| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Kokesh to get general discharge |
| 2007-06-05 |
| KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A military panel has recommended a general discharge for an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during a war protest and later responded with an obscenity to a superior who told him he might have violated military rules. Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh participated in the protest in March, clad in a uniform that had his name tag and other insignia removed. After he was identified in a photo caption in The Washington Post, a superior officer sent him a letter saying he might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. After a hearing Monday before an administrative separation board at the Marine Corps Mobilization Command, the panel decided not to recommend a less-than-honorable discharge, choosing instead the general discharge. "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." If the recommendation is approved, Kokesh would not lose any military benefits, McCarthy said. Brig. Gen. Darrell L. Moore, one of several officers who received an e-mail from Kokesh that contained an obscenity, likely will decide whether to go along with the board's recommendation. Kokesh is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18, but the Marine Corps is seeking to let him go two weeks early with a less-than-honorable discharge. That could cut some of his health benefits and force him to repay about $10,800 he received to obtain his undergraduate degree on the GI Bill. His attorneys said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty. They said the protest was a theatrical performance, which meant wearing a uniform was a not a violation of military rules. The military considered it a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #1 His attorneys said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty. Since this was before a military panel under the rules of Title 10, you're point doesn't stand. Take it up with the appeals court. Should have done the same thing to Kerry when while holding a reserve commission he treated with the enemy in Paris. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-06-05 08:33 |