. Unfortunately, the public will be little outraged by all of this simply because it does not affect them.

By Joseph Allard (not verified) on 04 Jun 2007 #permalink

Mr. Dunford needs to perform better investigative service to get ALL the facts in my opinion. If a person is in the IRR, this is still a contractual binding agreement between said person and the United States Marine Corps which means that said person is still obligated to follow all rules and regulations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Maybe Cpl. Kokesh should have thought about this BEFORE willingly and knowingly signing a binding contract to join the worlds finest fighting force. What did he think ? that USMC do PeaceKeeping in the Bahamas ? Boy Scout camping in the Rockies ?........

By Average Joe (not verified) on 04 Jun 2007 #permalink

Excuse me ?
?For those who are unfamiliar with the military?
?.. it must be the writer of this article.

When Cpl. Kokesh signed his enlistment, he fully acknowledged and obligated himself for service terms including his obligation part as an Individual Ready Reservest for the specified terms. My enlistment was four year active and two years as IRR. A six year total obligation (varies from branch to branch) During IRR you can be recalled to active duty at the rank you last held and military job classification for any wars declared on or by the U.S. by order of the President of the United States as the Commander In Chief or for other national emergency IF he deems it necessary. That is THE intent and requirements of your complete enlistment obligation term and oath taken and the law. (it includes keeping on hand specified complete dress and utility uniforms) During your IRR period maintenance allowance for uniforms was included in separation severance pay from Active Duty. Otherwise you are not required to attend drills or other military scheduled training or functions, Now you liberals may think that is unfair, but that IS the LAW OF THE LAND and what Cpl. Kokesh took an oath and signed onto. Release from Active Duty is only a separation order DD 214. THE "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE is not issued until the completion of your entire enlistment obligation. Cpl. Kokesh was still under his military obligation until he abused it and was discharged early from his remaining obligation as he deserved. He is lucky he recieved a "General" with "under honorable conditions". More than he deserves.

I like how George and Average Joe have absolutely no response other than "no matter how immoral it was, it's not technically illegal, so nobody should complain about it."

Cpl Kokesh clearly should not have reacted as strongly as he did upon learning that he was being investigated, but that doesn't stop the fact that they are trying to ensure only those opinions they like are the ones heard. Even you admitted that the only purpose of the IRR is to be able to call back soldiers if needed.

Also, try to imagine what your reaction would be if this was a liberal administration, and the soldier was being punished for saying that we should be invading a country for the security of the nation. Any precedent makes things like this occur more often in the future.

By CaptainBooshi (not verified) on 05 Jun 2007 #permalink

He risked his life to protect the freedom of speech, but by choosing to risk his life, he gave up his own freedom of speech. If he hadn't risked his life, he would have retained his freedom of speech. There's a Dilbert in this.

For Average Joe's information, it ain't the Uniformed Code of Military Justices, it's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Mr. Joe clearly never served under it, as I did for four years. They teach one stuff like that in boot camp. 'Course, chickenhawks tend not to know details like that, and they're dead giveaways.

lol
Had he not told the investigating officer in writing to go screw himself I suspect he'd still have his honorable discharge and gotten away with a minor admonishment.
Cpl Kokesh screwed up - end of story.

Sounds like Cpl Kokesh was a lot less offensive to his commanding officer than Clint Eastwood in "Heartbreak Ridge", which was basically a recruiting film for the Marines. I thought Marine officers would encouratge people to tell it like it is, and be tough enough to take the consequences.

the military clamp-down is not a surprise. look at the restrictions imposed on bloggers and email. incoming packages are searched [ we don't want troops having body armor that protects them]only the government could call loss of benefits and a large fine non-punative.mccarthty,moore and whyte [ sounds like a 60s south african law firm] with average joe [ you'll lose benefits if you s--- in your uniform] should walk patrol in anbar province for a couple weeks and then render judgement.we had folks like them on the line for a short time in viet nam. accidents happen.

Captain0 says: "Even you admitted that the only purpose of the IRR is to be able to call back soldiers if needed."
SO I quess they wont be needed (if you just could stop this war) so no need for THAT??

Well I hope that IF/WHEN they are ever needed they will serve with honor....and be re-assigned at the Rank last held quickly, accepting of their duty assignments by their superior officers as all those who went before always have.

The IRR keeps active ready recall records for quick mobilization for those with obligations remaining to report first in a declared war and in uniform. ... that's a given . That is not an IF, it's the main reason but not the ONLY reason. The "IF" (in my words were-->)"OR for other national emergency ** IF ** he (POTUS) deems it necessary."
and also why the Cpl. was still under his sworn obligations.

God forbid a POTUS would do it so you might stay free to continue your opinions.

... read what you want out of it all it makes little difference to me, except there is no need to attribute something to me I didn't say, trying to be deceitful.

The Cpl.'s actions to dishonor his service, the uniform he wore, and those still serving in harms way was enough in itself, but feeding the enemy propaganda with the anti-war protest crowd is disgusting to me and those still in the fight against an enemy emboldened by it. You dont have to believe me, only look what the enemy has to SAY!

The Marine Corps is right to give him an early discharge (from his sworn obligation) so he can exercise civilian rights as he desires and pick fights he may want or not want. Until they do he is under obligation NOT to do so.

Captian0 also says: "Any precedent makes things like this occur more often in the future."

Well gee wiz who'd guess we would disagree? It's called discipline I think, an action you're unfamiliar with it seems but it is exactly why "things like this" rarely occur and has served us well for several generations of our military.

Captian0 also says: "try to imagine what your reaction would be if this was a liberal administration (and a soldier did the opposite)......yada yada"

You mean like the Clintons who were for removing Saddam and the war before they were against it? Go ahead and drink your coolaid my friend... You keep your morals and I'll keep mine, that's the American way last time I checked.

The Marines Suck. This basically proves they are an unamerican organization.

Are these guys not supposed to protect our constitution and its First Ammendment rights?

Much as I hate to say it, under the UCMJ Article 91, he can be prosecuted. He may not have been in active duty, but he was still part of the military structure overall -- and even if those weren't his officers, they were still officers in commission of their duty.

====================================
891. ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
=========================================

The right to free speech and free assembly does not mean that there aren't consequences under certain circumstances; and as loathsome as I find what is being done here, let's face it, he did not pursue the brightest course of action and the military are fully within their legal rights.

By Luna_the_cat (not verified) on 05 Jun 2007 #permalink

Having handled the fines and discharges of USAF personnel for over four years, I can tell you that this activity for active personnel, in a non-action situation, would generally be no more than a hefty fine via Article 15, which is a non-judicial commanding officer's punishment. BTW unless things have changed, IRR personnel are under a chain of command, usually the local Reserve unit's commanding officer. Everyone in any military status is in a chain of command.

Having said that, the IRR is part of the military, and the Cpl showed lack of foresight for his ill-thought out remarks. Military courtesy is especially needed when dealing with higher ranking idiots.

I wonder how many military officers have participated in conservative or republican political events and protests while wearing their gear. Why is no one asking that question?

I served 4 years .So did this man .He can say whatever the %$^& he wants .He paid his dues .Your looking for fine print to penalize him and obstruct his future growth .It's just funny to see people fight so strongly for war .Were supposed to be helping a people .Do you think your expressing their better interests in pursuing a direction that costs them so much .Officers or not your full of $%@# my brothers .

No-one is saying they can't do it. Obviously they can, because they DID.

The objection is that this action is bullshit. Maybe it's legal bullshit, but it stinks just the same. How the hell do WORDS effect what this guy did in service? Did WORDS put his guys at risk? Did they effect the success or otherwise of his mission? No? Then STFU. What he did in no way justified any change to his status. A fine, sure.

Lose an Honorable Discharge for some NAUGHTY WORDS? No way.

...unless you think the Marine Corps is a fucking media liaison unit...

By SmellyTerror (not verified) on 06 Jun 2007 #permalink

Evidently Kokesh forgot to say "Sir" following the expletive used in his letter. Saying "Sir" shows proper respect for a military officer's authority.

As in:
"Sir, F*ck you, Sir.", Is proper edicate.

Q: How many Vietnam veterans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: You don't know man, you weren't there...

Q: How many Iraqi war veterans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: You don't know man, you weren't there...

When my baby brother was getting near the end of his 6 years in the marines, back in the Ronnie Raygun era, they were trying real hard to get him to re-enlist. He kept saying no. Finally, his Lt. asked him, point blank (and not entirely politely, I understand), why the hell he wouldn't do it.

So my baby bro says something close to "Because I'd have to keep taking orders from assholes like you, Sir."

Cost him one grade in rank - they promoted him back a few weeks before he got out - and some punishment. But they kept trying to get him to re-enlist right up to the day he took his honorable discharge.

What the military is doing to this guy is disgusting.

This guy is not really out yet. Therefore he should sit down and shut the ****up. When he is done then he is no longer obligated to keep his mouth shut. Anyone that serves or served in the military knows that you are not allowed engage in PR against the government or its policies whether right or wrong while still serving or to wear "chunks" of your official uniform while you do it. He will reach a point in time when it is perfectly acceptable to due so, but now is not it. If he just chilled out until he got his official ood conduct discharge he wouldn't be in trouble and he would be getting his benifits and his opinion so he's basically a dumb ass and I don't feel sorry for him, 'cause he knows better.

Persecution, pure and simple. I wonder how many vets are roaring out in support of the Second Gulf War and being slapped for voicing their political opinions?

Yeah he wasn't too bright, sending that letter. But he wouldn't have needed to had they not been hunting him in the first place.

I remember in 1972, being stopped by the Dean of Men and asked if the jacket I was wearing was my "real" one. I did a doubletake and responded that it was not.
I told him, truthfully, I had purchased it at an Army/Navy outlet and, not only did it not have any insigna, he could examine it and see it was "surplus".
His being a former major, he told me he would call the authorities and report me for impersonating an active duty soldier.
I ditched the jacket.
However, I did witness the Dean's kids wearing quite a bit of recycled khaki, so I guess he had a double standard about respect for the uniform.
In this case, he may have been OK if it had only been the uniform. General William Boykin has made several inflammatory speeches from the pulpit while in full dress uniform. My guess is his giving his CO his real opinion of him is what earned the general discharge.
However, it seems to me at one time, the general discharge was used "for the good of the service" whenever you had a recruit who could not conform but was not far enough out of line for a dishonorable discharge. Maybe memory fails.

As a retired Marine of 21 years service, I feel I must add my two cents to this. First, as regards the Insubordination issue, this young Marine absolutely should have known better, especially as a non-commissioned officer. Second, as regards the stupidity (or not) of the extant regulations, yes most civilians regard them as stupid. However, these regulations exist for the specific purpose of keeping serving military personnel from getting involved(or caught up in) the political end of most of the fiascos we end up having to solve by force of arms, and people should think about the double edged sword theory. Yes we defend the right to free speech, HOWEVER, upon enlisting, we voluntarily give up our own right to it for the period of our contracted service. Thus, dont legally have the free access to our rights that civilians have. Third, as regards the issue of the Article 91 charges, if they'd really wanted to put the screws to the Corporal, they would have added the terms "Gross" and "Willful" to the original specification, resulting in an automatic General Court Martial, which would most likely have resulted in a reduction in rank to private, loss of all pay and benefits, and a term in the brig as well. Not to mention a further degradation of his discharge to "Other than Honorable" or worse. To sum it up, this Marine is still under reserve obligation, therefore he still legally belongs to the Marine Corps, and is answerable to any and all specifications for misconduct. Therefore, instead of bashing and flaming about it, you people might consider the idea that a government contract is binding in all things until the terms of said contract are TOTALLY fulfilled, just like any other contract there is...you aint done untill all the terms are completed.

As for all the folks in here screaming about my beloved Corps, just remember this...We volunteered to give ours up, so we could defend yours...We didnt have to...We literally put our lives on the line everyday, even in training...We didnt have to...We wanted to...and given the choice, the great majority of us would do it again in a heartbeat...think about that before you pukes start flaming...and finally, there is a price for everything, even the right to excercise your freedom of expression...

A trust betrayed?

The Chief Judge of Congressâs Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, "Constitution, Statutes and Regulations" are "policy freely ignored" by both "The Veterans Health Administration" and the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), i.e., the "STATE OF COURT" transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congressâs law of the land U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; REFERENCES [1], [2] & [3]. This is a no teeth Congressional LEGISLATIVE vs an independent from Congress and the DVA, Judicial Branch Court. The DVA Health Care laymen, "initial adjudicators" still are not held responsible for their "freely ignored" and medically ignorant "Schedule of Ratings for Disabilities" decisions. Thereby, lost are those rights that so many have died for!

An example of the "initial adjudicators" to date "freely ignored" is this veterans 1957 DVA Physicianâs resultant, "MPerR PERMANENT" "SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 â58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE"!

It is now 15 years later without the Chief Judge's 1994 advised Congressional oversight. Please hold your U.S. House and Senate members accountable for Congressâs perverted Veteran Care.

REFERENCES:

[1] The complete 16 paragraph "STATE OF COURT" transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker and www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm

"STATE OF COURT

CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER

STATE OF THE COURT

FOR PRESENTATION TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS

THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

OCTOBER 17-18, 1994

{as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}"

--------------------PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in "STATE OF COURT" TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.-----------------------------

"I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints -- take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department's Agencies of Original Jurisdiction -- that is AOJs -- around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA -- the Veterans Health Administration -- ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy -- policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, "I haven't been told by my boss to change. If you don't like it -- appeal it." (Emphasis added)

The top medically ignorant "boss" is Congressâs confirmed "Secretary" of the DVA.

AND THE CONGRESSâS "policy freely ignored" UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, Health Care take away from Veterans:

[2] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I >
§ 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...11----000-.html

"(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise." (Emphasis added)

THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and "Secretary" "schedule of ratings for disabilities" decisions as proven by:

[3] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V > CHAPTER 72 > SUBCHAPTER I >
§ 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions

"(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule." (Emphasis added.)

By David Marshall (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink