You are on page 1of 1409

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 1 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

DAN WOODS (State Bar No. 78638)
PATRICK HUNNIUS (State Bar No. 174633)
EARLE MILLER (State Bar No. 116864)
AARON KAHN (State Bar No. 238505)
WHITE & CASE LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
Telephone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
Email: dwoods@whitecase.com
Email: phunnius@whitecase.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Log Cabin Republicans


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a non-
profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. CV04-8425 VAP (Ex)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF LOG CABIN
REPUBLICANS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date: April 26, 2010
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Place: Courtroom of Judge Phillips











Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 157 Filed 04/05/10 10 Pages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)

Expert Depositions
March 5, 2010 Deposition of Aaron Belkin, Ph. D. ................................. 0001-0019
February 26, 2010 Deposition of Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D........................ 0020-0034

Lay Depositions
March 18, 2010 Deposition of John Alexander Nicholson III ................ 0035-0050

Written Discovery
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents ................................ 0051-0113

Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs
First Set of Requests for Admission ........................................................ 0114-0158

Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs
First Set of Interrogatories ....................................................................... 0159-0170

Defendants Objections and Response to Plaintiffs
Second Set of Requests for Admission ................................................... 0171-0189

Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs
Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents ............................ 0190-0204

Defendants Objections and Responses to
Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories ................................................. 0205-0211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 3 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Defendants Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission....................................... 0212-0217

Deposition Exhibits
Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit
Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision
of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing with Homosexuals
(Crittenden Report) (Ex. 4 to Frank Deposition)...................................... 0218-0290

Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy:
Options and Assessment (RAND Report)
(Ex. 8 to Frank Deposition) ..................................................................... 0291-0838

PERSEREC report entitled Nonconforming Sexual
Orientations and Military Suitability (Ex. 5 to Frank Deposition)......... 0839-0887

Defense Force Management: DODs Policy on Homosexuality
(1992 GAO Report) (Ex. 6 to Frank Deposition)..................................... 0888-0971

Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices
of Foreign Countries (1993 GAO Report)
(Ex. 7 to Frank Deposition) ...................................................................... 0972-1024

Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills
Due to DODs Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be
Completely Estimated (2005 GAO Report)
(Ex. 9 to Frank Deposition) ...................................................................... 1025-1072

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 4 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities
in the Military (Zogby Poll) (Ex. 11 to Frank Deposition) ...................... 1073-1099

Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces
(Ex. 13 to Frank Deposition) .................................................................... 1100-1128

Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer
(Ex. 22 to Frank Deposition) .................................................................... 1129-1280

Government Production Documents
Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Toward
Gay and Lesbian Service Members
(Bates stamped DMDC 000011-000022)................................................. 1281-1292

Memorandum from Craig Alderman, Jr., Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy, to PERSEREC
(Bates stamped DoD LA 2-6 042450-042451) ....................................... 1293-1294

September 21, 2006 letter from Undersecretary of
Defense to Senator Ron Wyden
(Bates stamped 13 LC 057312-312) ........................................................ 1295-1296

Draft Memorandum DOD/GC Homosexual Conduct Implementation
Memo and Service/GC Response
(Bates stamped OSD OEPM 013347-378) .............................................. 1297-1328

Memorandum from Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
(Bates stamped DOD LA 2-6 042466) ............................................................. 1329
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 5 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Draft of PERSEREC report by Michael McDaniel
(Bates stamped DOD LA 2-6 042467-042496) ....................................... 1330-1359

PERSEREC report entitled Homosexuality and Personnel Security
(Bates stamped PERSEC 007818-007863) ............................................. 1360-1405

Successful Integration of Stigmatized Minorities Into The U.S. Army
(Bates stamped ARI 059823-908) ........................................................... 1406-1491

U.S. Army Research Institute (AIR) Research Report 1657
(Bates stamped ARI 60206-272) ............................................................. 1492-1558

November 1, 2006 email from Franklin C. Pinch to Paul A. Gade
(Bates stamped AR 062002-04) .............................................................. 1559-1561

Charts entitled Homosexual Separations by Service and Reason
(Bates stamped OSD P&R Plans 007171-72) ......................................... 1593-1594

Memorandum to the Vice-Chief of Naval Operations
(Bates stamped NAVY 058930-31) ........................................................ 1728-1729

Comparative International Military Personnel Policies
(Bates stamped ARI 0060755-060779) ................................................... 1730-1754

Future Organizational Changes U. S. Army Focus Army Task Force,
Documentation Book (Bates stamped ARI 062124) ........................................ 1755


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 6 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Active Duty Separations By Service & ISC FY 2008
(Bates stamped DMDC 000003-04) ........................................................ 1756-1757

Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios for Commanders and
Personnel Involved in Recruiting, Accession Processing,
Criminal Investigations, and Administrative Separations
(Bates stamped Navy 058969-74) ........................................................... 1758-1763

Summary Report of the Military Working Group
(Bates Stamped OSD P&R 007428-007454) .......................................... 1764-1790

Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and
Afghanistan Under Dont Ask, Dont Tell
(Bates stamped OSD P&R Plans 058910-11) ..................................... 1790a-1790b

LCR Production Documents
February 2, 2010 transcript of Admiral Mike Mullens
and Secretary of Defense Robert Gatess testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee
(Bates stamped LCR 03452-03467) ........................................................ 1791-1806

November 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans
entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers
in the British Armed Forces
(Bates-stamped LCR 4706 to LCR 4775) ............................................... 1807-1876



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 7 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

2003 Report by Aaron Belkin entitled Dont Ask, Dont Tell:
Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity
(Bates stamped LCR 3367-3378) ............................................................ 1877-1888

September 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans
entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers
in the Australian Armed Forces
(Bate stamped LCR 4666-4705) .............................................................. 1889-1928

2009 article by Col. Om Prakash entitled
The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
(Bates stamped LCR 4776-4782) ............................................................ 1929-1935

2010 report by Gary Gates entitled Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Men and Women in the U.S. Military: Updated Estimates
(Bates stamped LCR WI 1013-1050) ...................................................... 1936-1973

June 29, 2009 remarks by the President at LGBT Pride Month Reception
(Bates stamped LCR 3999-4002) ............................................................ 1974-1977

October 11, 2009 remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner
(Bates stamped LCR 3995-3998) ............................................................ 1978-1981

March 24, 1995 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming:
The First Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4013-4044) ............................................................ 1982-2013


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 8 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

1996 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4045-4080) ............................................................ 2014-2049
1997 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Third
Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4081-4120) ............................................................ 2050-2089

1998 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fourth
Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4121-4199) ............................................................ 2090-2168

1999 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4200-4284) ............................................................ 2169-2253

2000 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Sixth Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4285-4371) ............................................................ 2254-2340

2001 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Seventh Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4372-4474) ............................................................ 2341-2443

2002 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Eighth Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4475-4531) ............................................................ 2444-2500


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 9 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

2003 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4532-4592) ............................................................ 2501-2561

2004 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
(Bates stamped LCR 4593-4648) ............................................................ 2562-2617

Other Documents
February 24, 2010 Los Angeles Times article entitled Navy Moves to Allow
Women on Submarines .......................................................................... 2618-2621

Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Regulation 500-3-3 ................ 2622-2772

August 28, 2000 New York Times article entitled Military Reserves are Falling
Short in Finding Recruits ....................................................................... 2773-2775

March 31, 2010 Washington Post article entitled
A Dont Ask, Dont Tell Rules Complicate Survey of
Troops on Policy Change ....................................................................... 2776-2777

Balancing Your Strengths Against Your Felonies:
Consideration for Military Recruitment of Ex-Offenders ....................... 2778-2820

Report entitled A Review of the Armed Forces
Policy on Homosexuality ....................................................................... 2821-2836


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 10 -
LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the
Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence .......................................... 2837-2878

March 14, 2007 Washington Post article
Bigotry That Hurts Our Military .......................................................... 2879-2881
Department of Defendant Instruction Number 1332.14 .......................... 2882-2895

March 18, 2010 transcript of testimony given by Major Michael D. Almy to Senate
Committee on Armed Services ................................................................ 2896-2936

January 30, 2010 transcript of CNN Interview
with William Cohen ................................................................................. 2937-2945

September 15, 2004 report by Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D.
Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and
Afghanistan under Dont Ask, Dont Tell ........................................... 2946-2993

March 29, 2010 article in Roll Call entitled
Wesley Clark Backs Cunningham in North Carolina ..................................... 2994

August 1992, Update of the U.S. Army Research Institutes
Longitudinal Research Data Base of Enlisted Personnel ........................ 2995-3093

February 3, 1020 New York Times article entitled
Powell Favors Repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell .......................................... 3094









Appendix of Evidence in
Support of Log Cabin Republicans
Opposition to Defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment


LCR Appendix Pages 1701-1800
(Part 17 of 19)

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 157-1 Filed 04/05/10 103 Pages
OSD P&R Plans 007279
LCR Appendix Page 1701
OSD P&R Plans 007280
LCR Appendix Page 1702
OSD P&R Plans 007281
LCR Appendix Page 1703
OSD P&R Plans 007282
LCR Appendix Page 1704
OSD P&R Plans 007283
LCR Appendix Page 1705
OSD P&R Plans 007284
LCR Appendix Page 1706
OSD P&R Plans 007285
LCR Appendix Page 1707
OSD P&R Plans 007286
LCR Appendix Page 1708
OSD P&R Plans 007287
LCR Appendix Page 1709
OSD P&R Plans 007288
LCR Appendix Page 1710
OSD P&R Plans 007289
LCR Appendix Page 1711
OSD P&R Plans 007290
LCR Appendix Page 1712
OSD P&R Plans 007291
LCR Appendix Page 1713
OSD P&R Plans 007292
LCR Appendix Page 1714
OSD P&R Plans 007293
LCR Appendix Page 1715
OSD P&R Plans 007294
LCR Appendix Page 1716
OSD P&R Plans 007295
LCR Appendix Page 1717
OSD P&R Plans 007296
LCR Appendix Page 1718
OSD P&R Plans 007297
LCR Appendix Page 1719
OSD P&R Plans 007298
LCR Appendix Page 1720
OSD P&R Plans 007299
LCR Appendix Page 1721
OSD P&R Plans 007300
LCR Appendix Page 1722
OSD P&R Plans 007301
LCR Appendix Page 1723
OSD P&R Plans 007302
LCR Appendix Page 1724
OSD P&R Plans 007303
LCR Appendix Page 1725
OSD P&R Plans 007304
LCR Appendix Page 1726
OSD P&R Plans 007305
LCR Appendix Page 1727
Navy 058930
LCR Appendix Page 1728
Navy 058931
LCR Appendix Page 1729
ARI 060755
LCR Appendix Page 1730
ARI 060756
LCR Appendix Page 1731
ARI 060757
LCR Appendix Page 1732
ARI 060758
LCR Appendix Page 1733
ARI 060759
LCR Appendix Page 1734
ARI 060760
LCR Appendix Page 1735
ARI 060761
LCR Appendix Page 1736
ARI 060762
LCR Appendix Page 1737
ARI 060763
LCR Appendix Page 1738
ARI 060764
LCR Appendix Page 1739
ARI 060765
LCR Appendix Page 1740
ARI 060766
LCR Appendix Page 1741
ARI 060767
LCR Appendix Page 1742
ARI 060768
LCR Appendix Page 1743
ARI 060769
LCR Appendix Page 1744
ARI 060770
LCR Appendix Page 1745
ARI 060771
LCR Appendix Page 1746
ARI 060772
LCR Appendix Page 1747
ARI 060773
LCR Appendix Page 1748
ARI 060774
LCR Appendix Page 1749
ARI 060775
LCR Appendix Page 1750
ARI 060776
LCR Appendix Page 1751
ARI 060777
LCR Appendix Page 1752
ARI 060778
LCR Appendix Page 1753
ARI 060779
LCR Appendix Page 1754
ARI 062124
LCR Appendix Page 1755
DMDC - 000003
A
c
t
i
v
e

D
u
t
y

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

B
y

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

&

I
S
C

A
s

o
f
:

F
Y

2
0
0
8

G
r
a
d
e

I
S
C

S
e
p

R
e
a
s
o
n

E
n
l
i
s
t
e
d

1

E
x
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
e
r
m

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

2

E
a
r
l
y

r
e
l
e
a
s
e

i
n
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

r
e
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
v

3

E
a
r
l
y

r
e
l
e
a
s
e

t
o

a
t
t
e
n
d

s
c
h
o
o
l

5

E
a
r
l
y

r
e
l
e
a
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

8

E
a
r
l
v

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
,

o
t
h
e
r

i
n
c
l
.

R
I
F
,

V
S
I
,

&

S
S
B

1
0

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
Q

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

1
1

D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
v
.

s
e
v
e
r
a
n
c
e

p
a
y

1
2

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

1
3

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

1
4

D
I
S
A
B
,

n
o

c
o
n
d
t
n

e
x
s
t
n
Q

p
r
i
o
r

S
V
C

n
o

s
e
v

p
a
y

1
6

U
n
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

d
u
t
y
,

o
t
h
e
r

1
7

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

m
e
e
t

w
e
i
g
h
t

o
r

b
o
d
y

f
a
t

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

2
2

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
v

o
r

h
a
r
d
s
h
i
p

3
0

D
e
a
t
h

b
a
t
t
l
e

c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y

3
1

D
e
a
t
h

n
o
n
-
b
a
t
t
l
e
,

d
i
s
e
a
s
e

3
2

D
e
a
t
h
,

n
o
n
-
b
a
t
t
l
e

o
t
h
e
r

3
3

D
e
a
t
h
,

c
a
u
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

4
0

O
f
f
i
c
e
r

c
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
g

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

4
2

M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
a
d
e
m
y

5
0

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

2
0

t
o

3
0

y
e
a
r
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

5
1

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

o
v
e
r

3
0

y
e
a
r
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

5
2

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,

o
t
h
e
r

6
0

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

o
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

d
i
s
o
r
d
e
r

6
4

A
l
c
o
h
o
l
i
s
m

6
5

D
i
s
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
b
l
e

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s

c
i
v
i
l
n

o
r

m
i
l
i
t
a
r
v

6
7

D
r
u
g
s

7
1

C
i
v
i
l

c
o
u
r
t

c
o
n
v
i
c
t
i
o
n

7
2

S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

7
3

C
o
u
r
t
-
m
a
r
t
i
a
l

7
4

-
_
.
_
-
-
A
r
m
v

2
0
,
4
0
3

3
8

5
1
5

3
4

4

3
1
2

4
,
5
4
1

6
7
4

1
,
6
8
5

4

2
,
8
1
8

3
,
7
9
3

3
4
5

2
6
4

4
3

3
5
1

0

4
,
6
1
5

0

6
,
9
3
4

0

4
5

6
3
3

2
0
1

1
,
9
2
6

2
,
2
7
8

1
2
5

4

2
0
6

7
9

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

T
o
t
a
l

N
a
v
v

M
a
r
i
n
e

C
o
r
p
s

A
i
r

F
o
r
c
e

1
7
,
7
4
5

1
5
,
2
6
5

1
2
,
1
4
5

6
5
,
5
5
8

0

0

1
8

5
6

8
5
3

2
7
6

1
2
3

1
,
7
6
7

2
2

1

8
9
4

9
5
1

5
3
6

3

7
0

6
1
3

1
0
7

8
9

1
0
2

6
1
0

6
5
8

7
2
4

7
6
2

6
,
6
8
5

2
7

3
4

3
8
6

1
,
1
2
1

6
2
8

6
0
2

8
0
2

3
,
7
1
7

4

3
0

0

3
8

2
,
2
6
3

1
,
4
1
8

1
,
0
6
9

7
,
5
6
8

5
0
4

6
8

1
2
5

4
,
4
9
0

1
0
8

4
0

1
6
8

6
6
1

1
2

3
3

0

3
0
9

0

5

0

4
8

1
8
8

1
3
5

0

6
7
4

0

0

9
8

9
8

1
,
0
9
6

1
,
1
5
3

4
9
4

7
,
3
5
8

2
0
6

2
5

1
7
4

4
0
5

7
,
7
6
0

1
,
3
8
9

6
,
0
7
0

2
2
,
1
5
3

4

1
3
3

8
9
2

1
,
0
2
9

0

,

1
4

0

5
9

9
6
4

3
9
7

1
,
1
9
6

3
,
1
9
0

5
0
0

2
3

5
6

7
8
0

9
0
6

3
1
2

1
1
0

3
,
2
5
4

1
,
5
5
1

1
,
1
9
1

4
8
6

5
,
5
0
6

7
5

6

2
3

2
2
9

0

2

0

6

2
5
7

8
7
5

2
7
0

1
,
6
0
8

1
,
2
6
9

1
,
4
5
4

3
4
8

3
,
1
5
0

LCR Appendix Page 1756
DMDC - 000004
5
1

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

o
v
e
r

3
0

y
e
a
r
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

1
3

1
1
3

3
9

5
8
1

7
4
6

5
2

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,

o
t
h
e
r

1
0
7

2
5

3
6

7

1
7
5

5
3

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

4

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n

0

1

4
9

0

5
0

6
0

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

o
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

d
i
s
o
r
d
e
r

0

1
5

1

7

2
3

6
1

M
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

(
a
p
a
t
h
y
)

3
2

6

3

3

4
4

6
3

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

o
f

i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

1
9

1

7

0

2
7

6
4

A
l
c
o
h
o
l
i
s
m

0

1

1

0

2

6
5

D
i
s
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
b
l
e

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s

c
i
v
i
l
a
n

o
r

m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y

0

1

0

0

1

6
7

D
r
u
g
s

0

3

0

1

4

7
1

C
i
v
i
l

c
o
u
r
t

c
o
n
v
i
c
t
i
o
n

2

0

0

0

2

7
2

S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

3

0

0

0

3

7
3

C
o
u
r
t
-
m
a
r
t
i
a
l

6

1
3

1
0

8

3
7

7
4

F
r
a
u
d
u
l
e
n
t

e
n
t
r
y

3

0

0

0

3

7
6

H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
t
y

2

1

2

8

1
3

7
7

S
e
x
u
a
l

p
e
r
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

0

2

0

0

2

7
9

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n

4
4

9
6

3
2

6
8

2
4
0

8
1

U
n
f
i
t
n
e
s
s

o
r

u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

o
t
h
e
r

9
7

5
1

2
0

5

1
7
3

8
4

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
e
r
i
o
u
s

o
f
f
e
n
s
e

0

1
5

0

2
1

3
6

9
0

S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
a
l

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

0

1
6

4

6

2
6

9
4

P
r
e
g
n
a
n
c
y

1

0

0

2
3

2
4

9
6

C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s

o
b
j
e
c
t
o
r

2

0

1

1

4

9
7

P
a
r
e
n
t
h
o
o
d

0

3

0

0

3

9
9

O
t
h
e
r

2

0

0

6

8

T
o
t
a
l

6
,
3
8
0

4
,
1
2
6

1
,
5
1
1

4
,
8
9
8

1
6
,
9
1
5

T
o
t
a
l

7
0
7
5
0

4
7
7
9
4

3
0
4
0
5

3
5
9
8
1

1
8
4
9
3
0

LCR Appendix Page 1757
Navy 058969
LCR Appendix Page 1758
Navy 058970
LCR Appendix Page 1759
Navy 058971
LCR Appendix Page 1760
Navy 058972
LCR Appendix Page 1761
Navy 058973
LCR Appendix Page 1762
Navy 058974
LCR Appendix Page 1763
OSD P&R 007428
LCR Appendix Page 1764
OSD P&R 007429
LCR Appendix Page 1765
OSD P&R 007430
LCR Appendix Page 1766
OSD P&R 007431
LCR Appendix Page 1767
OSD P&R 007432
LCR Appendix Page 1768
OSD P&R 007433
LCR Appendix Page 1769
OSD P&R 007434
LCR Appendix Page 1770
OSD P&R 007435
LCR Appendix Page 1771
OSD P&R 007436
LCR Appendix Page 1772
OSD P&R 007437
LCR Appendix Page 1773
OSD P&R 007438
LCR Appendix Page 1774
OSD P&R 007439
LCR Appendix Page 1775
OSD P&R 007440
LCR Appendix Page 1776
OSD P&R 007441
LCR Appendix Page 1777
OSD P&R 007442
LCR Appendix Page 1778
OSD P&R 007443
LCR Appendix Page 1779
OSD P&R 007444
LCR Appendix Page 1780
OSD P&R 007445
LCR Appendix Page 1781
OSD P&R 007446
LCR Appendix Page 1782
OSD P&R 007447
LCR Appendix Page 1783
OSD P&R 007448
LCR Appendix Page 1784
OSD P&R 007449
LCR Appendix Page 1785
OSD P&R 007450
LCR Appendix Page 1786
OSD P&R 007451
LCR Appendix Page 1787
OSD P&R 007452
LCR Appendix Page 1788
OSD P&R 007453
LCR Appendix Page 1789
OSD P&R 007454
LCR Appendix Page 1790
OSD P&R Plans 058910
LCR Appendix Page 1790(A)
OSD P&R Plans 058911
LCR Appendix Page 1790(B)
JCS Speech
Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Tuesday, February 02, 2010
SEN. LEVIN: (Strikes gavel.) The committee is now going to receive testimony from our
senior leadership in the Department of Defense as we begin the task of addressing the
dont ask, dont tell policy on gays in the military.
I believe that ending the policy would improve our militarys capability and reflect our
commitment to equal opportunity. I do not find the arguments that were used to justify
dont ask, dont tell convincing when it took effect in 1993, and they are less so now. I
agree with what President Obama said in his State of the Union Address, that we
should repeal this discriminatory policy.

In the latest Gallup poll, the American public overwhelmingly supports allowing gays
and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Sixty-nine percent of Americans are
recorded as supporting their right to serve, and many in fact are serving. As former
chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Shalikashvili, said and he supports ending
the policy a majority of troops already believe that they serve alongside gay or lesbian
colleagues. One recent study estimated that 66,000 gays and lesbians are serving
today, at constant risk of losing their chance to serve.

Other nations have allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve in their militaries
without discrimination and without impact on unit cohesion or morale. A comprehensive
study on this was conducted by RAND in 1993. RAND researchers reported on the
positive experiences of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and The Netherlands and
Norway, all of which allowed known homosexuals to serve in their armed forces. Sen.
McCain and I have asked the Department of Defense to update the 1993 report.

Ending this discriminatory policy will contr bute to our militarys effectiveness. To take
just one example, dozens of Arabic and Farsi linguists have been forced out of the
military under dont ask, dont tell, at a time when our need to understand those
languages has never been greater. Thousands of troops 13,000, by one estimate
have been forced to leave the military under the current policy. That number includes
many who could help the military complete some particularly difficult and dangerous
missions.

I have long admired the merit-based system of advancement employed by the U.S.
military that allows servicemen and women of varied backgrounds to advance to
positions of high leadership. An Army is not a democracy; it is a meritocracy, where
success depends not on who you are, but on how well you do your job. Despite its
necessarily undemocratic nature, our military has helped lead the way in areas of
fairness and anti-discrimination. It has served as a flagship for American values and
aspirations, both inside the United States and around the world.

We will hold additional hearings to hear from various points of view and approaches on
this matter. This committee will hold a hearing on February 11th, when we will hear
from an independent panel. The service secretaries and service chiefs will all be
testifying before this committee during the month of February on their various budgets,
and they of course will be open to questions on this subject as well during their
testimony.

My goal will be to move quickly but deliberatively to maximize the opportunity for all
Americans to serve their country, while addressing any concerns that may be
raised. We should end dont ask, dont tell, and we can and should do it in a way that
honors our nations values while making us more secure.

My entire statement will be made part of the record. A statement of Sen. Gill brand will
also be inserted in the record following the statement of Sen. McCain.

Sen. McCain.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Secretary
Gates and Adm. Mullens (sic) (for whats ?) turning into a very long morning for them,
and we appreciate your patience and your input on this very, very important issue.

We meet to consider the dont ask, dont tell policy, policy that the president has made
clear, most recently last week in his State of the Union Address, that he wants
Congress to repeal. This would be a substantial and controversial change to a policy



JointChiefsofStafflogo
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Page 1 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03452
LCR Appendix Page 1791
that has been successful for two decades. It would also present yet another challenge
to our military at a time of already tremendous stress and strain.

Our men and women in uniform are fighting two wars, guarding the front lines against a
global terrorist enemy, serving and sacrificing on battlefields far from home, and
working to rebuild and reform the force after more than eight years of conflict.

At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking
to overturn the dont ask, dont tell policy.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear up front. Im enormously proud of and thankful
for every American who chooses to put on the uniform of our nation and serve at this
time of war. I want to encourage more of our fellow citizens to serve and to open up
opportunities to do so. Many gay and lesbian Americans are serving admirably in our
armed forces, even giving their lives so that we and others can know the blessings of
peace. I honor their sacrifice, and I honor them.

Our challenge is how to continue welcoming this service amid the vast complexities of
the largest, most expensive, most well-regarded and most critical institution in our
nation, our armed forces.

This is an extremely difficult issue, and the Senate vigorously debated it in 1993. We
heard from the senior uniformed and civilian leaders of our military on eight occasions
before this committee alone. When Congress ultimately wrote the law, we included
important findings that did justice to the seriousness of the subject. I would ask without
objection, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of the statute including those findings be included
in the record.

SEN. LEVIN: It will be.

SEN. MCCAIN: I wont quote all those findings. But three points must be made. First,
Congress found in the law that the militarys mission to prepare for and conduct combat
operations requires service men and women to accept living and working conditions
that are often spartan and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

Second, the law finds that civilian life is fundamentally different from military life, which
is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs and traditions, including many
restrictions on personal conduct that would not be tolerated in civil society.

Finally, the law finds that the essence of military capability is good order and unit
cohesion, and that any practice which puts those goals at unacceptable risk can be
restricted.

These findings were the foundation of dont ask, dont tell. And Im eager to hear from
our distinguished witnesses what has changed since these findings were written, such
that the law they supported can now be repealed.

Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not. But it has been effective. It has helped to
balance a potentially disruptive tension between the desires of a minority and the
broader interests of our all-volunteer force. It is well understood and predominantly
supported by our fighting men and women. It reflects, as I understand them, the
preferences of our uniformed services. It has sustained unit cohesion and unit morale
while still allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country in uniform. And it
has done all of this for nearly two decades.

Mr. Chairman, there this is a letter signed by over 1,000 former general and flag
officers who have weighed in on this issue. I think that we all in Congress should pay
attention and benefit from the experience and knowledge of over a thousand former
general officers and flag officers, and which where they say: We firmly believe that the
this law, which Congress passed to protect order good order, discipline and morale
in the unique environment of the armed forces, deserves continued support.

And so I think we should also pay attention to those who have served, who can speak
more frankly on many occasions than those who are presently serving.

I know that any decision Congress makes about the future of this law will inevitably
leave a lot of people angry and unfulfilled. There are patriotic and well-meaning
Americans on each side of this debate. And Ive heard their many passionate
concerns. Ultimately though, numerous military leaders tell me that dont ask, dont tell
is working, and that we should not change it now. I agree.

I would welcome a report done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff based solely on military
readiness, effectiveness and needs and not on politics that would study the dont
ask, dont tell policy, that would consider the impact of its repeal, on our armed
services, and that would offer their best military advice on the right course of action.
Page 2 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03453
LCR Appendix Page 1792

We have an all-volunteer force. It is better trained, more effective and more professional
than any military in our history. And today, that force is shouldering a greater global
burden than at any time in decades.

We owe our lives to our fighting men and women. And we should be exceedingly
cautious, humble and sympathetic when attempting to regulate their affairs. Dont ask,
dont tell has been an imperfect but effective policy. And at this moment when were
asking more of our military than at any time in recent memory, we should not repeal this
law.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. McCain.

Secretary Gates.

SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, last week during the State of the Union Address, the
president announced he will work with Congress this year to repeal the law known as
dont ask, dont tell. He subsequently directed the Department of Defense to begin the
preparations necessary for a repeal of the current law and policy. I fully support the
presidents decision.

The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change but
how we must how we best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the
commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly. However we can also take this
process only so far, as the ultimate decision rests with you, the Congress.

I am mindful of the fact, as are you, that unlike the last time this issue was
considered by the Congress more than 15 years ago, our military is engaged in two
wars that have put troops and their families under considerable stress and strain. I am
mindful, as well, that attitudes toward homosexuality may have changed considerably,
both in society generally and in the military, over the intervening years.

To ensure that the department is prepared should the law be changed, and working in
close consultation with Adm. Mullen, I have appointed a high-level working group within
the department that will immediately begin a review of the issues associated with
properly implementing a repeal of the dont ask, dont tell policy. The mandate of this
working group is to thoroughly, objectively and methodically examine all aspects of this
question, and produce its finding and recommendations in the form of an
implementation plan by the end of this calendar year.

A guiding principle of our efforts will be to minimize disruption and polarization within
the ranks, with special attention paid a special attention paid to those serving on the
front lines. I am confident this can be achieved.

The working group will examine a number of lines of study, all of which will proceed
simultaneously. First, the working group will reach out to the force to authoritatively
understand their views and attitudes about the impact of repeal. I expect that the same
sharp divisions that characterize the debate over these issues outside of the military will
quickly seek to find their way into this process, particularly as it pertains to what are the
true views and attitudes of our troops and their families. I am determined to carry out
this process in a way that establishes objective and reliable information on this
question, with minimal influence by the policy or political debate. It is essential that we
accomplish this in order to have the best possible analysis and information to guide the
policy choices before the department and the Congress.

Second, the working group will undertake a thorough examination of all the changes to
the departments regulations and policies that may have to be made. These include
potential revisions to policies on benefits, base housing, fraternization and misconduct,
separations and discharges, and many others.

We will enter this examination with no preconceived views, but a recognition that this
will represent a fundamental change in personnel policy, one that will require that we
provide our commanders with the guidance and tools necessary to accomplish this
transition successfully and with minimum disruption to the departments critical
missions.

Third, the working group will examine the potential impacts of a change in the law on
military effectiveness, including how a change might affect unit cohesion, recruiting and
retention, and other issues crucial to the performance of the force. The working group
will develop ways to mitigate and manage any negative impacts.

These are, generally speaking, the broad areas we have identified for study under this
review. We will, of course, continue to refine and expand these as we get into this
Page 3 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03454
LCR Appendix Page 1793
process or engage in discussion with the Congress and other sources. In this regard,
we expect that the working group will reach out to outside experts with a wide variety of
perspectives and experience. To that end, the department will, as requested by the
committee, ask the RAND Corporation to update their study from 1993 on the impact of
allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

We also have received some helpful suggestions on how this outside review might be
expanded to cover a wide swath of issues. This will be a process that will be open to
views and recommendations from a wide variety of sources, including, of course,
members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I expect that our approach may cause some to wonder why it will take
the better part of the year to accomplish the task. Weve looked at a variety of options,
but when you take into account the overriding imperative to get this right and minimize
disruption to a force that is actively fighting two wars and working through the stress of
almost a decade of combat, then it is clear to us we must proceed in a manner that
allows for the thorough examination of all issues.

An important part of this process is to engage our men and women in uniform and their
families over this period since, after all, they will ultimately determine whether or not we
make this transition successfully.

To ensure that this process is able to accomplish its important mission, Chairman
Mullen and I have determined that we need to appoint the highest-level officials to
carry it out. Accordingly, I am naming the Department of Defense general counsel, Jay
Johnson, and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, to serve as the co-
chairs for this effort.

Simultaneous with launching this process, I have also directed the department to
quickly review the regulations used to implement the current dont ask, dont tell law,
and within 45 days present to me recommended changes to those regulations that
within existing law will enforce this policy in a fairer manner.

You may recall that I asked the departments general counsel to conduct a preliminary
review of this matter last year. Based on that preliminary review, we believe that we
have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a
manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform. We will now
conduct a final, detailed assessment of this proposal before proceeding.

Mr. Chairman, Sen. McCain, members of the committee, the Department of Defense
understands that this is a very difficult, and in the minds of some controversial policy
question. I am determined that we in the department carry out this process
professionally, thoroughly, dispassionately, and in a manner that is responsive to the
direction of the president and to the needs of the Congress as you debate and consider
this matter.

However, on behalf of the men and women in uniform and their families, I also ask you
to work with us to, insofar as possible, keep them out of the political dimension of this
issue. I am not asking for you not to do your jobs fully and with vigor, but rather, as this
debate unfolds, you keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind.

Thank you for this opportunity to lay out our thinking on this important policy
question. We look forward to working with the Congress and hearing your ideas on the
best way ahead.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.

Adm. Mullen.

ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sen. McCain. And thank you for giving me
the opportunity to discuss with you this very important matter.

The chiefs and I are in complete support of the approach that Secretary Gates has
outlined. We believe that any implementation plan for a policy permitting gays and
lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces must be carefully derived, sufficiently
through sufficiently thorough, and thoughtfully executed.

Over these last few months, we have reviewed the fundamental premises behind dont
ask, dont tell, as well as its application in practice over the last 16 years. We
understand perfectly the presidents desire to see the law repealed, and we owe him
our best military advice about the impact of such a repeal and the manner in which we
would implement a change in policy.

The chiefs and I have not yet developed that advice, and would l ke to have the time
to do so in the same thoughtful, deliberate fashion with which the president has made it
Page 4 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03455
LCR Appendix Page 1794
clear he wants to proceed. The review the review group Secretary Gates has ordered
will no doubt give us that time and an even deeper level of understanding. We look
forward to cooperating with and participating in this review to the maximum extent
poss ble, and we applaud the selection of Mr. Johnson and Gen. Ham to lead it. Both
are men of great integrity, great experience, and have our complete trust and
confidence.

Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing
gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look
at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy
which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their
fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity theirs as individuals and
ours as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military
can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to
adapt.

But I do not know this for a fact, nor do I know for a fact how we would best make such
a major policy change in a time of two wars. That there will be some disruption in the
force I cannot deny. That there will be legal, social, and perhaps even infrastructure
changes to be made certainly seem plausible. We would all like to have a better handle
on these types of concerns, and this is what our review will offer.

We would also do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to
decide. The American people have spoken on this subject through you, their elected
officials, and the result is the law and the policy that we currently have.

We will continue to obey that law, and we will obey whatever legislative and executive
decisions come out of this debate. The American people may yet have a different
view. You may have a different view. I think thats important, and its important to have
that discussion.

Frankly, there are those on both sides of this debate who speak as if there is no debate;
as if theres nothing to be learned or reflected upon. I hope we can be more thoughtful
than that. I expect that we will be more thoughtful than that.

The chiefs and I also recognize the stress our troops and families are under, and I have
said many times before, should the law change, we need to move forward in a manner
that does not add to that stress. Weve got two wars going on, a new strategy in
Afghanistan, and remaining security challenges in Iraq. Were about to move forward
under a new Quadrennial Defense Review. We still have budget concerns in a
struggling economy. And we have a host of other significant security commitments
around the globe. Our plate is very full. And while I believe this is an important issue, I
also believe we need to be mindful as we move forward of other pressing needs in our
military.

What our young men and women and their families want what they deserve is that
we listen to them and act in their best interests. What the citizens we defend want to
know what they deserve to know is that their uniformed leadership will act in a way
that absolutely does not place in peril the readiness and effectiveness of their military.

I can tell you that I am 100 percent committed to that. Balance, Mr. Chairman balance
and thoughtfulness is what we need most right now. Its what the president has
promised us, and its what we ask of you in this body.

Thank you.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Admiral.

So that everyone has a chance within a reasonable period of time, were just going to
have a three-minute first round.

SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Chairman, we need more than three minutes. We need more than
three minutes.

SEN. LEVIN: Well have a try to have a second round, then. We have to also have a
schedule here. So well go to a second round if we can fit that into Secretary Gates
schedule. If not, we will pick this up at a later time.

The secretary well, now, this schedule was shared with everybody here now, and so

SEN. MCCAIN (?): Not with me.

SEN. LEVIN: It was indeed shared.

SEN. MCCAIN: Youre the chairman.
Page 5 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03456
LCR Appendix Page 1795

SEN. LEVIN: Mr. Secretary, The Washington Post I think this morning reported that the
military services will not pursue any longer disciplinary action against gays and lesbian
servicemembers whose orientation is revealed by third parties. Is that one of the is
that one of the degrees of latitude within existing law that youre looking at?

SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, a preliminary assessment is that and this fits within this
45-day review that I mentioned in my prepared statement the preliminary assessment
is that we can do the following within the confines of the existing law. We can raise the
level of the officer who is authorized to initiate an inquiry. We can raise the level of the
officer who conducts the inquiry. We can raise the bar on what constitutes credible
information to initiate an inquiry. We can raise the bar on what constitutes a reliable
person on whose word an inquiry can be initiated.

Overall, we can reduce the instances in which a servicemember who is trying to serve
the country honorably is outed by a third person with a motive to harm the
servicemember. And we also have to devise new rules and procedures in light of the
appeals court decision in Witt versus the Department of the Air Force for the areas of
the country covered by the appellate court.

So I would say all of these matters are those that will be reviewed within this 45-day
period. So its a little more complicated than The Washington Post conveyed.

SEN. LEVIN: All right. But all of those are possibilities?

SEC. GATES: Yes, sir.

SEN. LEVIN: Now, would you, assuming it even if it requires a legislation, would
you support a moratorium on discharges under dont ask, dont tell during the course of
this up to year-long assessment that the department is going to be making?

SEC. GATES: I would have to look into that because the problem the problem that we
have is that all of the issues that both Adm. Mullen and I described in terms of what we
have to look into in terms of the effect on the force, in terms of everything else, is what
we need to examine before I could answer that question.

SEN. LEVIN: All right. Well, youre going to be examining the other points that youre
looking at, the other flexibilities.

SEC. GATES: Yes.

SEN. LEVIN: Would you add this to the questions youre going to look at and let us
know promptly

SEC. GATES: Sure.

SEN. LEVIN: as to whether you would support the a moratorium pending this period
on discharges. That doesnt mean you couldnt discharge at the end of the period, but
there would be a moratorium.

SEC. GATES: We will look at it, Mr. Chairman. I would tell you that the advice that I
have been given is that the current law would not permit that, but

SEN. LEVIN: Im saying would you support a change in the current law, if necessary, in
order to permit that? Thats what we need to hear from you on.

Sen. McCain.

SEN. MCCAIN: Im deeply disappointed in your statement, Secretary Gates. I was
around here in 1993 and was engaged in the debate. And what we did in 1993 is we
looked at the issue and we looked at the effect on the military, and then we reached a
conclusion, and then we enacted it into law.

Your statement is, the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make
this change, but how we best prepare for it. It would be far more appropriate, I say with
great respect, to determine whether repeal of this law is appropriate, and what effects it
would have on the readiness and effectiveness of the military, before deciding on
whether we should repeal the law or not. And fortunately, it is an act of Congress, and it
requires the agreement of Congress in order to repeal it. And so your statement
obviously is one which is clearly biased, without the view of Congress being taken into
consideration.

Adm. Mullen, youre the principal military adviser to the president. Do you and you
have to consult with and seek the advice of the other members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the combatant commanders. What, in your view, are the opinions of the other
Page 6 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03457
LCR Appendix Page 1796
members of the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders about changing this policy?

ADM. MULLEN: Sen. McCain, as the chairman indicated earlier, they will obviously be
out in their posture hearings in the near future, and I would certainly defer to them in
terms of exactly how theyre going to

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, in the near future in the near future Id like you to ask them and
we could have it on the record what their position is.

ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: In the near future.

ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: I would like it as soon as possible.

ADM. MULLEN: Ive actually, Ive worked very closely with them over the last months
in terms of understanding what their what their concerns and what our overall
concerns are, and I would summarize them by saying its really important for us to us
for us to understand that if this policy changes, if the law changes, whats the impact,
and how we would implement it.

And Secretary Gates point about the study is to really understand objectively the
impact on our on our troops and on their forces, and that is their biggest concern.

SEC. GATES: And I would say, Sen. McCain, I absolutely agree that the how the
Congress acts on this is dispositive.

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I hope you will pay attention to the views of over a thousand
retired flag and general officers.

What kind Mr. Secretary, what kinds of partnerships or unions would the military be
prepared to recognize by law in the event that this dont ask, dont tell is repealed?

SEC. GATES: Thats one of the many issues that I think we have to look at, Senator.

SEN. MCCAIN: So again, you are embarking on saying its not whether the military
prepares to make the change, but how we best prepare for it, without ever hearing from
members of Congress, without hearing from the members of the Joint Chiefs, and of
course without taking into considerations consideration all the ramifications of this
law. Well, Im happy to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would
have to would have to pass a law to repeal dont ask, dont tell despite your efforts to
repeal it in many respects by fiat.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. McCain.

Sen. Udall.

SEN. UDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this very important
hearing.

I want to acknowledge, Secretary Gates, the work youve done to put a plan in
place. And Adm. Mullen, I think the centerpiece of your statement will be long
remembered for the courage and the integrity with which you outlined your own
personal beliefs and how we can proceed.

Im proud to hail from a region of the country the Rocky Mountain West where we
have a live-and-let-live attitude. Some people would call it small-L
l bertarianism. Peoples personal lives, the choices that people make, are not the
governments business.

And I cant help but think about the great Arizonan. I grew up in Arizona. My father was
an Arizonan, my mother was a Coloradan. I have the great honor to represent Colorado
now. But Barry Goldwater once said, you dont have to be straight to shoot
straight. And thats the opportunity that we have here today as the Congress and the
Pentagon moves forward.

Ive got a few concerns Id like to share in the couple of minutes that I have, and Ill
pepper my comments with questions, and hopefully there will be time for you all to
respond.

There have been a lot of studies done, Mr. Secretary RAND, and theres a recent
Page 7 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03458
LCR Appendix Page 1797
study in the Joint Force Quarterly. Its not clear to me that the study group needs a full
year to study implementation and transition. I want to just put that out there.

I want to ensure that the focus of the group is on how to implement repeal of the policy,
not whether. And I want to ask you to assure me that the endpoint of the study would be
a road map to implementing repeal, and that the Congress would then be in a position
to take legislative action that the Pentagon as a whole could support.

And then, before you answer, Id l ke your reaction to a legislative proposal that you
may have seen. It would be to write and to repeal legislation for the period of time you
suggest you need say, one year while legislating that at the end of that time we
would have finality in other words, a complete end to dont ask, dont tell. During the
year-long transition, the DOD would have full authority and discretion with respect to
dont ask, dont tell investigations and discharges. Language like this would certainly
make me much more comfortable, since I want, and so many others, a clear path to full
repeal, and Im not sure I see finality in the study.

Again, thank you, gentlemen, and hopefully theres a little bit of time left for you to
answer.

SEC. GATES: Well, I think the purpose of the examination that were undertaking,
frankly, is to inform the decision-making of the Congress and the nature of whatever
legislation takes place. Its also, frankly, to be prepared to begin to implement any
change in the law. We obviously recognize that this is up to Congress, and my view is,
frankly, that its critical that this matter be settled by a vote of the Congress.

The study is intended to prepare us along those lines, so that we understand all of
the implications involved. Frankly, there have been a lot of studies done, but there has
not been a study done by the military of this, and this is the kind of thing that Adm.
Mullen was talking about.

And I would just say, with respect to your second point, that I think we would regard, if
legislation is passed repealing dont ask, dont tell, we would feel it very important that
we be given some period of time for that implementation, at least a year.

ADM. MULLEN: Senator if I may, just the only thing I would comment about, all the
studies and all the polls, I would just urge that everybody thats going to be involved in
this look at those studies and polls deliberately and what they actually looked at
specifically. And so just reemphasize what the secretary said: there really hasnt been
any significant statistically significant and objective survey of our people and their
families. And that gets to the Chiefs concern and mine as well, which really is engaging
them in a way that we really understand their views on this, and that just hasnt been
done. And as urgently as some would like this to happen, its just going to take some
time to do that.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. Udall.

Sen. Sessions.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know this is an
important issue. We need to think it through, and every American is entitled to fairness
and justice as we deliberate these issues, and I do think we should do it at a high level.

I would note, however, a bit of a concern that arises from something Sen. McCain
suggested, and that is that the president, as the commander in chief, has announced a
decision, and the secretary of Defense apparently supports that decision. Adm. Mullen
now has declared that he personally believes in this decision. And so then presumably
someone below you will do some work on the policy, whether this is a good policy or
not. So I guess its if it was a trial, we would perhaps raise the undue command
influence defense.

And I think we need an open and objective and a fair evaluation of this. A lot of things
that have been said I would note that are not accurate, at least in my view, at least
misrepresent certain things. One of them is 10,000 people have been dismissed from
the military or voluntarily left from the military under these under this provision, but
thats over 10 years. It would be 1 percent, maybe, if it was one year, less than that
maybe (audio break) so there will be costs.

I noticed and I give the military credit. A lot of people dont know this, Adm. Mullen,
how open the debate and discussion are. Theres an article in the Joint Forces
Quarterly that basically supports this change. It was an award-winning article, and they
raised a lot of different issues, both for and against, and the military welcomed that. And
I salute that. I think thats healthy.

But the one of the points it made is that Charles Moskos, one of the original authors of
Page 8 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03459
LCR Appendix Page 1798
the dont ask, dont tell policy, points out that the number of discharges for voluntary
statements by servicemembers presumably they come forward and say that they are
homosexual accounts for 80 percent of the total. And the number of discharges for
homosexual acts have declined over the years. Do you think thats approximately
correct?

ADM. MULLEN: Sen. Sessions, I think it is approximately correct. But it does go to,
again sort of a fundamental principle with me, which is everybody counts. And part of
the struggle back to the institutional integrity aspect of this, and

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I know. I appreciate your view.

ADM. MULLEN: and putting individuals in a position that every single day they
wonder whether todays going to be the day, and devaluing them in that regard just is
inconsistent with us as an institution.

I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Sen. McCain spoke to that in his
statement. Everybody in the military has, and we understand that. So it is a number of
things which cumulatively for me, personally, get me to this position.

But I also want to reemphasize what I said, is I am not all-knowing in terms of the
impact of what the change would have, and thats what I want to understand. And its
and any impact, and understanding readiness and effectiveness, is absolutely critical.

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, its pretty clear what your view is. And that will be that will be
clear on all your subordinates. Every single servicemember in uniform would be
qualify for that. And I dont think it that they are required to lie about who they are; I
think thats an overstatement, although I think the rule of dont ask, dont tell has
seemed to work pretty well. And I would note from the Christian Science Monitor here
that the chiefs of the services met with the chairman, Mke Mullen Im quoting from
the article and the consensus seemed to be that the military, fighting two wars and
now responding to a new mission in Haiti, now is not the time to make such a big
change to military policy.

And thats my understanding of the status of things. And I just hope that, as we discuss
it, youll recognize, first, that Congress has made the decision its not yours to make,
and well have to change it if we do change it; and second, you shouldnt use your
power to in any way influence a discussion or evaluation of the issue.

SEC. GATES: Senator I would just say that we cant possibly evaluate the impact on
unit cohesion, on morale, on retention, on recruitment and so on unless we encourage
people to tell us exactly what they think and exactly what their views are, honestly and
as forthrightly as possible. Otherwise, theres no use in doing this at all.

And again, I just cant emphasize enough we understand from the beginning of this that
this must be an act of Congress.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you

ADM. MULLEN: Sen. Sessions, for me, this is about this is not about command
influence, this is about leadership. And I take that very seriously.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.

Sen. Hagan.

SEN. HAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Gates, I want to say that I applaud your efforts in commissioning a thorough
evaluation of the dont ask, dont tell policy, and how to implement a repeal of the policy
in order to minimize disruption in military readiness. And I was just wondering, within
this study, how will you study how will this study take into account the views of the
combatant commanders in theater in order to minimize any disruption in the military
readiness?

SEC. GATES: The combatant commanders, the service chiefs will all have a part in
this.

The one thing that I have asked is that, as we go through this process, we try to try
not to disrupt or impact the deployed forces, and particularly those in Afghanistan and
Iraq.

They have enough on their minds, and it seems to me we can get the answers that we
need to the questions that need to be asked by not adding to their burden. And so the
one limitation Ive put on this, which obviously does not apply to the combatant
Page 9 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03460
LCR Appendix Page 1799
commanders, is that we and have as little impact on the deployed force as possible.

SEN. HAGAN: And, Mr. Secretary and Adm. Mullen, as we move to end discriminatory
practices within our armed forces, is there any reason to believe that the dedication and
professionalism of our leaders in uniform is based in any way upon their sexual
orientation, and that the morale fitness of our men and women in uniform should be
based upon their sexual orientation? And if not, then on what grounds do you believe
that there remains a need to discriminate based on a servicemembers sexual
orientation?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I Sen. Hagan, I personally dont think sexual orientation, again,
has a place for these kinds of decisions. Actually, I think theres a gap between that
which we value as a military, specifically the value of integrity, and what our policy is.
But again, thats personally where I am.

I think its really in the review that would take place over the course of the next by the
end of this year that I would look to certainly understand it much more fully and
understand the impact, and if you know, if and when the policy changes, the impact
on our people.

And thats really rather than at the end of this, were to some degree at the beginning
of really trying to understand that. And thats in light of many other opinions on this,
including the opinions of those who have retired, all those things, but it really is what I
need to understand is to get it from our people and their families. And incorporating
that, in addition to all the other requirements that are here, will be the goal of the review
over the next better part of this year.

SEN. HAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. Hagan.

Sen. Wicker.

SEN. WICKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too am disappointed with this decision by the administration, but Ill say this for our two
witnesses. They understand the chain of command. I think we understand that elections
have consequences, and these two gentlemen see their charge as moving forward with
the directives of their commander.

I think Secretary Gates said it explicitly in his statement: quote, We have received our
orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly. Unquote. So
well have a debate about this, and we will appreciate the information that the
department gathers for us.

Sen. McCain referenced in his statement more than a thousand retired flag and general
officers actually, I think its upwards of 1,160 retired flag and general officers from all
the armed services who have come out against a change in this policy. For my
colleagues, their statement urging continued support for the 1993 law is contained at
www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com.

I would commend to the members of this committee an op-ed written by Carl E. Mundy,
Jr., a retired four-star general and former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, who
points out who mentions the strong support for the current policy by this
overwhelming number of retired flag and general officers, and points out that certain
findings were made by Congress in support of the 1993 law to ensure clarity concerning
the rationale behind the current statute.

Key findings included that the primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare and to
prevail in combat not to promote civil rights or social justice or compassion or
individual fairness, but to prepare for and prevail in combat.

Further findings include that success in combat requires military units that are
characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion; and further,
that one of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion that is, the
bonds of trust among individual servicemembers.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that this op-ed, dated January 12th, 2010, by Gen. Mundy,
be included in the record at this point.

SEN. LEVIN: It will be made part of the record.

SEN. WICKER: So I appreciate the situation that our two witnesses find themselves in,
and I look forward to the debate, and hope that the policy remains. Thank you.

Page 10 of 16 JCS Speech: Testimony Regarding DoD 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1322
LCR 03461
LCR Appendix Page 1800
Appendix of Evidence in
Support of Log Cabin Republicans
Opposition to Defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment


LCR Appendix Pages 1801-2500
(Part 18 of 19)
Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 157-3 Filed 04/05/10 595 Pages
Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 157-2 Filed 04/05/10 701 Pages
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. Wicker.
Sen. Webb.
SEN. WEBB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, just let me see if we can review the facts here. This is obviously quite an
emotional issue, but its also a legislative issue. My understanding from hearing both of
your statements is, this year period that youre going to take in order to examine the
issues will be followed then by clearer observations about the implications of changing
the law. Would that be a correct way to state it? So youre not coming in here today and
saying, were going to change the law and this is the year that were going to put into
figuring out how to implement the change.
SEC. GATES: Our hope would be that the information we would develop during the
course of this review would help inform the legislative process.
SEN. WEBB: Right. I salute both of you for very careful statements. And Adm. Mullen, I
salute you for the courage of what you said. But I want to also emphasize that you
balanced that, in your statement, saying you dont know whats going to come out of
this. We dont know.
So you know, what were looking for here is an examination of the present law. What is
the most damaging aspect of the present policy? And I think, Adm. Mullen, you made a
very powerful statement in terms of the integrity of the individual as your deciding
factor on your personal view. And what is on the other hand, what is the great value of
this law, if we were to do away with it and move into something else?
And then, again, what are the perils of undoing the law? Where are we going? Do we
would we know we were going in the proper direction? We dont we cant really say
that today.
I think that, when you say that this is something that will ultimately decided be decided
by the Congress, Id also like to emphasize my own agreement with what you have
been saying about how important it is to hear from people who were serving. Because
whether the ultimate decision might be here with the Congress, that decision cant be
made in a proper way without a full and open input from all of those who are
serving. Not just combatant commanders family members, people who are in the
operating units.
And the way that I am hearing this, which I would agree with, is that we have a duty
here in a very proper way to understand the impact of this on operating units, to raise
the level of understanding of the complexity of this issue among the American people
and up here as well as attempting to do fairly with this issue.
So again, I salute you both for a very respons ble and careful approach to how we
examine this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Sen. Webb.
Sen. Chambliss.
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And just as was stated by my friend, Sen. Udall, I think live and let live is not a bad
policy to adhere to and thats what we have in place in the military with dont ask, dont
tell right now.
To you, Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen, youre in a tough spot and we understand
that. This is an extremely sensitive issue and everybody on this committee, Im
satisfied, is very sensitive to the issue both inside and outside the military.
In the military, it presents entirely different problems than it does in civilian life, because
there is no constitutional right to serve in our armed forces. And today we know weve
got gay and lesbian soldiers serving. Theyve served in the past; theyre going to serve
in the future; and theyre going to serve in a very valiant way.
But the primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat
should the need arise. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that
military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs and traditions
including restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian
society. Examples include alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art. If we
change this rule of dont ask, dont tell, what are we going to do with these other
Page11 oI16 JCSSpeech:TestimonyRegardingDoD'DontAsk,DontTell'Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.ics.mil/speech.aspx?id1322
LCR 03462
LCR Appendix Page 1801
issues?
The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose
presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces
high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion. In my opinion,
the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to
engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high
standards of morale, good order and discipline, and effective unit cohesion and
effectiveness. Im opposed to this change and I look forward to a very spirited debate
on this issue, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. Chambliss.
I believe Sen. Burris is next.
SEN. ROLAND BURRIS (D-IL): Thank you, Mr.
SEN. LEVIN: Sen. Burris.
SEN. BURRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Id like to extend my deep admiration for our two distinguished leaders in their
position. And not only are you following the direction of the commander in chief, but
Adm. Mullen, you expressed your personal view, which is to be commended.
What we need is a policy that allows any individual who has the integrity and the
commitment to serve this country, to serve this country. We can go back to President
Truman who took the audacity to integrate the services. At one time, my uncles and
members of my race couldnt even serve in the military. And we moved to this point
where theyre some of the best and brightest that weve had generals and even now
the commander in chief is of African-American heritage.
So what were doing here now is not looking at the integrity and the commitment that
individuals can make not based on their sexual orientation, but the defense of this
country. I say the policy needs to be changed; the policy must be changed. And we
must have everyone who is capable, willing and able to volunteer to defend this
country, defend this great American tradition of ours to have the opportunity to serve
regardless to their sexual orientation.
And so based on that, we must continue to have the American spirit and have
individuals who are willing to serve.
I dont have a question, Mr. Chairman. I just have the statement. I hope that well look at
legislation. By the way, the House has drawn up a bill. There are 185 members on this
House bill, which is House Bill 1283. And Im hoping and praying that we will get moving
on this issue, get it beside us and not be wasting the taxpayers time and all of the
energy on something that is so basic in human rights and opportunities for individuals in
this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Sen. Burris.
Sen. Collins.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, unlike my
colleagues, I do have some questions, rather than just a statement, to ask.
Adm. Mullen, we know that many of our NATO allies allow gays and lesbians to serve
openly and many of these countries have deployed troops who are serving with us in
Afghanistan.
Are you aware of any impact on combat effectiveness by the decision of our NATO
allies to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly?
ADM. MULLEN: Sen. Collins, Ive talked to several of my counterparts in countries
whose militaries allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. And there has been, as they
have told me, no impact on military effectiveness.
SEN. COLLINS: Weve heard today the concerns that if dont ask, dont tell is repealed,
that it would affect unit cohesiveness or morale. Are you aware of any studies, any
evidence that suggests that repealing dont ask, dont tell would undermine unit
cohesion?
ADM. MULLEN: Im not. In fact, the 1993 RAND study focused heavily on unit cohesion
Page12 oI16 JCSSpeech:TestimonyRegardingDoD'DontAsk,DontTell'Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.ics.mil/speech.aspx?id1322
LCR 03463
LCR Appendix Page 1802
and that became the principal point put forward by the military leadership at the time
and I understand that.
I understand what it is; I understand what goes into it. And there are theres been no
thorough or comprehensive work done with respect to that aspect since 1993.
And thats part of what needs to be addressed as we move forward over the part of the
over this year.
SEC. GATES: I think I would just underscore that. I mean, part of part of what we
need to do is address a number of assertions that have been made for which we have
no basis in fact.
SEN. COLLINS: Exactly.
SEC. GATES: We need the the purpose of the review that we are undertaking is to
find out what the force what the men and women in our armed forces, and, as Sen.
Webb said, and their families really think about this. And the fact is, at this point, we
dont really know.
SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Sen. Collins.
Sen. Lieberman is next; and then, assuming nobody else comes in, Sen. McCaskill
would be next; and then Sen. Reed.
Sen. Lieberman.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I opposed the dont ask, dont tell policy when it was created by this committee in 1993
and I remain opposed to it today, therefore, I support repealing it as soon as
possible. My feeling, stated simply then, was that what mattered most was not how a
member of the military lived his or her private sexual life, but that they were prepared to
risk their lives in defense our country.
And my judgment was that, in a combat situation, a member of the military in a tank or
an MRAP, today is going to care a lot more about the capability and courage of the
soldier next to him than they are about the sexual orientation of that soldier, just as over
the years, as Sen. Burris referred to, they came to care a lot less about the race of the
soldier next to them than about his or her courage or capability.
What I hear and, therefore, Im grateful that the president has said he supports the
repeal of dont ask, dont tell. I thank you, Secretary and Chairman, for saying that the
question now is not whether, but how, and I think, for us, really when we will repeal
dont ask, dont tell.
Am I right that what youre telling us today is that what (youre ?) going to do as soon
as possible, at least within 45, after 45 days is to determine how you can reduce the
impact of the dont ask, dont tell policy within the current state of the law? Is that
correct?
SEC. GATES: Yes, sir. And the numbers the numbers actually have gone down fairly
substantially. They were about 600-and-some in 2008; 428 in 2009. And we dont know
I mean, we cant quantify what the possible changes that Ive talked about here, what
impact they would have on that. But at least it would if we were able to do something
l ke that, would make these folks less vulnerable to somebody seeking revenge, or
whatever their motives, in terms of trying to wreck somebodys career.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Am I correct just to ask the question and get it on the record, that
your judgment, as advised by counsel, is that it requires an act of Congress repealing
dont ask, dont tell for the actual policy itself to be ended in the military? You cant do it
by Executive action?
SEC. GATES: Yes, sir. That is correct.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I wanted to ask you if Im sure one of the reactions to what youve
announced today will be that this is a delay, I wanted to ask you to consider not only the
45-day limit, but whether you would think about providing regular reports to Congress,
and, therefore, the public, on the program of the study that youre doing, during this next
year?
Page13 oI16 JCSSpeech:TestimonyRegardingDoD'DontAsk,DontTell'Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.ics.mil/speech.aspx?id1322
LCR 03464
LCR Appendix Page 1803
SEC. GATES: I dont see any reason why we cant do that.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I appreciate that.
And, look, then the final, obviously, is that its up to us in the Congress and in the
Senate. Weve got to weve got to get 60 votes to repeal dont ask, dont tell, or else it
will remain in effect. Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Unless theres a provision inside the Defense authorization bill; that goes
to the floor, which would then require an amendment to strike it from the bill; in which
case the 60-vote rule would be turning the other way. In fact
SEN. LIEBERMAN: It is (inaud ble) knowledge, but it is with great appreciation that I
accept the higher wisdom (laughter) of the chairman of our committee.
SEN. LEVIN: (Laughs, laughter.)
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I think thats a great way to go.
SEN. LEVIN: Thats on the record, everybody. (Laughter.)
SEN. LIEBERMAN: (Laughs.) Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Joe.
Sen. McCaskill is next.
SEN. MCCASKILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make sure that were crystal clear about a couple of things here. First, are
gay and lesbian Americans currently serving in our military?
ADM. MULLEN: Yes.
SEN. MCCASKILL: And, in fact, isnt (it) the foundation of the current policy that we
welcome their service?
ADM. MULLEN: Yes.
SEN. MCCASKILL: Are you aware of any morale issues or disciplinary problems
surrounding the current service of gay and lesbian members Americans, as members
of our military?
ADM. MULLEN: Certainly not broadly.
SEN. MCCASKILL: Now, heres my I think what youre embarking upon is important; I
think it is welcomed, but heres my problem. We now have established that we have
gay and lesbian Americans serving in the military; that they are not broadly causing any
kind of disciplinary or morale problems; that we welcome their service.
So the issue isnt whether or not gay and lesbian Americans are serving in the military,
its whether or not we ta k about it. So how are you going to get their input in this
survey? (Applause.)
ADM. MULLEN: Oh, Id, actually I mean, my take on that is well, hang on a
second. (Laughs.) I think that we would have to look very carefully at how we would do
that, specifically.
SEN. MCCASKILL: And thats the point I would like
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah (inaudible).
SEN. MCCASKILL: to leave you with today, is that, unfortunately, because of this
policy we welcome their service
ADM. MULLEN: Sure.
SEN. MCCASKILL: theyre serving bravely and well, we dont have any kind of issues
with morale, and cohesiveness surrounding their service, but yet when it comes time to
evaluate their service, theyre not allowed to talk about it. And so you have a real
challenge in getting perhaps maybe some of the most important input you may need as
you consider this policy. And Ill be anxiously awaiting how you figure that one out.
ADM. MULLEN: Yes, maam.
Page14 oI16 JCSSpeech:TestimonyRegardingDoD'DontAsk,DontTell'Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.ics.mil/speech.aspx?id1322
LCR 03465
LCR Appendix Page 1804
SEN. MCCASKILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen.
SEC. GATES: Well, one approach, Senator is to talk to those who have been
separated.
SEN. MCCASKILL: And I think thats terrific. I think the ones who have been separated
would be a great place that you can get good information. But I dont know that youre
going to be able to get at those that are currently serving because, obviously, theyre
not going to be able to step forward and talk about it. But I agree, Secretary Gates,
thats a great place, because so many of them voluntarily separated because of issues
of integrity. Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Sen. McCaskill.
Sen. Reed.
SEN. REED: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on a point that Sen. Collins made. Its my
understanding that both Canada and the United Kingdom have allowed gays and
lesbians to serve openly in the case of Canada, since the early 90s, and Great Britain
since at least the early 2000.
They are fighting side-by-side with us today in Afghanistan. And, in fact, I would think
that we would like to see more of their regiments and brigades there. Does that, I think,
suggest, as Adm. Mullen mentioned before, that their combat effectiveness has not
been impaired and weve had the opportunity to work with them, you know, in joint
operations; does that add credibility, evidence or weight to the discussions that youre
undertaking?
SEC. GATES: Well, I think that it is clearly something we need to address. We need to
talk to those countries militaries in a more informal and in-depth way about their
experience. I think that their experience is a factor. But I also would say that each
country has its own culture and its own society, and has to be evaluated in those terms
as well.
SEN. REED: I think one of the aspects you refer to in your prepared remarks is the, at
least presumptive difference, in terms of the attitudes at differing ranks within the
military. Is that something you can comment upon now? Have you done any research?
Or Adm. Mullen think on that, about the attitudes based on age, or based on other
factors?
SEC. GATES: I think that really goes to the point of what of what we, what we need to
do in the months ahead. I think Adm. Mullen would agree that we dont know; we dont
have information based on rank or anything like that.
ADM. MULLEN: Anecdotally, I mean, it would be my only comment, there really hasnt
been any objective review of this and so I think it would too soon to comment, because
actually, anecdotally, there are young people, NCOs, senior officers on both sides of
this issue. And it gets to this strongly held views driving this as opposed to really
understanding objectively what this policy change would mean.
SEN. REED: Let me ask a final question, which I think is implicit in your overall
testimony. And that is, and this is rather simplistic, but there will be a decision and then
there will be the implementation of that decision. I would assume that, at least in part,
those have to be coordinated or referenced so that part of this discussion analysis
going forward is not only a decision but its also about how this policy would be
implemented in a very detailed fashion. And that would be something that would be
available to the Congress before they made the decision, or whats, can you comment
at all about that aspect?
SEC. GATES: Let me just start by saying sure. And because one of the things that we
will look at is, if there is a problem with unit cohesion, how would you mitigate it? How,
through training or regulations or other measures, do you, if the Congress were to
repeal the law, then how would we implement it, just as you say?
And part of our review process is, as we look at the different aspects of it, what are the
problem areas that were going to see, and how do we address those? And as I said in
my statement, its everything from base housing to various policies and regulations and
so on. All of those have to be addressed.
ADM. MULLEN: For me, Senator its the understanding the impact. It is then, in that
Page15 oI16 JCSSpeech:TestimonyRegardingDoD'DontAsk,DontTell'Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.ics.mil/speech.aspx?id1322
LCR 03466
LCR Appendix Page 1805
understanding that speaks in great part to potential implementation, and that, then,
really goes to the core of where I am on this, which is leadership. So I mean,
understanding that, and they are integral to each other, impact and implementation,
then says to me, Mullen, heres how you lead this. This is what you need to do to move
through it, if the law changes.
SEN. REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Just briefly following up Sen. Reeds and Sen. Collins point about other militaries, and
Sen. Reeds point that our military is fighting side by side and with militaries who do
not have a discriminatory policy against open service by gays. Have you noticed any
impact on our troops who serve with Canadians or with Brits because of a British or
Canadian policy that allows gays to openly serve? Admiral?
ADM. MULLEN: Since these wars started in 2003, it has not been brought to my
attention that theres been any significant impact of the policies in those countries on
either their military effectiveness or our ability to work with them.
SEN. LEVIN: All right. I have to make one comment on a suggestion that somehow or
other, Admiral, you are simply following orders here of your commander in chief whos
made a decision, in your testimony this morning. I think your testimony was not only
eloquent, but it was personal, you made it very clear that you were reflecting your
personal view, which you are obligated, under the oath you take, to give to us. We
thank you for that.
And I thank you, not just because it happens that I agree with what you said, but more
importantly because you were required to give us a personal view, and it was clear to
me, and I think clear to most of us, that this was a view that you hold in your conscience
and not giving to us because you were directed to by anybody, including the
commander in chief. This statement of yours, in my judgment, was a profile in
leadership this morning. Its going to take a great deal of leadership to have this change
made. I hope it is.
The sooner the better, as far as Im concerned, but with the kind of leadership that
youve shown this morning, I think its very doable, hopefully, in a short period of
time. One other comment, and that has to do with what can be done in the
interim. Youre going to be looking at that without legislative change.
Secretary, its my understanding that when service members are discharged under the
Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy, with an honorable discharge, the DOD policy now is that
they only receive half of their separation pay, which is authorized by statue. Youre
authorized to either give half or full pay. Would you take a look at that as something we
can do in the interim here to indicate a greater sense of fairness about this
issue? (Sounds gavel.)
You know youre sitting there quietly, Sen. Udall. I should have asked, do you have a
final question? Okay.
I thank you both, its been a long hearing this morning. We very much appreciate you,
the men and women that serve with you and your families.
We will stand adjourned.
Page16 oI16 JCSSpeech:TestimonyRegardingDoD'DontAsk,DontTell'Policy
3/25/2010 http://www.ics.mil/speech.aspx?id1322
LCR 03467
LCR Appendix Page 1806
THE EFFECTS OF INCLUDING GAY AND LESBIAN SOLDIERS
IN THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES: APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE
Aaron Belkin` and R.L. Evans``
November, 2000
The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
University of California at Santa Barbara
(805) 893-5664
belkinmsscf.ucsb.edu
`Director, Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, University of
California, Santa Barbara
``Doctoral candidate, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley
LCR 04706
LCR Appendix Page 1807
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Like the U.S. military, the British Services is an all-volunteer Iorce comprised oI
army, air Iorce and navy contingents. Until January, 2000, when Britain liIted its gay ban
Iollowing a ruling by the European Court oI Human Rights, gay and lesbian soldiers were
prohibited Irom serving in the British Armed Forces.
The Iirst ten months oI the new policy have been an unqualiIied success. The
military`s own classiIied, internal assessment at six months Iound that the new policy has
'been hailed as a solid achievement (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p. 2). There have
been no indications oI negative eIIects on recruiting levels. No mass resignations have
occurred. There have been no maior reported cases oI gay-bashing or harassment oI
sexual minorities. There have been no maior reported cases oI harassment or
inappropriate behavior by gay or lesbian soldiers. There has been no perceived eIIect on
morale, unit cohesion or operational eIIectiveness. The policy change has been
characterized by a 'marked lack oI reaction (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p. 2).
The conclusions oI the Ministry oI DeIense report have been conIirmed by our
conversations with more than twenty-Iive representatives Irom the military, academia,
and non-governmental organizations. None oI those interviewed know oI any maior
problems associated with the policy change. No one has heard oI any diIIiculties related
to recruitment or training completion rates: recruitment levels are characterized as 'quite
buoyant.
None oI those interviewed Ior this report have heard oI cases oI serious
homophobic harassment. Open gay service personnel interviewed Ior this report and by
other sources describe collegial treatment by their co-workers and other service members.
Experts in all Iields acknowledged that more work remains to be done, and new
obstacles could still emerge. Homophobic attitudes persist throughout the Services. It is
possible that some problems will develop as more gay and lesbian service personnel
acknowledge their sexual orientation to colleagues, or iI the Armed Forces relaxes its
vigilance against harassment and inappropriate behavior oI all kinds. Issues oI equality
such as pension, accommodation and partnership rights have yet to be addressed. Still,
concerns oI dire consequences have been replaced by a general recognition that the
transition has proceeded smoothly.
2
LCR 04707
LCR Appendix Page 1808
II. INTRODUCTION
Until January 12, 2000, the British Services maintained an oIIicial policy oI
discharging all known gay and lesbian soldiers.
1
It was Ielt that close living quarters and
the stresses oI military liIe precluded the inclusion oI homosexual servicemembers:
military commanders argued that 'homosexual behavior can cause oIIence, polarize
relationships, induce ill-discipline, and as a consequence damage morale and unit
eIIectiveness (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, p.1). At the beginning oI this year, the British
Armed Forces ended its policy oI excluding gay and lesbian soldiers. The change came
as a result oI a ruling by the European Court oI Human Rights and aIter years oI
resistance by the Armed Forces to liIting the ban. Once the decision was announced,
however, the Services quickly established a policy oI nondiscrimination on the basis oI
sexual orientation. Instead, the social conduct rules were rewritten to prohibit sexual
behavior, by both heterosexuals and homosexuals, that adversely aIIects operational
eIIectiveness. Such misconduct includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual
contact with subordinates, and overt displays oI aIIection between servicemembers. The
new inclusive policy remains politically charged: even with the European Court decision,
leaders oI the Conservative Party have declared that they would reevaluate the policy iI
returned to maiority status.
This report draws together military documents: press coverage: prior research on
homosexual military issues: and interviews with military oIIicials, academics, think tank
and non-proIit organization representatives, and sexual minorities presently serving in the
military to provide an appraisal oI the initial eIIects oI the policy change. All available
1
Original research and analysis conducted Ior this report were Iurnished by ELM Research Associates, an
independent, non-partisan research consultancy.
3
LCR 04708
LCR Appendix Page 1809
inIormation indicates that the removal oI the ban has been a success in its Iirst nine
months. The military undertook its own internal review oI the new policy six months
aIter enactment and declared that the transition has been characterized by a 'marked lack
oI reaction (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000c, p. 2). The policy change has had no
perceptible impact on unit cohesion, morale, or operational eIIectiveness. There is no
indication oI any discernible eIIects on recruiting, training completion or resignation
rates. There have been no maior problems oI gay-bashing, harassment or sexual
misconduct associated with the new policy. While the long-term consequences oI the
policy change remain to be seen, Iears oI upheaval within the military have largely been
replaced with an awareness that the transition has proceeded smoothly.
III. METHODOLOGY
InIormation collected Ior this report was systematically gathered Irom publicly
available primary and secondary sources relevant to an understanding oI military
outcomes associated with homosexual service in the British Armed Forces. Sources and
methods included: identiIication, retrieval, and analysis oI prior research bearing on
homosexual service in the British military conducted by governmental, academic, and
policy-Iocused organizations: content analysis oI Lexis/Nexis search retrievals Ior all
news articles and wire service dispatches relating to homosexual service in the British
Armed Forces (n101): interviews with present and Iormer military oIIicials (n10):
interviews with iournalists and maior academic, non-governmental, and policy observers
Iamiliar with gay-military issues in Britain or British military concerns generally (n14):
4
LCR 04709
LCR Appendix Page 1810
and interviews with present and Iormer sexual minority participants in the British
Services who were located through snowball sampling (n5
2
).
This report relies on a multi-method approach to compare and synthesize
evidence provided by a variety oI sources in order to draw conclusions. Whenever
possible, independent observations Irom multiple sources are compared to draw out
common Iindings that are consistent among observers in diIIerent sectors (e.g., military,
academic, non-governmental). During the interview process, we also sought to ensure
the broadest universe oI sources by repeatedly asking expert observers Irom diIIerent
sectors Ior recommendations oI additional sources oI inIormation.

IV. POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT
From 1864 to 1885, male homosexuality was illegal in Britain unless conducted
in private and by consent. In 1885, the new oIIense oI 'gross indecency criminalized all
sexual activity between men, and male homosexuality remained wholly illegal until the
passage oI the 1967 Sexual OIIenses Act
3
. Female homosexuality was never similarly
banned, purportedly because Queen Victoria reIused to believe that lesbianism existed.
In 1967, Parliament partially decriminalized gay sexual activity by legalizing private
consensual sex between two men over the age oI 21. Male homosexual sex with anyone
under 21, in public, or between more than two men remained a criminal oIIense. The
1967 Sexual OIIences Act also included an exemption Ior the Armed Forces, so that male
2
This includes one Iormer servicemember, Joan Heggie, who is also listed as an academic expert. Several
other observers interviewed Ior this report are also Iormer service personnel, but only Ms. Heggie was
interviewed about her prior military experiences in addition to her present expertise.
3
The 1864 Sexual OIIences Act was amended in 1885, when Henry Labouchere added a clause to the
Criminal Law Amendment Act punishing 'gross indecency between males (Hansard, Col. 1397 1398).
See Rayside (1998) and Hall (1995) Ior more inIormation on the earlier legislation.
5
LCR 04710
LCR Appendix Page 1811
servicemembers could still be convicted Ior consensual homosexual sex oI any kind
(Rayside, 1998: Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, 1994).
Although British attitudes towards homosexuality have become more tolerant
over the last twenty-Iive years
4
(Scott, 1998), polling data reveal continued widespread
discomIort with sexual minorities. A 1994 study Iound that a maiority oI British
respondents Ielt sex between members oI the same sex is always wrong
5
(cited in Hayes,
1997). The British public also continues to be conservative about issues such as gay and
lesbian public school teachers and adoption by homosexuals (Hayes, 1997). The data
does, however, show greater tolerance oI sexual minorities in other areas. Polling on the
age oI sexual consent revealed that approximately 75 Iavored equality in principle,
although less than 20 speciIically supported changing the age oI consent to sixteen
(Rayside, 1998). With respect to the issue oI homosexual service in the military, a 1999
Stonewall poll Iound that approximately 70 oI Britons opposed the ban on homosexual
soldiers, with a maiority in every class and party in Iavor oI inclusion oI gays and
lesbians in the military

(Norton-Taylor, 1999)
6
.
Homosexuality has been the subiect oI Iierce skirmishes between the
Conservative and Labor parties, and between religious leaders and gay rights advocates,
Ior more than a decade. The passage in 1987 oI Section 28, a law that bans local
authorities Irom promoting the acceptability oI homosexuality in schools, became a
4
There is conIlicting data about British attitudes toward homosexuality. Some attitudinal surveys have
shown a gradual liberalization between 1985 and 1989, Iollowed by a stabilization in public attitudes (see
Hayes (1997)), while others suggest increases in disapproval between 1983 and 1987 Iollowed by decreases
in disapproval, with a particularly marked (more than 15) change among British women (see Scott
(1998)). Rayside (1988) notes that Britain was one oI only two countries in Europe and North America
where attitudes had become more negative during the 1980s. See also RAND (1993).
5
The original study was conducted by Wellings et al (1994). See Hayes (1997) Ior more detail.
6
See also Hall (1995b) Ior a discussion oI British attitudes on homosexual service in the military.
6
LCR 04711
LCR Appendix Page 1812
catalytic Iorce Ior supporters oI expanded gay and lesbian rights (Rayside, 1998)
7
. AIter
considerable pressure by the gay-rights groups Stonewall and Outrage!, the age oI
consent Ior homosexual sex was decreased Irom 21 to 18 in 1994: this new minimum
was, however, still higher than the age oI 16 Ior heterosexual consent (See Maiendie,
1995). The Labor Party, which presently holds power, has long supported the inclusion
oI sexual minorities in the military and expanded rights Ior homosexuals (Rayside, 1998).
The Labor government has been working on a code that will instruct employers to grant
homosexual partners the same rights to health care, travel beneIits and relocation
allowances as heterosexual married couples (Sylvester, 2000: Sylvester, 2000a). The
government has also been trying unsuccessIully Ior more than a year to repeal Section 28
(See Jones, 2000: Jones, 2000a: and Britton, 2000).
Until the Human Rights Act
8
went into eIIect in October 2000, Britons were not
protected by a set oI enumerated Iundamental human rights similar to that provided by
the U.S. Bill oI Rights. British citizens looking Ior iudicial redress Ior governmental
human rights violations had to pass what is known as the 'Wednesbury test, which
mandated that courts could only overrule a governmental action iI it 'outrageously deIies
logic or accepted moral standards so that 'no sensible person who had applied his mind
to the question could have arrived at it (cited in The Lawyer On-Line, 1995). In
practice, the Wednesbury test proved to be an extremely diIIicult hurdle to overcome.
Since Britain was a signatory oI the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights,
British citizens could also take human rights complaints beIore the European Court oI
7
See also Jones (2000).
8
For more inIormation about the Human Rights Act, see Shaw (1999), Shrimsley (1999), and Booth
(2000).
7
LCR 04712
LCR Appendix Page 1813
Human Rights
9
. They could only do so, however, aIter exhausting all British channels,
including the High Court, the Court oI Appeals, and the House oI Lords
1011
. While the
European Convention on Human Rights does not explicitly include sexual orientation, it
has been interpreted expansively to encompass the rights oI sexual minorities
12
.
V. A HISTORY OF BRITAIN`S MILITARY POLICY CONCERNING SEXUAL
MINORITIES
Like the U.S. military, the British Services is an all-volunteer Iorce comprised oI
army, air Iorce and navy contingents
13
. Military conduct is governed by the Queen`s
Regulations, which are reviewed by Parliament every Iive years (RAND, 1993). The
British military includes approximately 211,000 soldiers: 7.9 oI the oIIicers and 5.4
oI the enlisted soldiers are women. During the 1980s and early 1990s, women became
more Iully integrated into the British military. Women are employed in all corps except
armor and inIantry, although they are not permitted beyond the second echelon oI brigade
in combat. Women are allowed to serve at sea in most oI the surIace specialties, although
they cannot work on small vessels such as submarines (Dandeker, 2000).
9
For the actual text oI the European Convention, see Convention Ior the Protection oI Human Rights and
Freedoms (1950).
10
The opinions oI the Strasbourg court are not strictly binding, but in practice Britain has always complied
with its decision. Failure by the British government to uphold the rulings oI the European Court could
result in Britain being expelled Irom the Council oI Europe: participation in the Council is mandatory Ior
all countries in the European Union. See Cullen (1999).
11
In 1998, Parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the rights enumerated under the
Human Rights Convention into British law. This meant that human rights protected under the convention
would be enIorceable Ior the Iirst time in British courts, and that British citizens could invoke the
protections in the European Convention without having to go to the European Court oI Human Rights (See
Shaw (1999a): Shaw and Shrimsley (1997): Shrimsley (1999): and Booth (2000)).
12
See Rayside (1998) and Shaw and Jones (1996) Ior discussions oI earlier European Court and European
Parliament decisions. The European Court oI Human Rights recently also ruled that the section oI the 1967
Sexual OIIenses Act that circumscribed consensual male homosexual sex was unlawIul (Laville, 2000).
13
The Royal Marines serve under the Royal Navy.
8
LCR 04713
LCR Appendix Page 1814
Like most oI its NATO allies, the British military has Iaced conIlicting pressures
since the end oI the Cold War. Troop strength has been reduced by 30, and the
percentage oI GDP devoted to deIense decreased Irom 5.2 in 1984-85 to approximately
2.8 in 1997-98
14
(Dandeker, 2000). At the same time, the scope oI peacekeeping
missions has expanded considerably, and the Armed Forces has had to prepare itselI Ior a
wider variety oI operations due to changing deIense roles. The British Services has also
Iaced recruiting shortages since 1992 (Tweedle, 2000)
15
. The military has responded to
these constraints in part by developing a recruitment initiative, increasing the use oI
reserves and by civilianizing and outsourcing some iobs previously perIormed by soldiers
(Dandeker, 2000: Kirkbride, 1996).
Until January 2000, gay and lesbian soldiers were prohibited Irom serving in the
British Armed Forces. Prior to 1967, British civil and military law were congruous with
respect to male homosexuality sodomy was illegal, and both civilians and soldiers
could be imprisoned Ior homosexual activity. The 1967 Sexual OIIences Act
decriminalized gay male sex Ior civilians, but it included an exemption that allowed the
British military to continue to prosecute servicemembers engaging in gay sex (Rayside,
1998: Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, 1994). Gay soldiers could also be administratively
discharged Irom the Services. While civil law did not cover same-sex Iemale sex,
however, the military was able to discharge lesbians under the oIIense oI general
misconduct
16
. OIIenses Ior homosexuality were usually charged as 'disgraceIul conduct
14
This Iigure is based on 1995 estimates. See Dandeker (2000).
15
See also Smith, (2000): Smith, (2000a): and SchoIield, (2000)
16
Because lesbian soldiers were not guilty oI any crime under British statutes, they did not receive legal
protections such as the right to counsel in their deIense (Heggie, Personal Communication, October 2,
2000).
9
LCR 04714
LCR Appendix Page 1815
oI an indecent kind, 'conduct preiudicial to good order or discipline, or more rarely
'scandalous conduct by oIIicers (Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, 1994).
In the wake oI considerable Parliamentary debate on the subiect during
discussions about the 1991 Armed Forces Bill, the government acknowledged that the
military exemption Irom the 1967 Sexual OIIenses Act was no longer iustiIiable. In June
1992, the Ministry oI DeIense (MOD) announced an administrative order to immediately
halt criminal prosecution Ior sexual activities that were legal Ior civilians under the 1967
act. The British restricted court-martials Ior homosexuality to those male servicemembers
who were Iound to have had sex in public or with anyone under the age oI 21. The
legislative reconciliation oI military and civilian law occurred later with the passage oI
the 1994 Criminal Justice Act. The military persisted in maintaining, however, that both
male and Iemale homosexuality were incompatible with military service. Gay and
lesbian soldiers continued to Iace discharge iI their sexual orientation was discovered
(Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, 1994).
Figures Ior the number oI gay and lesbian service members discharged while the
ban was in place vary among sources. Estimates range between 60 and 100 each year
between 1988 and 1995
17
. Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker report that 296 service
members were administratively discharged between 1988 and 1992, while an additional
39 soldiers were dismissed Iollowing conviction Ior an oIIense involving homosexuality
during the same period (Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, 1994, p. 193)
1819
. When Iactoring
17
See Davies (1992): Campbell and Wharton (1995): Beaumont and Mcsmith (1995): O`Kelly (1995):
Guardian (1995): Maiendie (1995): Davies (1997): Macklin (1999): Cullen (1999).
18
Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker report the Iollowing conviction rates by Service: 9 in the Navy, 22 in the
Army, and 8 in the Air Force.
19
Discharge Iigures Ior earlier periods are not available, because the Ministry oI DeIense did not keep track
oI such statistics (Hall, 1995). See also Hall (1995a).
10
LCR 04715
LCR Appendix Page 1816
in servicemembers who leIt without being discharged, Evans surmises that as many as
150 soldiers departed the military each year due to the policy on sexual orientation
(Evans, 2000). Because the British Services did not keep statistics about the cost oI the
policy, no deIinitive Iigures exist about the Iiscal impact oI the ban on sexual minorities.
Using GAO Iigures Ior the U.S. and extrapolating them to the British case, Edmund Hall
estimated that the restrictive policy cost the British military L40 to 50 million between
1990 and 1995 (Hall, 1995)
20
.
Prior to 1994, the Royal Navy was the only branch oI the Armed Forces that
maintained speciIic guidelines related to homosexuality
21
: the other Services dealt with
homosexuality through general regulations. The Navy`s guidelines provided the
Iollowing instructions Ior medical oIIicers when dealing with suspected gay or lesbian
personnel:
.homosexuals are oIten a source oI sexually transmitted diseases .
Tears and stains, particularly oI the underpants, trousers and shirt, should
be examined and, iI available, an ultra-violet light should be used to screen
the clothing, bearing in mind that semen is not the only substance which
Iluoresces under UV light. (cited in Hall, 1995, p. 75)
The guidelines also suggested that investigators seek to determine 'whether the man may
have played the passive role and recommended that the agent 'look Ior Ieminine
gestures, nature oI clothing and use oI cosmetics (Hall, 1995, p. 76).
20
The U.S. GAO Iigures are based on training replacement costs and do not include the administrative
costs oI investigation and discharge. See GAO (1992).
21
Army and Air Force commanders discharged homosexual servicemembers under Section 64 (DisgraceIul
Conduct by OIIicers), Section 66 (DisgraceIul Conduct oI an Indecent Kind), and Section 69 (Conduct
Preiudicial to Good Order and Service Discipline) oI the 1955 Army and Air Force Acts, while the Royal
Marines used Sections 36, 37 and 39 oI the Naval Discipline Act oI 1957. Royal Navy regulations, which
were enIorced at least until 1992, lumped together homosexuality with transvestism, sadism, masochism
and other Iorms oI sexual deviancy` (cited in Hall, 1995, p. 75).
11
LCR 04716
LCR Appendix Page 1817
In 1994, the Ministry oI DeIense issued Service-wide regulations concerning
homosexual soldiers. The new regulations maintained the policy oI barring homosexual
service, but they standardized policy and provided more detailed protocol. Any recruit
who admitted to being gay would not be allowed to enlist, and any servicemember who
was discovered to be homosexual would be discharged Irom the military. Homosexual
sex between adults oI consensual age would not be considered a criminal oIIense, but the
military could prosecute a gay or lesbian soldier Ior otherwise consensual sex iI 'the act
was to the preiudice oI good order and Service discipline
22
(Ministry oI DeIense, 1994,
Annex 2). All recruits were to be inIormed that homosexuals were not allowed to serve
in the British Armed Forces. The 1994 policy made it clear that homosexual orientation
as well as homosexual behavior would be a bar to enlistment and service:
Even iI a potential recruit admits to being homosexual, but states that
he/she does not at present nor in the Iuture intend to engage in homosexual
activity, he/she will not be enlisted. (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, p. 2)
The 1994 policy also included instructions Ior medical oIIicers
23
in dealing with
homosexual service personnel. The guidelines inIormed medical oIIicers that
'homosexuality is not in itselI a medical condition and 'intimate examinations are not
indicated purely on the grounds oI homosexuality (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, Annex
A). The medical oIIicer was to be consulted to conIirm the orientation oI a proIessed
homosexual, to advise commanders in dealing with cases oI homosexuality, and to insure
the emotional stability oI the soldier in question. II a gay or lesbian soldier was reIerred
to the medical oIIicer aIter his or her sexual orientation was already known, the health
22
The instructions list this as an example only, leaving room to prosecute servicemembers on other
grounds as well. See Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, Annex 1.
23
The instructions applied only to those with a medical qualiIication`. Nurses and medical assistants were
not to undertake any Iorm oI examination oI a gay or lesbian soldier: they instead were to reIer all such
cases to medical oIIicers as a matter oI urgency` (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, Annex A).
12
LCR 04717
LCR Appendix Page 1818
practitioner`s iob was to 'assess the individual`s physical and mental wellbeing,
including the need Ior onward reIerral to specialist services iI required (Ministry oI
DeIense, 1994, Annex A). The Ministry oI DeIense recognized that revelation oI one`s
homosexual orientation could be psychologically devastating in the context oI the
military`s ban on sexual minorities:
The Medical OIIicer should remember that coming out`, |sic| can be
highly stressIul, particularly because oI the prospect oI the loss oI a career,
and attention should be paid to assessment oI the individual`s mental state
since some individuals are vulnerable to thoughts oI selI harm at this time.
(Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, Annex A)

The military`s need Ior inIormation about gay and lesbian soldiers did, however,
outweigh any medical conIidentiality rules. II a soldier`s sexual orientation was already
known and the purpose oI an interview was thereIore not to establish sexual identity, the
medical oIIicer might still be required to discuss the 'health and psychological
development oI the soldier with a commanding oIIicer (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994,
Annex A). While the medical oIIicer was advised to obtain the consent oI the
servicemember, disclosure would be expected even iI consent was not procured. II a
servicemember was acknowledging his or her orientation Ior the Iirst time, the individual
was to be inIormed that:
.notwithstanding medical conIidentiality, the Medical OIIicer has a duty
to report to the Commanding OIIicer any inIormation relating to a serious
oIIence or matters which might adversely aIIect the health, security or
discipline oI the unit. II the Medical OIIicer is satisIied that the individual
is experiencing homosexual Ieeling then it would be most unusual not to
discuss the matter with the Commanding OIIicer (again iI possible having
obtained the individual`s consent). (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, Annex A)
Commanding oIIicers could handle cases oI suspected homosexuality with their
own staII or through oIIicial investigatory channels (Ministry oI DeIense, 1994, Annex
13
LCR 04718
LCR Appendix Page 1819
A). Military investigations were conducted by each service`s police Iorces: the Royal
Military Police (RMP) and Special Investigating Branch Ior the Army, the RAF police
and Security Services (P&SS) Ior the Air Force, and the Royal Navy`s Regulating Branch
and Special Investigating Branch (SIB). Investigations could include undercover
surveillance, lengthy questioning, medical examinations, and searches through personal
materials to uncover inIormation about other homosexual soldiers (Hall, 1995).
Former servicemember Joan Heggie experienced investigations Ior suspected
homosexuals as both a military policewoman and a target oI investigation. She describes
common tactics used during her tenure with the British Army in the late 1970s and early
1980s:
The MPs conducted raids in the middle oI the night to women`s barracks
to 'catch people in the act. The military police would gain access to the
garrison with the permission oI the commanding oIIicer. Nine out oI ten
times the commanders would give permission, because they wanted to
show that they were not accepting oI lesbianism. The MPs would bring
dogs and say they were looking Ior drugs, even though drugs were not a
maior problem in the early 80s. They would look under beds, in
wardrobes and even out windows to make sure that no one was hiding
there. I`ve been told that some MPs who really had a thing about
homosexuality, particularly with women, would keep inIormation on
people on an index card and build up a record. II they came across
inIormation that corroborated what they had heard earlier, even iI it was
years later, they would target that person Ior investigation
24
. (Personal
Communication, October 3 and 16, 2000)
Heggie added that, in such a restrictive environment, 'Every day I woke up
thinking Today might be the day that I get kicked out` (Personal
Communication, October 3 and 16, 2000). Other Iormer service personnel have
told oI the military using inIormation Irom blackmailers, staking out local gay
24
Heggie added that iI this report oI inIormation-gathering is true, keeping such inIormation was illegal.
Under British law, you cannot keep personal inIormation about someone without his or her knowledge
(Personal Communication, October 3 and 16, 2000).
14
LCR 04719
LCR Appendix Page 1820
bars and pubs, asking detailed and embarrassing questions about sexual practices
in interrogations, and even recommending shock aversion treatment (Nunn,
Personal Communication, October 17, 2000: O`Kelly, 1995: Mills, 1995: Hall,
1995).
Ministry oI DeIense oIIicials in told iournalist Edmund Hall in 1995 that they did
not believe the police routinely carried out surveillance oI gay and lesbian
establishments. They did, however, acknowledge that individual surveillance probably
occurred. One Ministry oI DeIense oIIicial declared:
Policemen are very diIIicult to control. . II you tell me that this kind oI
surveillance is taking place then it`s beyond the call oI duty. Policemen
have got to have their own agenda. (Hall, 1995, pp.78-79)
General Sir Charles Guthrie, ChieI oI the DeIense StaII, admitted at the time oI the
removal oI the ban that military police investigations oI suspected gays and lesbians
sometimes 'went too Iar and expressed regret at the way some interrogations had been
carried out (cited in Evans, 2000). The European Court oI Human Rights also
condemned the investigations oI the plaintiIIs as 'exceptionally intrusive in their ruling
against the Ministry oI DeIense (Evans, 2000).
The British Armed Services` exclusion oI homosexuals Irom service, even aIter
gay sex was decriminalized by Parliament in 1967, stemmed Irom the conviction that the
unique conditions and obiectives oI the military precluded behavior that was acceptable
in civilian liIe. DeIense Minister Nicholas Soames commented in 1996 that:
The view oI the service chieIs and oI Ministers is not based on any moral
iudgment but on the impracticality oI homosexual behavior, which is
clearly not compatible with service liIe. (The Lawyer Online, 1996)
15
LCR 04720
LCR Appendix Page 1821
Military commanders argued that the sacred duties oI the Armed Forces - to protect the
nation Irom harm and to advance Britain`s interests even at the expense oI loss oI liIe -
necessitated considerable caution when advocating changes in military organization or
the composition oI personnel. The inclusion oI gay and lesbian soldiers was viewed as
social engineering that could damage the integrity oI military units.
The unique conditions speciIied by military oIIicials included cramped living
conditions, same-sex Iacilities and the dependence on one`s comrades in liIe-threatening
situations. Given extended excursions at sea and on Ioreign missions, military personnel
oIten live under conditions oI minimal privacy. First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jock Slater
declared in 1995 that:
Everyone who ioins the Navy is committed to going to sea and thereIore
there is no question oI it is acceptable ashore but not at sea`. I then look
at the conditions at sea, where relatively they are cramped, they are
crowded: it can be tough, it can be stressIul. (Weale, 1995, p. 1)
Military leaders argued that the intimacy oI living together in same-sex barracks,
showering together, and sharing toilet and washing Iacilities made homosexual service
impractical (see The Lawyer Online, 1995). They Iurther contended that heterosexual
servicemembers would Ieel uncomIortable showering or sleeping next to a homosexual
soldier.
British commanders also asserted that the Iriction that could arise between gay
and lesbian soldiers and their heterosexual colleagues would undermine morale and unit
cohesion and even threaten the success oI its operations. Soldiers need to depend on their
comrades in liIe-threatening situations. Commanders argued that the introduction oI
distrust or ill-will among individuals within a unit due to diIIerences in sexual orientation
16
LCR 04721
LCR Appendix Page 1822
could have disastrous consequences on the eIIectiveness oI that unit. DeIense Minister
Archie Hamilton argued during a 1991 debate in Parliament:
|B|oth homosexual activity and orientation are incompatible with service
in the armed Iorces. The main reason centers on the need to maintain
discipline and morale. The services are hierarchical, close knit |sic|
overwhelmingly single sex and young communities. Units can work to
Iull eIIectiveness only on the basis oI mutual trust and the expectation oI
equal treatment among each rank. The Iormation within these units oI
sexually motivated relationships are potentially very disruptive oI
discipline and morale, particularly when they cross rank boundaries. (cited
in Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, 1994)
The 1994 regulations regarding homosexuality explicitly included concerns about
operational eIIectiveness as well:
Homosexuality . is considered incompatible with service in the Armed
Forces. This is not only because oI the close physical conditions in which
personnel oIten have to live and work, but also because homosexual
behavior can cause oIIence, polarize relationships, induce ill-discipline,
and as a consequence damage morale and unit eIIectiveness. (Ministry oI
DeIense, 1994, p.1)
25
Much was also made oI the need oI the military to protect its youthIul
servicemembers Irom the danger oI homosexual sexual predators. One third oI the
British Armed Forces recruits in the mid 1990s were under the age oI eighteen. Military
oIIicials argued that removal oI the ban would result in 'sexual exploitation by older,
more senior, personnel (cited in Harnden, 1996). Not only did the service chieIs Ieel
they had a duty to protect the minors in their care, but they also worried that the potential
Ior sexual abuse could also ieopardize recruitment among young men and women
26
. Air
ChieI Marshal Sir John Willis warned in 1995 that 'the conIidence both oI young people
to ioin the Armed Forces, and their parents to permit them to ioin the Armed Forces,
would be seriously damaged (The Lawyer Online, 1995).
25
See also Copley (1996) and Shrimsley (1996) Ior Iurther iustiIications oI the ban.
26
See also Mills (1995).
17
LCR 04722
LCR Appendix Page 1823
VI. COURT CASES CONCERNING THE ARMED FORCES` BAN ON
SEXUAL MINORITIES AND THE MILITARY`S RESPONSE
In 1994, Iour servicemembers discharged Ior homosexuality began a legal
challenge in British courts against the military`s ban on gay and lesbian soldiers.
Lawyers Ior the servicemembers invoked the Wednesbury doctrine and the European
Convention on Human Rights to argue that the privacy rights oI the soldiers had been
violated. The Iormer service personnel included: Lt. Cdr. Duncan Lustig-Prean, a Iormer
naval supply oIIicer: Sgt. Graeme Grady, a Iormer RAF intelligence oIIicer: Jeanette
Smith, a Iormer RAF nurse: and John Beckett, a Iormer naval weapons engineer on a
nuclear submarine. Their case was backed by Stonewall, a British gay and lesbian rights
group.
The Iour plaintiIIs had excellent military records and many years oI service
between them (see Lyall, 1999). Lieutenant Commander Lustig-Prean maintained an
exemplary` service record oI IiIteen years (Hicklin, 1995). He was about to be
appointed a military advisor to John Maior when he was discharged aIter reporting a
blackmail attempt. Sergeant Grady, the married Iather oI two children, was the chieI
clerk at the British deIense intelligence liaison oIIice in Washington, D.C. and had high
security clearance. He was released aIter he was seen attending a counseling group Ior
gay married men (Agence France Presse, 1999: Guardian, 1999). Smith, an RAF nurse
Ior Iive years who had been recommended Ior promotion Iour times, was dismissed aIter
an anonymous caller inIormed her superiors oI her relationship with a civilian woman
(Booth, 1999: Guardian, 1999a). During her interrogation, Smith was asked iI she had
ever had sex with her partner`s adolescent daughter, whether she used sexual appliances
18
LCR 04723
LCR Appendix Page 1824
during sex, and who was the dominant sexual partner in her relationship (Agence France
Presse, 1999). Beckett was a potential oIIicer candidate. He was released Irom service
aIter disclosing his relationship with a civilian man to his chaplain, who encouraged him
to tell his commanding oIIicer. It was his only gay relationship. Beckett alleges that the
Royal Naval psychiatrist suggested electric shock aversion therapy (Mills, 1995).
In June 1995, the High Court ruled against the discharged service members on the
grounds that the British courts did not have the authority to invoke the European
Convention on Human Rights. Justices oI the High Court signaled, however, that the
policy was unlikely to withstand iudgement by the European Court. Lord Justice Simon
Brown declared at the time that 'the tide oI history is against the Ministry, and 'so Iar as
this country`s international obligations are concerned the days oI this policy are
numbered (cited in The Lawyer On-Line, 1995). Britain`s Court oI Appeals upheld the
High Court`s decision in November 1995 (Maiendie, 1995)
27
.
In response to the High Court`s warning that the ban would likely be overturned
by the European Court, the Ministry oI DeIense assembled the Homosexual Policy
Assessment Team (HPAT) in 1995 to appraise the existing policy and determine iI
changes were needed (Butcher, 1995). The HPAT report
28
, which was released in 1996,
included survey data Irom servicemembers and analyses oI the military policies toward
sexual minorities in Australia, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands and the U.S. A month
beIore the release oI the report, an insider leaked to iournalists that the HPAT committee
would propose a compromise policy that would permit individuals with a homosexual
orientation to serve while continuing to prohibit homosexual contact between
27
For details on the appeals case, see Butcher (1995a).
28
See Ministry oI DeIense (1996).
19
LCR 04724
LCR Appendix Page 1825
servicemembers. A source close to the committee commented, 'We are looking to take
some oI the heat out oI the issue. We need to make some changes while respecting the
strong Ieeling in the Services (Gilligan, 1995, p.1). But the source also acknowledged
that the proposals were provisional and could be changed (Gilligan, 1995). By the time
the report was released in February, the committee did in Iact recommend the continued
prohibition oI homosexual service.
The HPAT report argued that liIting the ban on homosexual soldiers would be an
'aIIront to Service people and would harm Iighting eIIiciency. The report maintained
that while 'evolving social attitudes towards homosexuality might induce Iurther
review, 'it may equally be that the permanent Ieatures oI the military environment are
such that it will never be possible to integrate homosexuals (cited in Harnden, 1996).
The report evoked the unique demands oI military liIe to iustiIy restrictions not necessary
in civilian liIe, declaring: 'No other employer sends its employees out in disciplined
teams to kill and be killed. Ending the ban would likely lead to 'heterosexual
resentment and hostility and would be viewed by military personnel as 'coercive
interIerence in their way oI liIe (cited in Harnden, 1996).
The HPAT report also included an attitudinal survey oI 13,500 servicemembers.
80 oI those surveyed Ielt that the ban should continue indeIinitely, while only 5 Ielt
the ban should be liIted immediately. Only 3 believed that the Armed Forces would be
a more comIortable environment iI gays were accepted: 84 disagreed (Copley, 1996:
Bowcott, 1996). Opposition to a more relaxed policy was strongest in the Army and
weakest in the Air Force (Harnden, 1996), and women were less resistant than men to
removal oI the ban (Shrimsley, 1996). Greater hostility toward male homosexuality than
20
LCR 04725
LCR Appendix Page 1826
to lesbianism was also reported (Bowcott, 1996). More than two-thirds oI the men Ielt
that admitting gay and lesbian soldiers would damage recruiting, and a similar amount
said they would not willingly serve under those circumstances (Shrimsley, 1996). Some
complaints about bias in the survey and the methodology were, however, registered at the
time (Bowcott, 1996: Bowcott, Stewart and Zinn, 1996).
In addition, the committee received 639 letters about the policy: 587 oI those
received, or 92, opposed changing the regulations (Bowcott, 1996). The letters
included comments like those expressed by a warrant oIIicer in the Royal Marines who
said, 'Men don`t like taking showers with men who like taking showers with men, and
those Irom a senior aircraItsman who warned that, 'Homosexuals would deIinitely get
beaten up (cited in the Daily Telegraph, 1996). A lieutenant in the Royal Marines
argued that:
We do not want a citizen army with the same weaknesses as Continental
Iorces. The role oI British Forces is to mount successIul operation as
directed, not to be a medium oI social change. (cited in the Electronic
Telegraph, 1996)
However, not all oI the comments were negative. For example, one lieutenant in the
Army wrote, 'When I go to war, I would rather have alongside me a guy |sic| who shoots
straight, than a straight who shoots crooked (cited in the Daily Telegraph, 1996).
The committee`s recommendation Ior the continuation oI the ban came even
though '.committee members who visited Ioreign armed Iorces, most oI which permit
homosexuality, were told that the admission oI gays had made little practical diIIerence
to operational eIIiciency (Gilligan, 1995). This view was reinIorced by the comments oI
a Canadian oIIicer who said that British researchers told him that, 'We believe we could
change our policy, based on your experience, and what we heard in terms oI candid
21
LCR 04726
LCR Appendix Page 1827
comments Irom Iormer commanders (Belkin and McNichol, 2000). The British team
also told the CF oIIicial, however, that they did not believe a more inclusive policy would
be politically Ieasible in Britain at that time
29
.
A legal advisor Ior the Ministry oI DeIense also warned military oIIicials that the
British Forces were likely to lose their case with the European Court oI Human Rights,
and that they would have a better case iI they 'mov|ed| to a compromise solution, eg.
|sic| no open homosexuality (cited in The Lawyer Online, 1996a). But the armed Iorces
minister and the three service chieIs oI staII were said to strongly support a continuation
oI the exclusion oI homosexuals (Bowcott, Stewart and Zinn, 1996: Copley, 1996).
Instead, deIense ministers ordered a relaxation oI the ban, which Armed Forces Minister
Soames described as the 'soItly soItly approach (Gilligan and Wastell, 1996). Military
police were instructed not to actively search Ior gay and lesbian soldiers: they were only
to act iI a problem was drawn to their attention. The deIense ministers also made it clear
that overzealous investigation, surveillance and harassment would no longer be tolerated
(Gilligan and Wastell, 1996)
30
.
Despite the recommendations oI the HPAT report and the relaxed approach, it
appears that over the next three years ministers and service chieIs behind the scenes were
adiusting to the possibility that they would lose the case oI the Iormer servicemembers in
the European Court oI Human Rights (ECHR) (Sylvester and Thomson, 1998: Carrell,
1999)
31
. The DeIense Minister announced in 1998 that the ban 'in principle should be
29
Researchers Ior this report were unable to reach MOD employees who worked on the HPAT
recommendations and could thereIore not veriIy this assessment.
30
See also Johnston (1997) and The Observer (1997) Ior Iurther details oI the MOD review.
31
Parliament upheld the ban on homosexuals in May, 1996 (Hibbs and Millward, 1996). The Labor Party
announced the same month that it would accept a ruling Irom the European Court oI Human Rights
overturning the ban iI it Iormed the next government (Hibbs, 1996).
22
LCR 04727
LCR Appendix Page 1828
liIted, and Rank Outsiders reported the same year that they were consulted on a draIt
code oI conduct Ior all military personnel, heterosexual and homosexual (Gilligan, 1998).
In a related case, the European Court ruled in July 1999 that discrimination against
transsexuals Iell under the deIinition oI 'sex discrimination in the European Convention.
The ruling undermined part oI the Armed Forces` deIense in the European Court case,
which, in accordance with the British Sex Discrimination Act, argued that neither
transsexuals nor homosexuals suIIered Irom sex discrimination as long as transsexuals or
homosexuals oI both sexes were treated identically. On August 2, 1999, it was reported
that transsexuals would henceIorth be permitted to serve in the Armed Forces (Davies
and Jones, 1999). The decision was criticized by the Conservative shadow deIense
secretary, Iain Duncan-Smith, who accused the Government oI having a 'politically
correct agenda and seeking to 'end by stealth the ban on homosexual service (Jones,
1999). The Ministry oI DeIense continued to discharge homosexual service personnel,
however, and the last gay servicemember was dismissed Irom the Armed Forces on
September 24, 1999 (Norton-Taylor, 1999).
On September 27
th
, the European Court oI Human Rights ruled unanimously that
the ban on homosexual military service violated the privacy rights oI the plaintiIIs. The
seventy cases being investigated by the Armed Forces were immediately put on hold
(Norton-Taylor, 1999a: Cullen, 1999)
32
. Civil servants suggested that a new code oI
conduct could be put in place earlier than 2001, presumably because considerable work
had already been done on it. The Conservative Party signaled that it might try to overturn
the policy change iI it were returned to power (Shrimsley, 2000).
32
For greater detail about the ruling and the military`s response, see Norton-Taylor and Dyer (1999) and
Butcher (1999).
23
LCR 04728
LCR Appendix Page 1829
A week aIter taking oIIice, the new Secretary oI State Ior DeIense GeoIIrey Hoon
set aside 'at least 4m to cover pending compensation claims by homosexual ex-
servicemembers (Syal and Gilligan, 1999). The more important question, however, was
what model to choose Ior the new army regulations. There was considerable opposition
Irom both gay groups and services chieIs to basing the regulations on the American
model, which was seen as 'a disaster: services chieIs saw the Dutch and Israeli options
as 'too liberal (Sparrow, 1999). Stonewall recommended the Australian regulations,
which bans heterosexual and homosexual public displays oI aIIection, as a possible
model (Waugh, 1999). In mid-December, Hoon announced that the new code would be
published the Iollowing month, and that it would govern 'sex not sexuality - a reIerence
to the Australian rules.
With respect to the model that was chosen, Michael Codner oI the Royal United
Services Institute explained:
I think both sides oI the debate saw 'Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell` as something
which hadn`t worked, which was unworkable and hypocritical. The
internal advice given to service chieIs by the civilian civil service was in
Iavor oI another model.
.But the Australian model was pushed strongly by Australian service
chieIs. Their deIense attaches were also very proactive in pushing the
success oI the Australian option. And I think the British service chieIs
saw some logic to it. The two Iorces have a similar structure and ethos.
(Personal Communication, September 26, 2000)
On January 12
th
, the Secretary oI State Ior DeIense announced the liIting oI the
ban to the Commons. He declared that the European Court iudgement made the ban 'not
legally sustainable and proclaimed that a new code oI conduct governing personal
relationships, based on that oI the Australian armed Iorces, would be introduced. No
legislation was required to eIIect this change, which went into eIIect immediately.
24
LCR 04729
LCR Appendix Page 1830
Discharged homosexuals were also invited to reapply Ior their iobs (Waugh, 2000).
Shadow DeIense Minister Iain Duncan-Smith voiced 'regret, and he said that iI the
Conservatives won the next election they would review the decision and allow military
chieIs to decide (Waugh, 2000). On that day a sailor became the Iirst homosexual
servicemember to come out openly to colleagues (Fleet, 2000).
Since the January 2000 decision, the enactment oI the Human Rights Act in
Britain has resulted in the replication oI the European Court decision by a domestic court.
A Iormer RAF oIIicer won an employment tribunal appeal against the Ministry oI
DeIense in September, aIter it was ruled that the oIIicer suIIered sex discrimination in his
dismissal Ior homosexuality (Robertson, 2000). The original plaintiIIs in the European
Court case were also awarded more than L400,000 as compensation Ior loss oI Iuture
earnings, the emotional and psychological impact oI the investigations, and court costs
(Dyer, 2000: BBC News, 2000). A number oI other suits are presently pending.
VII. BRITAIN`S PRESENT POLICY CONCERNING SEXUAL MINORITIES
In their development oI a new policy, the Ministry oI DeIense emphasized the
need Ior: 1) compliance with the ECHR ruling, 2) regulations that were non-
discriminatory: 3) the preservation oI operational eIIectiveness, 4) accordance with the
general requirements oI the military, and 5) protection oI individual rights under the
Human Rights Act (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000). Homosexuality is no longer a bar to
military service. Gay and lesbian soldiers are not, however, eligible Ior married
accommodations, spousal pension or other partnership rights. In addition, a code oI
social conduct establishes rules oI behavior that apply equally to heterosexuals and
25
LCR 04730
LCR Appendix Page 1831
homosexuals. Soldiers, regardless oI sexual orientation or sex, are prohibited Irom
engaging in social behavior that undermines, or may potentially undermine, the trust and
cohesion, and thereIore the operational eIIectiveness, oI the Services. Enumerated
inappropriate behavior includes: unwelcome physical or verbal sexual attention,
overIamiliarity with the spouses oI other service personnel, displays oI aIIection which
might cause oIIense to others, taking sexual advantage oI subordinates, and behavior
which damages the marriage or personal relationship oI other service personnel. The
code oI conduct Iurther covers other types oI 'social misbehavior that have not been
enumerated. Discretion is leIt up to the commanding oIIicer to determine iI behavior
constitutes a threat to the cohesion oI the unit or the military command chain. Abuse oI
authority, trust or rank, or taking advantage oI a person`s separation, are deemed
particularly serious types oI misconduct (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000a)
33
.
The new guidelines Ior social conduct are general and involve considerable
discretion. The code thereIore provides a 'service test Ior commanding oIIicers to use
in their assessment oI the need to 'intervene in the personal lives oI personnel (Ministry
oI DeIense, 2000a, p. 1). Commanding oIIicers must consider each case in light oI the
Iollowing question:
Have the actions or behavior oI an individual adversely impacted or are
they likely to impact on the eIIiciency or operational eIIectiveness oI the
Service? (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000a, p. 1)
In the event oI an aIIirmative answer, commanders are instructed to take prompt and
decisive action to minimize damage to the eIIectiveness oI the unit. II the misconduct is
suIIiciently serious, commanders may institute immediate administrative or punitive
action. Such action may include a Iormal warning, oIIicial censure, the posting oI the
33
See also The Star Tribune (2000), Reid (2000), and The New York Times (2000).
26
LCR 04731
LCR Appendix Page 1832
parties involved, or other disciplinary action. II the behavior is suIIiciently serious, or iI
the servicemember has a history oI social misconduct, termination oI service may occur
(Ministry oI DeIense, 2000a).
The Ministry oI DeIense also issued guidelines and speaking notes Ior
commanding oIIicers to help them explain and enIorce the new policy. The speaking
notes emphasize that the liIting oI the ban brings the Armed Forces into greater
concordance with the general society. A person`s sexual orientation is to be considered a
private matter, and every servicemember has a right to personal privacy. The speaking
notes exhort service personnel to '|r|espect that right, and do not try to make their private
business your concern (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000c, p.2) Commanders were Iurther
advised to stress the continuity oI the policy:
This change is not a maior issue, and you should not make it into one.
There have always been homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. We
do not expect that this change will result in a signiIicant increase in the
number oI homosexuals coming into the Service. (Ministry oI DeIense,
2000c, p.2)
Continuity is emphasized with respect to the new code oI social conduct as well.
The speaking notes explain that the code 'largely reIlects existing policies and
'does not mean a tightening up on heterosexual relationships (Ministry oI
DeIense, 2000c, p. 2)
The notes Ior commanding oIIicers state that their actions should be
guided by the Iollowing principles:
a. Sexual orientation is regarded as a private matter Ior the individual.
b. Knowledge oI an individual`s sexual orientation is not a basis Ior
discrimination.
c. Incidents which involve the possible commission oI civil or military
oIIences, or which come to a Commanding OIIicer`s attention through
27
LCR 04732
LCR Appendix Page 1833
a Iormal complaint, should be investigated and dealt with in
accordance with Service disciplinary or administrative procedures.
d. The Service Test . should be applied when there is any doubt about
the impact on operational eIIectiveness oI any particular incident.
e. The Armed Forces value the unique contribution which every
individual makes to operational eIIectiveness, regardless oI their
sexual orientation.
I. The Armed Forces . will only intervene in the private lives oI
individuals where it is necessary in the interests oI preserving
operational eIIectiveness.
g. The new policy makes no moral iudgements about an individual`s
sexual orientation.
h. There is no place in the Armed Forces Ior harassment, bullying or
victimization.
i. Commanders have a duty oI care towards all those under their
command. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 1)
The guidelines also include a list oI questions and answers that
commanding oIIicers might encounter under the new policy. The list provides
responses to such situations as: what to do regarding someone who wants to out`
themselves
34
: whether homosexual personnel will be able to bring their partners to
semi-oIIicial` Iunctions
35
: how they should handle a situation in which a person
is unwillingly outed`
36
: whether an individual has a legal right to reIuse to share
34
It is a personal matter whether or not to publicly announce one`s sexual orientation. Servicemembers
should be advised to 'bear in mind that sexual orientation is a private matter, and they should:
particularly consider how such a declaration might be received by the colleagues ., and
what impact it might have on their Iuture working relationships. II they decide to go
ahead, they should be advised not to make an issue oI their sexuality and to go no Iurther
than a simple acknowledgement oI it. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 4)
35
The Mess Presidents are to exercise discretion, as they do Ior all Mess guests. 'In general, however, it
would be appropriate to extend to homosexual partners the same arrangements as apply to unmarried
heterosexual partners in respect oI the particular Iunction (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 5). The
guidelines add:
Where partners wish to dance together, the circumstances will need to be iudged: on
some occasions this might pass virtually unremarked and cause no diIIiculty, on others it
could cause oIIense (with, perhaps, Iurther consequences). Where necessary, those
responsible Ior the Iunction should intervene as discreetly as possible with a view to
minimizing any disturbance. It will always be appropriate Ior couples attending such
Iunctions to bear in mind that any overt displays oI a partner`s aIIection can cause
oIIence. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, pp. 5-6)
36
It is up to the individual to decide whether or not to acknowledge their sexual orientation. II they decide
to acknowledge their homosexuality, 'they should do so with the minimum oI Iuss and not make a maior
issue oI it (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 6). Knowledge oI one`s sexual orientation should not be reason
in itselI to move a servicemember. The commanding oIIicer should be alert Ior any harassment or bullying
28
LCR 04733
LCR Appendix Page 1834
accommodations with a homosexual
37
: and how to deal with an extra-marital
relationship between heterosexual servicemembers
38
. With respect to a question
about protecting young soldiers Irom predatory homosexuals, the guidelines
declare that 'It would be wrong to assume that homosexuals are predatory and
remind commanding oIIicers that they must be 'particularly alert to ensure young
people are protected, regardless oI their sex (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 5).
Commanding oIIicers are advised to remember that an open display oI sexual
behavior oI any kind can cause oIIense, and to respond quickly to deIuse
situations beIore they spread (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d).
When the new policy was announced by Secretary oI State Ior DeIense GeoII
Hoon on January 12, 2000, he highlighted the Iact that the chieIs oI staII were completely
involved in the creation oI the new policy and endorsed the changes. Secretary Hoon
stated that the code would apply to all members oI the Forces, regardless oI 'Service,
rank, gender or sexual orientation (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000b, p. 2). He Iurther
stressed that the code complemented existing policies, including 'zero tolerance Ior
harassment, discrimination and bullying (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000b, p. 2). As Ior the
use oI the service test, Secretary Hoon declared that:
Commanders will have to apply this Service Test through the exercise oI
their good iudgement, discretion and common sense the essence oI
command and the eIIective management oI people. (Ministry oI DeIense,
2000b, p. 2)
(Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 6).
37
Individuals have no legal rights to do so under either the European Convention on Human Rights or the
Human Rights Act. Accommodations and Iacilities will be assigned without regard to sexual orientation
(Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 3).
38
Commanders are instructed to Iirst assess whether an oIIense has occurred and then apply the Code to
determine whether administrative action is necessary. 'The most serious cases, especially where there has
been an abuse oI position or trust, may warrant the most severe consequence and result in discharge,
resignation or retirement (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000d, p. 4).
29
LCR 04734
LCR Appendix Page 1835
ShiIting gears Irom the public statements in support oI the ban beIore the European
Court ruling, ChieI oI the DeIense StaII General Sir Charles Guthrie went on record at
the time oI the announcement oI the new code oI conduct to say that liIting the ban was
likely to lead to some diIIicult situations Ior commanding oIIicers, who would be
required to decide iI conduct was damaging to a unit`s operational eIIectiveness. He
added, however, that 'As CDS (ChieI oI the DeIense StaII), I don`t believe that the
operational eIIiciency oI the Services will be aIIected, although I`m not saying we won`t
have some diIIicult incidents. He acknowledged that some people would still be
against the ban 'because they are homophobic or on religious grounds, and that his
assessment oI the new policy diIIered Irom that oI Iormer service chieIs and ministers.
But he added that 'times have changed, and he doubted that the change in policy would
have any eIIect on recruiting (Evans, 2000). General Guthrie characterized the new code
oI conduct as 'sensible and pragmatic and said that it would be up to commanding
oIIicers to reassure their subordinates. 'We think we can make it work. (Evans, 2000)
Discussions on the code oI social conduct and the importance oI equal
treatment Ior heterosexuals and homosexuals have since been integrated into
training at the Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Center, the training site
Ior the Services` Equal Opportunity Advisors (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000c). In
February, the Royal Air Force became the Iirst service to include tolerance toward
homosexuality in its oIIicer training courses. The training course discusses the
issue during the 'belieIs and values session, which is conducted by chaplains and
staII. OIIicer candidates are inIormed that homosexuality is compatible with
service and does not damage team morale. They are also taught that overt
30
LCR 04735
LCR Appendix Page 1836
displays oI aIIection, whether heterosexual or homosexual, threaten team
discipline (Butcher, 2000). The other Services have since Iollowed suit.
In October, 2000 it was reported that a naval lieutenant-commander had won
the right to some oI the partnership beneIits previously reserved Ior heterosexual
personnel. The companion oI Lieutenant-Commander Craig Jones will be Ilying out with
other naval spouses to visit the HMS Northumberland in the Mediterranean. Spousal
Ilights are subsidized by interest-Iree loans Irom the Navy. Jones` partner has also been
invited to a black-tie dinner and other mess dinners on shore and aboard the ship
(Gilligan, 2000).
VIII. INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE CHANGE IN
POLICY
Six months aIter the liIting oI the ban and the enactment oI the new social code
oI conduct, the Ministry oI DeIense conducted its own assessment oI the policy change.
Commanders Irom each oI the Services were asked to comment on a variety oI issues
related to the policy change and on developments arising Irom it. The assessment was Ior
internal review only, and the resulting report was not released to the public. The Ministry
oI DeIense report thereIore constitutes the best evidence to date on the eIIect oI the
military`s new policy. It conducted a comprehensive managerial review with access to
all relevant data. Further, since it was not intended Ior a civilian audience, the report was
not written with an eye toward shiIting the public opinion or inIluencing policy debates.
The Ministry oI DeIense provided the researchers oI this report with a summation oI the
contents oI the internal assessment. This marks the Iirst time that the Iindings oI the
report have been released to the public.
31
LCR 04736
LCR Appendix Page 1837
The appraisal by the Ministry oI DeIense depicts the policy change as an
unqualiIied success. No problems associated with the new policy were reported. It Iound
that both the liIting oI the ban on homosexual soldiers and the new social code oI conduct
have been eIIectively instituted. It also states that there have been no signiIicant
diIIiculties in the transition to the new policy, that servicemembers have come to widely
accept the policy change, and that the implementation has gone surprisingly well. Given
the success, the internal review Iound that no Iurther changes in regulations or
enIorcement were needed:
. |T|he change in policy has generally been hailed as a solid
achievement. It has been introduced smoothly with Iewer problems than
might have been expected and no changes either to the policy, the Code oI
Social Conduct, or the content oI our training courses are planned at the
present time. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p. 2)
The Ministry oI DeIense determined that the policy change has not aIIected
recruitment levels. The three Services 'reported that the revised policy on homosexuality
had had no discernible impact, either positive or negative, on recruitment (Ministry oI
DeIense, 2000e, p. 2). The evaluation did, however, Iind that the more inclusive policy
had positively aIIected their access to recruiting Iairs. College recruiting Iairs that used
to Iorbid participation by the military have reversed themselves in the wake oI the liIting
oI the ban:
Interestingly, some areas that had previously closed to the Forces, such as
Student Union 'Fresher`s Fairs, are now allowing access to the Services
because oI what is seen to be a more enlightened approach. (Ministry oI
DeIense, 2000e, p.2)
Because sexual orientation is now seen to be a private matter, the British Armed Forces
will not set any quotas Ior the recruitment oI sexual minorities and will not monitor
32
LCR 04737
LCR Appendix Page 1838
recruitment levels oI sexual minorities. No records will be kept iI recruits volunteer the
inIormation that they are homosexual.
The report acknowledges that the policy change was not popular with some
military personnel beIore its enactment, as some servicemembers originally expressed
apprehension about the liIting oI the ban:
Within the Services, the change in policy was accepted as inevitable,
although there were some expressions oI political correctness` having
gone too Iar. The maiority oI initial misgivings were in regard to the
practical aspects oI implementation and its consequences, oIten centered
on shared accommodation. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p.2)
Such misgivings appear, however, to have been short-lived. AIter the new policy had
been in place Ior only six months, the Ministry oI DeIense was able to report that service
personnel had adiusted well to the liIting oI the ban:
Over the longer term the Ieeling has been generated that there is
widespread acceptance oI the new policy. . Generally people have
demonstrated a mature and pragmatic approach which has allowed the
policy to succeed. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p. 2)
Service personnel have gotten along well and adiusted quickly to the policy change: the
actual inclusion oI homosexual servicemembers has resulted in surprisingly little
reaction. The report also Iound that harassment oI gay and lesbian soldiers had not been
a problem since the new social conduct code had been instituted. There were 'no
reported diIIiculties oI note concerning homophobic behavior amongst Service
Personnel (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p. 2).
The evaluation by the Ministry oI DeIense suggests that the success oI the new
policy was in large part due to the non-discriminatory nature oI the Code oI Social
Conduct. The Code`s emphasis on behavior allows the military to address problematic
33
LCR 04738
LCR Appendix Page 1839
behavior without resorting to discriminatory policies or restricting whole classes oI
people:
The Code oI Social Conduct has been very well received and has been
Iound to be a useIul guide Ior commanding oIIicers in dealing with all
issues surrounding personal relationship and behavior, going wider than
iust homosexual issues. (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p.2)
Because the Iocus has been placed on behavior instead oI sexual orientation, sexual
orientation has not become a source oI antagonism as some had Ieared. Gay service
personnel know that they have the code oI conduct to back them up in the event oI
harassment or bullying. And all servicemembers know that they have recourse to
complain iI they witness inappropriate comments or actions. The report remarks on the
noteworthy lack oI Iocus by service personnel about the issue oI sexual orientation:
|Homosexuality| has not been an issue oI great debate, in part because oI
the underlying principle, embodied in the Code oI Social Conduct, that
sexual orientation is now regarded as a private matter. In Iact there has
been a marked lack oI reaction. Discussion has rather been concerned
with Ireedom oI individual choice and exercising personal responsibility
across the board, rather than a Iocus iust on sexual orientation. (Ministry
oI DeIense, 2000e, p.2)
In arguments Ior the continuation oI the ban, military oIIicials suggested
that Iriction between heterosexual and homosexual servicemembers could result
in distrust and oIIense among colleagues and even threaten operational
eIIectiveness. In contrast, the Ministry oI DeIense`s own internal assessment oI
the policy aIter six months suggests that heterosexual and homosexual soldiers
alike have responded well to the change in policy. In spite oI the concerns raised
in the years and months prior to the liIting oI the ban, no maior problems have so
Iar resulted Irom the policy change. At the request oI the House oI Commons
DeIense Committee, the Ministry oI DeIense will conduct another review oI the
34
LCR 04739
LCR Appendix Page 1840
policy in two years. But the report indicates that at this stage military oIIicials
believe the new policy has been successIully implemented.
Since the ban has been liIted, several newspaper articles have recorded military
reactions to the policy change
39
. British newspapers have reported the assessment oI
Rear-Admiral Burnell-Nugent and two resignations over the policy. In addition,
researchers Ior this report interviewed eight Armed Forces oIIicials and two retired
Armed Forces oIIicers. The oIIicials include: the director oI personnel policy Ior the
Ministry oI DeIense, a commander with Naval Personnel and Service Conditions who
was involved in the writing oI the new policy, a lieutenant colonel with Army Public
Relations, a maior with the Army Training and Recruiting Agency, a squadron leader
with the Air Force Engineer Liaison Recruiting Team, an oIIicial with the Personnel
Management Agency oI the Air Force, an oIIicial with the Ministry oI DeIense Press
OIIice, and a Whitehall source with knowledge oI the policy`s implementation. The
retired oIIicers were not apprised oI the eIIect oI the transition and were interviewed Ior
background inIormation.
Nine months aIter the ban was liIted, the assistant chieI oI the Navy staII, Rear-
Admiral James Burnell-Nugent declared publicly that the change in policy had caused
Iewer problems than the inclusion ten years ago oI women at sea. The Rear-Admiral
stated that the removal oI the ban had caused less diIIiculty than many oI his colleagues
had expected. He Iurther stated that the ruling had raised some issues about
accommodations aboard ships but that it had otherwise not caused serious problems. 'I
think it has caused less oI a ruIIle than the issue oI women at sea did 10 years ago. That
is not to say it is not without impact (Paterson, 2000). The Rear-Admiral also
39
Newspaper coverage oI the experiences oI two out` servicemembers are discussed in the section below.
35
LCR 04740
LCR Appendix Page 1841
commented that, 'Although some did not welcome the change oI policy, it has not caused
any great degree oI diIIiculty (Paterson, 2000). Rear-Admiral Burnell-Nugent added:
There are issues to do with sharing accommodation and so on, which we
shall deal with using normal management mechanisms. I am not saying
everybody is happy with it, but on the whole it has not caused a great
upset. (Paterson, 2000)
A straw poll oI cadets immediately Iollowing the change in policy 'revealed an
already relaxed attitude to the issue (Butcher, 2000a). One cadet responded, 'It might
iust be that we belong to a diIIerent generation but I do not see it as a problem (Butcher,
2000a). This attitude was shared by most oI her Iellow cadets. All those polled agreed
that it was possible Ior homosexuals to serve in the RAF iI their proIessional work was
not inIluenced by their sexuality. One male cadet did say, however, that the presence oI a
gay or lesbian in a soldier in a unit could damage the team`s morale. 'I personally do not
have a problem with homosexuals but I can see it being a problem iI everyone is cooped
up together (Butcher, 2000a)
40
.
Two oIIicers publicly resigned in the wake oI the liIting oI the ban. Brigadier Pat
Lawless, the Deputy Commander oI the Joint Helicopter Command, announced in
January 2000 that he was resigning because the ban was liIted without adequate
consideration Ior the military rationale Ior preserving it. Brigadier Lawless, who reported
that he was 'very sad to leave, stated that he 'couldn`t reconcile my strongly held moral
and military convictions as a soldier and a citizen with the Government`s decision to liIt
the ban on homosexuals (Wright, 2000). A Iriend oI Lawless stated that '|Cdr.
Lawless| was not taking this decision because he personally has a problem with
40
At the time oI the straw poll, there were no open homosexuals at the training college (Butcher, 2000a).
36
LCR 04741
LCR Appendix Page 1842
homosexuals. He saw it as a decision Ioisted on the Armed Forces Ior no good military
reason (Butcher, 2000).
Commander Colin Douglas, a senior naval commander who led an air squadron in
Bosnia and was director oI Ilying at the Fleet Air Arm`s Culdrose air station, also
resigned in January because he Ielt that policy decisions were being made Ior political
reasons instead oI military ones. Cdr. Douglas said that the decision on homosexual
inclusion was 'the Iinal straw. He added, 'There is plenty oI sound military sense
against liIting the ban, but the decision was taken Ior political and legal reasons
(Butcher, 2000). There have been no other public announcements oI resignations due to
the liIting oI the ban.
An article on desertion and recruitment issues in June 2000 commented that the
opening oI the military to gays and lesbians and oI combat positions to women would
hopeIully increase recruitment levels. Problems associated with desertion included
bullying, harassment during initiation rites, and an inability oI the military to successIully
deal with soldiers Iar away Irom home when Iamily problems such as terminal illness and
marital strain develop (Burke, 2000)
41
. Problems in recruiting levels were Iirst made
public in 1996. Articles discussing recruitment problems cited the number oI Ioreign
operations and the number oI humanitarian missions, as well as the Iamily turbulence that
results Irom long absences or overseas postings (SchoeIield, 2000). The liIting oI the ban
was not mentioned as a source oI problems.
Two months aIter the Ministry oI DeIense`s internal appraisal, the responses oI
military oIIicials interviewed Ior this report conIirm its Iindings. The transition to the
new policy has gone surprisingly well, and there have been no maior problems to date. A
41
See also Davies (2000).
37
LCR 04742
LCR Appendix Page 1843
Whitehall source who had access to the original, unabridged report emphasizes the
deIinitiveness oI its conclusions:
The assessment showed that there has been no impact at all. The report
looked at all aspects, operational eIIectiveness, unit cohesion, and there
has been no impact. At the end oI the day, operational eIIectiveness is the
critical matter, and there has been no eIIect at all. There haven`t been any
disciplinary problems. There have only been one or two minor incidents,
and they have been handled individually. The whole thing has gone a lot
better than people had expected. (Personal Communication, October 9 and
11, 2000)
None oI the oIIicials that we spoke to knew oI any evidence or had heard oI any that
suggested any signiIicant diIIiculties that had arisen as a result oI the policy change. No
one had heard oI any problems with resignations
42
. None oI the oIIicials interviewed
knew oI any evidence to suggest that recruitment rates or training completion had been
aIIected. There have been no maior problems with harassment or gay-bashing. Military
oIIicials interviewed Ior this report aIIirm that the liIting oI the ban has largely been a
non-issue.
This is not to imply that all servicemembers approved oI the new policy beIore it
was implemented. Many soldiers maintain anti-gay attitudes and worried about how the
liIting oI the ban would aIIect them. While complaints about the sharing oI Iacilities with
homosexual in particular were vociIerous beIore the policy change, such protests were
surprisingly short-lived. Commander Cooper, who worked on the new social code oI
conduct, explains:
The prime concern, and really the only one raised by people in the run-up
to the publication oI this policy, which came into eIIect in January oI this
year, was sharing accommodations. . straight chaps and straight girls
might not necessarily like having to share living, changing and washing
42
Military oIIicials interviewed Ior this report put the number oI resignations as between one and three.
An additional resignation that was not reported in the papers was mentioned. But more than one oIIicial
noted that at least one oI the published resignations was thought to have actually been due to other Iactors.
38
LCR 04743
LCR Appendix Page 1844
Iacilities with people oI another sexual orientation. . We`ve taken the
view that we will not separate out homosexuals and give them separate
living accommodations. Now I would characterize the reaction to that as
being very short-term complaints, very loud but short-lived. And as Iar as
I know, the Armed Forces oI the United Kingdom has only lost three
people who have resigned over this issue. (Personal Communication,
October 13, 2000)
Military oIIicials interviewed Ior this report were also not aware oI any
indications that the new policy had negatively aIIected recruit training completion rates
or that there had been any training problems related to the liIting oI the ban (Hodges,
Personal Communication, October 10, 2000: Cooper, Personal Communication, October
13, 2000: Peebles, Personal Communication, October 17, 2000). Service personnel have
responded well to the new code oI social conduct and the equitable premise oI all
servicemembers` responsibility to act appropriately. As was suggested by the Ministry oI
DeIense`s internal report, more discussion appears to have been raised about exercising
personal responsibility generally than about the speciIic issue oI homosexuality. A
Whitehall source explains:
In the commanding oIIicers` course, they go over the code oI social
conduct. Homosexuality doesn`t even come up anymore it`s no longer
an issue. In the Equal Opportunities training, a whole raIt oI issues are
discussed, and race and gender are bigger issues Ior us. There is one
morning in the training where homosexuality gets discussed along with
many other issues. One person in six months has argued vociIerously
against it, and that`s it. Everyone else`s attitude is to let people alone. No
one wants to Ilaunt their sexuality, so let people have it. (Personal
Communication, October 9 and 11, 2000)
Incidents oI harassment or sexual misconduct related to sexual orientation by
either heterosexual or homosexual soldiers have also not been a problem since the new
policy was implemented in January. None oI the military oIIicials interviewed related a
single case oI gay-bashing or assault related to sexual orientation. Lieutenant Colonel
39
LCR 04744
LCR Appendix Page 1845
Hodges conIirmed with a colleague at the Central Discipline OIIice there have been no
incidents related to sexual orientation reported to that oIIice since the ban on homosexual
soldiers was liIted. He added: 'The change in policy has been a complete non-event
(Personal Communication, October 9 and November 2, 2000).
Although precise data is not available, there are no indications that the policy
change has aIIected recruitment levels (Bagley, Personal Communication, October 13,
2000: Fuller, Personal Communication, October 17, 2000: Payne, Personal
Communication, October 9, 2000). The Armed Forces does not ask about sexual
orientation when recruiting, so the military does not possess any statistics speciIically
concerning either increases in the number oI homosexual recruits or decisions not to
enlist because oI the policy change. Further, so many Iactors aIIect recruiting that it is
diIIicult to isolate the eIIects oI one. But there have been no signs, Irom the experiences
oI recruiters or assessments within the Ministry oI DeIense, that recruiting numbers have
decreased substantially as a result oI the liIting oI the ban. A Ministry oI DeIense
oIIicial states, 'Certainly recruitment hasn`t dropped dramatically recruitment is quite
buoyant at present (Barnard, Personal Communication, October 13, 2000). AIter several
years oI recruiting shortages, the last two years have witnessed the IulIillment oI
recruiting targets (Hodges, Personal Communication, October 9 and November 2, 2000).
Paul Barnard adds, 'Nothing drastic has happened in terms oI recruiting or anything else
(Personal Communication, October 13, 2000).
Military leaders emphasize that behavior rather than sexual orientation is what
ultimately matters to the men and women in the Armed Services. As long as people do
their iobs and contribute eIIectively to the teamwork oI their units, individual diIIerences
40
LCR 04745
LCR Appendix Page 1846
in opinion or in their personal lives are not considered relevant. The new policy`s Iocus
on behavior rather than on personal attributes has allowed heterosexual and homosexual
soldiers alike to maintain their Iocus on the iobs at hand. It is the emphasis on eIIective
teamwork that Lieutenant Colonel Hodges believes is ultimately behind the success oI the
policy change:
There has been absolutely no reaction to the change in policy regarding
homosexuals within the military. It`s iust been accepted. In the military,
it`s important to Iit in and be a member oI the team. As regards
homosexuals, iI someone were acting camp`, they would not Iit into the
team. But iI they are discrete |sic|, it doesn`t matter. Our great strength as
an Army is that we treat everyone |as| an individual who contributes to the
team. We`ve won three recent wars Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East
Timor because we place a lot oI importance on personal responsibility,
down to the lowest level. Everyone has strengths and known weaknesses,
and everyone is given responsibility. Your sexuality doesn`t matter as
long as you act as a member oI the team. (Personal Communication,
October 9 and November 2, 2000)
For those heterosexual soldiers who Ieared the new policy would bring maior
changes in interpersonal relationships, the continuity has been a relieI. Since the liIting
oI the ban, heterosexual servicemembers have discovered that the Services aIter the
policy change looks basically like the Services under the old policy. Paul Barnard
explains:
And the media likes scare stories about showers and what have you. A
lot oI people were worried that they would have to share body heat in
close quarters or see two men being aIIectionate, and they would Ieel
uncomIortable. But it has proved at Iirst look that it`s not an issue.
(Personal Communication, October 13, 2000)
Now that the court case has been resolved, people have been able to eIIectively move
past the controversy. There have been no maior surprises, no radical or inappropriate
behavior. Heterosexual and homosexual soldiers alike continue to Iocus on the primary
task at hand: doing the iob that they signed up Ior. Paul Barnard adds: 'It`s gone better
41
LCR 04746
LCR Appendix Page 1847
than a lot oI people thought it would. It`s almost gone unnoticed. (Personal
Communication, October 13 and November 6, 2000)
Military oIIicials also suggest that servicemembers were better prepared to adapt
to the liIting oI the ban than many military commanders expected. Both the on-the-
ground reality oI homosexual service and more accepting attitudes in general about
homosexuality among the young were raised as partial explanations Ior the relatively
tranquil transition. Homosexual service personnel have been a part oI the Armed Forces
since long beIore the policy change occurred a Iact that was not denied by military
oIIicials even during the legal battle. Barnard argues that Ior many heterosexual
servicemembers, the admission by a colleague oI his or her sexual orientation in the wake
oI the new policy has not come as a surprise:
A lot oI gay people have gone about like beIore and not said anything.
But in most cases with those that have said that they`re gay, it was
probably known already. Close associates who worked with them
probably already knew, but they kept quiet about it, because they didn`t
want to get the person in trouble. So oIten it hasn`t been a surprise. It iust
has not been an issue. (Personal Communication, October 13, 2000)
Commander Cooper in turn emphasizes the more liberal attitudes oI younger service men
and women:
We have a ground-breaking social policy here. . But in broad terms, I
don`t think we`re shy about the Iact that there has been an atmosphere oI
resigned acceptance, particularly amongst the younger people in the Navy.
. There is a more relaxed attitude among younger people towards those
oI a diIIerent sexual orientation, and by and large it has been, thereIore, a
non-issue: it really has. (Personal Communication, October 13, 2000)
In interviewing military oIIicials Ior this report, the theme oI a lack oI response
was repeated. OIIicials emphasized that the policy transition had occurred more
smoothly than expected, that any criticism to the liIting oI the ban quickly died away, and
42
LCR 04747
LCR Appendix Page 1848
that the anticipated problems have not developed. People on all sides oI the issue have
behaved responsibly and respectIully. And while problems may still develop at a later
date, many Service oIIicials are genuinely surprised by how agreeable the transition has
been. A number oI interviewed oIIicials commented on the disiuncture between the
predicted diIIiculties and the reality oI the change. The Ministry oI DeIense Director oI
Personnel Policy states:
And |the| code oI conduct seems to have been accepted and applied
generally around the Armed Forces, and we`ve had very Iew real problems
that have emerged, and people seem to have, slightly surprisingly, settled
down and accepted the current arrangements. And we don`t really have
the problems that we thought we`d have. (Fuller, Personal
Communication, October 17, 2000)
Peebles concurs:
As Iar as I am aware, the rank and Iile airmen and airwomen have
accepted the revised policy. The anticipated tide oI criticism Irom some
quarters within the Service was completely unIounded. (Personal
Communication, October 17, 2000)
And Commander Cooper adds:
We now have chaps at sea that people now know are homosexuals there
are very Iew we`re talking about a handIul oI people who have come
out, and there wasn`t a |problem| coming out at all. And our youngsters
have iust taken it in stride. So it`s a maior non-issue, which has come as a
considerable surprise. (Personal Communication, October 13, 2000)
Given the Iact that the new policy has been in place Ior less than a year,
insuIIicient time has passed Ior any quantitative or in-depth external study oI the
policy change. Nonetheless, researchers Ior this report Ielt that it was important
to canvass relevant observers outside oI the military to Iurther assess the impact
oI the liIting oI the ban on homosexual soldiers. Academics, iournalists and non-
43
LCR 04748
LCR Appendix Page 1849
proIit organization representatives
43
who have been Iollowing the controversy
concerning sexual minorities in the military, or who are knowledgeable about
British military personnel issues more generally, provide an independent check to
the inIormation provided by the Armed Forces. The outside experts may be
aware oI issues that have not been brought to the attention oI the upper echelon oI
military commanders, they can provide a diIIerent perspective on events, and they
may be more critical oI the policies or the culture oI the British Services than
commanders.
Researchers Ior this report spoke with six respected academics and
iournalists who have been commentators on the military policy concerning
homosexuality since beIore the ban was liIted. The interviewees included: Dr.
Gwyn Harries-Jenkins, a proIessor oI military sociology at the University oI Hull:
Dr. Christopher Dandeker, a proIessor oI military sociology and head oI the
Department oI War Studies at King`s College: Dr. Hew Strachan, proIessor oI
military history at the University oI Glasgow: and Edmund Hall, Iormer iournalist
Ior the Sunday Times, Independent and the Evening Standard, and the author oI
the most widely-read book on the subiect, We Can`t Even March Straight.
ProIessor Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker specialize in military personnel issues
and have written speciIically about homosexuality in the Armed Forces.
Researchers also interviewed Joan Heggie, a doctoral candidate at the University
oI York who is presently working on a dissertation on lesbian service personnel in
Britain, and Tim Butcher, a reporter Ior the Daily Telegraph who has covered the
topic Ior that paper since 1995. The researchers asked these and other contacts iI
43
The opinions oI relevant non-proIit representatives are provided in the Iollowing section.
44
LCR 04749
LCR Appendix Page 1850
they knew oI any other prominent scholars or commentators who should be
reached Ior this report: we could uncover no other principal sources on this
subiect.
The academics and iournalists contacted Ior this report agree that it is still
too soon to determine what the long-term consequences oI the policy would be.
The inIormation available so Iar does, however, suggest reason Ior cautious
optimism. None oI the respondents knew oI any maior problems that have
occurred in the wake oI the policy change. And the (admittedly scant)
inIormation that they have heard about indicates a relatively smooth transition.
ProIessor Dandeker states:
It`s too early to say, but the reports I have heard say . that so Iar
there are Iew problems and indeed, perhaps less than the ones
arising Irom gender integration. (Personal Communication,
September 20, 2000)
ProIessor Harries-Jenkins also agrees that insuIIicient time had passed to
deIinitively assess the outcome oI the new policy, but he does add that 'press
statements (an inIormed source`) suggest a slight decrease in the incidence oI
harassment (Personal Communication, October 16, 2000). Joan Heggie argues
that the relative lack oI news about the transition is itselI a sign that no maior
problems had occurred. Since many military and political oIIicials had been
highly antagonistic to the removal oI the ban, any sign oI signiIicant problems
would have created a public Iuror. Heggie declares:
But there has been no Ieedback the new policy is not working. Certainly
the Iears oI massive resignations or sexual harassment have not come true.
(Personal Communication, October 2 and 16, 2000)
45
LCR 04750
LCR Appendix Page 1851
ProIessor Dandeker, Heggie and Hall all suggest that the relatively smooth
transition may have been due in part to the Iact that most gay and lesbian soldiers
presently serving in the military have remained quiet about their sexual
orientation and their private lives. ProIessor Dandeker and Heggie argue that
such low visibility most likely stems Irom continued bias against homosexuality
by most heterosexual soldiers. ProIessor Dandeker explains:
Most expect gay personnel to continue to be extremely discreet until
attitudes within the services change Iurther, and that this is an acceptable
price to pay Ior achieving a liIting oI the ban on personnel serving simply
because oI their homosexual orientation. (Personal Communication,
September 20, 2000)
Heggie adds:
Even though the situation is better, soldiers don`t want to set themselves
up Ior a Iall. Even though the rules have changed, not everyone Ieels
comIortable. (Personal Communication, October 2 and 16, 2000)
Hall, however, argues that gay and lesbian service personnel were unlikely to be
particularly conspicuous even in the most accepting environment:
When the ban was liIted, I think that many people who had been serving
quietly in the armed Iorces breathed a sigh oI relieI. Gay people who go
into the armed Iorces tend to be conservative in their politics, and reserved
about their private lives. AIter the ban was liIted, you didn`t Iind these
people indulging in ostentatious out behavior. (Personal Communication,
September 25, 2000)
ProIessors Harries-Jenkins and Dandeker, both noted experts on the
British military in general, also concur that the issue oI homosexual service in the
military was minor given the priorities oI the military at present. Like many other
Western militaries in the wake oI the Cold War, the British military has had to
conIront the eIIects oI a shiIt in priorities and the extension oI peacekeeping
missions with shrinking resources. ProIessor Harries-Jenkins states that
46
LCR 04751
LCR Appendix Page 1852
homosexuality 'is a minor issue in the light oI maior problems Ior recruitment
and retention caused by overstretch, role uncertainty, turbulence and rates oI
remuneration (Personal Communication, October 16, 2000). ProIessor Dandeker
also cites overstretch, recruitment and retention as primary problems presently
Iacing the British military, and he adds that the size oI the deIense budget is an
additional source oI concern (Personal Communication, September 20, 2000).
Echoing Rear-Admiral Burnell-Nugent, ProIessors Dandeker and Harries-
Jenkins suggest that the integration oI women into the Armed Services is perhaps
a more vexing personnel problem than that oI including homosexuals. ProIessor
Harries-Jenkins declares:
At present, the maior |personnel| issue is the political policy that women
should be recruited to direct combat on the ground posts in armor, inIantry
and special Iorces units. Whilst it is possible to substitute males in terms
oI race and sexual preIerence, there is a strong body oI opinion in the
military which questions the ability oI women to serve in such posts. The
liIting oI the ban on gays may or may not have eIIects upon good order
and discipline but these can be covered by regulations. (Personal
Communication, October 16, 2000)
Both ProIessors did, however, append caveats to this assessment. ProIessor
Dandeker contends that it 'remains to be seen whether the integration oI women
and sexual minorities will 'interact and lead to diIIiculties (Personal
Communication, September 20, 2000). ProIessor Harries-Jenkins adds that the
legislative approval oI gay marriages or the 'active promotion oI the rights oI
homosexuals would 'alarm service chieIs (Personal Communication, October
16, 2000).
Finally, Dandeker, Heggie and Butcher all caution that while the rules
may have changed, Iundamental attitudes have not. Many military personnel
47
LCR 04752
LCR Appendix Page 1853
remain opposed to the change in policy, including a number oI commanders. And
a large number oI those who are resigned to the new regulations continue to view
homosexuality in an unIavorable light. Given the discretion placed with
commanding oIIicers in interpreting what constitutes social misconduct, such
anti-gay Ieelings could result in harsh restriction oI homosexuals. ProIessor
Dandeker explains:
It should be pointed out that the liIting oI the ban` is not quite right.
Integration oI open homosexuals is problematic and remains so under the
new policy. . Much will depend on how commanding oIIicers use
discretion and how much gay personnel wish to be discreet about their
orientation as well as scrupulously careIul about their behavior both on
and oII duty. (Personal Communication, September 20, 2000)
Heggie also warns that 'the rules oI conduct are so loose that they allow discrimination
by individual commanders (Personal Communication, October 2 and 16, 2000). How
the implementation oI the code oI social conduct proceeds in the coming months will
have a considerable eIIect on the ultimate success oI the new policy. Because gay-
bashing is punishable by administrative discharge, however, Butcher expects that 'the
quality oI liIe Ior the average homosexual servicemember |will| go up considerably
(Personal Communication, August 8, 2000).
Researchers Ior this report also talked with representatives Irom relevant maior
non-governmental organizations to determine their assessments oI how the policy change
was proceeding. We contacted the Christian Institute, the maior NGO opposing the new
policy: TORCHe, the gay rights group oI the Conservative Party: the Royal United
Service Institute (RUSI), an independent military think-tank: Stonewall and Outrage!, the
two primary gay-rights groups in Britain: and Rank Outsiders, an organization that
promotes the rights oI gay and lesbian servicemembers. Rank Outsiders has been
48
LCR 04753
LCR Appendix Page 1854
monitoring the inclusion oI gay and lesbian service personnel closely since the policy
change was announced in January.
Colin Hart, the executive director Ior the Christian Institute, does not Ieel that
suIIicient inIormation was yet publicly available to assess the impact oI the removal oI
the prohibition against homosexual servicemembers:
Well, it`s Iar too early to say what the results oI liIting the ban have been.
Clearly some senior oIIicers are so concerned that they have resigned. We
have not yet been able to investigate the implementation oI the policy.
(Personal Communication, September 21, 2000)
Debbie Gupta, the Director oI Policy and Public AIIairs at Stonewall, also Ieels that her
organization is not in a position to know the military eIIects oI the policy change on
morale, unit cohesion, or harassment levels. She points to the statements oI Rear-
Admiral Burnell-Nugent as providing the best public evidence oI the impact oI the policy
change (Personal Communication, October 18, 2000).
None oI the other organizations, including the non-partisan RUSI, know oI any
maior problems with morale, unit cohesion or operational eIIectiveness that have
developed in the wake oI the policy change. Steven Johnston, the Chair oI Rank
Outsiders, posed the question oI operational eIIectiveness and morale to Air Marshal
Pledger at a RUSI presentation on September 28 concerning personnel matters:
I asked the very same question |concerning operational eIIectiveness and
morale|, and his direct reply was that there had been no change in either
operational eIIectiveness or problems with moral|e|. In Iact, I have three
members oI my Association who have been accepted back to Iull service
(all in the Navy) where they have reioined with the service knowing about
their sexual orientation. These three individuals are oI the three rank
structures: Lt. |Commander|, ChieI Petty OIIicer and rating. This I
believe is suIIicient evidence to back up that statement. (Personal
Communication, October 16, 2000)
49
LCR 04754
LCR Appendix Page 1855
Peter Tatchell, the Chairman oI Outrage!, echoes Joan Heggie`s comments about the lack
oI news about diIIiculties during the transition. Although Outrage! does not have the
military connections that either RUSI or Rank Outsiders maintains, Tatchell suggests that
the level oI concern beIore the removal oI the ban means that maior post-change
problems would have been brought to light:
But clearly, there has been none oI the damage that the army chieIs were
predicting to morale or operational eIIectiveness. . |G|iven the dire
warnings the service chieIs were making beIore the ban was liIted about
how it would cripple morale, the consequences they predicted were so
severe that we should be seeing something by now. But they have not
come to pass. (Personal Communication, August 21, 2000)
RUSI, Rank Outsiders and Outrage! also have no knowledge oI any increases in
harassment related to sexual orientation. Rank Outsiders has been monitoring this issue
and has been in close contact with the military on these matters. It is best positioned to
assess the issue oI anti-gay harassment, because they both support gay and lesbian service
personnel and have access to the military`s own analysis. Rank Outsiders might hear
about cases oI harassment oI homosexual servicemembers that were not reported within
the chain oI command. Johnston, the Chair oI Rank Outsiders, states that he knows oI no
signiIicant harassment problems within the British military. He only knows oI two minor
instances oI harassment, both oI which were successIully resolved:
As an Association we have not heard oI any maior problems oI harassment
or assaults |sic| within the AF. I have been privy to two incidents in
which we were able to advise and the problems were resolved quite
quickly. . Both incidents were oI a name calling` situation with only
one that included any physical eIIorts, that being belongings overturned
and adverse comments painted onto a private motor vehicle. The local
commanders were very sympathetic . The end result was that the
individual, by his own request, had moved units and is now an instructor
at his unit Training Center! (Personal Communication, October 16, 2000)
50
LCR 04755
LCR Appendix Page 1856
Johnston Iurther reports that the military has expressed a desire to work
eIIectively with Rank Outsiders should any Iuture problems arise. Johnston
explains:
I have been to the Ministry oI DeIense a number oI times in which
|harassment| has been the subiect oI many discussions. It appears that
there have not been any cases that they are aware oI and were very
positive as |to| this situation. I have been told, however, that iI any do
come to light that I am aware oI and require assistance, they will
investigate at the highest levels (Personal Communication, October 16,
2000).
Michael Codner, the Assistant Director Ior Military Sciences at RUSI,
believes that assurances oI this kind by military commanders are not simply
empty gestures. He is convinced that the Armed Forces are strongly committed to
making the new policy work. Codner argues that not only has the top brass
invested in the policy change, but also that the new thinking about homosexual
inclusion is part oI a larger shiIt that has aIIected the military. Codner explains:
The intention is to be Iar more than cosmetic. II you look at the thinking
oI senior personnel, they have invested a great deal oI credibility and
authority into this policy shiIt. They want to see it Iully implemented.
There has been a kind oI generational shiIt. |For| the people who are
moving into the rank oI 1-star and 2-star general, who are around 50-53 .
Ior them this is iust not so much oI a maior issue. (Personal
Communication, September 26, 2000)
The Chairs oI Rank Outsiders and OutRage! both suggest that the
eradication oI the ban on homosexual service in the military is iust the Iirst step in
a longer process toward Iull equality in the military Ior sexual minorities. The
attainment oI equal access to domestic partner beneIits, ioint accommodations and
pension beneIits will signal a real acknowledgement oI the contributions and
51
LCR 04756
LCR Appendix Page 1857
sacriIices that homosexual personnel have made, as well as their Iull acceptance
into the Iabric oI military liIe. Johnston explains:
As to the Iuture, there is still much to be done. The ban being overturned
is a maior step Ior the Iuture, but equal rights with their heterosexual
colleagues is a diIIerent matter. Full employment rights will include:
pension rights, accommodation rights and partnership rights . These,
when obtained, will show the commitment by the |Armed Forces|
hierarchy to Iull equality to every member oI the |Armed Forces| .
As Ior the transition to the new policy, well it has all been very much a
matter oI Iact` and liIe goes on as it always has. In summary, there has
simply been no change but a positive step Iorward that at last each and
every person can be themselves and give their very best to the roles that
they undertake! (Personal Communication, October 16, 2000)
Since the ban on homosexual servicemembers has been liIted, the British media
has reported the Iirst instance oI a gay soldier coming out to his crewmates. Most
recently, it has also reported the acceptance oI the boyIriend oI the Iirst openly gay
oIIicer in the Royal Navy as a 'naval wiIe, with rights to beneIits such as subsidized
Ilights to see his partner in port and invitations to Iormal Navy dinners (Gilligan, 2000).
Researchers Ior this report also spoke with Iour sexual minorities presently serving in the
British Armed Forces about their experiences beIore and aIter the policy change. The
Iour men include: a chieI petty oIIicer in the Royal Navy, a lieutenant commander in the
Royal Navy, a corporal in the Royal Air Force, and a iunior technician in the Royal Air
Force. The chieI petty oIIicer and the lieutenant commander were both discharged under
the Iormer policy and have recently been reinstated. The corporal has been in the
military Ior ten years and was recently promoted. He has been out to his colleagues since
the ban was liIted. The iunior technician has served continuously Ior the past Iive years
and has not disclosed his sexual orientation to any oI his colleagues. Because these
52
LCR 04757
LCR Appendix Page 1858
interviewees do not constitute a representative sample oI presently-serving homosexual
soldiers, their experiences cannot be said to provide a complete picture oI liIe Ior sexual
minorities under the new policy. But their perspectives as servicemembers most aIIected
by the policy change allow Ior a more detailed portrait oI the present conditions on-the-
ground than the comments by MOD staII members and other non-military observers.
At the end oI January 2000, the Iirst purported servicemember to publicly
acknowledge his homosexuality in the wake oI the liIting oI the ban told his shipmates
that he was gay. The sailor, who asked reporters not to disclose his name, announced his
sexual orientation several hours aIter the liIting oI the ban. The 280-member crew was
reminded` oI the rules against bullying and harassment, and that any allegation would be
'thoroughly investigated (Fleet, 2000). The man told members oI the ship`s mess while
docked near Portsmouth, Hants, his hometown. He reported that his announcement was
well-received. 'They were all Iine about it. I was surprised. I had no problem with them
about it at all.
The sailor, who had been with the Navy Ior eight years but had only realized his
sexual orientation Iour years ago, said that he was relieved to have been able to disclose
his sexual orientation with his crewmates:
I was iust Ied up with lying to people, especially when I went home at the
weekends. People have asked me where I have been, and I have had to
make up somewhere because I had been to a gay club. I was living
separate lives. I had my Navy liIe and I had my liIe at home. Coming out
in the Navy has been a big weight oII my shoulders. It has been a big
relieI. (Fleet, 2000).
The sailor added that he did not expect any problems in the wake oI his announcement.
He declared, 'I do not expect any problems in the Iuture or Ior it to aIIect my work
(Fleet, 2000).
53
LCR 04758
LCR Appendix Page 1859
On October 29, the Sunday Times reported that the partner oI the Iirst openly gay
naval oIIicer had won the right to some partner beneIits, including ioining naval spouses
Ilying out to see their husbands and wives. Lieutenant Commander Craig Jones said that
his partner Adam has been 'made to Ieel welcome by the navy and has been 'Iully
integrated into naval Iamily liIe (Gilligan, 2000). Jones` partner has attended Iormal
dinners on ship and ashore:
Our Iirst mess dinner, in Portsmouth, was a worry, but we had a great
time. It was a diIIicult issue Ior Adam and me, but people generally, and
particularly my colleague`s wives, looked aIter us very well. (Gilligan,
2000)
All oI the out servicemembers interviewed Ior this report also state that they have
had no maior problems with their colleagues because oI their sexual orientation.
Corporal Andrew Blythe has had no diIIiculties with his colleagues at Bentley Priory, all
oI whom know that he is gay. ChieI Petty OIIicer Rob Nunn and Lieutenant Commander
Michael GriIIiths, who have been recently reinstated in the Navy aIter earlier discharges
due to sexual orientation, report that colleagues have responded well to their
reinstatements. The circumstances oI their departures and returns have meant that the
sexual orientation oI each oIIicer is widely known by co-workers. This has not, however,
resulted in problems Ior either oIIicer. Lieutenant Commander GriIIiths explains:
I am now out to anyone who wishes to know. Just about everyone who
knew me beIore 1995 knows |my sexual orientation,| and I have already
met about a dozen people who know since reioining. They have been
absolutely Iine, welcoming me back to the Royal Navy and it obviously
isn't causing them any diIIiculty. I have come out to one person who
knew me |prior to discharge| but didn't know |my sexual orientation|. He
was astonished, remarked that I kept it very quiet beIore and has been Iine
since. (Personal Communication, October 22, 2000)
54
LCR 04759
LCR Appendix Page 1860
ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn, who has served in the navy Ior a total oI 21 years, may
be returning to submarine duty and is in line Ior a promotion. He also reports a
positive response Irom co-workers:
Now, the people in the mess have asked me all sorts oI questions, and I`ve
answered their questions. They think I`m very brave doing what I`ve
done, and we`ve now got to the stage where the mess president a couple oI
nights ago asked iI my partner was coming to the Christmas ball.
(Personal Communication, October 17, 2000)
ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn believes that the best approach has been to allow Ior an
open dialogue with colleagues about the subiect oI his sexual orientation and his
reinstatement. This has enabled him to counter stereotypes, improve the knowledge oI
his colleagues, and put people at ease. ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn has not been subiect to
harassment either beIore his dismissal or aIter his return: he has, however, encountered
several people since his reinstatement who have been unsure how to respond to him. He
describes the experience:
Well, it`s the not being able to ask me a question. It`s the old I don`t
know quite what to say`. In Iact, one guy that I talked to who couldn`t sort
oI talk to me, I said, Right, I`m going to ask the questions that you want
to ask, and answer them.` So I did. (Personal Communication, October 17,
2000)
ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn adds that his open approach has been successIul. Once
colleagues are able to ask the questions that they have about homosexuality and
about the service oI gay and lesbian soldiers, any remaining discomIort seems to
disappear. With respect to the colleague who was once aIraid to voice his queries,
ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn reports that he is 'nice as pie now (Personal
Communication, October 17, 2000).
55
LCR 04760
LCR Appendix Page 1861
All Iour respondents Ieel positively about the policy change. While Lieutenant
Commander GriIIiths and the iunior technician believe that it is too early to know iI the
policy will be implemented Iairly Ior both heterosexual and homosexual soldiers,
Corporal Blyth and ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn both Ieel that the army is committed to
providing equal standards Ior heterosexual and homosexual soldiers alike. Corporal
Blyth says that, 'In Iact I now Ieel more protected under the military code than my
partner does at work (|h|e`s a civilian) (Personal Communication, October 27, 2000).
ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn believes that he has already seen evidence oI the
military`s commitment to enIorcing across-the-board both a code oI social conduct and a
zero-tolerance policy Ior harassment. He explains:
To a person, everybody I`ve talked to, commander downwards, has said
iI you`ve got problems, come and see me. . I can deal with most oI it.
But you know, I know Iull well that iI I went to one oI them with it, it
would be sorted out. They are more than willing to use the legislation,
which is very good news Irom our point oI view. (Personal
Communication, October 17, 2000)
He also reports that he has iust acted as the Provost Marshal at a Court Martial Ior a male
soldier who had been sexually harassing Iemale trainees. The male soldier was severely
disciplined: he was demoted a rank, had to IorIeit a medal and lost twelve years oI good
conduct. ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn argues that this punishment was a good example oI
the military`s willingness to apply the social code oI conduct to all its servicemembers
(Personal Communication, October 17, 2000).
ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn, Lieutenant Commander GriIIiths and the iunior
technician also report that not much has changed in the day-to-day liIe in the Armed
Forces. The primary alteration has been that homosexual service personnel now have the
option to reveal their sexual orientation without Iear oI discharge. Having this choice
56
LCR 04761
LCR Appendix Page 1862
enables soldiers to conIront comments or harassment by peers without having to worry
about losing their iobs. ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn and Lieutenant Commander GriIIiths
both agree that service personnel were more receptive to a change in policy than MOD
oIIicials initially believed. Lieutenant Commander GriIIiths declares:
The policy appears to have been put across as unwelcome but inevitable
and the brieIing oIIicers seemed to be embarrassed by the requirement to
tell their men and women oI the change. Fortunately, the men and women
seem to be much better able to cope with the change than senior oIIicers
were prepared to give them credit Ior and many oI the men and women
know Iriends or Iamily outside oI the Service who are gay. (Personal
Communication, October 22, 2000)
For ChieI Petty OIIicer Nunn, his assessment oI the open-mindedness oI the soldiers
stems Irom both the reception he has received upon his return and the comments oI his
crewmates when he was discharged. When his co-workers originally heard that he was
being dismissed, they expressed support Ior him:
In Iact, all oI them were coming up to me and saying iI there`s anything I
can do, give us a shout`, all this sort oI stuII. And . my commanding
oIIicer when he said goodbye to me, said that we can`t aIIord to lose
people like you, but my hands are tied`. And the attitude as Iar as I can
see certainly it`s been proved since I got back - is that what the hell`s
the problem here?`. You do your iob, and that`s all they want Irom you.
(Personal Communication, October 17, 2000)
44
At the same time, however, the servicemembers agree that negative stereotypes
about homosexuals continue to be widespread among British soldiers. Because the
Armed Forces is such an insular climate, many gay and lesbian soldiers still Ieel IearIul
oI revealing their sexual orientation in a setting where anti-homosexual Ieelings remain
pervasive. For the RAF iunior technician, the homophobia oI his colleagues has made
44
For other stories about positive responses by heterosexual colleagues beIore the policy change , see Hall
(1995).
57
LCR 04762
LCR Appendix Page 1863
him wary oI telling anyone about the people that he dates or other aspects oI his private
liIe:
And |the restrictive military environment is| diIIicult, and that prevents
people Irom coming out, the Iact that it`s such an insular environment,
where everybody knows everyone else. and no matter iI you get moved,
someone else will Iind out, and that`s the big problem Ior people at the
moment, is that we know it`s quite homophobic, and we know that there`s
not an easy way oI getting away Irom it. And that`s the worry we Iace at
the moment is the general perception oI gay people. (Personal
Communication, October 22, 2000)
But, he adds, Gay people are iust like any other people` (Personal
Communication, October 22, 2000). For Lieutenant GriIIiths, changing
heterosexual servicemembers`s attitudes about gay and lesbian people will take
time:
Overall, the |Royal Navy| seems to be treating the change in policy as a
bit oI a ioke (I believe as an inherent deIense mechanism) but this is likely
to change as the numbers oI openly gay people grow. I do not Ioresee a
problem and the ioke will stop once people get used to serving with
lesbian and gay people. (Personal Communication, October 22, 200)
For Corporal Blyth, such a change in attitudes has already begun:
Yes, there is less micky talking etc. We used to be a minority that was Iair
game to be the butt oI someone`s |sic| ioke, but that is all changing.
People are now aware that they used to serve with |closeted| gays and the
ones I work with now know that they are serving with a gay man, |who| is
proud oI the Iact he`s gay. (Personal Communication, October 27, 2000)
IX. CONCLUSION
The British Services Iought Ior a number oI years to maintain its policy oI
excluding openly gay and lesbian soldiers. Even aIter the outcome oI the European Court
oI Human Rights case appeared inevitable, the Armed Forces resisted calls to eliminate
the ban. While the Ministry oI DeIense asked commanders to soIten their enIorcement oI
58
LCR 04763
LCR Appendix Page 1864
the ban in the months beIore the decision was handed down, it both reIused to alter its
basic policy and continued to dismiss soldiers Ior homosexuality. The last gay soldier
was discharged Irom the military iust three days beIore the ruling that overturned the ban
on homosexual service. Service oIIicials argued that the inclusion oI open homosexuals
would engender distrust, splinter working relationships, damage morale, and even harm
operational eIIectiveness. EIIorts to overturn the ban were deemed by some military
oIIicials to be inappropriate political meddling in military operations and harmIul social
engineering.
Once the decision was handed down by the European Court, however, the military
acted quickly to put in place a policy that would both accord with the ruling and address
eIIectiveness concerns. The Armed Forces enacted a new policy within three months oI
the decision by the European Court. It established a nondiscriminatory mandate that
Iocuses on behavior rather than on personal characteristics. It emphasized the importance
oI equal application oI the new social code oI conduct and instructed commanders to
intervene in soldiers` personal lives only when operational eIIectiveness might be
compromised. It invited discharged soldiers to reapply and accepted back several Iormer
service personnel. The Services also reemphasized the policy oI zero tolerance Ior
harassment, bullying and victimization.
While the long-term eIIects oI the elimination oI the ban remain to be seen, the
Iirst ten months oI the new social code oI conduct and the more inclusive policy have
been a clear and unqualiIied success. The Services` own internal assessment at six
months Iound that the new policy has 'been hailed as a solid achievement (Ministry oI
DeIense, 2000e, p. 2). There have been no indications oI negative eIIects on recruiting
59
LCR 04764
LCR Appendix Page 1865
levels. The social code oI conduct has been eIIectively incorporated into the military`s
training courses. No mass resignations have occurred. There have been no maior
reported cases oI gay-bashing or harassment oI sexual minorities. There have been no
maior reported cases oI harassment or inappropriate behavior by gay or lesbian soldiers.
There has been no perceived eIIect on morale, unit cohesion or operational eIIectiveness.
The new policy has been well received by soldiers, and the policy change has been
characterized by a 'marked lack oI reaction (Ministry oI DeIense, 2000e, p. 2).
The conclusions oI the Ministry oI DeIense report have been conIirmed by our
conversations with more than twenty-Iive representatives Irom the military, academia,
and non-governmental organizations. None oI those interviewed know oI any maior
problems associated with the policy change. No one has heard oI any diIIiculties related
to recruitment or training completion rates: recruitment levels are characterized as 'quite
buoyant (Barnard, Personal Communication, October 13, 2000). There has not been a
problem oI mass resignations associated with the removal oI the ban. None oI those
interviewed have heard oI cases oI serious homophobic harassment. Rank Outsiders, the
only organization devoted exclusively to homosexual servicemembers, knows oI only
two cases oI minor problems. The issues were quickly addressed by military personnel
and eIIectively resolved. Out service personnel interviewed Ior this report and by other
sources describe collegial treatment by their co-workers and other servicemembers.
Experts in all Iields acknowledged that more work remains to be done, and new
obstacles could still emerge. Homophobic attitudes persist throughout the Services, and
many soldiers thereIore Ieel the need to remain silent about their personal lives. It is
possible that some problems will develop as more gay and lesbian service personnel
60
LCR 04765
LCR Appendix Page 1866
acknowledge their sexual orientation to colleagues, or iI the Armed Forces relaxes its
vigilance against harassment and inappropriate behavior oI all kinds. Issues oI equality
such as pension, accommodation and partnership rights have yet to be addressed. Still,
the distance that has been traveled over the past year is impressive. Concerns oI dire
consequences have been replaced by a general recognition that the transition has
proceeded smoothly.
61
LCR 04766
LCR Appendix Page 1867
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agence France Presse. (Paris). 1999. 'European Rights Court Weighs British Military
Ban on Homosexuals. May 18.
BBC News. 2000. 'Forces Pay-Out Ior Sacked Gays. July 20. Found at:
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid850000/850238.stm.
Beaumont, Peter and Andy McSmith. 1995. 'Labor DeIends Old` Policy on
Homosexuals in Armed Forces.` in The Observer (London). April 23: 3.
Belkin, Aaron and Jason McNichol. 2000. Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on
Gav ana Lesbian Service in the Canaaian Forces. Appraising the Eviaence.
Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military.
Booth, Jenny. 1999. 'Military Braced For Ruling Against Gays Ban. in The Scotsman
(Edinburgh). September 27: 26.
Booth, Claire. 2000. 'Law That Will Turn Dreams oI Equality into Reality. in
The Dailv Telegraph (London). August 7. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Bowcott, Owen. 1996. 'In War, I'd Rather Have With Me A Gay Who Shoots Straight
Than A Straight Who Shoots Crooked. in The Guaraian (London). March 5: 7.
Bowcott, Owen, Ben Stewart and Chris Zinn. 1996. The Guaraian (London). March 5: 7.
Britten, Nick. 2000. 'Blair Constituents Want Section 28. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). March 9. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Burke, Jason. 2000. 'Bullied Army Recruits Being Forced to Desert. in The Guaraian
(London). June 4. Found at: www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive.
Butcher, Tim. 1995. 'Forces Gay Ban To Be Reviewed. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). September 5. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Butcher, Tim. 1995a. 'Navy's Attitude to Gays is Primitive, Appeal Court Told. in
The Dailv Telegraph (London). October 10. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Butcher, Tim. 1999. 'Euro Court Leaves Forces Powerless to Ban Gays. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). September 28. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Butcher, Tim. 2000. 'Pilot Resigns Over LiIting oI Ban on Homosexuals. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). January 28. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Butcher, Tim. 2000a. 'RAF teaches tolerance oI gays. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). February 14. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
62
LCR 04767
LCR Appendix Page 1868
Campbell, Christy and Kit Wharton. 1995. 'Tories Scent Clinton` GaIIe on Gay
Soldiers. in The Sunaav Telegraph. April 23: 1. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Carrell, Severin. 1999. 'European Court Could Outlaw Forces' Gay Ban. in
The Scotsman (Edinburgh). September 3: 10.
Convention Ior the Protection oI Human Rights and Freedoms. 1950.
Found at: http://www.coe.Ir/eng/legaltxt/5e.htm.
Copley, J. 1996. 'Services Support Ban on Gays, Says Portillo. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). March 4. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Cullen, Kevin. 1999. 'British Bristling At Reach OI European Court oI Human Rights.
in The Boston Globe. October 13: A4.
Dailv Telegraph (London). 1996. 'What Was Said: Some oI the Views Expressed by
Services Personnel. March 5. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Dandeker, Christopher. 2000. 'The United Kingdom: The Overstretched Military. in
The Postmoaern Militarv, edited by Charles Moskos, John Allen Williams and
David R. Segal. New York: OxIord University Press.
Davies, Patricia Wynn. 1992. 'Military Law On Gays Is ModiIied. in The Inaepenaent
(London). June 18: 3.
Davies, Patricia Wynn. 1997. 'Judge Sounds Last Post Ior Forces' Gay Ban. in
The Inaepenaent (London). March 14:8.
Davies, Patricia Wynn and George Jones. 1999. 'Sex-Change Soldiers Can Stay in
Army. in The Dailv Telegraph. August 2. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Dyer, Clare. 2000. 'Payouts Ior Gays Sacked by Forces. in The Guaraian. July 26.
Found at: www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive.
Evans, Michael. 2000. 'Guthrie Regrets Gay Inquisition. in The Times (London).
January 13. Found at: www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000.
Fleet, Michael. 2000. 'I'm Gay, Sailor Tells Colleagues. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). January 28. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
General Accounting OIIice (GAO). 1992. Defense Force Management. DODs Policv on
Homosexualitv.
Gilligan, Andrew. 1995. 'Let Homosexuals In, MoD Report Tells Forces. in The
Sunaav
63
LCR 04768
LCR Appendix Page 1869
Telegraph (London). December 31: 1. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Gilligan, Andrew and David Wastell. 1996. 'Soames Tells Troops To Go SoItly on Gay
Purges. in The Dailv Telegraph (London). May 27. Found at:
www.telegraph.co.uk.
Gilligan, Andrew. 2000. 'Navy Welcomes BoyIriend oI Openly Gay OIIicer as Naval
WiIe` in The Sunday Times (London). October 29. Found at: www.sunday-
times.co.uk.
Guaraian (London). 1995. 'Swimming Against The Tide: Britain Will Eventually Have
To Change Policy On Gays In The Military. June 8: 16.
Guaraian. (London). 1999. 'Gay Challenge to Forces Ban. May 18. Found at:
www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive.
Guaraian. (London). 1999a. 'Four Who Put Establishment in Dock.
September 28. Found at: www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive.
Hall, Edmund. 1995. We Cant Even March Straight. London: Vintage.
Hall, Edmund. 1995a. 'Stop The Generals Invading The Bedroom. in The Inaepenaent
(London). March 11: 15.
Hall, Edmund. 1995b. 'Middle England Comes Out: Colonel Blimp is on the
DeIensive but the Rest oI Britain Doesn`t Mind Gays in the Forces. in The
Inaepenaent (London). May 21: 27.
Harnden, T. 1996. 'Homosexuals Must Stay Out, Says Forces Report. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). February 26. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Harries-Jenkins, Gwyn and Christopher Dandeker. 1994. 'Sexual Orientation and
Military Service: The British Case. in Gays and Lesbians in the Military:
Issues, Concerns and Contrasts, edited by Wilbur Scott and Sandra Stanley.
New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Hayes, Bernadette. 1997. 'The InIluence oI Gender on Public Attitudes Toward
Homosexual Rights in Britain. In International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. Volume 9, Number 4. Pp. 361-385.
Hibbs, Jon and David Millward. 1996. 'MPs Vote to Keep Gays Out oI Forces. in
The Dailv Telegraph (London). May 10: 8. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Hicklin, Aaron. 1995. 'Court Tests Military Gays Ban. in Scotlana on Sunaav
(Edinburgh). May 14: 3.
64
LCR 04769
LCR Appendix Page 1870
Inaepenaent (London). 1995. 'Time To Put An End To Preiudice. March 13: 14.
Johnston, Philip. 1997. 'Army To Retain Ban on Homosexuals`. The Dailv Telegraph
(London). March 25. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Jones, George. 1999. 'Gay Ban in the Forces is Being 'LiIted by Stealth'. in
The Dailv Telegraph (London). August 11. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Jones, George. 2000. 'Peers Block Repeal oI Section 28. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). February 8. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Jones, George. 2000a. 'Blair Vows to Press on with Gay Ban Repeal. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). February 10. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Laville, Sandra. 2000. 'Britain`s Gay Sex Laws Are Declared UnlawIul. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). August 1. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Lawver Online (1995). 'We Want You as a New Recruit. August 1. Found at:
www.interactive-lawyer.com.
Lawver Online. (1996) 'MOD Ban on Gays May Be Resolved in European Court.
February 13. Found at: www.interactive-lawyer.com.
Lawver Online. (1996a). 'Leaked MOD Advice Urges Compromise Over Gays Ban.
March 5. Found at: www.interactive-lawyer.com.
Lyall, Sarah. 1999. 'European Court Tells British To Let Gay Soldiers Serve. in
The New York Times. September 28. Found at: artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci.
Macklin, Simon. 1999. 'Gays Win Military Battle. in South China Morning Post (Hong
Kong). October 5: 19.
Maiendie, Paul. 1995. 'Brit Military Ban on Gays Upheld. in Chicago Sun-Times.
November 5: 37.
Ministry oI DeIense. 1994. 'Armed Forces Policy and Guidelines on Homosexuality.
Ministry oI DeIense. 1996. 'Report oI the Homosexual Policy Assessment Team.
February.
Ministry oI DeIense. 2000. 'Background InIormation. Found at:
www.mod.uk/index.php3?page594.
Ministry oI DeIense. 2000a. 'Armed Forces Code oI Social Conduct: Policy
Statement. Found at: www.mod.uk/index.php3?page595
65
LCR 04770
LCR Appendix Page 1871
Ministry oI DeIense. 2000b. 'Statement by GeoII Hoon MP, Secretary oI State Ior
DeIense. Found at: www.mod.uk/index.php3?page593
Ministry oI DeIense. 2000c. 'Speaking Notes Ior Commanding OIIicers. January.
Ministry oI DeIense. 2000d. 'Guidance Notes Ior Commanding OIIicers on the
Practical Aspects oI Implementation. D/SP Pol. 2/50/1. January.
Ministry oI DeIense. 2000e. 'A Review oI the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality.
October 31.
Mills, Heather. 1995. 'Forces Ban On Gays 'Panders To Preiudice'. in The Inaepenaent
( London). May 16: 3.
New York Times. 2000. 'Gay troops in Europe. January 15: A16.
Norton-Taylor, Richard and Clare Dyer. 1999. 'Historic Ruling Ends Services Gay Ban.
in The Guaraian. September 28. Found at:
www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive.
Norton-Taylor, Richard. 1999. 'The Last Gay Man to Be Fired From the Forces? in
The Dailv Telegraph (London). September 25. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Observer (London). 1997. 'Ban on Gays in the Forces Will Stay. June 1: 24.
O'Kelly, Lisa. 1995. 'Gay Misery OI Military Marching Orders. in The Observer
(London). May 7: 10.
Paterson, Michael. 2000. 'Gays in Navy Cause Fewer Waves Than Wrens`.
in The Dailv Telegraph (London). September 1. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
RAND. 1993. Sexual Orientation ana U.S. Militarv Personnel Policv. Options ana
Assessment.
Rayside, David. On the Fringe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Reid, T. R. 2000. 'Britain Ends Its Curbs on Gays in Military. in The Washington Post.
January 13: A13.
Robertson, Lynne. 2000. 'Appeal Victory Ior Gay OIIicer. in The Glasgow Herala.
September 28. Found at:www.theherald.co.uk.
SchoIield, Carey. 2000. 'Army Peace Role Sapping Our Strength`. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). August 10. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
66
LCR 04771
LCR Appendix Page 1872
Scott, Jacqueline. 1998. 'Changing Attitudes to Sexual Morality: A Cross-National
Study. in Sociologv. Volume 32, Number 4. Pp. 815-845.
Shaw, Terence. 1999. 'Lord ChieI Justice Issues Warning Over Human Rights
Legislation. in The Dailv Telegraph (London). January 11. Found at:
www.telegraph.co.uk.
Shaw, Terence. 1999a. 'Forces Ban Violates Rights oI Gays. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). September 28. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Shaw, Terence and George Jones. 1996. 'Transsexual Wins Euro Court Fight.
in The Dailv Telegraph. May 1. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Shaw, Terence and Robert Shrimsley. 1997. 'UK Courts To Rule on Human
Rights. In The Dailv Telegraph (London). October 25. Found at:
www.telegraph.co.uk.
Shrimsley, Robert. 1996. 'Forces Set Ior Legal Fight on Gay Ban. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). March 5. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Shrimsley, Robert. 1999. 'European Human Rights Law Ior Britain Is Facing Long
Delay. in The Dailv Telegraph (London). April 5. Found at:
www.telegraph.co.uk.
Shrimsley, Robert. 1999a. 'Forces Ban on Gays 'Could End by Election'. in The Dailv
Telegraph (London). September 3. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Smith, Michael. 2000a. 'RAF Short oI Pilots AIter Cuts in Training. In The Dailv
Telegraph. September 14. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Star Tribune (Minneapolis). (2000). 'Britain Ends Ban on Gays, Lesbians in
Military: a New Social Code oI Conduct Ior all Personnel Will Replace the
Old Policy Thrown Out by a European Court. January 13: 7A.
Sparrow, A. 1999. 'Sex Code Ior Forces as Gay Ban is LiIted. in The Dailv Telegraph
(London). November 15. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.

Syal, Raieev and Andrew Gilligan. 1999. '4m Payout Ior Gays Sacked Irom Services.
in The Dailv Telegraph (London). October 17, 1999. Found at:
www.telegraph.co.uk.
Sylvester, Rachel. 2000. 'Equal Perks at Work Ior Gay Men and Lesbians. in
The Dailv Telegraph (London). February 10. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Sylvester, Rachel. 2000a. 'Section 28 Skirmish Is Prelude To a War On Inequality.
67
LCR 04772
LCR Appendix Page 1873
in The Dailv Telegraph (London). February 10. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.

Sylvester, Rachel and Alice Thomson. 1998. 'DeIense Minister Queries Gay Ban. In
The Dailv Telegraph (London). June 6. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Tweedle, Neil. 2000. 'InIantry 1,600 Men Short` As Recruiting Plans Stall. in the
Dailv
Telegraph (London). June 19. Found at: www.telegraph.co.uk.
Waugh, Paul. 1999. 'Services Plan to Replace Bar on Gays with Ban on All Sex. in
The Inaepenaent (London). November 11. Found at:
www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/ThisBritain
Waugh, Paul. 2000. 'Military Invites Gays Who Were Forced Out By Bias to Reapply
For Old Jobs. The Inaepenaent (London). Found at:
www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/ThisBritain
Weale, Sally. 1995. 'Navy ChieI Leads Charge Against LiIting Ban On Gays. in
The Guaraian (London). September 9: 1.
Wright, Oliver. 2000. 'Brigadier Quits Over Gays. in The Times (London). January 27.
Found at: www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000.
68
LCR 04773
LCR Appendix Page 1874
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Anonymous. Retired Military OIIicial. August 24, 2000.
Anonymous. Junior Technician, Royal Air Force. October 22, 2000.
Anonymous. Ministry oI DeIense. October 9 and 11, 2000.
Bagley, N.S. Maior, Recruiting and Personnel Training, Royal Army. October 13, 2000.
Barnard, Paul. OIIicial, Press OIIice, Ministry oI DeIense.
October 13 and November 6, 2000.
Blyth, Andrew. Corporal, Royal Air Force. October 27, 2000.
Batts, Eric. Deputy Chairman oI TORCHe. October 8, 2000.
Butcher, Tim. Journalist, The Daily Telegraph. August 8, 2000.
Codner, Michael. Assistant Director (Military Sciences), Royal United Services
Institute. September 26 and October 23, 2000.
Cooper, S.N. Commander, LLB and Barrister, Naval Personnel and Service Conditions,
Royal Navy. October 13, 2000.
Dandeker, Christopher. Chair oI War Department, King's College, London. September
25, 2000.
Fuller, Martin. Director oI Personnel, Ministry oI DeIense. October 17, 2000.
GriIIiths, Michael. Lieutenant Commander, Royal Navy. October 22, 2000.
Gupta, Debbie. Director oI Policy and Public AIIairs. Stonewall. October 18, 2000.
Hall, Edmund. Author. October 3, 2000.
Harries-Jenkins, Gwyn. ProIessor oI Sociology, University oI Hull. October 16, 2000.
Hart, Colin. Executive Director, September 21, Christian Institute. September 27, 2000.
Heggie, Joan. Doctoral Candidate, the University oI York. October 2 and
16, 2000.
Hodges, Robin. Lieutenant Colonel, Public Relations OIIice, Royal Army.
October 9 and November 2, 2000.
Johnston, Steve. Chair, Rank Outsiders. October 16, 2000.
Jolly, Richard. Surgeon-Captain (Retired), Royal Navy. August 22, 2000.
Mackintosh, Scott. Helpline Co-Ordinator, Rank Outsiders. August 16, 2000.
Maine, Alan. DeIense Desk OIIicer, Conservative Party. October 17, 2000.
Nunn, Robert. ChieI Petty OIIicer (Coxwain, Submarines), Royal Navy.
69
LCR 04774
LCR Appendix Page 1875
October 17, 2000.
Payne, Dawn. Squadron Leader. Recruiting, Engineer Liaison Team, Royal Air Force.
October 9, 2000.
Peebles, GeoII. OIIicial, Personnel Management Agency, Employment Policy,
Royal Air Force. October 13, 17 and 18, 2000.
Skidmore, Paul. ProIessor oI Industrial Law, University oI Bristol. July 25, 2000.
Strachan, Hew. ProIessor oI Military History, University oI Glasgow.
September 11, 2000.
Tatchell, Peter. Chairman, OutRage! August 21, 2000.
70
LCR 04775
LCR Appendix Page 1876
Dont Ask, Dont Tell:
Is the Gay Ban
Based on Military Necessity?
AARON BELKIN
2003 Aaron Belkin
T
en years ago, President Bill Clinton, the US Congress, and much of the na-
tion were swept up in a monumental debate on whether or not acknowledged
gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve in the US military. Having promised
in his campaign to extend this civil right to gays and lesbians, Clinton faced a dif-
ficult challenge when he attempted to fulfill his pledge, opposed as he was by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and prominent members of Congress, like Senator Sam
Nunn. In spite of their opposition, Clinton pressed on, and on 29 January 1993, he
suspended the former policy that banned gay and lesbian personnel from service
outright. Initiated by President Carter and implemented by President Reagan,
this policy had been under attack by gay and lesbian military personnel since its
inception as discriminatory,
1
and Clinton intended to formulate a newpolicy that
would be more tolerant of sexual minorities in the US military and preserve mili-
tary effectiveness.
2
Over the next six months, Congress held numerous hearings on this
issue and ultimately included a new policy on homosexual soldiers in the 1994
National Defense Authorization Act, commonly referred to as Dont Ask, Dont
Tell.
3
Billed by many as a compromise, Dont Ask, Dont Tell has been the
subject of much criticism by both experts and activists, who view it as an im-
perfect solution to the problem it tried to solve ten years ago.
4
In many ways, it
was a politically expedient policy that pleased no one, and on its ten-year anni-
versary, perhaps it deserves to be revisited and evaluated in light of the impres-
sive amount of evidence that scholars and experts have gathered about this issue
in the interim.
108 Parameters
LCR 03367 LCR 03367
LCR Appendix Page 1877
According to Dont Ask, Dont Tell, known homosexuals are not al-
lowed to serve in the US armed forces. Unlike the previous policy, Dont Ask,
Dont Tell does not allowthe military to ask enlistees if they are gay, but similar
to its predecessor, it does stipulate that service members who disclose that they
are homosexual are subject to dismissal. The official justification for the current
policy is the unit cohesion rationale, which states that military performance
would decline if known gay and lesbian soldiers were permitted to serve in uni-
form.
5
While scholars and experts continue to disagree whether lifting the ban
would undermine military performance in the United States, evidence fromstud-
ies on foreign militaries on this question suggests that lifting bans on homosexual
personnel does not threaten unit cohesion or undermine military effectiveness.
As imperfect an analogy as these countries experience may be to the United
States, they serve as the best possible vantage point from which to evaluate the
viability and necessity of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
Currently, 24 nations allow gays and lesbians to serve in their armed
forces, and only a fewNATOmembers continue to fire homosexual soldiers. De-
spite the growing number of countries that have decided to allow gays and les-
bians to serve in uniform, however, there has been little in-depth analysis of
whether the lifting of a gay ban influences military performance. Even the best
and most recent case studies of foreign countries are based on little evidence.
Most were written in the immediate aftermath of a decision to lift a gay ban with-
out waiting for evidence on the effects of the new policy to accumulate.
The lack of in-depth analysis of foreign experiences in lifting bans on ho-
mosexual personnel prompted the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the
Military (CSSMM) to examine four cases in detail: Australia, Canada, Israel, and
Britain.
6
CSSMM researchers focused on these countries because all four lifted
their gay bans despite opposition from the military services; because the United
States, Australia, Canada, and Britain share important cultural traditions; because
the Israel Defense Forces are among the most combat-tested militaries in the
world; and because prior to lifting its ban, Britains policy was often cited as sup-
port for those opposed to allowing homosexual personnel to serve openly in the
United States. To prepare the case studies, every identifiable pro-gay and anti-gay
expert on the policy change in each country was interviewed, including officers
and enlisted personnel, ministry representatives, academics, veterans, politicians,
and nongovernmental observers. During each interview, experts were asked to rec-
ommend additional contacts, all of whom were contacted. By the end of our re-
Summer 2003 109
Aaron Belkin is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center
for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. He is the author of numerous studies on sexual orientation and unit cohesion and
coeditor, with Geoffrey Bateman, of the new book Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Debating the
Gay Ban in the U.S. Military.
LCR 03368 LCR 03368
LCR Appendix Page 1878
search, 104 experts were interviewed and 622 documents and articles were
examined. Although it is possible that additional data exist, CSSMMbelieves that
the findings reflect a comprehensive appraisal of all relevant evidence.
Lessons from Australia, Canada, Israel, and Britain
Each of the four countries studied reversed its gay ban for different rea-
sons. In Canada, federal courts forced the armed forces to lift the ban in October
1992, ruling that military policy violated Canadas Charter of Rights and Free-
doms. In Australia, the liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Keating voted
to lift the ban in November 1992 as the country was integrating a number of inter-
national human rights conventions into its domestic laws and codes. In Israel, the
military lifted its ban in June 1993 after dramatic Knesset hearings prompted a
public outcry against the armed forces exclusion of gay and lesbian soldiers.
And in Britain, in September 1999, the European Court of Human Rights ruled
that Britains gay ban violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the European
Convention on Human Rights, and London reacted by lifting the ban in January
2000. Despite the different routes that led to the policy change in each country,
the lessons drawn from each case were the same.
No Impact
Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Austra-
lian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined mili-
tary performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting
or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops.
In a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers, the Canadian Department of Na-
tional Defence found that 62 percent of male service members would refuse to
share showers, undress, or sleep in the same roomas a gay soldier, and that 45 per-
cent would refuse to work with gays. A 1996 survey of 13,500 British service
members reported that more than two-thirds of male respondents would not will-
ingly serve in the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve. Yet when
Canada and Britain subsequently lifted their gay bans, these dire predictions were
not confirmed.
In Australia, Commodore R. W. Gates, whose rank is equivalent to a
one-star admiral, remarked that the lifting of the ban was an absolute non-event.
7
Professor Hugh Smith, a leading academic expert on homosexuality in the Austra-
lian military, observed that when the government ordered the military to lift
the ban, some officers said, Over my dead body; if this happens Ill resign.
However, Smith said that there were no such departures and that the change
was accepted in true military tradition.
8
Bronwen Grey, an official in the Austra-
lian Defence Ministry, reported, There was no increase in complaints about gay
people or by gay people. There was no known increase in fights, on a ship, or in
Army units. . . . The recruitment figures didnt alter.
9
110 Parameters
LCR 03369 LCR 03369
LCR Appendix Page 1879
In Canada, Steve Leveque, a civilian official in the Department of Na-
tional Defence, commented that including gays and lesbians in the Canadian
Forces is not that big a deal for us. . . . On a day-to-day basis, there probably hasnt
been much of a change.
10
A1995 internal report from the Canadian government
on the lifting of the ban concluded, Despite all the anxiety that existed through the
late 80s into the early 90s about the change in policy, heres what the indicators
showno effect.
11
In Israel, Stuart Cohen, a professor at the Center for Strategic Studies
who is recognized as a leading expert on the Israel Defense Forces, remarked,
As far as I have been able to tell, homosexuals do not constitute an issue [with
respect to] unit cohesion in the IDF. In fact, the entire subject is very marginal in-
deed as far as this military is concerned.
12
Reuven Gal, the director of the Israeli
Institute for Military Studies, wrote, According to military reports, [homosexu-
als] presence, whether openly or clandestinely, has not impaired the morale, co-
hesion, readiness, or security of any unit.
13
An internal government report that appraised the British change in pol-
icy characterized it as a solid achievement . . . with fewer problems than might
have been expected.
14
The assistant chief of the navy staff, Rear-Admiral James
Burnell-Nugent, concurred: Although some did not welcome the change in pol-
icy, it has not caused any degree of difficulty.
15
Overall, the report suggests that
there has been a marked lack of reaction to the issue of including homosexual
personnel in the British armed services.
16
These reactions were typical of the comments made during the inter-
views with politicians, academic experts, non-profit observers, ministry offi-
cials, veterans, active-duty officers, and enlisted soldiers. Even the leading
opponents of allowing gays into the military concluded that the lifting of the bans
did not damage the armed forces. In Australia, for example, spokesmen for the
Returned and Services League, the countrys largest veterans group, had previ-
ously said that lifting the gay ban would jeopardize morale and military perfor-
mance. Eight years after Australias 1992 decision to lift its ban, however, the
President of the Returned and Services League, Major General Peter Philips,
stated that gays in the military have not been a significant public issue. The De-
fence Forces have not had a lot of difficulty in this area.
17
In addition, our review
of 622 documents and articles revealed no evidence that the lifting of the gay
bans undermined military performance, led to difficulties in recruiting or reten-
tion, or increased the rate of HIV infection.
Equal Standards and an Emphasis on Conduct
Military leaders of all four countries stressed their expectation of pro-
fessional conduct from every service member regardless of sexual orientation or
personal beliefs about homosexuality. And in each country military leaders is-
sued regulations that held heterosexual and homosexual soldiers to the same
standards. In Australia, for example, the 1992 Defence Instruction on Discrimi-
Summer 2003 111
LCR 03370 LCR 03370
LCR Appendix Page 1880
nation, Harassment, Sexual Offences, Fraternisation and other Unacceptable Be-
havior referred to unacceptable conduct without making a distinction between
homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rather than define unacceptable conduct
in terms of sexual orientation, the instruction prohibited any sexual behavior
that undermined the group or took advantage of subordinates.
18
As one Austra-
lian official said, Our focus is on the work people do, and the way they do the
work, and that applies to heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.
19
In each
case, although many heterosexual soldiers continue to object to homosexuality,
the militarys emphasis on conduct and equal standards was sufficient for en-
couraging service members to work together as a team. As one Canadian military
official reported, homosexuality is a deeply moral issue and that is a real com-
plication. . . . But our experience did not justify such apprehension. . . . Even
though some have found it difficult, loyal members changed their behavior when
the institution changed.
20
While none of the four militaries studied attempts to force its service
members to accept homosexuality, all four insist that soldiers refrain from abuse
and harassment. In each case, the emphasis on conduct and equal standards
seems to work. In Australia, for example, 25 out of 1,642 phone calls (1.52 per-
cent) received on the Defence Ministrys sexual harassment hotline between
1997 and 2000 involved homosexuality.
21
In Canada, none of the 905 cases of
sexual harassment that occurred in the three years after the ban was lifted in-
volved gay-bashing or the sexual orientation of one of the victims.
22
In Israel,
the 35 experts, soldiers, and officers we interviewed were able to recall only a
handful of cases involving harassment based on sexual orientation after the lift-
ing of the gay ban.
23
In Britain, no military officials who were interviewed could
think of a single case of gay-bashing or assault related to sexual orientation.
24
No Mass Coming Out of the Closet
In each of the four cases, most homosexual soldiers did not reveal their
sexual orientation to their peers after the lifting of the gay ban. Before the lifting
of the ban, some gay and lesbian soldiers already were known by their peers to be
homosexual. Immediately after the policy change, more revealed their sexual
orientation, yet the vast majority chose not to do so. As time passed, small num-
bers of gay and lesbian soldiers disclosed their sexual orientation; even so, most
still refrain from acknowledging their homosexuality.
In Australia, for example, a 1996 report noted that three years after the
lifting of the ban, only 33 homosexual soldiers were willing to identify them-
selves to the authors of the study.
25
In Canada, the Department of National De-
fence received only 17 claims for medical, dental, and relocation benefits for
homosexual partners in 1998, six years after Canada lifted its ban.
26
Given the
militarys own estimate that 3.5 percent of its personnel are gay or lesbian, the
low figure suggests that service members may hesitate to out themselves by re-
questing benefits. The nine gay and lesbian service members from Canada who
112 Parameters
LCR 03371 LCR 03371
LCR Appendix Page 1881
were interviewed all described their professional personas as relatively private
and discrete. While many confide in their close friends and invite their partners to
military functions, they nonetheless do not feel the need to out themselves in any
formal way. One lesbian soldier said that in the Canadian military, Gay people
have never screamed to be really, really out. They just want to be really safe from
not being fired.
27
That being said, most of the currently serving members we
spoke with believe that at least some members of their units know of their status
as sexual minorities.
In Britain, military experts have observed a similar phenomenon in the
British armed services. Since the lifting of the ban, most gay and lesbian soldiers
have refrained fromacknowledging their sexual orientation, reflecting their keen
awareness of appropriate behavior in the military. As Professor Christopher
Dandeker, Chair of the War Department at Kings College, observed, Most ex-
pect gay personnel to continue to be extremely discreet until attitudes within the
services change further.
28
In Israel, most gay and lesbian soldiers kept their sexual orientation
private before the lifting of the ban due to fears of official sanctions as well as
ostracism from fellow soldiers. In 1993, Rafi Niv, a journalist who writes on gay
issues, confirmed that most gay soldiers I know are in the closet.
29
As more gay
Israelis have grown comfortable about expressing their orientation in recent years,
however, greater openness has been found in the military as well. Danny Kaplan
and Eyal Ben-Ari, for example, conducted in-depth interviews with 21 gay IDF
combat soldiers and found that five were known to be homosexual by at least one
other member in their combat unit.
30
In 1999, one tank corps soldier reported, In
my basic training, people knewthat I was gay and . . . there was one homophobe in
my unit. . . . After that, I had nothing to be afraid of.
31
While no official statistics
exist on the number of known gay and lesbian soldiers in the IDF today, most of the
experts we interviewed indicated that some gay and lesbians soldiers are known by
their peers to be homosexual, that the majority remain in the closet, and that there
has been a growing openness in the military in recent years.
The Relevance of Foreign Militaries for the United States
Are the experiences of foreign militaries that lifted their gay bans rele-
vant for American policymakers? Experts who support the exclusion of homosex-
ual soldiers fromthe USarmed forces often claimthat foreign military experiences
are not applicable to the American case. They claim that homosexual soldiers re-
ceive special treatment in foreign militaries, that cultural differences distinguish
the United States from foreign countries, and that no known gay and lesbian sol-
diers serve in foreign combat units. These claims are only partially accurate, and
they do not invalidate the relevance of foreign experiences for USpolicymakers.
Advocates of the ban claimthat although many nations allowhomosex-
uals to serve in the armed forces, gay and lesbian soldiers receive special treat-
ment in foreign countries. They suggest that even if the decision to allow known
Summer 2003 113
LCR 03372 LCR 03372
LCR Appendix Page 1882
homosexuals to serve does not harm the military, the special treatment that gays
and lesbians receive can undermine cohesion, performance, readiness, and mo-
rale. During a program on National Public Radio, Professor Charles Moskos
said, All countries have some kind of de facto and many actually legal restric-
tions on homosexuals. . . . Even [in] the Netherlands, the most liberal you might
say of all western societies, when they had conscription, if a gay said he could not
serve because it would not make himfeel comfortable living so closely with men,
he was excluded from the draft.
32
None of the four militaries studied treats homosexuals and heterosexu-
als perfectly equally. Despite the lack of perfectly equal treatment, however, un-
equal treatment is rare, and most gay and lesbian soldiers are treated the same as
their heterosexual peers most of the time. Most cases of unequal treatment con-
sisted of local attempts to resolve problems flexibly. For example, some hetero-
sexual soldiers in Israel are allowed to live off base or to change units if they are
having trouble with their group, and some commanders allow heterosexual sol-
diers to shower privately. In other cases, unequal treatment consists of minor
privileges accorded to heterosexuals, not special rights for gay and lesbian sol-
diers. Homosexual soldiers in the Australian and British militaries, for example,
are not entitled to the same domestic partner benefits that heterosexuals re-
ceive.
33
In Israel, the military offered survivor benefits to a same-sex partner for
the first time in 1997, but the same-sex survivor received less compensation than
heterosexual widows and widowers.
34
Most important, there is no evidence to shows that differential treat-
ment undermined performance, cohesion, readiness, or morale. Indeed, most of
the 104 experts who confirmed that the decisions of Australia, Canada, Israel,
and Britain to lift their gay bans did not undermine performance also confirmed
that the treatment of gays and lesbians has not been perfectly equitable in all
cases. Despite their awareness that treatment has not been perfectly equitable at
all times, however, all the experts agreed that lifting the gay bans did not under-
mine military effectiveness.
Some US experts who support the gay ban claimthat important cultural
differences distinguish the United States from other countries that allow known
114 Parameters
Evidence from studies on foreign militaries . . .
suggests that lifting bans on homosexual
personnel does not threaten unit cohesion
or undermine military effectiveness.
LCR 03373
LCR Appendix Page 1883
homosexuals to serve. More specifically, they argue that unlike most other coun-
tries, the United States is home to powerful gay rights groups as well as large and
highly organized conservative organizations. While no two societies are the
same, the United States, Australia, Canada, and Britain share many cultural tra-
ditions, and gay rights issues are highly polarized in all four countries. In addi-
tion, Australian, Canadian, Israeli, and British cultures are rather homophobic,
even though all four countries offer more legal protections to gays and lesbians
than the United States. Just as Australian, Canadian, Israeli, and British cultures
are not overwhelmingly tolerant of gays and lesbians, American culture is not
completely intolerant. For example, recent Gallup polls show that 72 percent of
Americans believe that gays should be allowed to serve in the military and that 56
percent of Americans believe that open gays should be allowed to serve.
35
Advo-
cates of the gay ban who use cultural arguments to justify their position should do
a better job of explaining why the cultural factors that distinguish the United
States from the 24 nations that allow homosexuals to serve render our military
uniquely incapable of integration.
More significantly, tolerant national climates are not necessary for
maintaining cohesion, readiness, morale, and performance after the integration
of a minority group into the military. It would not be possible for the numerous
American police and fire departments that include known homosexuals to con-
tinue to function smoothly if a fully tolerant national climate were necessary for
the maintenance of organizational effectiveness. When President Harry Truman
ordered the US military to allow African American soldiers to serve on an equal
basis, 63 percent of the American public opposed integration.
36
Without equating
the experiences of sexual and racial minorities, the racial example shows that tol-
erant cultural climates are not necessary for maintaining combat effectiveness
when minority groups are integrated into the armed forces.
Finally, supporters of the gay ban claim that no known gay and lesbian
soldiers serve in foreign combat units, yet the findings from the CSSMM studies
suggest that this argument is incorrect. Although the vast majority of gay combat
soldiers in Australia, Canada, Israel, and Britain do not acknowledge their sexual
orientation to peers, some known gays serve in combat units. In Australia, for ex-
ample, an openly gay squadron leader, Michael Seah, said that he served actively
in what is widely considered to be one of Australias most combat-like and suc-
cessful deployments in recent yearsthe United Nations peacekeeping opera-
tion in East Timor.
37
Another gay soldier commented, Looking at the current
operation in East Timor, Ive got a number of gay and lesbian friends in an opera-
tional situation. I have served in Bougainville, and there is no problem.
38
In 2000, a colleague and I administered a survey to 194 combat soldiers
in the Israel Defense Forces that included the following question: Do you know
(or have known in the past) a homosexual or lesbian soldier in your unit?
39
We
found that 21.6 percent of respondents knew a gay peer in their unit, and an addi-
tional 19.6 percent indicated they may have known a gay peer in their unit. The
Summer 2003 115
LCR 03374
LCR Appendix Page 1884
important point is that even in combat units with known gay soldiers, we found
no evidence of deterioration in cohesion, performance, readiness, or morale.
Generals, ministry officials, scholars, and NGOobservers all have said that their
presence has not eroded military effectiveness.
Experts who use the low number of open gay combat troops in overseas
militaries to underscore the irrelevance of foreign experiences believe that if the
American ban is lifted, many gays and lesbians will reveal their sexual orientation.
This belief is premised on the flawed assumption that culture and identity politics
are the driving forces behind gay soldiers decisions to disclose their homosexual-
ity. What the evidence shows is that personal safety plays a much more powerful
role than culture in the decision of whether or not to reveal sexual orientation. For
example, a University of Chicago study of American police departments that al-
lowopen homosexuals to serve identified seven known gays in the Chicago Police
Department and approximately one hundred in the NewYork Police Department.
40
If American culture and identity politics were the driving forces behind decisions
to reveal homosexuality, then there would be a large number of open gays in all
American police and fire departments that allow homosexuals to serve. As Dr.
Paul Koegel of the RAND Corporation explains, however, Perhaps one of the
most salient factors that influences whether homosexual police officers or fire-
fighters make their sexual orientation known to their departments is their percep-
tion of the climate. . . . [T]he more hostile the environment, the less likely it was
that people publicly acknowledged their homosexuality.
41
Since safety varies from organization to organization depending on
whether or not leaders express clear support for integration, the number of open
gays varies as well. As a result, Dr. Laura Miller, previously on the faculty of the
UCLASociology Department and now with the RAND Corporation, argues that
similar to the experiences of foreign militaries that lifted their bans, most homo-
sexual American soldiers will not disclose their sexual orientation if the United
States changes its policy unless and until it is safe to do so.
42
Base Policy on Evidence, Not Anecdotes
Defenders of Dont Ask, Dont Tell commonly offer two types of evi-
dence to show that known gays and lesbians undermine military performance.
116 Parameters
Are the experiences of foreign militaries
that lifted their gay bans
relevant for American policymakers?
LCR 03375
LCR Appendix Page 1885
First, advocates of the ban point to anecdotes that involve gay misconduct. Dur-
ing his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1993, for ex-
ample, General Norman Schwarzkopf said, I am aware of instances where
heterosexuals have been solicited to commit homosexual acts, and, even more
traumatic emotionally, physically coerced to engage in such acts.
43
Second, sup-
porters of the ban point to numerous statistical surveys showing that heterosex-
ual soldiers do not like gay soldiers. When asked during a debate on National
Public Radio to provide hard evidence showing that open gays and lesbians dis-
rupt the military, Professor Moskos said, If you want data, we have survey data
on this question and there is . . . a vehement opposition by the majority of the men.
If that isnt data, I dont know what is.
44
Neither type of evidence shows that gays and lesbians undermine mili-
tary performance. Anecdotal evidence can be used to prove almost any point by se-
lecting stories that support a particular point of view. For example, it would be easy
to blame left-handed people for undermining military performance by presenting
ten anecdotes in which left-handed service members engaged in misconduct. In-
deed, this stacking of the deck is precisely the strategy that former Senate Armed
Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn used during the 1993 hearings on gays
in the military. When Nunn learned that the testimony of retired Army Colonel
Lucian K. Truscott III would include accounts of open gay soldiers who had served
with distinction, Nunn deleted Truscott from the witness list.
45
Anecdotes do not
serve as evidence if they are chosen to reflect only one side of the story.
Just as anecdotal evidence does not prove that gay and lesbian soldiers
undermine military performance, survey results are equally unconvincing. While
surveys certainly show that heterosexual soldiers do not like gays and lesbians,
dislike has no necessary impact on organizational performance. Hundreds of stud-
ies of military units, sports teams, and corporate organizations, summarized by
Professor Elizabeth Kier in the journal International Security, indicate that
whether group members like each other has no bearing on how well organizations
perform. The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the quality of group per-
formance depends on whether group members are committed to the same goals,
not whether they like each other.
46
In the 29 years since the Dutch military lifted its
gay ban in 1974, no study has shown that any of the 24 nations that allowhomosex-
ual soldiers to serve in uniform has suffered a decline in performance.
For many years, advocates of the Pentagons policy cited British argu-
ments for excluding homosexual soldiers to justify their own position. Numerous
British officers and Defence Ministry representatives claimed in public that the
military would suffer if Britain lifted its ban. Yet as discussed above, when Brit-
ain ended its ban in 2000, the change in policy generated few difficulties and has
continued to pose little problem. Given the US militarys use of the British exam-
ple to support its opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, the
military undermines its credibility by ceasing to cite Britain when the anecdote
no longer conforms to the argument the United States wishes to make.
Summer 2003 117
LCR 03376
LCR Appendix Page 1886
While no single case is decisive, the combined evidence from the 24
countries that allow gays and lesbians to serve shows that if the United States lifts
its ban, American military performance will not decline. As was the case in Aus-
tralia, Canada, Israel, and Britain, American military leaders can preserve military
effectiveness after they lift the ban by holding all soldiers to the same professional
standards and by insisting that regardless of personal beliefs about homosexuality,
they expect professional conduct from all service members. As Dr. Nathaniel
Frank wrote in The Washington Post, Certainly the United States has more inter-
national obligations than other countries do. But the question is not how similar
our missions are to those of other nations but whether the United States is any less
capable than other nations of integrating gays into its military.
47
Perhaps it is time for the Administration, the Congress, and the Penta-
gon to reconsider the evidence that is used to justify the gay ban. Or, if political
and military leaders remain unwilling to join most of the rest of NATO, they
should at least have the integrity to admit that current American policy is based
on prejudice, not on military necessity.
NOTES
1. Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military (New York: St. Martins
Press, 1993).
2. The Presidents News Conference and Memorandum on Ending Discrimination in the Armed
Forces, Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc., 29 January 1993, pp. 108 12.
3. Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Hearings before the Committee on Armed
Services, US Senate, 103d Cong., 2d sess. (1993) (29, 31 March; 29 April; 7, 10, 11 May; 20, 21, 22 July hear
ings); US Code 654, Public Law 103 160, 30 November 1993, 107 Stat. 1671.
4. Janet E. Halley, Dont: A Readers Guide to the Militarys Anti-Gay Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ.
Press, 1999).
5. US Code 654, Public Law 103 160, 30 November 1993, 107 Stat. 1671. Another justification for the
Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy is the privacy rationale, the argument that lifting the ban would undermine het
erosexual privacy in military barracks and showers. For a critique of the privacy rationale, see Aaron Belkin and
Melissa Sheridan Embser Herbert, A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of
Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military, International Security, 27 (Fall 2002), 178 97.
6. Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol, Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Ser
vice in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence (Santa Barbara, Calif.: The Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military [CSSMM], 2000); Aaron Belkin and Melissa Levitt, The Effects of Including Gay and
Lesbian Soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces: Appraising the Evidence (CSSMM, 2000); Aaron Belkin and Ja
son McNichol, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Defence Forces: Appraising
the Evidence (CSSMM, 2000); Aaron Belkin and R. L. Evans, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Sol
diers in the British Armed Forces: Appraising the Evidence (CSSMM, 2000); all of these studies are available at
www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/PublicationsHome.htm.
7. Interview with Commodore R. W. Gates, Royal Australian Navy, 13 September 2000.
8. Interview with Hugh Smith, Associate Professor, School of Politics, University of New South Wales,
Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia, 20 August 2000.
9. Interview with Bronwen Grey, Director, Defence Equity Organisation, 17 August 2000.
10. Personal communication with Steve Leveque, Executive Directorate on Conflict Resolution, Cana
dian Forces, 4 February 2000.
11. Personal communication with Karol Wenek, Directorate of Policy Analysis and Development, Cana
dian Forces, 20 January 2000.
12. Personal communication with Stuart Cohen, Professor of Political Studies and Senior Research Fel
low, Center for Strategic Studies, Bar Ilan University, Israel, 10 April 2000.
13. Reuven Gal, Gays in the Military: Policy and Practice in the Israeli Defense Forces, in Gays and Les-
bians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts, ed. W. J. Scott and S. C. Stanley (New York: Aldine de
Gruyter: 1994), p. 188.
118 Parameters
LCR 03377
LCR Appendix Page 1887
14. Ministry of Defence, AReviewof the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality, 31 October 2000, p. 2.
15. Michael Patterson, Gays in the Navy Cause Fewer Waves than Wrens, Daily Telegraph (London),
1 September 2000.
16. Ministry of Defence, AReviewof the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality, 31 October 2000, p. 2.
17. Interview with Major General Peter Philips, ret., President, Returned and Services League, 8 August
2000.
18. Hugh Smith, The Dynamics of Social Change and the Australian Defence Force, Armed Forces &
Society, 21(Summer 1995), 531 51.
19. Interview with Bronwen Grey, Director, Defence Equity Organisation, 17 August 2000.
20. Personal communication with Captain D. S. MacKay, Directorate of Military Gender Integration and
Employment Equity, Canadian Forces, 18 January and 28 February 2000.
21. Belkin and McNichol, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Defence
Forces: Appraising the Evidence, p. 18.
22. Belkin and McNichol, Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the
Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence, p. 23.
23. Belkin and Levitt, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces:
Appraising the Evidence, p. 3.
24. Belkin and Evans, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces:
Appraising the Evidence, p. 40.
25. Belkin and McNichol, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Defence
Forces: Appraising the Evidence, p. 15.
26. Few Soldiers Claiming Same Sex Benefits, The Edmonton Sun, 12 April 1999, p. 13.
27. Interview with Michelle Douglas, former lieutenant, Canadian Forces, 23 January 2000.
28. Personal communication with Christopher Dandeker, Chair of War Department, Kings College, Lon
don, 20 September 2000.
29. Clyde Haberman, Homosexuals in Israeli Army: No Official Discrimination, But Keep It Secret,
The New York Times, 21 February 1993, p. 14.
30. Danny Kaplan and Eyal Ben Ari, Brothers and Others in Arms: Managing Gay Identity in Combat
Units of the Israeli Army, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29 (August 2000), 396 432.
31. Maayan Zigdon, Coming out of the Kitbag, Bamachne, 22 October 1999, p. 22 (in Hebrew).
32. The Connection, National Public Radio, 20 December 1999, 49 minutes.
33. Belkin and McNichol, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Defence
Forces: Appraising the Evidence, pp. 35 36; Belkin and Evans, The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian
Soldiers in the British Armed Forces: Appraising the Evidence, p. 52.
34. Lee Walzer, Between Sodom and Eden: A Gay Journey Through Todays Changing Israel (New York:
Columbia Univ. Press, 1999).
35. Frank Newport, In Depth Analyses: Homosexuality, Gallup Poll News Service, September 2002,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/analysis/ia020911v.asp; Laura Miller and John Allen Williams, Do Military Pol
icies on Gender and Sexuality Undermine Combat Effectiveness? in Soldiers and Civilians, ed. Peter Feaver
and Richard Kohn (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2001), pp. 386 429.
36. Elizabeth Kier, Rights and Fights: Sexual Orientation and Military Effectiveness, International Se-
curity, 24 (Summer 1999), 194 201.
37. Interview with Squadron Leader Michael Seah, Senior Medical Officer, RAAF Base Pearce, 13 Sep
tember 2000.
38. Interview with Sergeant Scott McClennan, Medical Corps, 31 August 2000.
39. For details, contact Aaron Belkin.
40. Paul Koegler, Lessons Learned from the Experiences of Domestic Police and Fire Departments, in
Out in Force: Sexuality and the Military, ed. Gregory M. Herek, Jared B. Jobe, and Ralph M. Carney (Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 137.
41. Ibid., p. 138.
42. Personal communication with Laura Miller, social scientist at the RAND Corporation, 9 Decem
ber 2000.
43. Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Hearings before the Committee on Armed
Services, US Senate, 103d Cong., 2d sess. (1993), (29, 31 March; 29 April; 7, 10, 11 May; 20, 21, 22 July
hearings).
44. The Connection, National Public Radio, 20 December 1999, 49 minutes.
45. Personal communication with Colonel Lucian Truscott, USA Ret., 30 November 1999.
46. Elizabeth Kier, Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness, In-
ternational Security, 23 (Fall 1998), 5 39.
47. Nathaniel Frank, Real Evidence on Gays in the Military, The Washington Post, 20 November 2002.
Summer 2003 119
LCR 03378
LCR Appendix Page 1888
The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Defence Forces:
Appraising the Evidence
By Aaron Belkin` and 1ason McNichol``
`Director, Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military and Assistant
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara
``Doctoral Candidate, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley
Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9420
(805) 893-5664 (o)
(805) 893-3309 (fax)
belkinmpolsci.ucsb.edu
www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu
September 19, 2000
Original research and analysis conducted Ior this report were Iurnished by ELM Research
Associates, an independent, non-partisan research consultancy. The authors thank Nathan
Paxton, Ph.D. student in Political Science at the University oI CaliIornia at Berkeley Ior
invaluable research assistance.
LCR 04666
LCR Appendix Page 1889
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November 1992, the Australian DeIence Forces liIted its ban on open gay and lesbian
soldiers. Using all available data Irom military, academic, non-governmental, and other sources,
this report assesses the extent to which the liIting oI the gay ban has aIIected the well-being and
perIormance oI the Australian military.
Based on the results oI prior studies, eighteen in-depth interviews with inIormed military
and non-military observers, and other data, this study Iinds that the Iull liIting oI the ban on gay
service has not led to any identiIiable negative eIIects on troop morale, combat eIIectiveness,
recruitment and retention, or other measures oI military perIormance. Furthermore, available
evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the liIting oI the ban may have contributed
to improvements in productivity and working environments Ior service members. Key Iindings
include:
Senior oIIicials, commanders, and military scholars within the ADF consistently
appraise the liIting oI the ban as a successIul policy change that has contributed to
greater equity and eIIective working relationships within the ranks.
Prior to the liIting oI the ban, ADF service chieI argued that allowing homosexuals to
serve openly would ieopardize recruitment, troop cohesion, and combat eIIectiveness
while also spreading AIDS and encouraging predatory behavior
Senior oIIicials, commanders and scholars report that there has been no overall
pattern oI disruption to the military. However, some individual units have reported
disruptions that were resolved successIully through normal management procedures.
While the liIting oI the ban was not immediately Iollowed by large numbers oI
personnel declaring their sexual-orientation, by the late 1990s signiIicant numbers oI
2
LCR 04667
LCR Appendix Page 1890
oIIicers and enlisted personnel had successIully and largely uneventIully come out to
their peers.
Recruitment and retention rates have not suIIered as a result oI the policy change. As
Commodore R. W. Gates oI the Royal Australian Navy states in the report, 'There
was no great peak...where people walked out, and there was no great dip in recruiting.
It really was a non-event.
SelI-identiIied gay soldiers, oIIicers, and commanders describe good working
relationships in an environment that emphasizes capable and competent iob
perIormance under uniIorm rules oI conduct Ior all personnel. Gay soldiers and
commanders have successIully served in recent active deployments in East Timor.
Complaints regarding sexual orientation issues comprise less than 5 oI the total
complaints received by the ADF oI incidents oI sexual harassment, bullying, and
other Iorms oI sexual misconduct.
OI 1,400 calls received by an anonymous 'Advice Line maintained by the ADF to
help personnel and commanders manage potential misconduct issues since this
service was initiated in August 1998, 17 (1.21 percent) have related to sexual
orientation issues.
Current debates in Australia related to the policy change are now Iocused on
extending equal beneIits to the partners oI gay servicemembers, rather than on the
policy itselI. To the degree that harassment issues continue to exist in the Australian
Forces, most observers believe that problems Iaced by women soldiers are more
serious than those Iaced by gay personnel.
3
LCR 04668
LCR Appendix Page 1891
II. INTRODUCTION
Prior to 1992, the Australian DeIence Forces (ADF) maintained both Iormal and inIormal
rules to discourage known or suspected homosexuals Irom serving (Smith 2000, Agostino 2000).
As a result oI a number oI external and internal pressures, in 1992 the DeIence Forces issued a
new directive that liIted the remaining ban on homosexual service by speciIying uniIorm rules oI
appropriate and inappropriate sexual conduct that applied equally to both heterosexual and
homosexual interactions. The change in policy met with strong opposition Irom the ADF service
chieIs as well as Irom several service member organizations who argued that allowing
homosexuals to serve openly would ieopardize recruitment, troop cohesion, and combat
eIIectiveness while also spreading AIDS and encouraging predatory behavior (see e.g.,
Associated Press, 24 November 1993). In the months that Iollowed the policy change, however,
the issue largely and quickly Iaded Irom the public stage.
This report integrates prior studies oI gay-military issues in Australia, press coverage,
Australian Forces data, and interviews with eighteen ADF oIIicials, academic observers, non-
governmental actors, interest groups, and enlisted personnel to assess how and to what extent the
perIormance and well-being oI the Australian DeIence Forces have been aIIected by the 1992
liIting oI the ban on open gay service. Almost eight years aIter the ban was liIted, all available
evidence indicates that the policy change has not led to deleterious consequences Ior recruitment
or retention, eIIective unit Iunctioning, or combat eIIectiveness. While very little quantiIiable
data appear to exist that bear directly on perIormance eIIects oI the policy change, the
experiences and observations oI senior ADF oIIicials, commanders oI active-duty deployments,
recruitment oIIicers, and selI-identiIied homosexual servicemembers all strongly suggest that the
policy change has been implemented smoothly and successIully, albeit imperIectly. Their
4
LCR 04669
LCR Appendix Page 1892
opinions are corroborated by the research and evidence provided by inIormed scholars,
iournalists, and representatives oI a number oI interest and pressure groups. At the present time,
public debates in Australia over gay-military issues have moved on to second-order concernsto
issues concerning spousal beneIits and adequate enIorcement oI existing anti-discrimination
policies in the workplace. For the ADF, the participation oI homosexuals in the military is now
very much a 'non-issue.
Part III begins the analysis by outlining the evidence collected and the methods used to
appraise it. Part IV brieIly reviews the historical context oI the 1992 decision to liIt the ban,
describes the policy change, and addresses its implementation. Part V provides a systematic
review oI evidence Irom prior assessments, the Australian DeIence Forces, and the independent
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, beIore moving on to observations made by
inIormed academics and representatives oI relevant interest groups. Part V concludes by
documenting the experiences oI seven current and Iormer selI-declared homosexuals in the ADF.
Finally, Part VI synthesizes the available evidence and concludes the analysis.
III. METHODOLOGY
InIormation collected Ior this report was systematically gathered Irom publicly available
primary and secondary sources relevant to an understanding oI military outcomes associated with
homosexual service in the Australian DeIence Forces. Sources and methods included:
identiIication, retrieval, and analysis oI all prior research bearing on homosexual service in the
Australian DeIence Forces conducted by governmental, academic, and policy-Iocused
organizations in North America: content analysis oI Nexis/Lexis search retrievals Ior all North
American, European, and Asia-PaciIic news articles and wire service dispatches relating to
5
LCR 04670
LCR Appendix Page 1893
homosexual service in the Australian DeIence Forces beIore and aIter the ban was liIted (n63):
interviews undertaken with Australian DeIence Forces units and their senior representatives (n3
individuals): snowball identiIication and interviewing oI maior academic, non-governmental, and
policy experts on gay-military issues in Australia since the ban was liIted (n9): and interviews
with sexual minority participants in the Australian DeIence Forces who were located through the
cooperation oI leading non-governmental and military human rights organizations (n7).
Australian DeIence Forces representatives were chosen by asking academic, non-governmental,
and policy experts Ior suggested contacts who were knowledgeable about the military's policy on
homosexuality, and then using snowball identiIication techniques to identiIy other interview
subiects.
To draw its conclusions, this report relies on a multi-method approach to compare and
synthesize evidence provided by a variety oI sources. Whenever possible, we compare
independent observations Irom multiple sources to elucidate Iindings that are consistent among
observers in diIIerent sectors (e.g., military, academic, non-governmental). During the interview
process, we also sought to ensure that the universe oI sources drawn upon Ior the study was
complete by repeatedly asking observers Irom diIIerent sectors Ior recommendations oI
additional sources oI inIormation. While it is possible that additional conIidential inIormation on
outcomes not documented in this report may be maintained by the ADF, senior oIIicials
contacted Ior this study were not aware oI any additional data. The Iinal compilation oI sources
that inIorms this report thus reIlects an exhaustive inventory oI relevant data and opinions.
IV. CONTEXT OF THE 1992 LIFTING OF REMAINING BAN
6
LCR 04671
LCR Appendix Page 1894
1. Australian Society and Military Policy Regarding Homosexuals Prior to 1992
Like the Armed Forces in many other Anglophone countries, the Australian military
maintained both Iormal and inIormal rules proscribing the participation oI known homosexuals
in the armed Iorces Irom 1986 to 1992. Prior to 1986, the ADF did not maintain a Iormal policy
regarding the participation oI homosexuals. According to a report by United States General
Accounting OIIice (1993), recruits were not Iormally questioned about their sexual orientation
beIore 1986. However, inIormal eIIorts Irequently were made to identiIy and document
activities oI personnel suspected oI homosexual conduct, usually Iollowed by the removal oI
such personnel Irom duty (Agostino 2000). Existing state and Iederal laws proscribing sodomy
and homosexual relations usually were invoked to enIorce these actions (Croome 1992, 9:
Livingstone 2000).
While most historical perspectives on the treatment oI homosexual personnel have
identiIied a number oI instances oI investigation and prosecution (reIerred to by some critics as
'witch hunts) between World War II and the mid-1980s, substantial evidence nonetheless exists
that homosexuality was at times tolerated iI not inIormally accepted in some units (Smith 2000).
Anecdotal evidence provided by most experts interviewed Ior this report also indicates that many
ADF personnel were aware that practicing homosexuals served in the ranks.
In the 1980s, as Australia incorporated international human rights accords into its
national laws, Iederal and state governments actively dismantled existing laws against
homosexuality and began to ratiIy new human rights bills that included protection against
arbitrary discrimination. As a result, the ADF could no longer iustiIy anti-homosexual practices
on the basis oI territorial laws and was required to issue its own policy. It did so in September
7
LCR 04672
LCR Appendix Page 1895
1986, and the ban on homosexual service became an explicit and Iormal part oI ADF instructions
(Croome 1992: Smith 1995).
Even so, according to Hugh Smith, Associate ProIessor oI Politics at the Australian
DeIence Force Academy, the policy oI banning gays was exercised with some degree oI
tolerance and senior military oIIicials oIten used discretion to decide whether or not to
implement the gay ban (Smith 2000). At the same time, however, other persons Iamiliar with the
situation between 1986 and 1992 assert that the military routinely engaged in 'witch hunts to
root out members suspected oI homosexuality. According to Dr. Katerina Agostino oI the
Macquarie University Department oI Sociology, 'The military invested lots oI time and money
in Iinding and rooting people out. Military police were used (Agostino, 2000)
2. Context of the Policy Change
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number oI economic, social and cultural Iactors
served to undermine the perceived legitimacy and rationale oI the ADF ban on homosexual
service. To begin, military leaders encountered criticisms oI ADF policies concerning equality
oI opportunity and racial and ethnic diversity. In 1992, the government examined charges that
the ADF was not recruiting a suIIicient portion oI its soldiers Irom non-European populations
and the result was a maior study oI the ethnic makeup oI the Iorces (Smith 1995, 535). Debates
over the status and treatment oI women in the ADF also inIluenced the perceived legitimacy oI
the ban on gay service. Though women had been able to participate in the Australian military Ior
many years, either directly or through auxiliary branches like the Women`s Royal Australian
Army Corps, they were not allowed to take combat roles until the late 1980s. Smith points out
that the three service branches began to Iace diIIiculties in retaining qualiIied personnel: 'The
8
LCR 04673
LCR Appendix Page 1896
ADF thus had a clear incentive to open more positions to women, thereby expanding the pool oI
potential recruits (Smith 1995, 540). Related to these problems, considerations oI sexual
harassment and problems oI sexual behavior in the ADF began to come to light. In late 1992,
three women who had served on board HMAS Swan alleged that they had been sexually harassed
quite severely at the hands oI their male shipmates. Similar to the Tailhook sexual harassment
incident in the United States, the case provoked widespread outrage and a call Ior the military to
examine gender issues in the Iorces (Agostino 2000, Smith 1995, Smith 2000).
In the years shortly beIore government and ADF oIIicials considered liIting the ban on
homosexuals, Australia adopted several human rights measures into its laws and codes including
the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Article 26 oI the ICCPR posits the
Iundamental equality oI all human beings and Article 2 addresses each individual`s right to equal
treatment beIore the law (Sidoti 2000). Although sexual orientation is not included explicitly in
the ICCPR`s list oI prohibited iustiIications Ior discrimination, Australian Human Rights
Commissioner Chris Sidoti says that the ICCPR`s list was meant to be inclusive rather than
exclusive. ThereIore, Sidoti continues, although not explicitly mentioned, sexual orientation is
covered by the spirit oI the ICCPR and it cannot serve as the basis oI discrimination. Opponents
oI the ADF ban argued that the military was in violation oI these human rights provisions in
Australian law.
As civil rights considerations came to play an increasingly important role in the
Australian political landscape, the ADF encountered a number oI social and international trends
that changed its understanding oI its own mission and its relationship with civilian society. In
particular, the end oI the Cold War Iorced the ADF to reevaluate its role as a Iighting Iorce and
many Australians came to see military service as a temporary occupation rather than a long-term
9
LCR 04674
LCR Appendix Page 1897
career.
1
ProIessor Hugh Smith has argued that during the Cold War, many Australians regarded
the military as a calling and a liIetime vocation (1995). According to the old mindset, a career in
the armed Iorces meant that military liIe always took precedence over other priorities. Smith
says that according to the new 'occupational mindset oI many Australians, however, a military
career is 'iust another iob. Except in extraordinary circumstances like combat, soldiers now
expect regular working hours, Iree weekends, pension and beneIits, and other Ireedoms and
privileges associated with the civilian word. In the late 1980s and early 1990`s, much oI
Australian society moved toward an occupational outlook on most careers including military
service, and iust as the rest oI Australian society was moving toward greater tolerance and
support Ior individual rights and Ireedoms, the military Iound itselI needing to adiust (Smith
1995, 536-39).
As the center-leIt/leIt party in Australian politics, the Labour government that controlled
Parliament in the late 1980s and early 1990s Iaced some disagreement within its own ranks over
social issues such as the liIting oI the ban on gays and lesbians in the military. As Croome
(2000) points out, some members oI Labour`s caucus supported 'traditional Iamily values and
opposed liIting the ban. Others were traditional progressives, committed to an expansion oI what
they argued were equal rights Ior all Australians.
In a 1990 test oI the military ban on homosexuals, a servicewoman made a Iormal
complaint to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and contended
that her discharge had been partially based upon the Iact that she was a lesbian. The HREOC
asked the ADF to explain the reasoning behind its ban on homosexual service, and some
observers believe that the complaint was a serious challenge to ADF policy and that it may have
1
In the intervening decade, the ADF has become a signiIicant contributor to international peacekeeping eIIorts, most
recently in East Timor and Papua New Guinea.
10
LCR 04675
LCR Appendix Page 1898
prompted the ADF to review its rationale Ior discrimination (UK Ministry oI DeIence 1996, H1-
1: Smith 1995, 544: Croome 1992, 10). In February 1992, the Minister Ior DeIence Science and
Personnel inIormed Parliament that the Iederal government would review the ADF`s ban
(Croome 1992, 10). In June 1992, however, the DeIense Minister told Parliament that Iollowing
the recommendation oI the ChieIs oI StaII, the Government would not liIt the ban. Gay activists
condemned the declaration as hypocritical and preiudiced. (Agence France Presse, 18 June 1992)
In reaction, the Government Iormed a special party committee to study the matter, to
accept submissions Irom interested groups, and to make policy recommendations Ior the
government. In September 1992, this committee recommended that the ban be dropped
'immediately. The Caucus Committee also recommended that the ADF undertake a survey oI
members` attitudes and engage in an education campaign as part oI the liIting oI the ban.
Committee members who Iavored liIting the ban contended that the military was not
signiIicantly diIIerent Irom other organizations and thus should not be exempt Irom anti-
discriminatory policy changes being made elsewhere.
2
Those who opposed the removal oI the
personnel restrictions contended that such a change would hinder the military`s operational
eIIectiveness, combat perIormance, and morale. At the time, an ADF spokesperson said that the
military would Iind the removal oI the ban 'disturb|ing| and would likely react with disgust
(Agence France Presse, 18 September 1992).
3. The Lifting of the Ban and Immediate Reactions
In late November 1992, the Cabinet accepted the Caucus Committee recommendation
and the Government voted to drop the ban on the service oI gays and lesbians in the Australian
2
In 1992, Ior example, Australia was one oI three countries (along with Finland and the Netherlands) that gave
residency rights to the Ioreign partners oI homosexual citizens. However, homosexuality was still illegal in
Tasmania (Kyodo News Service, 2 December 1992).
11
LCR 04676
LCR Appendix Page 1899
military. Although the DeIense Minister and the service chieIs opposed the removal oI the ban,
the Attorney General, the Health Minister, and the Prime Minister all supported its removal. The
Attorney General argued that Australia`s policy violated international human rights agreements
not to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation and the Health Minister said that
by pushing military members to keep their relationships 'underground, the ban contradicted
eIIorts to Iight AIDS. Prime Minister Paul Keating then made the decision to accept the policy
change and to order its immediate implementation in the entire ADF. (Agence France Presse, 23
November 1992: United Press International, 23 November 1992: Reuters, 24 November 1992.)
In place oI the previous military regulation banning gays and lesbians Irom service, the
government issued a more general instruction on 'sexual misconduct policy. Among other
provisions, the new instruction reIerred to unacceptable conduct without making a distinction
between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rather than deIine what was unacceptable based
upon sexual orientation, in other words, the new instruction prohibited any sexual behavior that
negatively impacted group cohesion or command relationships, took advantage oI subordinates,
or discredited the ADF (Smith, 1995, 545). Thus, Ior example, 'homosexual advances were
not illegitimate: threatening sexual behavior was. And the policy provided commanders with
some latitude to iudge whether a certain behavior was acceptable or not in a certain context.
According to a report prepared by the British DeIence Ministry, the Australian policy
'recognises that sexual relations are a part oI adult liIe and are predominately a private matter Ior
each individual. Nevertheless, the ADF is concerned with the sexual behavior oI its members
where it is inconsistent with the inherent requirements oI the ADF, or where it is unlawIul. .
The term Unacceptable Sexual Behaviour` is not deIined and thus leIt to a wide variety oI
command interpretation. This lack oI prescriptive deIinition oI unacceptable behavior is in line
12
LCR 04677
LCR Appendix Page 1900
with the Australian Sex Discrimination Act`s emphasis on what is reasonable in the
circumstances and the recipient`s response to such behaviour (UK DeIence Ministry 1996, H1-
3).
Reaction to the Australian change was swiIt and severe. The Returned and Services
League, Australia`s largest veterans group, condemned the policy change and argued that
allowing open homosexuals to serve would shatter unit cohesion and lead to a deterioration oI
trust among soldiers, thus undermining the Iorces` Iighting eIIectiveness (Associated Press, 24
November 1992). Other opponents raised the specter oI AIDS and said that the battleIield
practice oI direct blood-to-blood transIers would lead to an increased incidence oI HIV inIection.
Even within the military, however, opinion seemed to be somewhat mixed (Associated Press, 9
December 1992). As oI January 1993, however, no members oI the ADF declared themselves to
be gay to military authorities (Associated Press, 27 January 1993). Early reports generated in the
immediate aItermath oI the policy change indicated that the ADF did not experience any decline
in recruiting or combat perIormance and media attention to the issue largely disappeared
approximately six months aIter new policy`s implementation (New York Times, 30 April 1993).
AIter the liIting oI the ban, the ADF introduced a variety oI new programs and training
courses to enIorce and support the provisions oI the DeIence Instruction on Discrimination,
Harassment, Sexual OIIences, Fraternisation and other Unacceptable Behavior in the Australian
DeIence Forces (2000). In 1997, responsibilities Ior monitoring, education, and enIorcement oI
the Instructions were consolidated into the new DeIence Equity Organization (DEO) that reports
directly to the DeIence Personnel Executive (the head oI personnel Ior the ADF). Currently, the
DEO is planning to provide additional support Ior the integration oI gay and lesbian soldiers by
creating a new training course (Grey 2000).
13
LCR 04678
LCR Appendix Page 1901
V. EFFECTS OF FULL INCLUSION ON PERFORMANCE IN THE ADF:
APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE
A. Prior Assessments: United States General Accounting Office (1993) And United
Kingdom Ministry Of Defence (1996)
GAO (1993) Stuav
In June 1993, seven months aIter the Australian ban on homosexual service was liIted,
the General Accounting OIIice oI the United States conducted interviews with ADF oIIicials to
document early outcomes associated with the change (GAO 1993). The short overview oI the
policy change concludes with a summary statement based on comments Irom an 'Australian
oIIicial, who stated that:
'...|A|lthough it is too early to assess the results oI the revised policy, no reported changes have
occurred in the number oI persons declaring his or her sexual preIerence or the number oI recruits
being inducted. EIIects on unit cohesiveness have not yet been Iully determined. However, early
indications are that the new policy has had little or no adverse impact (19).
These claims are substantiated by additional evidence collected Ior this study, described below.
Unitea Kingaom (1996) Assessment
In February 1996, the United Kingdom Ministry oI DeIence completed a report
documenting the Iindings oI its 'Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team that investigated
homosexual personnel policies oI a number oI Ioreign militaries. The team sent to Australia met
with representatives oI the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Army, and Royal
Australian Navy, as well as with Dr. Hugh Smith oI the ADF Academy (also interviewed Ior this
report) and service psychologists at ADF headquarters in Canberra. Their Iindings describe the
context oI the policy change, the manner in which it was implemented, and observed outcomes
in practice.
14
LCR 04679
LCR Appendix Page 1902
Regarding implementation oI the policy, the British team reported that service staIIs
believed that the change had not resulted in any notable problems Ior military Iunctioning.
According to the report,
Service policy staIIs all stated that Iollowing an initial outcry, homosexuality had become a non-
issue...The diIIiculties oI integrating open homosexuals were described as iust another legitimate
management problem` (UK Ministry oI DeIence 1996, H1-4).
The opinions oI personnel drawn Irom the services, however, varied in their assessments oI
potential diIIiculties arising Irom the policy change. According to the report, male members oI a
random volunteer group Irom the Royal Australian Air Force were 'very largely against the new
policy and believe that, in a combat situation, the presence oI open homosexuals would have a
degrading eIIect on |o|perational eIIectiveness (H1-4). However, personnel drawn Irom an
Army Logistics unit, as well as a Royal Australian Navy group based in Sydney, emphasized
equality and non-discrimination regardless oI personal opinions on homosexuality per se (H1-4).
The report concludes that HIV was 'not regarded as a signiIicant issue in light oI routine testing
oI personnel.
The British report noted that thirty-three homosexual soldiers, contacted through the
president oI the maior gay servicemembers group, had been willing to identiIy themselves to
members oI the team. Senior members oI the group included a RAN Commander and a Iormer
Army Lieutenant Colonel. The authors believed that another IiIteen personnel were members oI
the group but were not willing to reveal their identities. The report speculates that the reasons
Ior this 'continuing reticence were related to 'Iear oI comrades |sic| reiection and inIormal
sanctions, and anxiety about the eIIect on their careers (H1-5). According to the report, gay
service members were satisIied with the policy change but were still eager to push Ior additional
acceptance and rights such as equal entitlements Ior same-sex partners.
15
LCR 04680
LCR Appendix Page 1903
B. Evidence from the Australian Defence Forces
Defence Equitv Organization
The DeIence Equity Organization (DEO) serves as the primary ADF unit responsible Ior
development, implementation, training, and support Ior all policies regarding equity, diversity,
and sexual misconduct in the military. Its selI-described mission 'is to inIorm, educate,
encourage and ensure that equitable policies, processes and practices Iorm an integral part oI
doing business in DeIence as the basis Ior a Iairer and better work environment (DEO 2000).
Formed in August 1997 during a widespread re-organization oI the ADF, the DEO consolidated
responsibilities that had been assigned separately to each service branch as well as a human
rights policy area within DeIence Headquarters (now deIunct). In addition to supporting the
implementation oI ministry policies, DEO handles complaints regarding all matters oI sexual
misconduct including harassment, bullying and assault, provides an anonymous advice line Ior
service members and commanders, and directs the training and outreach activities oI 'Equity
Advisors throughout the Iorces. The director oI the DeIence Equity Organization, Ms. Bronwen
Grey, occupied the analogous Directorship in DeIence Headquarters until 1997.
According to Director Grey, all available Iormal and inIormal evidence regarding
outcomes associated with the 1992 policy change suggests that, in spite oI early Iears oI
deleterious consequences, the liIting oI the gay ban has had no adverse eIIects on the capability
or Iunctioning oI the DeIence Forces:
I have to say, Irom that point on |the 1992 change|, nothing happened. I mean people were
expecting the sky to Iall, and it didn`t. Now, a number oI gay people probably didn`t come out at
that point, but we`ve had an X.O. oI a ship come out and say to the ship`s company, 'I`m gay,
and, quite Irankly, no one cared (Grey 2000).
16
LCR 04681
LCR Appendix Page 1904
The Director bases her conclusion on her experiences at DeIence Equity as well as her
tenure as Director oI Personnel Policy at Headquarters (HQADF) beIore the 1997 re-
organization. While quantiIiable data associated with sexual conduct or perIormance outcomes
prior to 1997 are not available, Director Grey says that
|T|here was no increase in complaints about gay people or by gay people. There was no known
increase in Iights, on a ship, or in Army units or something...The recruitment Iigures didn`t
alter.. At that time, it didn`t Iigure in recruitment. Commanders were really on the watch at the
time because they were told that had to really make sure that this worked.. |They| were
watching out Ior problems. They didn`t identiIy any. Now that doesn`t mean there weren`t any,
but they didn`t identiIy any (Grey 2000).
When pushed by the interviewer to identiIy any problems that may have arisen aIter the
ban was liIted, the Director did note that some gay people probably did not Ieel comIortable
revealing their sexual orientation immediately aIter the change. Nonetheless, she says that a
number oI individuals have unambiguously come out to peers and commanding oIIicers and that
their revelations had no negative consequences Ior their careers or personal relationships. When
asked to clearly speciIy any other concrete observations oI what she termed a virtual 'non
event, the Director added,
All I can say is, Irom the organizational point oI view, while we were waiting Ior problems...we
were ready. Nothing happened. There were no increased complaints or recruiting |problems| at
all.. I mean nothing happened. And it`s very hard to document nothing (Grey 2000).
While the ADF could not provide the authors oI this study with quantiIiable data on
sexual misconduct that occurred during the Iirst several years aIter the liIting oI the ban, in 1997
DeIence Equity began collecting aggregate data Irom its anonymous telephone 'advice line that
concerned sexual misconduct and harassment. Table 1 summarizes the aggregate results and the
speciIic instances related to homosexual conduct:
Table 1: Total and Sexual Orientation-Specific Instances Received Since Inception:
Formal Complaints and Advice Line Calls Regarding Sexual Conduct
17
LCR 04682
LCR Appendix Page 1905
SOURCE Total number Number involving
homo- sexuality
Percent involving
homo-sexuality
Formal Complaints
Received (March
1997-August 2000)
494 12 2.43
Advice Line Phone
Calls (September
1998-August 31,
2000)
1642 25 1.52
According to Director Grey, these Iigures, while not providing a Iull portrait oI possible
problems relating to the service oI open homosexuals, nonetheless suggest that 'harassment
regarding sexual orientation really isn`t signiIicant in the ADF. Reiterating the philosophy
behind the ADF`s new position on sexual behavior enshrined in the 1992 liIting oI the ban, she
notes that the sexual behavior policy monitored and enIorced by DEO is intended Ior all
personnel, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual: 'It doesn`t matter what the sexual
orientation is. The reason we have |these policies| is because unIit behavior diminishes
capability. We`re Iocused on work output and the impact on capability. Thus, the military`s
eIIorts to collect inIormation and enIorce sexual conduct policies do not reIlect a particular
concern over possible problems relating to homosexual service, but rather a Iocus on maintaining
an appropriate environment Ior maximum capability and work output. Commenting on the
philosophy and approach behind the ADF`s position on this issue, the Director adds:
|O|ur Iocus is on the work people do, and the way they do the work, and that applies to
heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals. We don`t ask people iI they`re homosexual because
we don`t care. It doesn`t play a part in promotion, it doesn`t play a part in training, it doesn`t play
a part in postings. It simply isn`t an issue. Now that doesn`t mean that we don`t have some
complaints, but basically it is a non-issue (Grey 2000).
18
LCR 04683
LCR Appendix Page 1906
Eviaence form Other ADF Commanaers ana Personnel
For this study, senior military oIIicials Iamiliar with recruiting, training, deployment, and
perIormance were contacted Ior their perspectives on the impact oI the 1992 decision to liIt the
gay ban. In this section, we review evidence Irom in-depth interviews with two senior ADF
oIIicials: a one-star Naval OIIicer with extensive command experience who now serves as
Director General oI Career Management Policy: and the Senior Marketing OIIicer oI the
DeIence Course Recruiting Organisation, who oversees a variety oI recruitment-related outreach
activities across the ADF.
At the request oI the authors oI this study, the ADF arranged Ior an interview with a
senior warIare oIIicer with substantial command experience and widespread Iamiliarity with
deployments Ior his perspectives on the perIormance outcomes associated with the 1992 liIting
oI the ban. At the time oI the interview, Commodore R.W. Gates had been in the Royal
Australian Navy Ior twenty-nine years, having commanded a number oI Irigates and served in
policy positions in the personnel division at DeIence Headquarters in Canberra. Recently, he
was promoted to Commodore (one-star Naval OIIicer) in the Joint Personnel area in Career
Management Policy. In his interview with the study authors, Commodore Gates oIIered
extensive and Irank observations based on his experiences.
Consistent with other evidence collected Ior this study, Commodore Gates described the
early 1990s as a time when a pro-active liberal government as well as complaints surrounding
the HMAS Swan incident led to widespread concerns about equity and harassment in the ADF.
And, like other observers, the Commodore described mixed opinions and strong emotions within
the Forces at the prospect oI allowing homosexuals to serve openly: while nobody would deny
that homosexuals existed in the ADF, whether they should 'declare their orientation was
19
LCR 04684
LCR Appendix Page 1907
another matter. When the policy did change, serious protests all-but-disappeared, and Iormerly
closeted personnel stepped Iorward successIully and largely uneventIully. In his recounting oI
the experiences oI several personnel who have come out without maior problems, the
Commodore oIIered the Iollowing example:
I must admit, aIter it happened, it`s been an absolute non-event. We`ve had some maior cases oI
people declaring. Probably the most that I recall...would be one oI our executive oIIicers oI a
destroyer, the second-in-command. He declared. And, I`ll be Irank, it created a bit oI a stir.
We`re talking about a mid-rank lieutenant commander in an absolute critical position on board a
maior warship one heartbeat Irom command.. That person under the new policy was certainly
not removed Irom the ship, and in Iact completed his Iull posting (Gates 2000).
According to the Commodore, in this case the lieutenant commander approached the ship`s
captain to explain his decision and reasons Ior declaring that he was gay. The lieutenant
commander explained that he wanted to uphold honesty and integrity and could not continue to
'live a lie. Upon hearing the news, both the captain and troops were generally supportive,
continued to respect his position as second-in-command, and moved on with their missions.
Since then, the lieutenant commander`s career has continued successIullyhe was promoted and
is now serving in the RAN as a Iull commander.
The Commodore attributes the largely successIul transition to a broader eIIort on the part
oI top oIIicials in the Navy and the ADF to develop aggressive new training protocols to
minimize harassment and maximize equality oI opportunity. Like other experts interviewed Ior
this study, he points to both external societal pressures as well as internal missteps within the
ADF as motives Ior the change. In the Navy, eIIorts began shortly aIter the HMAS Swan
incident with a program called 'Good Working Relationships, Iollowed by the new deIence
instruction on sexual misconduct in 1992 which was promulgated via promotion courses oIIered
throughout the chain oI command.
20
LCR 04685
LCR Appendix Page 1908
When asked speciIically iI the policy change seemed to have any aIIect on recruiting or
retention, the Commodore replied,
In my opinion, it had no eIIect. It got a little bit oI press back in 92, it was a normal Ilutter. And
then something else came along, and the press moved on to something else. There was no great
peak in 'wasting trade as we call it where people walked out, and there was no great dip in
recruiting. It really was a non-event. I want to stress there was a lot oI work in making sure it was
a non-event (Gates 2000).
While he had no recollection oI any speciIic person reIusing to ioin or leaving the service
because oI the change, the Commodore noted the possibility that one or two cases might exist
where a heterosexual soldier was personally oIIended and chose to leave. Given that the ADF
included 70,000 people at the time, he considers such numbers as 'very, very minor.
The observations made by Commodore Gates are consistent with the views oI the
recruitment director interviewed Ior this study as well as other recruitment oIIicers. Squadron
Leader Chris Renshaw, Senior Marketing OIIicer Ior DeIence Force Recruiting, has not observed
any deleterious eIIects oI the policy change on recruiting or retention. Renshaw says that
recruiting and retention rates have decreased but that the liIting oI the gay ban had nothing to do
with the trends. Rather, he says that government-mandated reductions in the size oI the ADF as
well as competing opportunities in the civilian sector explain the change.
3
Renshaw says that the
policy change has allowed personnel to spend less time monitoring rumors and innuendo and to
devote more time to the execution oI their missions.
4
C. Evidence from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and
Government Officials
3
Medical Corps Sergeant Scott McLennan, who also holds civilian qualiIications equivalent to Maior, supervises
recruitment at a training center. He makes similar observations that the drop in recruitment during the 1990s had
nothing to do with the change in policy.
4
Squadron Leader Renshaw was contacted originally Ior this study as an ADF oIIicial with expertise in recruitment.
During the course oI the interview, Mr. Renshaw also reIlected on his experiences as an out gay service-member.
Additional comments regarding his personal experiences are included in Section F.
21
LCR 04686
LCR Appendix Page 1909
The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission is a statutory body
that enioys a relatively autonomous status in Australian politics that is analogous to courts. The
Commission`s members are appointed by the government and it receives its budget through the
normal budgetary process but it is not accountable to the Iederal government, the bureaucracy, or
political parties. In this section, we review evidence Irom iust-retired Human Rights
Commissioner Chris Sidoti, who made gay and lesbian equality one oI the priorities oI his Iive-
year tenure at the Human Rights Commission. Although Sidoti had little authority to Iorce
organizations to change their practices, he was responsible Ior investigating complaints and
suggesting legislative reIorms to minimize and eliminate discrimination in Australia. He told us
that HREOC has devoted considerable eIIort to monitoring sexual orientation issues in the
military.
Sidoti agrees with most oI the observations oI military and academic experts we
contacted. He indicates that there have been virtually no signiIicant eIIects oI the policy change
on the military. In his Iive years as Human Rights Commissioner, Sidoti estimates that his oIIice
investigated halI a dozen complaints oI discrimination based upon sexual orientation. He also
indicates that harassment oI homosexuals also seems largely non-existent, at least at the oIIicial
level.
Sidoti notes that cases oI harassment and discrimination involving gays and lesbians have
tended to occur when heterosexual service members have abused homosexual service members.
He is aware oI only one or two such cases but he cautions that the problem may be more
widespread than is oIIicially known. And, he emphasizes that although soldiers are told that
gays and lesbians are welcome, one would not want to be gay and in the military. He explains
that although there has been no maior public scandal regarding harassment oI gays, this does not
22
LCR 04687
LCR Appendix Page 1910
mean that such behavior does not occur: 'Whether it is widespread or not, I don`t know. In
some sense, it may not be as widespread as harassment oI women, because gays have always
been |around| and the military knows it (Sidoti 2000).
Sidoti believes that the liIting oI the ban may have had positive implications Ior military
eIIectiveness. Not only does the policy shiIt 'improve the career prospects oI gays, but 'It`s
bad Ior morale to have your guys snooping on other oI your guys (Sidoti 2000). He concludes
that the 1992 policy change is indicative oI and contributes to broader social change. 'The
military is the last bastion oI traditional male values. These developments contribute to broader
social acceptance Ior all (Sidoti 2000). However, Sidoti notes that there are areas oI military
personnel policy in which progress has not been made such as the recognition oI partners and the
extension oI beneIits.
D. Opinions and Observations of Academic, NGO, and Other Informed Observers
Acaaemic Observers
For a number oI reasons, Iew scholars have examined outcomes associated with the 1992
policy change in detail.
5
ProIessor Hugh Smith, oI the School oI Politics oI the University oI
New South Wales at the Australian DeIence Force Academy, remains the leading academic
authority on matters relating to the policy change and military perIormance.
6
In addition to
interviewing ProIessor Smith, we also sought to contact other scholars at maior Australian
universities who maintain a proIessional interest in gender, the military, and sexuality. As a
5
Several respondents said that reason Ior the lack oI scholarship in the area is that Australian academics who are
concerned with issues oI human rights and equity have Iocused on more pressing issues in recent years.
6
ProIessor Smith has been involved in examining the issue since beIore the ban was liIted, and was a consultant to
the parliamentary committee that considered revising ADF policy in the early 1990s. He has published a number oI
articles relating to homosexuality in the ADF over the last decade (Smith 1992, Smith 1995, Smith 2000).
23
LCR 04688
LCR Appendix Page 1911
result, we identiIied and interviewed two additional academics who have conducted related
research.
Based on his research and observations over the last eight years, ProIessor Smith believes
that the liIting oI the ban has not led to any signiIicant eIIects on military perIormance, combat
eIIectiveness, or unit cohesion. Like other respondents, he characterizes the outcome oI the
policy change as a virtual 'non-issue, with little remaining salience in government, media, or
military circles. The lack oI quantitative empirical data regarding the policy change constitutes,
in his opinion, a Iorm oI evidence. In ProIessor Smith`s words, 'This is not a subiect that has
troubled the DeIence Force to the extent that they have Ielt that studies have needed to be done
on it. The lack oI evidence is evidence (Smith 2000). He explains that when government
ordered the military to liIt the ban, some oIIicers said: 'Over my dead body, iI this happens I`ll
resign. However, Smith says that there were no departures and that the change was accepted in
'true military tradition(Smith 2000).
When pushed by the interviewer to identiIy any possible negative outcomes associated
with the liIting oI the ban, ProIessor Smith acknowledged that there 'may have been one or two
resignations, but that close government scrutiny oI ADF policy implementation did not Iind any
real eIIect on perIormance. While there have been occasional reports oI coming-out incidents
that may have made peers 'a bit nervous, ProIessor Smith does not believe that there have been
any notable incidents oI gay bashing or harassment (Smith 1995). To the degree that problems
oI sexual misconduct and harassment continue in the ADF, ProIessor Smith believes that they
are mostly related to the treatment oI women in the ranks and incidents oI hazing (reIerred to as
'bastardization) in the Academy.
24
LCR 04689
LCR Appendix Page 1912
ProIessor Smith`s views about the harassment oI women are consistent with the Iindings
oI Dr. Katerina Agostino oI the sociology department at Macquarie University in Sydney. Dr.
Agostino, who has consulted with the ADF on sexual Iraternization policy, argues that women
who work in charged military environments such as ships oIten Iace cultural and institutional
obstacles when their male peers equate heterosexual masculinity with eIIective military
perIormance. Her research suggests that gay and lesbian personnel, like heterosexual women,
may encounter diIIiculties when attempting to integrate Iully into traditional military culture.
However, her research also shows that women and gays can and do adopt a variety oI strategies
to negotiate these diIIiculties and integrate themselves into a changing environment that is, very
slowly, becoming more egalitarian and less entrenched in masculinist belieIs (Agostino 1997,
Agostino 1998a, Agostino 1998b, Agostino 2000). Nonetheless, instances oI discrimination and
harassment still occur, especially when individuals do not conIorm to traditional masculine
stereotypes. In her interview with the authors oI this study, Dr. Agostino was able to identiIy an
example:
There is a senior naval oIIicer that I know who`s very good at what he does, but he`s been unable
to get promotion. It`s quite clear Irom his reports that he is very good at what he does. He dyed
his hair blond, but you can see his natural color at the roots. He dresses 'gay when oII-duty..
He Ieels strongly that his opportunities have been curtailed since he`s openly outed himselI.. He
was called up beIore his commanding oIIicer, because the C.O. had heard through the rumor mill
that his hair had been dyed pink. The C.O. saw it wasn`t true. |The Iriend who is an oIIicer|
wasn`t censured but he was certainly told oII about it and told that he was being openly gay. He
was also told there`s nothing wrong with being gay, you iust can`t look so gay.
Like ProIessor Agostino, Dr. Jindy Pettman oI the Australian National University
observes that women and, quite possibly, gays, still Iace inIormal obstacles as they attempt to
integrate into a traditionally masculine heterosexual military culture. Based on her research and
observations, Dr. Pettman notes that the largest conIlicts and challenges to the ADF in the early
1990s concerned gender equality: questions oI sexual orientation were secondary. When the
25
LCR 04690
LCR Appendix Page 1913
possibility oI liIting the gay ban was raised, military oIIicials who were opposed to integrating
women raised similar obiections to the inclusion oI gays and said that homosexuals would
ieopardize unit cohesion, threaten the privacy oI soldiers, and lead to perIormance problems.
However, she says that aIter women were permitted to serve in most deployment environments
and aIter the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers was liIted, the Ilurry oI concern immediately died
oII and both issues Iell Irom public attention. Dr. Pettman believes that this relatively uneventIul
adaptation, while not indicating the disappearance oI all Iorms oI discrimination, suggests that
military culture is slowly becoming more inclusive (Pettman 2000).
Observations ana Eviaence Proviaea Bv Interest Groups. Non-Governmental Organizations.
ana Other Observers
For this study, all maior interest groups, veterans associations, iournalists, and non-
governmental organizations that have been involved in public or policy discussions relating to
outcomes oI liIting oI the ban and its consequences were contacted Ior their observations and any
documented evidence they might possess. Interviews and supplemental documentation were
obtained Irom Iive sources: the national president oI the Returned and Services League oI
Australia, a maior veterans group analogous to the American Legion: a well-known activist and
co-convenor oI the Australian Council Ior Lesbian and Gay Rights: a iournalist who has written
three maior stories on gay/military issues in the last year: and a New Zealand-based consultant
who is a specialist in gay/military integration issues and who has provided consulting services to
the Australian DeIence Forces. Additional resources were obtained Irom the International
Lesbian and Gay Association and the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group.
Two oI the individuals interviewed and their respective organizations have held divergent
opinions regarding the liIting oI the ban. The Returned and Services League (RSL) was an early
26
LCR 04691
LCR Appendix Page 1914
and active opponent oI proposals to liIt the ban, arguing that doing so would ieopardize morale,
unit cohesion, perIormance, and decency in the Armed Forces and would hasten the spread oI
AIDS. Maior General Peter Philips (ret`d), the current RSL president interviewed Ior this study,
still opposes the participation oI open homosexuals. Mr. Rodney Croome, on the other hand,
was a vociIerous gay rights activist who lobbied Ior the removal oI the ban. Interestingly,
however, Maior General Philips` comments on outcomes associated with the liIting oI the ban
are more optimistic than those oI Mr. Croome.
In a telephone interview with one oI the study authors, RSL President Maior General
Philips reiterated the group`s position and rationale behind opposing the removal oI the ban. As
summarized in the RSL`s 'Standing Policy oI the RSL in Australia, the organization opposes
open homosexual participation Ior Iour maior reasons: (1) the presence oI homosexuals will
lower morale and military perIormance: (2) personnel will be at greater risk Ior contracting HIV:
(3) homosexuals engage in predatory behavior: and (4) the military does not need to engage in
social experimentation. However, when asked which oI these or other problems relating to the
liIting oI the ban he or the organization believe have come to pass, he responded that, 'It`s
|homosexuals serving openly| not been a signiIicant public issue. The DeIence Forces have not
had a lot oI diIIiculty in this area (Philips 2000). When asked speciIically by the interviewer
whether he knows oI any evidence that suggests that allowing homosexuals to serve might aIIect
military perIormance, combat eIIectiveness, or unit cohesion, he replied,
We haven`t Iought in any wars since Vietnam, but we have been involved in some UN
peacekeeping operations, most recently in East Timor.. II the issue had arisen, it would have in
East Timor. I haven`t heard oI any gay issues in that (Philips 2000).
27
LCR 04692
LCR Appendix Page 1915
Maior General Philips acknowledges that some gay personnel have come out to peers but
disagreed with assertions made by some groups that there were signiIicant numbers in combat
units.
While he cannot identiIy any concrete data on the matter, Mr. Croome also believes that
the liIting oI the ban has not contributed to any negative perIormance consequences Ior the ADF
as a whole. Generally, the change helped reduce the climate oI Iear and allowed some gay
service members to come out to trusted colleagues. However, based on reports he has received,
Mr. Croome also asserts that the change has been uneven: instances oI discrimination and
harassment have been reported, and entitlements Ior same-sex couples have yet to be granted.
Regarding harassment issues, Croome states,
OI those that are about harassment, some have to do with people who are out, and some are Irom
people who are not out but are being gossiped about or suspected oI being gay. The harassment is
iust like any other sort oI workplace harassment, but there are no policies to deal with it (Croome
2000).
In recent years, Mr. Croome has been one oI the most active critics oI the implementation
oI the new sexual conduct policy, arguing that the ADF`s enIorcement oI the equal treatment
laws is imperIect and incomplete.
Mr. Eugene Moore, Director oI Full Spectrum Ltd., a New Zealand consulting Iirm that
addresses sexual orientation issues in the workplace, has been working with the ADF DeIence
Equity Organization during the past year to provide training and educational brieIings to staII
and service chieIs on how to best manage concerns relating to sexual orientation. Like other
observers, Mr. Moore notes the lack oI concrete data on outcomes oI the policy change. In his
view, the absence oI data suggests in part that the ADF did not aggressively Iollow through with
implementation and enIorcement in the Iirst several years aIter the ban was liIted. Moore says
that gay service members` unwillingness to reveal their sexual orientation during the Iirst Iew
28
LCR 04693
LCR Appendix Page 1916
years aIter the ban was liIted may have contributed to perceptions that the policy change was a
'non event. Regarding military perIormance issues more directly, Moore does not believe that
any signiIicant problems have occurred even as more service personnel have come out to peers
in recent years.
The experiences oI a iournalist who covered the issue oI gays in the military during the
past year provide more direct evidence regarding the welIare oI combat units with actively
serving selI-identiIied gay personnel. Mr. David Mills has interviewed service members Ior
several stories dealing with same-sex partner beneIits and combat service in East Timor. For his
investigation oI East Timor, Mr. Mills spoke with gay soldiers who had served actively. He was
aware oI seven or eight active duty soldiers serving in East Timor who selI-identiIy as gay, and
he recalls speaking to an enlisted Army soldier who worked as a IireIighter:
I spoke with a guy who is serving in the Army, a six-month stint in East Timor,
speaking about his experiences. He was an interesting guy who said there is a lot
less homophobia in the Armed Forces than you might think, although he was
pretty selective about who he was open about his sexuality with.. He said he
didn`t have any problem with that |coming out| whatsoever, although there was
an element oI surprise when he told people (Mills 2000).
4. Experiences in the Field: Out Personnel, Their Commanders and Peers
Drawn Irom the opinions and observations oI ADF oIIicials and other observers, the
evidence presented above strongly suggests that military perIormance including recruitment
and retention, harassment and sexual misconduct, and unit cooperation have not suIIered as a
result oI the 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly. However, the experiences oI
selI-disclosed homosexual personnel themselves may oIIer the most direct and revealing
evidence over how the policy change has impacted unit perIormance. Using a snowball
sampling technique based on initial contacts provided through a gay servicemembers`
29
LCR 04694
LCR Appendix Page 1917
organization, seven current and Iormer out ADF members were contacted and interviewed Ior
this study. They include six actively serving members oI the three main service branches
Army, Navy, and Air Force at the ranks oI Squadron Leader, Captain, and Flight Sergeant.
An additional Iormer enlisted ADF member who selI-identiIies as gay and who maintains active
contact with currently-serving homosexual personnel was also interviewed. Their experiences,
while representative oI varying ranks, times, and service branches, can nonetheless be
characterized by a number oI shared qualities.
1. Self-iaentifiea gavs ana lesbians currentlv serve as enlistea personnel ana officers in a range
of positions in all of the maior service branches of the ADF.
The snowball sample oI respondents described here is small and possibly
unrepresentative oI the larger population oI out gay servicemembers in the ADF. Nonetheless,
the diversity oI backgrounds and positions oI the respondents, coupled with their Irequent
reIerences to out peers in other units or services, suggest that out gay servicemembers are Iound
at all levels and in all branches oI the ADF.
Furthermore, most oI our respondents have actively served in both troop deployments
and managerial/administrative positions during their careers. One respondent, Squadron Leader
Michael Seah, and colleagues oI several others, actively served in what is widely considered to
be Australia`s most 'combat-like and successIul deployment in recent years The United
Nations`s peacekeeping operation in East Timor. As Medical Corps Sergeant Scott McLennan,
who served in a peacekeeping exercise in Bougainville, New Guinea, comments,
Looking at the current operation in East Timor, I`ve got a number oI gay and lesbian Iriends in an
operational situation. I have served in Bougainville, and there is no problem. We all get work
proIessionally, and it`s our iobs that come Iirst. You don`t look at it Irom a gay or lesbian point oI
view, you don`t look at it Irom a straight point oI view. You`re there to do a iob, and you work
together to ensure that the iob gets done (McLennan 2000).
30
LCR 04695
LCR Appendix Page 1918
2. Currentlv serving self-iaentifiea gav ana lesbian service members have experiencea largelv
uneventful coming-out processes ana aescribe professional. frienalv. ana cooperative
relationships with their peers ana commanaers.
All oI the selI-identiIied gay and lesbian active personnel we spoke with describe their
experiences oI coming out as largely positive and uneventIul. While some describe initial
uneven reactions among their colleagues and commandersranging Irom warm acceptance to
puzzlement to uneaseover time all oI our respondents experienced a transition to Iull
acceptance. As one respondent who served in East Timor put it:
From the discrimination point oI view, I haven`t Iaced any overt discrimination. Most people I`ve
come across.have been very supportive, certainly haven`t treated me any diIIerently. I`ve Iound
it quite reIreshing (Seah 2000).
A lesbian Squadron Leader in the Air Force assessed her situation similarly:
People, when they do Iind you`re gay,...some might be a little bit weary, but...it very soon
disappears, because what you`re iudged on is your proIessionalism and your ability. Who
according to your sexual orientation you Iind attractive is not an issue (Renshaw 2000).
All oI the respondents explain acceptance by their peers as a reIlection oI a shared respect
Ior proIessional competence and capability: in the end, one`s peers and colleagues come to
recognize that one`s sexual orientation has nothing to do with the ability to do one`s iob.
I`ve had nothing but support. It`s an initial thing, but then they work with it, and they see you in
an operational point oI view, and they see your skill level, and they have no issue. II they cannot
Iault you proIessionally, they will not look Ior Iaults with you personally (McLennan 2000).
The Iact that these people were there had no eIIect whatsoever on the eIIectiveness oI the units,
unit cohesion or morale. People are accepted Ior who they are and, as long as they can do the iob,
who cares. That`s pretty much the view oI most, I would say, in deIence, here in Australia. As
long as you are capable oI doing your iob, they don`t care what you`re doing in your spare time
(Stuht 2000).
Once a gay soldier is out to his or her peers, his or her sexuality usually becomes largely
irrelevant to proIessional identity. Perhaps the single most common way respondents describe
their sexuality on the iob is as a 'non-issue. As Army Captain Renshaw paraphrases it, 'No one
31
LCR 04696
LCR Appendix Page 1919
gives a damn, no one worries about it. Totally a non-issue.Here people iust don`t care
(Renshaw 2000).
To the degree that evidence oI their sexual orientation becomes a point oI discussion,
respondents described a number oI ways in which the new policy has allowed their identity to be
normalized as simply one aspect oI their lives. A welcoming and open environment allows gay
soldiers to spend less time monitoring their comments and more time Iocusing on their work:
Well, you can be more honest. That`s one oI the key things about being in the military honesty
and integrity. Because you haven`t got to worry about iI someone`s saying something behind your
back, or is someone gossiping or something, because iI they gossip, I don`t care. So I`m more
Iocused on my iob, I`m more Iocused on what I`m achieving here, and less worried about the
|stories| and what people think. In terms oI productivity, I`m Iar more productive now. Things
like when you come into work and people say, what did you do over the weekend. Oh, what was
her name... all that stuII disappears. What did you do over the weekend. Everything`s out in the
open, no Iear, no nothing, no potential oI blackmail, no security implications.. nothing (Renshaw
2000).
The maiority oI respondents also report that the newIound honesty they are permitted
allows Ior more Irank and sometimes even playIul exchanges when uncomIortable situations do
arise:
I took my ex-partner to the work Christmas party.I did the courtesy oI telling my boss
beIorehand that I was going to do it. And, he iust looked at me with a bit oI a pained expression
and said, 'I expect you to behave. And I iust sort oI looked at him and said, 'Look, knowing the
other people that work on this Iloor and how they behave with booze, you`re worried about me.
Point taken.. (Renshaw 2000).
I`m quite open about my sexuality. Sometimes the boys decide to give me a bit oI a ding-up with
a ioke or something like that, but that doesn`t bother me. We work really well together, and I`m
sure it`s the same Ior other gay and lesbian soldiers and sailors who are out, and they`re accepted
by their peers. O.K. they`re the obiect oI ridicule sometimes, but everybody is (Stuht 2000).
Other respondents also describe examples in which their orientation becomes integrated as one
aspect oI who they are, taken no more or less seriously than any other aspect oI their lives.
3. While the ADF has succeeaea in introaucing new airectives extenaing equal treatment to gav
ana lesbian solaiers. most self-iaentifiea personnel are aware of inaiviaual inciaents of possible
aiscrimination or harassment at the unit level.
32
LCR 04697
LCR Appendix Page 1920
While all out personnel we spoke with described their work environments as generally
untroubled and productive, most were aware oI scattered instances oI anti-gay discrimination or
harassment suIIered by others since the new policy was introduced. Most oI these incidents
relate to isolated remarks made by individual peers, but there have been occasional reIerences to
alleged inappropriate conduct by commanders or oIIicers. Perhaps the most dramatic example is
the case oI suspected promotion bias oIIered by Dr. Agostino (see section D, above). A second
case is described by RAAF Flight Sergeant Livingstone, who recalls attending a training session
where an Army warrant oIIicer deIended a homophobic response to a hypothetical scenario by
claiming that the Army 'did not care about the changed policy on gay service (Livingstone
2000). Livingstone did not attribute an exact date to the event, but the comments were made in
the mid-1990s. Other sources Iamiliar with Army liIe acknowledge some individual instances oI
early resistance to the policy change but do not believe they are representative oI a systematic
pattern.
Generally, respondents report that incidents oI discrimination or harassment brought to
the attention oI commanders are handled appropriately. Several respondents identiIied incidents
in which peers who had made inappropriate remarks were disciplined by superiors promptly and
without reservation. Based on the experiences oI peers in a variety oI units, several personnel we
spoke with believed that most oI the unevenness in treatment could be ascribed to the diIIerences
in particular work environments. As a Iormer ADF service member Iamiliar with the
experiences oI a number oI gay soldiers remarks, 'It is totally determined on the work
environment oI the individual. We`ve got some senior oIIicers who are greatthey deal with
and address their |gay service members`| problems or whatever, and always work to oIIer help.
(Edwards 2000).
33
LCR 04698
LCR Appendix Page 1921
4. Gav personnel who were in the forces when the ban was liftea. or know of others who were.
aescribe substantial. sustainea changes in formal ana informal unaerstanaings ana proceaures
conaucive to better work environments.
All oI the respondents who were Iamiliar with liIe in the ranks Ior homosexuals beIore
the ban was liIted concur that working environments have improved markedly in the last eight
years. While many oI these improvements came as a direct consequence oI Iormal
implementations oI the DeIence Instruction issued in 1992 on sexual misconduct, others are seen
as reIlective oI subtle but still important changes in military culture. Respondents concur with
other observers interviewed Ior this study in describing an operating environment that now takes
equality oI opportunity and treatment quite seriously Ior women, Ior ethnic minorities, and Ior
homosexuals. While pockets oI discrimination and unequal treatment still exist, most
respondents Ieel that the ADF has come to embody the same commitment to human rights,
equality oI opportunity, and diversity (what the ADF calls 'Equity) that now characterize
Australian civil society as a whole.
The current situation stands in sharp contrast to the atmosphere oI Iear, uncertainty, and
betrayal that characterized military liIe Ior many personnel suspected oI being homosexual prior
to 1992. Squadron Leader Renshaw and others who ioined the ADF beIore the ban was liIted
identiIy a number oI painIul personal and proIessional consequences oI being closeted to
oneselI and to others in order to saIeguard careers. Seaman Colin Edwards, who was Iorced
to leave the Royal Australian Navy in 1981 aIter voluntarily disclosing his homosexuality,
recalls investigations designed to compel his Iriends to identiIy other homosexuals. One
colleague, a heterosexual, committed suicide shortly aIter being investigated Ior his association
with Seaman Edwards (Edwards 2000).
34
LCR 04699
LCR Appendix Page 1922
5. Although gav personnel are generallv satisfiea with the new policv. thev feel frustratea ana
marginalizea bv the failure of the ADF to extena equal treatment ana benefits to same-sex
partners.
During their interviews, most out gay personnel spontaneously raised the topic oI current
debates over extending beneIits to same-sex partners. Like other observers we contacted, gay
soldiers interviewed Ior this study were largely untroubled by original concerns over morale, unit
cohesion, and retention that surrounded the 1992 decision to liIt the ban. Rather, they are
Iocused on pressuring the ADF to IulIill what they believe to be legally binding obligations to
extend equal treatment to same-sex domestic partners under Australian law. In Iact, when asked
to speculate on how the liIting oI the ban may have aIIected the well-being oI the Australian
Forces, most respondents Iirst Iocused on their Irustrations over same-sex partner issues.
Tellingly, these reactions suggest that most out gay soldiers, like the ADF and Australian society
more generally, Iind the question oI whether allowing gays to serve has reduced the perIormance
capabilities oI the Armed Forces almost impossible to Iathom. They have instead moved on to
other, more germane concerns.
5. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
Systematic evidence concerning the liIting oI the Australian ban on gays and lesbians in
the military is scarce. This report attempts to redress the gap by drawing together and comparing
the Iindings and observations oI inIormed observers Irom a variety oI vantage points in the
policy domain. Certainly, any one piece oI evidence by itselI cannot stand as a comprehensive
appraisal oI outcomes associated with the change. Nonetheless, taken together, the data
presented in this report make a convincing and credible case that, notwithstanding uneven and
partial implementation oI the policy, the 1992 inclusion oI selI-described gay and lesbian
35
LCR 04700
LCR Appendix Page 1923
soldiers into the Australian DeIence Forces has not led to any perceptible decline in operational
eIIectiveness, morale, unit cohesion, retention, or attrition. In Iact, ADF oIIicials and a number
oI other observers, including commanders and soldiers, believe that changes associated with the
policy have contributed to a working environment that is Ireer Irom the burdensome and
unproductive consequences oI mistrust, misunderstanding, and misiudgment that at times
compromised the integrity oI units in the past. As part oI a broader commitment to equity in the
ADF, then, the policy change has been a success.
While the general consensus in the Iindings above is clear, a close look at the evidence
also reveals a number oI concerns. Isolated instances oI discrimination and harassment still
exist, and some service branches may be less proactive in their policies than others. These
diIIiculties may be even more pervasive among the ranks oI heterosexual women, who
experience higher rates oI harassment than gay males. From the perspective oI gay and lesbian
soldiers and their allies, the Iailure oI the ADF to extend beneIits that are accorded to
heterosexual spouses to same-sex partners stands as a reminder oI a partially-IulIilled mission.
At the same time, however, the Iact that the debate over gays in the military has shiIted away
Irom the question oI whether homosexual soldiers undermine military perIormance also stands as
a testament to the success oI the inclusive policy.
36
LCR 04701
LCR Appendix Page 1924
6. SOURCES
(1992). Australian military maintains ban on homosexuals. Agence France Presse. Canberra. 18
June.
(1992). Armed Iorces gay ban should end, Australian government told. Agence France Presse.
Canberra. 18 September.
(1992). Australia to drop ban on gays in military. Agence France Presse. Canberra. 23
November.
(1992). Veterans and War Hero Angry Over LiIting oI Gay Ban. Associated Press. Canberra,
Australia.24 November.
(1992). Australia liIts ban on homosexuals in ADF. Xinhua General Overseas News Service.
Canberra. 24 November.
(1997). Inquiry into Sexuality Discrimination. Canberra, Australian Senate Legal and
Constitutional Committee: 10 pp.
(1999). Assessment Guidelines: DeIence OIIicer Joint Competencies, Australian DeIence Force:
12 pp.
(1999). DeIence Instructions (General) -- Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual OIIences,
Fraternisation, and other Unacceptable Behavior in the Australian DeIence Force.
Canberra. DeIence Instruction (General) PERS 35-3.
(2000). FED: RSL chieI says gays should not be in the army. AAP (Australian Associated Press).
Sydney. 4 March.
(2000). Sydney`s gay parade undimmed by church tirade. Deutsche Presse-Agentur. Sydney. 4
March.
(2000). Croome attacks RSL on homosexual 'untruths. ABIX: Australian Business Intelligence.
16 May.
Agostino, K. (1997). 'Masculinity, Sexuality, and LiIe On Board Her Maiesty`s Royal
Australian Ships. Journal oI Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 2(1).
Agostino, K. (1998a). 'She`s a good hand: Navy women`s strategies in masculinist
workplaces. Journal oI Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 3(1): 1-22.
Agostino, K. (1998b). 'The making oI warriors: men, identity and military culture. Journal oI
Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 3(2): 58-75.
Anderson, T. (1994). Gay Australian soldiers said AIDS risk. United Press International. Sydney.
24 June.
Anonymous. 'Fair Go Course -- For StaII oI ADF Career Management Agencies. Australian
DeIence Force: 47 pp.
Anonymous (1997). 'Burton and Quinn Reports Released: ADF press release. 2 pp.
Anonymous (1999). Chronology oI Women in the Australian Military, Australian DeIence
Force.
Baldwin, J. (1993). Other Armies Accept Gays, But Many Remain in Closet. Associated Press.
London. 27 January.
Chapman, A. (1996). 'Australian Anti-Discrimination Law and Sexual Orientation: Some
Observations on Terminology and Scope. E Law: Murdoch University Electronic
Journal oI Law 3(3): 13.
Chulov, M. (2000). Gays Should Not Be in the Army: RSL. The Australian. Sydney.
37
LCR 04702
LCR Appendix Page 1925
Clack, P. (1999). AFP Lauded For View On Same-Sex Spouses. The Canberra Times. Canberra.
14 March.
Croome, R. (1992). A Submission to the ALP Caucus Committee on the Australian DeIence
Force Policy on Homosexuality. Canberra.
Croome, R. (1999). We Should All Look AIter Our Troops Loved Ones. J. Wilson. Canberra,
The Canberra Times. 22 September.
Dandeker, C. (1994). 'New times Ior the military: some sociological remarks on the changing
role and structure oI the armed Iorces oI the advanced societies. British Journal oI
Sociology 45(4): 637-654.
Feldman, E. A. (1998). Testing the Force: HIV and Discrimination in the Australian Military,
Yale University Center Ior Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS.
Fisher, L. (1993). Armed and Gay. Maclean`s. 24 May.
Hawke, A. (1999). DeIence Women`s Network: 10.
International Lesbian and Gay Association. (2000). World Legal Survey -- Australia: Federal,
International Lesbian and Gay Association.
Lancaster, J. (1992). Many Allies Allow Gays in the Military: Canada, Australia Are Latest to
Drop Exclusionary Policy. Washington Post: A1. 30 November.
Marshallsea, T. (2000). UK: Britain to Iollow Australian Model oI gay tolerant army. AAP
(Australian Associated Press). London. 12 January.
Munro, C. (1992). Allowing Gays in Armed Forces Stirs Debate in Australia. Kyodo News
Service. Sydney.
Reuters, F. (1992). Australia Overturns Its Ban on Gays in the Armed Forces. Los Angeles
Times. Sydney, Australia: A12. 24 November.
Schmitt, E. (1993). Gay Soldiers No Problem Elsewhere, Experts Say. The New York Times.
Washington, DC: A16. 30 April.
Smith, H. (1992). Homosexuality and the Australian DeIence Force: Individual Rights vs
Organizational Realities. Canberra, Australian DeIence Studies Centre: 30.
Smith, H. (1995). 'The Dynamics oI Social Change and the Australian DeIence Force. Armed
Forces and Society 21(4): 531-551.
Spencer, G. (1992). LiIting oI Gay Ban SoItens Australia`s Tough Man Image. Associated Press.
Sydney, Australia. 9 December.
U.K. Ministry oI DeIence. (1996). Report oI the Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team.
London, UK Ministry oI DeIence.
United States General Accounting OIIice (1993). Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and
Practices oI Foreign Countries. Washington D.C., U.S. General Accounting OIIice: 51.
Wallace, C. P. (1994). Gay Australian Takes Complaint to U.N. Panel -- And Wins: Tasmania:
Condemnation oI State`s Sodomy laws Stirs Fierce Debate. Island RebuIIs Committee`s
Call Ior Change. Los Angeles Times. Hobart, Australia: A4. 10 September.
Ward, S. (1995). Australia rebuIIs UK rule on gay troops: 'Now we have another persecution.
OI course they don`t kill gay people in this country. They iust ruin their lives. Two men
hounded out the services. The Independent (London). London: 1. 11 March.
Zinn, C. (1996). Armed Forces` Gay Float Under Fire From Old Soldiers. The Guardian
(London). Sydney: 10. 30 January.
38
LCR 04703
LCR Appendix Page 1926
Interviews
Academic experts
Agostino, Katerina, lecturer in sociology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 2000.
Interview by authors, 8 August.
Smith, Hugh, associate proIessor, school oI politics, University oI New South Wales, Australian
DeIence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia. 2000. Interview by authors, 20 August.
Pettman, Jan, Political Science Department, Australian National University. Interview by
authors, 12 September.
Senior military officials
Gates, Commodore R.W., Royal Australian Navy. 2000. Interview by authors, 13 September.
Grey, Bronwen, director, DeIence Equity Organisation. 2000. Interview by authors, 17 August.
Renshaw, Squadron Leader C. P., Royal Australian Air Force. 2000. Interview by authors, 15
September.
NGO and other expert observers
Croome, Rodney, co-convenor, Australian Council on Gay and Lesbian Rights. 2000. Interview
by authors, 17 August.
Livingstone, Flight Sergeant Mark, Royal Australian Air Force. 2000. Interview by authors, 22
August.
Mills, David, reporter, Svanev Star-Observer. 2000. Interview by authors, 12 September.
Moore, Eugene, Full Spectrum, Ltd. 2000. 14 August.
Philips, Maior General (ret`d) Peter, President, Returned and Services League. 2000. Interview
by authors, 8 August.
Sidoti, Chris, Australian Human Rights Commissioner. 2000. Interview by authors, 18 August.
'Out` military personnel
39
LCR 04704
LCR Appendix Page 1927
Edwards, Colin, Iormer enlisted personnel, Australian DeIence Forces. 2000. Interview by
authors, 12 September.
Little, Captain Emma, Royal Australian Army, army psychologist. 2000. Interview by authors,
12 September.
Livingstone, Flight Sergeant Mark, Royal Australian Air Force. 2000. Interview by authors, 22
August.
McClennan, Medical Corps Sergeant Scott. 2000. Interview by authors, 31 August.
Renshaw, Squadron Leader Chris. P., Senior Marketing Director, DeIence Force Recruiting
Organization. 2000. Interview by authors, 31 August.
Seah, Squadron Leader Michael, Senior Medical OIIicer, RAAF Base Pearce. 2000. Interview
by authors, 13 September.
Stuht, Andrew, enlisted personnel, Royal Australian Navy. 2000. Interview by authors, 25
August.
40
LCR 04705
LCR Appendix Page 1928

JFQ / issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 ndupr ess. ndu. edu JFQ / issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 ndupr ess. ndu. edu
Te Efcacy of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell
By O M P R A K A S H
Colonel Om Prakash, USAF, wrote this essay while a student at the National War College.
It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition.
Tere is no more intimate
relationship . . . they eat and sleep
together. Tey use the same facilities
day afer day. Tey are compelled to
stay together in the closest association.
U.S. Senator describing the life of a Soldier
Experiments within the Army in
the solution of social problems are
fraught with danger to efciency,
discipline, and morale.
U.S. Army general officer
Homosexual Servicemembers
have had to compromise their
personal integrity by keeping
their sexuality secret
U
.
S
.

A
ir

F
o
r
c
e

(
S
h
e
le
y

G
ill)
LCR 04776
LCR Appendix Page 1929
PRAKASH
ndupr ess. ndu. edu issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 / JFQ 89
T
hough the epigraphs echo
arguments made against
homosexuals serving openly in
the Armed Forces, they are the
words of Senator Richard Russell of Georgia
and General Omar Bradley in opposition
to President Trumans 1948 executive order
to racially integrate the U.S. military.
1
The
discourse has gone beyond what is best for the
combat effectiveness of the military to become
a vehicle for those seeking both to retract and
expand homosexual rights throughout society.
It has used experts in science, law, budgeting,
and military experience in an effort to settle
an issue deeply tied to social mores, religion,
and personal values.
A turning point in the debate came in
1993. Keeping a promise made during his
campaign, President Bill Clinton attempted
to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the
military. After strong resistance from the
leadership in both the Pentagon and Congress,
a compromise was reached as Congress passed
10 United States Code 654, colloquially
known as Dont Ask, Dont Tell (DADT).
2

This law, which allowed homosexuals to serve
as long as they did not admit their orientation,
survived the Clinton and Bush administra-
tions essentially unchanged. Repealing the
ban on homosexuals serving openly was also a
campaign promise of Barack Obama, though
his transition team stated that they did not
plan to tackle the issue until 2010.
3
As this
debate reignites, it is worthwhile to reexamine
the original premises that went into forming
the DADT policy, explore the cost and effec-
tiveness of the law, and finally, with 16 years
of societal drift, revisit the premises on which
it is based.
There are five central issues. First, 654
has had a significant cost in both personnel
and treasure. Second, the stated premise
of the lawto protect unit cohesion and
combat effectivenessis not supported by any
scientific studies. Strong emotional appeals
are available to both sides. However, societal
views have grown far more accommodating
in the last 16 years, and there are now foreign
military experiences that the United States can
draw from. Third, it is necessary to consider
the evidence as to whether homosexuality
is a choice, as the courts have traditionally
protected immutable characteristics. To date,
though, the research remains inconclusive.
Fourth, the law as it currently stands does
not prohibit homosexuals from serving in the
military as long as they keep it secret. This
has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect
as homosexuals serving, estimated to be over
65,000,
4
must compromise personal integrity.
Given the growing gap between social mores
and the law, DADT may do damage to the
very unit cohesion that it seeks to protect.
Finally, it has placed commanders in a posi-
tion where they are expected to know every-
thing about their troops except this one aspect.
Origins
During the 1992 campaign, Presidential
hopeful Bill Clinton made homosexuals in the
military a political issue, promising to change
the Pentagons policy that only heterosexuals
could serve in the military.
5
On taking office,
President Clinton initially assumed the ban
could be lifted with an executive order, similar
to the method President Harry Truman used
to racially desegregate the military. He met
fierce opposition in Congress led by Senator
Sam Nunn (DGA), who organized extensive
House and Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee (HASC and SASC, respectively) hearings
on the ban of homosexuals in the military.
Two other factions emerged in Congress, one
arguing for a complete repeal of the ban. A
third compromise faction finally prevailed
with the position that went on to become
DADT, allowing homosexuals to serve as long
as it was done in secret.
6
Aside from the fierce divide in opinions,
the debate also turned into a contest between
Article I and Article II of the Constitution.
Previously the ban on homosexuals was a
Pentagon policy, subject to the executive
orders of the President. As a companion to the
DADT policy, Congress permanently stifled
this route, to the chagrin of the President.
To preclude any future action to lift the ban
via executive order, Congress wrote into law,
Pursuant to the powers conferred by Section
8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United
States, it lies within the discretion of the Con-
gress to establish qualifications for and condi-
tions of service in the armed forces.
7
Rationale
During congressional debate, there
were three components to the argument sup-
porting the ban on homosexuals serving in
the military: health risks, lifestyle risks, and
unit cohesion.
8
The Army Surgeon General offered
statistics showing a homosexual lifestyle
was associated with high rates of HIV/AIDS,
hepatitis B, and other sexually transmitted
diseases. Aside from the increased health risk,
statistics also showed a homosexual lifestyle
was associated with high rates of promiscu-
ity, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
9
Ultimately,
neither of the first two arguments made it
into the rationale offered in 654ostensibly
because these risk factors are not uniquely
associated with homosexuality and could be
screened for and dealt with in a manner other
than determining sexual orientation.
The central argument, and the only
one that made it into law, rested on unit
cohesion. The final language adopted by
Congress stated:
One of the most critical elements in combat
capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds
of trust among individual service members
that make the combat effectiveness of a
military unit greater than the sum of the
combat effectiveness of the individual unit
members. . . . The presence in the armed
forces of persons who demonstrate a propen-
sity or intent to engage in homosexual acts
would create an unacceptable risk to the
high standards of morale, good order and
discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
essence of military capability.
10
Associated Costs
Before the inception of DADT, the rates
of discharge for homosexuality had been
steadily falling since 1982. Once the law was
passed, rates climbed, more than doubling by
2001 before beginning to fall again.
11
Since
it is necessary to consider
the evidence as to whether
homosexuality is a choice, as
the courts have traditionally
protected immutable
characteristics
Opposition to homosexuals serving openly in
military is reminiscent of opposition to President
Harry Trumans desegregation of military
U
.
S
.

A
r
m
y
LCR 04777
LCR Appendix Page 1930
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
90 JFQ / issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 ndupr ess. ndu. edu
1994, the Services have discharged nearly
12,500 Servicemembers under the law.
12
There are various explanations for
the rise in discharges for homosexuality
after 1993. One is that the increase reflects
how discharges are recorded rather than an
underlying change in practices. A senior Air
Force Judge Advocate points out that prior to
the change in the law, homosexual discharge
actions during basic military training were
classified as fraudulent enlistments because
the person had denied being a homosexual
when he or she enlisted and later changed
position. After the change in the law, the Air
Force no longer collected the information
during the enlistment process, so fraudulent
enlistment was no longer an option, and
the Air Force began characterizing the dis-
charges as homosexual conduct. Gay rights
advocates argued that the increase was due
to commanders conducting witch hunts,
yet commanders also reported fear of being
accused of discrimination and only process-
ing discharges when a case of telling was
dumped in their laps.
13
Another explanation
is that given the law and recent reduction
in stigma associated with homosexuality
in society at large, simply declaring one
is homosexual, whether true or not, is the
fastest way to avoid further military commit-
ment and receive an honorable discharge. In
support of this supposition, Charles Moskos,
one of the original authors of DADT, points
out that the number of discharges for
voluntary statements by Servicemembers
accounted for 80 percent of the total, while
the number of discharges for homosexual
acts actually declined over the years.
14
The drop in discharges under the law
since 9/11 has been used by both sides in
support of their case. Gay rights advocates
stated the military now needed every person
it could get, so it looked the other way, but an
equally compelling argument is that in the
wake of the events of 9/11, pride and desire to
serve reduced the numbers of those making
voluntary statements in an effort to avoid
further duty. An Air Force source also argues
against the perceived need for personnel
contributing in any way to the Air Force data
because the response to indications of homo-
sexuality has remained unchanged. The Air
Force investigates all cases when presented
with credible evidence or a voluntary state-
ment and has initiated discharge proceedings
in all cases when the inquiry reveals a basis
for such action.
Though the arguments explaining the
patterns in discharges are compelling on both
sides, ultimately it is difficult to prove any one
factor because each explanation only partially
explains the trends. Furthermore, whatever
the reasons, the fact remains that because of
DADT, those Servicemembers no longer serve.
It is also worth noting that the 12,500 figure
is most likely low since it cannot capture the
number of individuals who do not reenlist or
who choose to separate because of the intense
personal betrayal they felt continuing to serve
under the auspices of DADT.
In a report released in February 2005,
the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) estimated the financial impact to be
at least $190.5 million for the previous 10
years of DADT policy. However, a University
of California Blue Ribbon Commission that
included former Secretary of Defense William
Perry questioned the reports methodology.
The commission faulted the GAO for not
including recruiting and separation costs that
brought the 10-year estimate to $363 million.
15

Also worth noting is that these figures do
not account for the additional opportunity
costs of high-profile, prized specialties such as
Arabic speakers.
16
If one considers strictly the lost man-
power and expense, DADT is a costly failure.
Proponents of lifting the ban on homosexuals
serving openly can easily appeal to emotion
given the large number of people lost and
treasure spentan entire division of Soldiers
and two F22s. Opponents of lifting the ban
offer interesting but weak arguments when
they compare the relatively small numbers
of discharges for homosexuality with those
discharged for drug abuse or other offenses.
It is necessary to look past both of these
arguments, remove the emotion, and instead
examine the primary premise of the lawthat
open homosexuality will lead to a disruption
of unit cohesion and impact combat effective-
ness. If that assumption holds, then the troops
lost and money spent could be seen as a neces-
sity in order to maintain combat effectiveness
just as other Servicemembers unfit for duty
must be discharged.
Unit Cohesion/Combat Effectiveness
In 1993, as the language was drafted for
654, there were no direct scientific studies
regarding the effects of acknowledged homo-
sexuals on either unit cohesion or combat
effectiveness. Furthermore, it is incorrect
to equate the two because unit cohesion is
only one of many factors that go into combat
effectiveness. Potentially far outweighing unit
cohesion, for example, are logistics, training,
equipment, organization, and leadership, just
to name a few.
commanders reported
fear of being accused of
discrimination and only
processing discharges when a
case of telling was dumped
in their laps
President Clinton attempted
to fulfill campaign promise
to lift ban on homosexuals
in the military
U
.
S
.

N
a
v
y

(
B
o
b

M
c
R
o
y
)
LCR 04778
LCR Appendix Page 1931
PRAKASH
ndupr ess. ndu. edu issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 / JFQ 91
Testimony before the HASC and SASC
involved speculation on possible impacts
from psychologists and military leaders.
17
To
date, there is still no direct scientific evidence
regarding homosexuals serving openly, but
there is now additional empirical data as
several North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allies have since lifted the ban on homosexu-
als serving.
Though unit cohesion is not specifi-
cally defined in 654, it does refer to bonds
of trust, the sum being greater than the
individuals, and high standards of morale,
good order and discipline. The Dictionary
of U.S. Army Terms defines unit cohesion as
the result of controlled, interactive forces
that lead to solidarity within military units
directing soldiers towards common goals
with an express commitment to one another
and the unit as a whole.
18
As psychologists
explored the concepts, experimental and cor-
relation evidence supported dividing cohesion
into two distinct types: social cohesion and
task cohesion. Social cohesion is the nature
and quality of the emotional bonds within a
groupthe degree to which members spend
time together, like each other, and feel close.
Task cohesion refers to the shared commit-
ment and motivation of the group to a goal
requiring a collective effort.
19
When measuring unit performance, task
cohesion ends up being the decisive factor in
group performance. Common sense would
suggest a group that gets along (that is, has
high social cohesion) would perform better.
Almost counterintuitively, it has been shown
that in some situations, high social cohesion
is actually deleterious to the group decision-
making process, leading to the coining of the
famous term groupthink. This does not imply
that low social cohesion is advantageous, but
that moderate levels are optimal.
20
Several factors contribute to cohesion.
For social cohesion, the most important
factors are propinquityspatial and temporal
proximityand homogeneity. For task cohe-
sion, the factors include leadership, group size,
shared threat, and past success. Interestingly,
success seems to promote cohesion to a greater
degree than cohesion promotes success.
21
This leads to the conclusion that
integration of open homosexuals might
degrade social cohesion because of the lack
of homogeneity; however, the effects can be
mitigated with leadership and will further
dissipate with familiarity. More importantly,
task cohesion should not be affected and is in
fact the determinant in group success. Given
that homosexuals who currently serve do so
at great personal expense and professional
risk, RAND interviews suggest such individu-
als are deeply committed to the militarys
core values, professional teamwork, physical
stamina, loyalty, and selfless serviceall key
descriptors of task cohesion.
22
Homosexuality and Choice
As the debate reignites on DADT, it is
necessary to consider whether homosexual-
ity is a choice. Traditionally, courts have
protected immutable characteristics, and
Americans
writ large are
demonstrably
more accepting
of character-
istics that an
individual
cannot change.
Contrasting
this, many
opponents of
lifting the ban
assume that
homosexuality
is a choice and
use this as the
basis of many
arguments.
Unfortunately,
research has not yet yielded a definitive
answer to this question. Both sides of the
debate are armed with ultimately incon-
clusive scientific studies. What follows is a
brief overview of several studies that have
attempted to settle the dispute.
Several studies in the early 1990s exam-
ined the sexual preferences of identical twins
and fraternal twins in the hopes of finding a
genetic linkage to sexual orientation. Since
identical twins have 100 percent of nuclear
genetic material in common and fraternal
twins have only 50 percent in common, if
a high percentage of identical twins share
a characteristic (such as green eyes) while a
lower percentage of nonidentical twins share
that trait, it suggests there is a genetic basis.
Conversely, if identical and nonidentical twins
share a characteristic at equal rates (such as
preference for the color red), it suggests there
is not a genetic basis. With homosexuality, a
number of twin studies attempted this type
of isolation, and while early studies seemed to
indicate a genetic linkage, follow-on studies
found the error rate too high based on sample
selection.
23
Repeat studies showed a genetic
linkage, if it existed, was only moderately
heritable and not in the simple Mendelian
model.
24
In a different approach, in 1993 Dean
Hammer and others initially found a strong
genetic linkage in male homosexuality dubbed
by the press as the gay gene.
25
Their studies
involved examining the X chromosome of
homosexual men (homosexual brothers and
their family members). Yet follow-on studies
in 2005 and a complete analysis of the entire
genome found a weaker correlation.
26
Even
anthropomorphic differences in homosexuals
such as left-handedness, spatial processing,
and hypothalamus size
27
that seem to argue
for a genetic linkage can also be explained by
prenatal differentiation through pathways
yet to be elucidated.
28
Though these scientific
studies give compelling evidence that there
is some biological basis to sexual orientation,
possibly genetic, and perhaps something early
in development or even prenatal, the exact
mechanism is yet to be identified.
Anecdotal data is also compelling, as
illustrated by statements from homosexual
there is no direct scientic
evidence regarding
homosexuals serving openly,
but there is empirical data as
several North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Allies have lifted
the ban
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, USMC
(Ret.), stated that homosexuality is a sin in a 2007 interview
U
.
S
.

N
a
v
y

(
J
a
v
ie
r

C
a
p
e
lla
)
LCR 04779
LCR Appendix Page 1932
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
92 JFQ / issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 ndupr ess. ndu. edu
military members: I wish I could decide who
I fell in love with; if someone thinks I would
consciously choose such a life where I am
forced to live in hiding and fear, knowing the
bulk of the population is against you, is just
crazy. I cant help who I am. Why would
I choose to suffer like this? Ultimately, it is
probable that sexual orientation is a complex
interaction of multiple factors, some genetic
and some developmental, and that elements of
free choice exist only to the same degree that
they do for heterosexuals ignoring powerful
biological urges.
Taking another step back, the problem is
further complicated by individual identifica-
tion of sexual orientation. Frequently, indi-
vidual men who have engaged in single, and
sometimes numerous, homosexual acts do not
identify themselves as homosexuals. Depend-
ing on the circumstances, such as prison
populations that preclude sex with women,
individuals treat certain events as occurring
outside their sexual orientation.
29
The issue is
far more complicated with women. Research
indicates womens ranks include primary les-
bians, who are exclusively attracted to women,
and elective lesbians, who shift back and forth
depending not on the gender but on the per-
sonal qualities of a particular man or woman.
This is a behavior not generally observed in
men.
30
Such studies give insight and suggest
some practical steps if homosexuals are to be
integrated into the military.
There can be strong similarities between
settings such as prisons and the Spartan
field conditions Servicemembers must at
times endure and the relatively weak correla-
tion between isolated homosexual acts and
self-described sexual orientation. This can
manifest itself as homophobia and severe self-
discomfort from conscious or subconscious
clashes of sexual desires with values gained
from society, family, or religion.
31
Though many scientific experts will no
doubt be called to testify during any future
debates, lawmakers will not yet find any solid
ground on which to base conclusions on the
immutability of homosexuality. Ultimately,
the question of whether homosexuality is a
choice can be treated as irrelevant. If the ban is
lifted, basic respect of privacy will be required
just as when women were fully integrated
into the Services. Previously, the military
found a lack of sexual privacy, as well as sex
between male and females, undermined order,
discipline, and morale.
32
Dorm and facilities
upgrades will no doubt be required. Sexual
harassment regulations and sensitivity train-
ing would need to be updated, and guidance
from leadership would be necessary. These
would not be insurmountable obstacles.
Disconnects and Challenge
As social mores shift toward a greater
acceptance of homosexuals, we slowly
introduce cognitive dissonance into Service-
members. Consider that a Washington Post
poll stated 75 percent of Americans polled
now believe that homosexuals should be
allowed to serve openly in the military, up
from 44 percent in 1993.
33
A 2006 Zogby poll
of military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan
found 37 percent disagreeing with the idea
and 26 percent agreeing that they should be
allowed.
34
The poll further found that a large
percentage of Servicemembers are looking
the other way, with 23 percent reporting
that they are certain they are serving with a
homosexual in their unit (59 percent of those
reporting stated they were told directly by
the individual).
35
Growing numbers, in both
the Services and those considering service,
see a gap between the traditional American
creed of equality for all and the DADT law. To
understand the moral dilemma this creates for
many, consider the likely reaction if the forces
were again racially segregated. Even former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Peter Pace, who publically stated his opinion
that homosexuality is a sin, also said, Are
there wonderful Americans who happen to
be homosexual serving in the military? Yes.
36

General Charles Dunlap, Jr., USAF Judge
Advocate, points out that those serving want
to serve honorably for what they believe to be
the right causes.
37
The law also forces unusual personal
compromises wholly inconsistent with a core
military valueintegrity. Several homosexu-
als interviewed were in tears as they described
the enormous personal compromise in
integrity they had been making, and the pain
felt in serving in an organization they wholly
believed in, yet that did not accept them. Fur-
thermore, these compromises undermined the
very unit cohesion DADT sought to protect:
I couldnt be a part of the group for fear
someone would find out, I stayed away from
social gatherings, and it certainly affected my
ability to do my job.
DADT also represents a unique chal-
lenge for commanders. Normally charged
with knowing everything about their troops,
commanders are now trying to avoid certain
areas for fear of being accused of conduct-
ing witch hunts
38
or looking as if they are
selectively enforcing a law they have moral
reservations against. Vice Admiral Jack Sha-
nahan, USN, stated, Everyone was living a
big liethe homosexuals were trying to hide
their sexual orientation and the command-
ers were looking the other way because they
didnt want to disrupt operations by trying to
enforce the law.
39
In the case of integration of the sexes,
the U.S. military found lack of sexual privacy,
as well as sex between males and females,
undermined order, discipline, and morale.
40

These concerns were solved by segregated
living quarters. Here the issue becomes
complicated. Those opposed to lifting the
ban point out that the living conditions of the
military would at times make it impossible
to guarantee privacy throughout the spec-
trum of sexual orientation. But would such
measures actually be necessary? Considering
that estimates put 65,000 as the number of
homosexuals serving in the military,
41
would
revealing their identities lead to a collapse
of morale and discipline? Many top military
officials do not believe it would. For example,
Representative Joe Sestak (DPA), a retired
Navy vice admiral, currently supports lifting
the ban. He stated that he was convinced by
witnessing firsthand the integration of women
on board ships as he commanded an aircraft
carrier group. There were similar concerns
about privacy and unit cohesion that proved
unwarranted.
42
Paul Rieckhoff, executive
director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America and former Army platoon leader,
illustrates an additional point: Just like in
the general population, there is a generational
shift within the military. The average 18-year-
old has been around gay people, has seen gay
people in popular culture, and theyre not this
boogeyman in the same way they were to Pete
Paces generation.
43
What to Expect
If the ban on homosexuals was lifted,
it is worth considering what impacts there
sexual harassment regulations
and sensitivity training would
need to be updated, and
guidance from leadership
would be necessary
LCR 04780
LCR Appendix Page 1933
PRAKASH
ndupr ess. ndu. edu issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 / JFQ 93
would be on the Services. There are potential
lessons to learn from other countries that have
lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly.
There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals,
and there was also no mass coming-out
of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans,
in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated
that they would refuse to share showers with
a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom,
two-thirds of males stated that they would
not willingly serve in the military if gays
were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their
bans, the result was no-effect.
44
In a survey
of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada,
Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found
that all agreed the decision to lift the ban
on homosexuals had no impact on military
performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to
recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV
rate among troops.
45
This finding seems to be backed by the
2006 Zogby poll, which found that 45 percent
of current Servicemembers already suspect
they are serving with a homosexual in their
unit, and of those, 23 percent are certain
they are serving with a homosexual.
46
These
numbers indicate there is already a growing
tacit acceptance among the ranks.
As pointed out above, basic respect
of privacy will be required just as when
women were fully integrated into the Ser-
vices.
47
Dorm and facilities upgrades would
be needed. Sexual harassment regulations
and sensitivity training would need to be
updated, and guidance from leadership
would be required.
Aside from the heterosexual popula-
tion, changes in the behavior of the homo-
sexual population would also be necessary.
Several homosexual Servicemembers inter-
viewed reported that given their relatively
small numbers, and the secrecy they are
faced with, hidden networks have evolved.
These networks, built under the auspices of
emotional support, have also led to violations
of the military regulations governing frat-
ernization between ranks. With any lifting
of the ban on homosexuals serving openly,
internal logic that condoned abandonment
of fraternization regulations would no longer
have even a faulty basis for acceptance.
Ultimately, homosexuals must be held to the
same standards as any others.
Homosexuals have successfully served
as leaders. There are several anecdotal
examples of homosexual combat leaders such
as Antonio Agnone, a former captain in the
Marine Corps. Though not openly gay during
his service, he claims that Marines serving
under me say that they knew and that they
would deploy again with me in a minute.
48

Others who have served in command posi-
tions have made similar observations that
though they were not open about their orien-
tation, they knew some of their subordinates
knew or suspected, yet they did not experience
any discrimination in disciplinary issues. In
many cases, more senior Servicemembers
concerns went beyond how their subordinates
would handle their orientation to focus on
the legal standing and treatment of their
partnersanother vast area of regulations
the Department of Defense would have to
sift through since same-sex marriages are
governed by state, not Federal, law.
49
Never-
theless, psychologists speculate that it will not
be an issue of free acceptance. Homosexual
leaders are predicted to be held to a higher
standard where they will have to initially earn
the respect of their subordinates by proving
their competence and their loyalty to other
traditional military values. The behavior of
the next leader up the chain of command is
expected to be critical for how subordinates
will react to a homosexual leader.
50
No doubt there will be cases where units
will become dysfunctional, just as there are
today among heterosexual leaders. Interven-
tion will be required; such units must be dealt
with just as they are todayin a prompt and
constructive fashion. Disruptive behavior by
anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, should
never be tolerated.
51
There will be some practical changes
and certainly some cultural changes if Con-
gress and the President move to lift the ban
on homosexuals serving openly in the Armed
Forces. These changes will not be confined
to the heterosexual populations. Education,
leadership, and support will be key elements
in a smooth transition even though the cul-
tural acceptance of homosexuals has grown
dramatically in the 16 years since the passage
of DADT.
The 1993 Dont Ask Dont Tell law was
a political compromise reached after much
emotional debate based on religion, morality,
ethics, psychological rationale, and military
necessity. What resulted was a law that has
been costly both in personnel and treasure. In
an attempt to allow homosexual Servicemem-
bers to serve quietly, a law was created that
forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with
the American creed of equality for all, places
commanders in difficult moral dilemmas,
and is ultimately more damaging to the unit
cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve. Fur-
thermore, after a careful examination, there
in a survey from Australia,
Canada, Israel, and the United
Kingdom, it was found that
the decision to lift the ban
had no impact on military
performance
President Obama seeks to repeal the
Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy
U
.
S
.

M
a
r
in
e

C
o
r
p
s

(
M
ic
h
a
e
l
J
.

A
y
o
t
t
e
)
LCR 04781
LCR Appendix Page 1934
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
94 JFQ / issue 55, 4
th
quarter 2009 ndupr ess. ndu. edu
is no scientific evidence to support the claim
that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if
homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the neces-
sarily speculative psychological predictions are
that it will not impact combat effectiveness.
Additionally, there is sufficient empirical
evidence from foreign militaries to anticipate
that incorporating homosexuals will introduce
leadership challenges, but the challenges will
not be insurmountable or affect unit cohesion
and combat effectiveness. Though, as Congress
clearly stated in 1993, serving in the military
is not a constitutional right, lifting the ban
on open service by homosexuals would more
clearly represent the social mores of America
in 2009 and more clearly represent the free
and open society that serves as a model for the
world. Ultimately, Servicemembers serving
under values they believe in are the most effec-
tive force multipliers.
Repealing the ban now will be more
difficult than when it was created in 1993. It
is no longer a Pentagon policy, but rather one
codified in law. It will require new legislation,
which would necessitate a filibuster-proof
supermajority in the Senate.
52
Most likely,
leadership on the issue will come from the
executive branch, and President Obamas
transition team has indicated it will likely
tackle the issue next year.
53
It is also possible
the law could be struck down by judicial
action finding the law unconstitutional.
Based on this research, it is not time for
the administration to reexamine the issue;
rather, it is time for the administration to
examine how to implement the repeal of the
ban. JFQ
NOT E S
1
Robert Maginnis, Gays in the Military,
January 2000, available at <www.pbs.org/newshour/
forum/january00/gays_military2.html>.
2
Kyle Dropp and Jon Cohen, Acceptance
of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically,
The Washington Post, July 19, 2008, A3, available
at <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html>.
3
Rowan Scarborough, Obama to delay
dont ask, dont tell repeal, The Washington
Times, November 21, 2008, available at <www.
washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/
obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/>.
4
Thom Shanker and Patrick Healy, A New
Push to Roll Back Dont Ask, Dont Tell, The New
York Times, November 30, 2007.
5
David F. Burrelli and Charles Dale, Homosex-
uals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues, Report
No. RL30113 (Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, May 27, 2005), 1.
6
Ibid.
7
See 654. Policy concerning homosexuality
in the armed forces, available at <www.law.cornell.
edu/uscode/10/654.html#b>.
8
Maginnis.
9
Ibid.
10
654.
11
Burrelli and Dale, 11.
12
Leo Shane, Obama wants to end dont ask,
dont tell policy, Stars and Stripes, January 16, 2009.
13
Charles Moskos, The Law WorksAnd
Heres Why, Army Times, October 27, 2003, 62.
14
Ibid.
15
Report: Dont Ask, Dont Tell costs $363M,
USA Today, February 14, 2006.
16
Mark Thompson, Dont Ask, Dont
Tell Turns 15, Time, January 28, 2008,
available at <www.time.com/time/nation/
article/0,8599,1707545,00.html>.
17
Bernard D. Rostker and Scott A. Harris,
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel
Policy: Options and Assessment (Santa Monica, CA:
RAND, 1993), 283.
18
Army Regulation 31025, Dictionary of
United States Army Terms (Washington, DC:
Headquarters Department of the Army, October 15,
1983), available at <www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/
ar310-25.pdf>.
19
Rostker and Harris, 291.
20
Ibid., 295.
21
Ibid., 303.
22
Ibid., 313.
23
Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brueckner,
Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attrac-
tion, The American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 5
(March 2002), 1179, available at <www.chssp.colum-
bia.edu/events/ms/year4/pdf/gss_Bearman,%20
Peter%20and%20Hannah%20Brueckner.pdf>.
24
Brian S. Mustanski et al., A genome-
wide scan of male sexual orientation, Human
Genetics 116, no. 4 (2005), 272278, avail-
able at <http://springerlink.metapress.com/
content/3xcxqtb6x36aaap1/>.
25
Dean H. Hammer et al., A linkage between
DNA markers on the X chromosome and male
sexual orientation, Science 261, no. 5119 (1993),
321327, available at <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/
entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&Term
ToSearch=8332896&log$=activity>.
26
Mustanski et al.
27
S. LeVay, A difference in hypothalamic
structure between heterosexual and homosexual
men, Science 253, no. 5023 (1991), 10341037,
available at <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
abstract/253/5023/1034>.
28
Mustanski et al.
29
Rostker and Harris, 53.
30
Nancy J. Chodorow, Homophobia, 1999,
available at <www.cyberpsych.org/homophobia/
chodorow.htm>.
31
Ibid.
32
See <www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/
january00/gays_military1.html>.
33
Dropp and Cohen.
34
Sam Rodgers, Opinions of Military Person-
nel on Sexual Minorities in the Military, Zogby
International, December 2006, 5, available at <www.
palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf>.
35
Ibid.
36
Marcus Baram, Gay Soldiers Dis-
mayed by Paces Comments, September 27,
2007, available at <http://abcnews.go.com/US/
Story?id=3661031&page=1>.
37
Charles Dunlap, Jr., Lawfare amid warfare,
The Washington Times, August 3, 2007, available at
<www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/03/
lawfare-amid-warfare/>.
38
Moskos, 62.
39
Anne Flaherty, Study: Military Gays Dont
Undermine Unit Cohesion, Huffington Post,
July 7, 2008, available at <www.huffingtonpost.
com/2008/07/07/study-military-gays-dont-
_n_111296.html>.
40
See <www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/
january00/gays_military1.html>.
41
Shanker and Healy.
42
Peter Speigel and Joel Rudin, The Nation:
Tune is changing on gays in military, The Los
Angeles Times, August 9, 2007, A1.
43
Ibid.
44
Aaron Belkin, Dont ask, dont tell: Is the gay
ban based on military necessity? Parameters 33, no.
2 (Summer 2003), 108119.
45
Ibid.
46
Rodgers.
47
See <www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/
january00/gays_military1.html>.
48
Baram.
49
Ibid.
50
Rostker and Harris, 331.
51
Ibid.
52
Speigel and Rudin, A1.
53
Author interview of Commander Jeff Eggers,
USN, commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Com-
manders Action Group, January 23, 2009.
the 1993 Dont Ask Dont
Tell law was a political
compromise reached after
much emotional debate based
on religion, morality, ethics,
psychological rationale, and
military necessity
LCR 04782
LCR Appendix Page 1935
LCR WI 01013
LCR Appendix Page 1936
LCR WI 01014
LCR Appendix Page 1937
LCR WI 01015
LCR Appendix Page 1938
LCR WI 01016
LCR Appendix Page 1939
LCR WI 01017
LCR Appendix Page 1940
LCR WI 01018
LCR Appendix Page 1941
LCR WI 01019
LCR Appendix Page 1942
LCR WI 01020
LCR Appendix Page 1943
LCR WI 01021
LCR Appendix Page 1944
LCR WI 01022
LCR Appendix Page 1945
LCR WI 01023
LCR Appendix Page 1946
LCR WI 01024
LCR Appendix Page 1947
LCR WI 01025
LCR Appendix Page 1948
LCR WI 01026
LCR Appendix Page 1949
LCR WI 01027
LCR Appendix Page 1950
LCR WI 01028
LCR Appendix Page 1951
LCR WI 01029
LCR Appendix Page 1952
LCR WI 01030
LCR Appendix Page 1953
LCR WI 01031
LCR Appendix Page 1954
LCR WI 01032
LCR Appendix Page 1955
LCR WI 01033
LCR Appendix Page 1956
LCR WI 01034
LCR Appendix Page 1957
LCR WI 01035
LCR Appendix Page 1958
LCR WI 01036
LCR Appendix Page 1959
LCR WI 01037
LCR Appendix Page 1960
LCR WI 01038
LCR Appendix Page 1961
LCR WI 01039
LCR Appendix Page 1962
LCR WI 01040
LCR Appendix Page 1963
LCR WI 01041
LCR Appendix Page 1964
LCR WI 01042
LCR Appendix Page 1965
LCR WI 01043
LCR Appendix Page 1966
LCR WI 01044
LCR Appendix Page 1967
LCR WI 01045
LCR Appendix Page 1968
LCR WI 01046
LCR Appendix Page 1969
LCR WI 01047
LCR Appendix Page 1970
LCR WI 01048
LCR Appendix Page 1971
LCR WI 01049
LCR Appendix Page 1972
LCR WI 01050
LCR Appendix Page 1973
Get Email Updates Contact Us
Home Briefing Room Speeches & Remarks Search WhiteHouse.gov
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 29, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION
East Room
4 35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Hey! Good to see you. (Applause.) I'm
waiting for FLOTUS here. FLOTUS always politics more than POTUS.
MRS. OBAMA: No, you move too slow. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: It is great to see everybody here today and they're just -- I've got a lot of friends in the room,
but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge. First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are
in the White House, Steve Hildebrand. Please give Steve a big round of applause. (Applause.) Where's Steve?
He's around here somewhere. (Applause.)
The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) Where's Fred? There's Fred. Good to
see you, Fred. Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton. Where's John?
(Applause.) A couple of special friends -- Bishop Gene Robinson. Where's Gene? (Applause.) Hey, Gene.
Ambassador Michael Guest is here. (Applause.) Ambassador Jim Hormel is here. (Applause.) Oregon Secretary
of State Kate Brown is here. (Applause.)
All of you are here. (Laughter and applause.) Welcome to your White House. (Applause.) So --
AUD ENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody asked from the Lincoln Bedroom here. (Laughter.) You knew I was from
Chicago too. (Laughter.)
It's good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I've received from so many
of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you
have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country
who work hard and care about their communities -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)
Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the
extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And
though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved
ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and
who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be
heartbreaking.
And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the
example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community.
And that's important, and I'm glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. (Applause.) For we know that
progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never
begins in Washington.
(Cell phone "quacks.")
Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)
MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.
WATCH THE VI DEO
June 30, 2009
President Obama & First Lady Hold LGBT
Pride Reception
BLOG POSTS ON THI S I SSUE
March 25, 2010 1:32 PM EDT
Live from Iowa City
March 25, 2010 12:56 PM EDT
World Urban Forum 2010: Live Update
March 25, 2010 12:07 PM EDT
22 Pens
VI EW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
MySpace
YouTube
Vimeo
iTunes
LinkedIn
Page1 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatLGBTPrideMonthReception'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-LGBT-Pride-M...
LCR 03999
LCR Appendix Page 1974
THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these
ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.)
Indeed, that's the story of the movement for fairness and equality -- not just for those who are gay, but for all
those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who've been told that the full
blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those who
started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts
of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.
That's the story of a civil rights pioneer who's here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired -- (applause.) Frank
was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he
led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of
extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership.
(Applause.)
t's the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens -- with
few options, and fewer supporters -- decided they'd had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton
discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they've travelled.
t's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support
one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world
that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need -- that we all share the
capacity to love.
So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we
cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels
the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.
And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. t's
not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who
were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.
But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope
to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by
the time you receive -- (applause.) We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this
administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.
(Applause.)
Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we've already put in place since
coming into office. I've signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible
to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal
employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don't exist. And I'd like to note
that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel
Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)
I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination -- (applause) -
- to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold
existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in
upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I've made that clear.
I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the
full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is
also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on
both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in
the Oval Office in May -- (applause) -- and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an
inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.)
In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States
based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to
repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/A DS
continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And
that's why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to
know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.)
And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask,
don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans
from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)
Page2 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatLGBTPrideMonthReception'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-LGBT-Pride-M...
LCR 04000
LCR Appendix Page 1975
Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how
we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.
Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as
Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a
practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.
I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who
continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of
training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of
reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.
Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we
change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that
there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not
yet.
That's why I've spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences -- in front of
African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And
that's what I'll continue to do so. That's how we'll shift attitudes. That's how we'll honor the legacy of leaders like
Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.
Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens,
including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.
t was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots
where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered
obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of
these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the
patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.
Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was
different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is
this: People didn't leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they
had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night,
but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It
was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world
saw them, but also how they saw themselves.
As we've seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way.
(Applause.) And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the
movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. t continues when a partner fights for her right to
sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different
and says, "So what if I am?" t continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to
the fullest.
In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn
to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march
had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.
The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you -- or, for
that matter, I -- (laughter) -- would be standing here today. (Applause.) So we are all witnesses to monumental
changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make
progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only
be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.
Thanks very much, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) Thank you. It's a little stuffed in here. We're going
to open -- we opened up that door. We're going to walk this way, and then we're going to come around and we'll
see some of you over there, all right? (Laughter.) But out there. (Laughter.)
But thank you very much, all, for being here. Enjoy the White House. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 4 53 P.M. EDT
Page3 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatLGBTPrideMonthReception'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-LGBT-Pride-M...
LCR 04001
LCR Appendix Page 1976
Home
The White House
Bl og
Photos & Vi deos
Photo Galleries
Video
Live Streams
Podcasts
Bri efi ng Room
Your Weekly Address
Speeches & Remarks
Press Briefings
Statements & Releases
Presidential Actions
Featured Legislation
Nominations &
Appointments
Disclosures
Issues
Civil Rights
Defense
Disabilities
Economy
Education
Energy & Environment
Ethics
Family
Fiscal Responsibility
Foreign Policy
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Poverty
Rural
Seniors & Social Security
Service
Taxes
Technology
Urban Policy
Veterans
Women
Additional Issues
The Administration
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
First Lady Michelle Obama
Dr. Jill Biden
The Cabinet
White House Staff
Executive Office of the
President
Other Advisory Boards
About the White
House
History
Presidents
First Ladies
The Oval Office
The Vice President's
Residence & Office
Eisenhower Executive
Office Building
Camp David
Air Force One
White House Fellows
White House Internships
White House 101
Tours & Events
Our Government
The Executive Branch
The Legislative Branch
The Judicial Branch
The Constitution
Federal Agencies &
Commissions
Elections & Voting
State & Local Government
Resources
En espaol Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact
USA.gov Subscribe to RSS Feeds Apply for a Job
Page4 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatLGBTPrideMonthReception'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-LGBT-Pride-M...
LCR 04002
LCR Appendix Page 1977
Get Email Updates Contact Us
Home Briefing Room Speeches & Remarks Search WhiteHouse.gov
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner
Walter E. Convention Center, Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you're making me blush. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)
To Joe Solmonese, who's doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and
supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David
Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM,
who's doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred
Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who's in the house.
(Applause.)
Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I've made it.
(Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day
in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply
about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)
For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That's not easy. For despite the real gains
that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps
neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes;
who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And
that's painful and it's heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you
make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members
and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference.
That's the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our
history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship -- (applause) -- for all who've been told that
the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those
with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of
compassion -- and defiance -- wherever and whenever they could.
It's the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens -- (applause) -- when a group of citizens with few
options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It's the story of an
epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save
one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of
families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it's the story of the Human Rights
Campaign and the fights you've fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values;
standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living
with HIV/A DS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)
This story, this fight continue now. And I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight. (Applause.)
For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and we will not -- put aside issues of basic
equality. I greatly appreciate the support I've received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you
don't believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it's important to be honest
among friends.
Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others
For Immediate Release October 11, 2009
WATCH THE VI DEO
October 10, 2009
President Obama Speaks for Gay Civil
Rights
BLOG POSTS ON THI S I SSUE
February 28, 2010 11:53 AM EDT
Recognizing What Historically Black
Colleges and Universities Mean to America
February 09, 2010 3:51 PM EDT
A Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights
Movement
February 07, 2010 2:27 PM EDT
Lets Make National Black HIV/AIDS
Awareness Day a Day of Action
VI EW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
MySpace
YouTube
Vimeo
iTunes
LinkedIn
Page1 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatHumanRightsCampaignDinner'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Human-Rights-...
LCR 03995
LCR Appendix Page 1978
to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say
this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a
single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT
community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to
work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a
stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)
For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know -- and I
know -- that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You're also
parents worried about your children's futures. You're spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a
job. You're workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You're soldiers. You are neighbors. You are
friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)
So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we're dealing with. But my
commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be
taking longer than you'd like as a result of all that we face -- and that's the truth -- do not doubt the direction we are
heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)
My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to
discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) You will see a time
in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and
admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) You will see a nation that's valuing and
cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union -- a union in which gay Americans are an important part.
I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.
And there's no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by
Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met
with Judy -- who's here tonight with her husband -- I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were
going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill -- a bill named for her son. (Applause.)
This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or
delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment.
(Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year,
Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after
more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)
It's a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for
somebody who inspired so many of us -- named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation.
(Applause.) And it's a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it's
a testament to Matthew and to others who've been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break
spirits -- not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no
one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the
hand of the person they love. (Applause.)
But we know there's far more work to do. We're pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill.
(Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in
America should be fired because they're gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It's not
fair. It's not right. We're going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it's for this reason that if any of my nominees are
attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my
commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)
We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We're working
closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near
future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status.
(Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that
HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of
Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington,
D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.
We are moving ahead on Don't Ask Don't Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who
have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and
selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we're fighting two wars. (Applause.)
We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford --
for our military's integrity -- to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to
live a lie. So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending
this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's
my commitment to you. (Applause.)
Page2 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatHumanRightsCampaignDinner'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Human-Rights-...
LCR 03996
LCR Appendix Page 1979
It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this
country. And it's no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult -- we can see that with the time and dedication
it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a
nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes
and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that
all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we
can; I believe we will. (Applause.)
And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and
responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws
designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in
the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows.
And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners
Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to
feed people's lingering fears for political and ideological gain.
For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. t's
about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It's about whether or not we value as a society that love and
commitment. It's about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else's shoes: to imagine
losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying
about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you'll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the
person you love -- (applause) -- to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law
treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)
If we are honest with ourselves we'll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their
hearts the urgency of this struggle. That's why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT
families -- and not just in front of gay audiences. That's why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White
House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll -- because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And
that's why it's so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to
pressure leaders -- including me -- and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)
So, tonight I'm hopeful -- because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I've seen all across
America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement
for LGBT equality.
Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school
teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1 00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at
the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer
told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely
caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, "And you know, he's homosexual." (Laughter.) Well,
that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, "Yes, I know. Why are you bothering
him?" (Applause.)
And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She
carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked
her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.
And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult
time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules -- two parents who loved their son deeply -- formed a group to
support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about
20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty's life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause
endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays -- (applause) -
- has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across
America. And Jeanne would later say, "I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn't even cross the street
against the light." (Laughter.) "But I wasn't going to let anybody walk over Morty." (Applause.)
That's the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger
than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their
families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all
of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)
Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let's say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone
with a secret he's held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it's time to let that secret out.
What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it
also depends on us -- on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.
I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the
truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when
voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals
Page3 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatHumanRightsCampaignDinner'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Human-Rights-...
LCR 03997
LCR Appendix Page 1980
are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would
have been inconceivable. That's the promise of America, HRC. That's the promise we're called to fulfill. (Applause.)
Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.
Thank you for the work you're doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END 8:35 P M. EDT
Home
The White House
Bl og
Photos & Vi deos
Photo Galleries
Video
Live Streams
Podcasts
Bri efi ng Room
Your Weekly Address
Speeches & Remarks
Press Briefings
Statements & Releases
Presidential Actions
Featured Legislation
Nominations &
Appointments
Disclosures
Issues
Civil Rights
Defense
Disabilities
Economy
Education
Energy & Environment
Ethics
Family
Fiscal Responsibility
Foreign Policy
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Poverty
Rural
Seniors & Social Security
Service
Taxes
Technology
Urban Policy
Veterans
Women
Additional Issues
The Administration
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
First Lady Michelle Obama
Dr. Jill Biden
The Cabinet
White House Staff
Executive Office of the
President
Other Advisory Boards
About the White
House
History
Presidents
First Ladies
The Oval Office
The Vice President's
Residence & Office
Eisenhower Executive
Office Building
Camp David
Air Force One
White House Fellows
White House Internships
White House 101
Tours & Events
Our Government
The Executive Branch
The Legislative Branch
The Judicial Branch
The Constitution
Federal Agencies &
Commissions
Elections & Voting
State & Local Government
Resources
En espaol Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact
USA.gov Subscribe to RSS Feeds Apply for a Job
Page4 oI4 RemarksbythePresidentatHumanRightsCampaignDinner'TheWhiteHouse
3/25/2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoIIice/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Human-Rights-...
LCR 03998
LCR Appendix Page 1981
i
CONDUCTUNBECOMINGCONTINUES:
THEFIRSTYEARUNDER"DON'TASK,DON'TTELL,DON'TPURSUE"
ExecutiveSummary
Servicemembers Legal DeIense Network's review oI the Iirst year oI the military's new
policyonhomosexuals,"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,"revealsapatternoIviolationsthat
oItenrendersthepolicylittlemorethan"Ask,PursueandHarass."SLDNhasdocumenteddeath
threats and other speciIic violations oI the new policy Irom March 1, 1994 - February 28, 1995,
and concludes that many military oIIicials continue to ask questions about sexual orientation,
conduct witch hunts and condone harassment oI lesbian and gay servicemembers in direct
violationoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue."SLDNconcludesthatthechieIreasonsIorthe
continuingviolationsarelackoIinIormation,lackoIadequatetrainingandguidanceregardingthe
new policy, and in some cases, willIul disregard oI military policy by commanders and
investigators.
SLDNrecommendsthattheDepartmentoIDeIenseensuretheproperimplementationoI
"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"throughadequatetrainingoIallservicemembersaboutthe
new policy, common sense remedies when inquiries or investigations are started improperly, and
clearaccountabilityIorviolationsoIthepolicybymilitaryoIIicials.
SLDNreportstheIollowingIindingsIromitsmonitoringactivitiesduringthepastyear:
1. 340totalviolationsof"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,Don't
Harass."
1
2. 37caseswith"Don'tAsk"violations.
1
Multipleviolationspercasemaketotalviolationsexceedtotalcases.Thus,Iindingsthat
state total number oI SLDN cases involving violations present the most conservative picture oI
violations servicewide.
LCR 04013
LCR Appendix Page 1982
ii
3. 18caseswith"Don'tTell"violations.
4. 65caseswith"Don'tPursue"violations.
5. 62caseswith"Don'tHarass"violations.
6. 15 actual or attempted witch hunts among the "Don't Pursue"
violations.
7. 10 cases where servicemembers faced death threats in violation of
"Don't Harass" because of their actual or perceived sexual
orientation.
8. TheU.S.NavyandU.S.Armyaccountedforthemostnumberofcases
with "Don't Ask" violations; the U.S. Army accounted for the most
number of cases with "Don't Tell" violations; the U.S. Air Force
accounted for the most number of cases with "Don't Pursue"
violations;andtheU.S.Navy accountedforthemostnumberofcases
with"Don'tHarass" violations.
2
9. Servicewide, violations of "Don't Pursue" and "Don't Harass" were
themostsignificantproblems.
10. Women accounted for 47 of SLDN's cases, or 25, a percentage
disproportionatetotheirnumbersinthemilitary.
11. TheworstwitchhuntoccurredintheU.S.MarineCorpsinOkinawa,
1apan at Camp Hansen from March to 1une 1994 in which over 21
servicemembers were questioned about the sexual orientation and
activities of themselves and other servicemembers. Despite careful
documentation of abuses by SLDN and cooperating attorneys in the
New York-based law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom,
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps officials have yet to acknowledge
anyimproprietyinthewitchhunt.
12. An Air Force memorandum dated November 3, 1994, violates (1)
"Don'tPursue"bydirectinginquiryofficialstostartactions"against
other military members" "discovered" during their investigations,
and (2) "Don't Tell" by directing inquiry officials to interrogate
"parents,siblingsandclosefriends"toobtaininformationtobeused
againstservicemembersforpurposesofdischarge.
2
These Iigures indicate the Service with the most cases involving particular violations.
TheIiguresdonotreIlect,asapercentageoItotalactiveIorceineachService,whichServicehad
thehighestrateoIcaseswithviolationsoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,Don'tHarass."
LCR 04014
LCR Appendix Page 1983
iii
13. A U.S. Navy memorandum dated 1une 1994 violates "Don't Pursue"
by(1)instructingattorneystoconducttheirownoff-lineinquiriesinto
theprivatelivesofservicemembers;and(2)byexpandingthescopeof
an investigation from a status case to an acts case, suggesting that
inquiry officials find "final evidence" of acts in cases involving
statementsofsexualorientationonly.
14. Despite conceding violations of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't
Pursue," government officials have argued at discharge boards that
violationsofpolicyarenotgroundsfortheservicemembertoobject.
15. Therateofdischargeofhomosexualservicemembersdidnotdecrease
infiscalyear1994.Infact,therateofdischargefor1991,1992,1993
and1994hasremainedconstant.
16. Atleast15homosexualservicemembershaveservedopenlyforone
tothreeyearswithonlyagoodeffectontheirunit.
SLDN received over 400 phone calls Ior assistance, and monitored 188 cases covering
eachbranchoIserviceworldwide.ThecasesSLDNmonitoredareiustthetipoItheicebergand
suggestasystemicproblemthatwillrequirestepsbytheDepartmentoIDeIensetoensurethatits
actionsareconsonantwithlaw.
All Iindings are well-documented. Memoranda, servicemembers and attorneys who
workedonthecasesreportedareavailableuponrequest.
LCR 04015
LCR Appendix Page 1984
1
CONDUCTUNBECOMINGCONTINUES
THEFIRSTYEARUNDER"DON'TASK,DON'TTELL,DON'TPURSUE"
Introduction
February 28, 1995 marks the Iirst anniversary oI "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue,"
the military's new regulations on homosexuals. There are two striking results during the past
year:onegoodandonebad.
ThegoodnewsresultsnotIromthepolicybutIromIederalcourtandmilitarycommands
with strong leadership. In cases where courts have allowed lesbian and gay servicemembers to
serve openly, there have been no problems. In Iact, the opposite has proven to be the case. As
reported in U.S. News & World Report on February 6, 1995 in regard to Petty OIIicer Keith
Meinhold,whowonhiscasebeIoretheNinthCircuitCourtoIAppealslastyear,"Meinhold...has
been not only tolerated by the maiority oI his colleagues - he has been embraced by them."
Meinhold'sIlightcrewwasrecentlynamedthemostcombateIIectiveinthePaciIicIleet.
Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer has also received strong support: aIter she won her
courtcaseinJune1994,sheimmediatelyreceivedcallsIromherunitwelcomingherbacktothe
WashingtonStateNationalGuard.PettyOIIicerMarkPhillipswasgivenachocolatecakebyhis
crewmembers on the one-year anniversary oI his coming out to his unit. And, Captain Rich
Richenberg'sco-workersthrewasurprisebirthdaypartyIorhiminFebruary1995ashecontinues
toIighttostayinthemilitary.TheseservicemembersareonlyahandIuloIthosewhohavebeen
servingopenlyIorthepastonetothreeyears,andwho,ascleardocumentationshows,havehada
positiveimpactontheirunit'sgoodorder,disciplineandmorale.
LCR 04016
LCR Appendix Page 1985
2
ThebadnewsresultsIromtheimplementationoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"in
the Iield. The new policy promised to stop questions about sexual orientation, witch hunts and
harassment. Through a lack oI proper training and willIul disregard oI the new policy, many
commanders continue to ask, witch hunt and harass suspected homosexual servicemembers in
directviolationoIthenewpolicy.TheresulthasbeenthatthedischargerateIorhomosexualsin
Iiscal year 1994 has not declined and the cost oI training replacements Ior those discharged has
exceeded $17.5 million. The costs oI conducting investigations, holding discharge hearings,
administeringthenewpolicyanddeIendingthepolicyinIederalcourtareIarhigher.
This report, "Conduct Unbecoming Continues: The First Year Under "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, Don't Pursue'" details Iour speciIic violations oI the new policy occurring in the Iield. The
reportdocumentscaseswheremilitaryoIIicialshave(1)askedservicemembersabouttheirsexual
orientation: (2) punished statements oI sexual orientation that are permissible under the new
policy or expanded the situations where telling is prohibited: (3) pursued or witch hunted
suspected homosexuals: and (4) condoned harassment based on sexual orientation. This report
does not include other clear violations, including situations, among others, where suspected
homosexualsreceiveimproperorinadequatelegalrepresentationwithinthemilitary:aretreatedin
an unevenhandedmannerwithrespecttopotentialcriminal prosecution:andare"outed" to their
unitsandIamilybycommandersindirectviolationoIthePrivacyAct.
ThisreportisbasedonviolationsoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"documentedby
ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork(SLDN),locatedinWashington,D.C.SLDNisthesole
national legal aid and watch dog organization Ior those targeted by the military's new policy on
homosexuals, and the only means currently available to document abuses. The Department oI
LCR 04017
LCR Appendix Page 1986
3
DeIensehasinstitutednomethodoIidentiIyingandcorrectingabusesoIthenewpolicy.
SLDN's documented cases reIlect only the tip oI the iceberg oI all servicemembers
aIIected by the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. Many servicemembers are
discharged by the Department oI DeIense Ior homosexuality without ever having contacted
SLDN, and others are removed Irom service Ior homosexuality through ulterior means, such as
denial oI reenlistment. SLDN's outreach is limited by its scarce resources, but even with such
constraints, it received over 400 calls Ior direct assistance in the past year, suggesting that
SLDN'sIiguresrepresentonlyaIractionoIthetotalviolationsoIthenewpolicy.
SLDN is headed by two attorneys, C. Dixon Osburn and Michelle M. Benecke. Mr.
Osburn is a Iormer legal/policy advisor to the Campaign Ior Military Service, the national
coalition that worked to liIt the ban legislatively. Mr. Osburn holds a J.D. and M.B.A. Irom
GeorgetownUniversity,andanA.B.IromStanIordUniversity.Ms.BeneckeisaIormerCaptain
andBatteryCommanderintheU.S.Army,andIormerstaIIattorneyattheCampaignForMilitary
Service.Shehaswrittenextensivelyonthemilitarypolicy'sdisproportionateimpactonwomen.
Ms. Benecke is a graduate oI Harvard Law School and holds a B.A. Irom the University oI
Virginia.
Background/Definition of Terms
From March 1, 1994 to the present, over 400 servicemembers contacted SLDN needing
assistance. The servicemembers were typically between the ages oI 18 and 25 and had limited
Iinancial resources. The types oI assistance requested ranged Irom basic inIormation about how
tocomportone'sbehaviorunderthenewpolicytointensiveeIIortstostopwitchhuntsorprevent
death threats Irom being carried out. OI the 188 calls requiring intervention, SLDN's staII
LCR 04018
LCR Appendix Page 1987
4
attorneys,inconiunctionwithaidesinRepublicanandDemocraticCongressionaloIIicesandwith
cooperatingattorneysIromSLDN'snetworkoIover200attorneysIromtheIinestlawIirmsinthe
country, careIully monitored and documented violations oI the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't
Pursue" policy. This report documents common command violations oI Iour regulatory
provisions in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. Those provisions are called, not
surprisingly, "Don't Ask," "Don't Tell," "Don't Pursue" and "Don't Harass." "Don't Harass" was
never added to the common title oI the new policy, but is nevertheless an explicit component oI
thepolicy.
"What is Don't Ask?" The "Don't Ask" regulations state that "servicemembers will not
be asked about or required to reveal their sexual orientation." Violations oI "Don't Ask"
monitored by SLDN include (1) direct questions about sexual orientation, such as "Are you
gay?": (2) surrogate questions about sexual orientation where a servicemember is not asked
directly about his or her orientation, but is asked through creative phrasing, as in "Do you Iind
men attractive?": and (3) inadvertent questions, where a commander does not realize that the
question asked requires disclosure oI sexual orientation, such as when a commander, out oI
concernIorsomeoneinhisorherunit,askswhatistroublingtheservicemember,andtheanswer
is that the servicemember is grappling with issues related to sexual orientation. The question
would not pose a problem Ior a heterosexual servicemember but it does Ior the homosexual
servicemember.
"What is Don't Tell?" Withrespectto"Don'tTell,"thenewregulationsdonotprohibit
all statements about sexual orientation. Indeed, the new regulations do not Iorbid statements
made to lawyers, chaplains, spouses or security clearance personnel. In violation oI the new
LCR 04019
LCR Appendix Page 1988
5
policy, however, security clearance personnel continue to punish servicemembers who state they
aregaybyremovaloIorprotracteddelaysingrantingtheclearancesor,alsoindirectviolationoI
the new policy, by threatening servicemembers with the denial oI their clearance iI they do not
conIess to their sexual orientation and any sexual activity. Additionally, the Pentagon has
expanded "Don't Tell," in ways that the public is not aware, to include statements to Iamily
members,closeIriends,doctorsandmentalhealthproIessionals.Thus,violationsoI"Don'tTell"
include incidents where statements to Iamily members, close Iriends, doctors and mental health
proIessionalsandsecurityclearancepersonnelhaveresultedindischargeorthethreatoIdischarge
oIhomosexualservicemembers.
"What is Don't Pursue?" The"Don'tPursue"portionoIthenewregulationsstatesthat
(1) "sexual orientation is a personal and private matter:" (2) "inquiries shall be limited to the
Iactual circumstances directly relevant to the speciIic allegations:" and (3) "credible inIormation
existswhentheinIormation,consideringitssourceandthesurroundingcircumstances,supportsa
reasonable belieI that a service member has engaged in homosexual conduct." Additionally, it is
widely understood that the new regulations would "bring an end" to witch hunts, as President
ClintonstatedonJuly19,1993,andGeneralColinPowellreiteratedupontheissuanceoIthenew
regulations. Some military commands continue to pursue homosexual or suspected homosexual
servicemembers in a variety oI ways. Violations oI "Don't Pursue" include (1) witch hunts, (2)
impropersearchesandseizures,(3)expandinginvestigationsbeyondtheinstantallegation,and(4)
misapplicationoIthecredibleinIormationstandard.
WhilethereissomeoverlapamongtheseIourprongs,eachprongcanberoughlydeIined
as Iollows. Witch hunts are situations where inquiry oIIicials ask servicemembers or take other
LCR 04020
LCR Appendix Page 1989
6
aIIirmative steps to identiIy suspected homosexuals or those they suspect have engaged in
homosexualacts. "Improper searches and seizures" include illegal, warrantless searches, as well
as zealous investigations where commanders conIiscate personal and private property such as
diaries and letters. "Expanding investigations beyond the instant allegation" includes situations,
among others, where a servicemember who has been alleged to have engaged in a homosexual
conduct on a speciIic occasion is investigated Ior any additional conduct in which the
servicemember may have engaged in order to Iish Ior inIormation that could lead to criminal
prosecution or lower discharge characterization. "Misapplication oI the credible inIormation
standard"contemplatessituationswhereacommanderhasnotseriouslyevaluatedthe"sourceand
the surrounding circumstances" oI the allegations as required by the new regulations. Examples
include situations where the commander has Iailed to examine or take into account (a) the
retaliatory motives oI an individual making the allegations, (b) the lack oI consistency and
coherenceintheallegations,(c)recantedtestimony,(d)exculpatoryevidence,and(e)inadvertent
discoveriesinwhichnooneknowsaboutaservicemember'ssexualorientationexceptthrough,Ior
example,thediscoveryoIaprivateletterbyacommanderduringasurpriseinspection.
"What is Don't Harass?" Lastly, the "Don't Harass" portion oI the new regulations
makes explicit that "the Armed Forces do not tolerate harassment or violence against any
servicemember, Ior any reason." Violations oI "Don't Harass" include death threats, physical
harassment and verbal harassment made against servicemembers who are or are suspected oI
being homosexual. "Don't Harass" violations also include downgraded perIormance evaluations,
denialoIreenlistmentandIailuretopromoteduetosexualorientation.
LCR 04021
LCR Appendix Page 1990
7
Findings
SLDNCASESBYSERVICE
Service Total#Cases Total
Cases
Men Women Gender
n/a
AirForce 49 26 38 9 2
Army 55 29 31 24 0
Navy 68 36 56 11 1
MarineCorps 15 8 12 3 0
CoastGuard 1 1 1 0 0
TOTAL 188 100 138 47 3
The cases received by SLDN spanned every branch oI military service and were
geographicallydispersed.36oISLDN'scasescameIrommilitarypersonnelintheU.S.Navy:
29cameIromtheU.S.Army:26IromtheU.S.AirForce:8IromtheU.S.MarineCorps:
and1IromtheU.S.CoastGuard.OIthe188casesIollowed,138servicemencontactedSLDN
Ior help (73), and 47 servicewomen contacted SLDN (25). The number oI women who
contactedSLDNisdisproportionatetotheirrepresentationamongthetotalactivearmedIorces.
LCR 04022
LCR Appendix Page 1991
8
SLDNCASESINVOLVINGVIOLATIONS OF
"DON'TASK,DON'TTELL,DON'TPURSUE,DON'THARASS"
BYSERVICE
(Total=.)
Service Don'tAsk Don'tTell Don'tPursue Don'tHarass
AirForce 8(21) 5(28) 24(37) 15(24)
Army 11(30) 9(50) 16(25) 17(27)
Navy 13(35) 2(11) 15(23) 23(37)
MarineCorps 4(11) 1(5.5) 10(15) 6(10)
CoastGuard 1(3) 1(5.5) 0(0) 1(2)
TOTAL 37(100) 18(100) 65(100) 62(100)
OI SLDN's 188 cases under the new policy, SLDN documented 37 cases where there
wereviolationsoI"Don'tAsk"(20oIitscases):18caseswheretherewereviolationsoI"Don't
Tell" (18 oI its cases): 65 cases where there were violations oI "Don't Pursue" (35 oI its
cases):and62caseswheretherewereviolationsoI"Don'tHarass"(33oIitscases).SeeChart
ontheIollowingpage.
TheU.S.NavyandU.S.ArmyaccountedIorthemostcasesinvolvingviolationsoI"Don't
Ask,"accountingIor35and30oIsuchcasesrespectively.TheU.S.ArmyaccountedIorthe
most cases misapplying or redeIining "Don't Tell," accounting Ior 50 oI all such cases. The
U.S.AirForceaccountedIorthemostcasesinvolvingviolationsoI"Don'tPursue"accountingIor
37oIallsuchcases.TheU.S.NavyaccountedIorthemostcasesinvolvingviolationsoI"Don't
Harass,"accountingIor37oIallsuchcases.
The total number oI cases involving violations does not total the 188 cases received by
SLDNbecausesomecasesdidnotinvolveanyregulatoryinIractionsbymilitaryoIIicials.Thus,
LCR 04023
LCR Appendix Page 1992
9
thetotalnumberoIcasesinvolvingviolationsreportedaboveis182.
The total number oI cases involving violations also does not take into account multiple
violationsoccurringinthesamecase.Inthepastyear,SLDNdocumented65violationsoI"Don't
Ask,"21violationsoI"Don'tTell,"114violationsoI"Don'tPursue,"and140violationsoI"Don't
Harass," Ior a documented total oI 340 overall violations during the past year. The multiple
violations indicate that in cases where there is one incident oI asking, pursuit or harassment,
othersarelikely.
Itisclearthatsomecommanderscontinuetoviolate"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,
Don't Harass" in a myriad oI ways. A Iew examples oI how the new policy on homosexuals is
beingimproperlyimplementedintheIieldaretheIollowing.
Examples of Violations of "Don't Ask." Violations oI Don't Ask include asking direct,
surrogate,orinadvertentquestionsaboutsexualorientation.
Askingdirectquestionsaboutsexualorientation.OneChieIoIBoatasked
a sailor "You not going to tell me you're a I Iaggot, are you?" In
Japan, CID Special Agent Jose Abrante asked a marine point blank: "Are you
gay?" In Florida, recruiters asked one recruit whether she is homosexual Iive
times, both verbally and through use oI outdated written Iorms. In the
Washington, D.C. area, a security clearance investigator asked, "I'm not going to
askyouiIyou'rehomosexual,butiIIdidask,howwouldyourespond?"
Asking surrogate questions about sexual orientation. An inquiry oIIicial asked a
male Sergeant, "Do you Iind men attractive?" An executive oIIicer asked a PFC
whethershehad"homosexualtendencies."Asecurityclearanceinvestigatorasked
anArmyMaioraboutherIemaleroommate,"Doyouhaveaphysicalrelationship
withyourroommate?"AnothersecurityclearanceinvestigatoratFt.William,AL,
askedduringaninterviewwhethertheindividualknew"anyhomosexuals?"
Asking inadvertent questions about sexual orientation. Out oI concern, a Naval
commanderaskedonehisunitmemberswhyhehadnotreportedtoworkoneday.
The servicemember honestly told him that he and his male partner had a Iamily
emergency, and was subsequently discharged Ior his statement. Another
commander asked why a servicemember's security clearance had been held up.
LCR 04024
LCR Appendix Page 1993
10
ThereasonwasthatthememberhadIollowedregulationsandwashonestwiththe
investigatorsabouthisorientation.
Violations of "Don't Tell." Violations oI "Don't Tell" include using statements Irom
Iamily members, doctors and psychologists and security clearance personnel Ior purposes oI
discharge.
UsingstatementsIromIamilymembers.AirForceCapt.EarlBrown'sparents
were asked in detail about their son's sexual orientation and statements
made by Capt. Brown to his mother and Iather were included among the
statementsIorwhichhewastobedischarged. AnAirForcedoctor'smothersays
she was shocked when an inquiry oIIicial contacted her to ask about her son's
sexual activities. Indeed, the Department oI Air Force issued a memorandum on
November3,1994speciIicallydirectinginquiryoIIicialsto"interview...parentsand
siblings"toobtaininIormationtobeusedasabasisIordischarge.
UsingstatementsIromdoctorsandpsychologistsIorpurposesoIdischarge.
Corporal Kevin Blaesing, with the Marine Security Force in Charleston,
SouthCarolina,wasturnedinbyhisNavalpsychologistIoraskingquestionsabout
sexualityduringprivatecounselingsessions.Hiscommander,Lt.Col.Martinson,
ordered that he Iace discharge proceedings despite advice Irom his legal advisors
not to proceed. Another servicemember in the Air Force was advised by his
psychologist that disclosure oI his sexual orientation would be conveyed to his
commanding oIIicer Ior purposes oI discharge: the servicemember, however,
statedthathisprioritywasmentalhealthservicesandthathecouldnotobtainIull
andadequatetreatmentwithoutsomediscussionoIissuesrelatedtohissexuality.
HenowIacesdischarge.
UsingstatementsmadeduringsecurityclearancesIorpurposesoIdischarge.
In violation oI the new policy, security clearance personnel continue to
punishservicememberswhostatetheyaregaybyremovaloIorprotracteddelays
ingrantingtheclearances.IndirectviolationoIthenewpolicy,servicemembers
arealsothreatenedwiththedenialoItheirclearanceiItheydonotconIesstotheir
sexualorientationandsexualactivity.
Violations of "Don't Pursue."ViolationsoI"Don'tPursue"include(1)witchhunts,(2)
improper searches and seizures, (3) expanding inquiries beyond the instant allegations, and (4)
misapplyingthecredibleinIormationstandard.
LCR 04025
LCR Appendix Page 1994
11
Witch hunts: Asking about the orientation and conduct oI others. SLDN
documented 15 actual or attempted witch hunts under the new regulations where
commanders and inquiry oIIicials asked military members to identiIy other
servicemembers who were or were suspected to be homosexual. In Japan, over
twenty-one servicemembers were questioned regarding the sexual orientation and
private lives oI their co-workers. At New River Station, North Carolina,
immediately aIter brieIing his unit about the military's new policy on March 1,
1994, a marine Master Sergeant told his troops that, despite the regulations, they
had "a moral duty and an obligation" to turn in suspected homosexuals. At Pope
Air Force Base, North Carolina, a commander reportedly asked Ior a list oI all
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) contributors to gay and AIDS organizations:
thecommanderdroppedhisorderoncetheincidentwaspubliclyreported.
Improper searches and seizures. Overzealous commands continue to conduct or
condoneillegalsearchesandseizuresoIitemsbelongingtosuspectedhomosexual
servicemembers. Additionally, they continue to conIiscate personal and private
items, as well as circumstantial evidence, that should have no bearing on an
inquiry,perregulation.CommandersandinquiryoIIicialsroutinelyseizepersonal
diaries, private letters, address books, personal computers, erased computer Iiles,
photos oI Iriends, copies oI popular gay-themed books and videos like "Torch
Song Trilogy," HIV pamphlets, academic notes Irom classes on human sexuality,
and,inoneservicemen'scase,evenapairoImen'splatIormshoes.
Expandinginquiriesbeyondthe"instantallegations."Commandsroutinely
expandthescopeoIaninvestigationbeyondtheinstantallegations.Thus,
a person who has admitted to being gay will be asked to additionally conIess to
homosexual acts in order to gather inIormation that could lead to criminal
prosecution or lower discharge characterization. Servicemembers who are under
investigation Ior allegations oI homosexual acts are oIten questioned about other
actsbeyondtheinstantallegation.InquiryoIIicialsinNorthCarolina,Iorexample,
askedmorethan25servicememberstospeculateaboutthesexualorientationand
activitiesoIonemarine,beyondthetwoallegationssheIaced.
Misapplying credible inIormation standard. A seaman Iaces discharge aIter his
roommate, while snooping in the seaman's personal desk, discovered and read
severallettersIromwhichheconcludedthattheseamanmightbegay,andturned
the letters over to the command. In another case, a seaman was asked by his
superior iI he is gay and he answered truthIully: the command has decided to
proceedwithadischargeboarddespitetheclear"don'task"violation.
Violations of "Don't Harass." Violations oI "Don't Harass" include (1) death threats
LCR 04026
LCR Appendix Page 1995
12
based on sexual orientation, (2) targeted physical and verbal harassment based on sexual
orientation, and (3) downgraded perIormance evaluations, denial oI reenlistment and Iailure to
promoteduetosexualorientation.
Improper response to death threats. SLDN received 10 cases where
servicemembers were threatened with their lives Ior being or being suspected oI
being gay. One commander in Misawa, Japan, Captain Miller reportedly told a
heterosexual servicemember "You're going to die," aIter the servicemember's
recommendedseparationIorallegedhomosexualconducthadbeenoverturned.A
newrecruitatParrisIslandwastoldshewasnot"goingtowalkoutoIherealive"
iI she reported being physically assaulted Ior being suspected oI being lesbian. A
seamanreportsIindinganoosenexttohisberthingonboardshiphavingpreviously
Iound a note scrawled on a magazine photo that read "Die Fag." The Pentagon
hasestablishednomeanswherebyservicememberscanreportdeaththreatswitha
guaranteethatthereportwillnotbeusedasabasistostartaninvestigationagainst
them.
Improperresponsetoharassment(physical/verbal)andextortion.
As with death threats, the Pentagon has established no means whereby
servicememberscanreportharassmentwithaguaranteethatthereportwillnotbe
used as a basis to start an investigation against them. SLDN has received 69
reportsoItargetedphysicalandverbalabusebasedontheirperceivedorientation.
A maiority report command climates riIe with derogatory comments about gays.
One servicemember reports that someone gouged his new car with keys and
scrawledintothepainttheword"Iag."
DowngradedperIormanceevaluations,denialoIreenlistmentandIailureto
promoteduetosexualorientation. Lt. Col. Trask admitted on the record
at a discharge board that he downgraded the evaluation oI and recommended
against promotion Ior Captain Rich Richenberg, an oIIicer who ranked in the top
tenpercentoIallAirForceoIIicerspriortoLt.Col.Trask'sactions,solelybecause
Richenberg is gay. AIter Corporal Kevin Blaesing, Marine oI the Quarter Ior his
unit,succeededinhavinghisrecommendedseparationoverturned,hiscommander,
Lt. Col. Martinson, downgraded his perIormance evaluations contrary to the
recommendationsoIBlaesing'ssupervisorsandgaveCorporalBlaesingthelowest
possible recommendation Ior reenlistment, thus eIIectively killing Blaesing's
opportunitytoreenlistandcontinuehismilitarycareer.
Notably, there is little to no harassment oI open lesbian and gay service personnel who
LCR 04027
LCR Appendix Page 1996
13
have remained in service due to court order or discharge board recommendation. In Iact, all
documentation shows that those individuals enioy the wide support oI their colleagues, co-
workersandcommands.
These cases make clear that either through a lack oI training or willIul disregard oI the
new policy, some commanders continue to ask, pursue and harass servicemembers in direct
violationoIthenewpolicy.
DODDISCHARGESOFSERVICEMEMBERSFORHOMOSEXUALITY
Fiscal
year
AirForce Army Navy Marine
Corps
Total Total
Armed
Forces
1991 151
(15.9)
206
(21.7)
545
(57.4)
47
(5.0)
949
(100)
.04
1992 111
(15.7)
138
(19.5)
401
(56.6)
58(8.2) 708
(100)
.04
1993 152
(22.2)
156
(22.9)
334
(49.0)
40
(5.9)
682
(100)
.04
1994 180
(30.1)
136
(22.8)
245
(41.0)
36(6.0) 597
(100)
.04
Total 594 636 1525 101 2936 .04
The result oI the widespread violations is that the rate oI discharge Ior homosexuals has
not declined, as expected. Despite the belieI that the interim and new regulations would be as
President Clinton remarked, "a maior step Iorward," the rate oI discharge oI homosexuals Irom
LCR 04028
LCR Appendix Page 1997
14
1991to1994hasremainedconstantat.04oIthetotalactiveIorce.
The distribution oI discharge cases by service as reported by the Pentagon, however, has
markedly changed Ior two services. The Navy's percentage oI homosexual discharge cases
comparedwithotherserviceshasdeclinedIrom57.4oItotaldischargesin1991to41oItotal
discharges in 1994. On the other hand, the U.S. Air Force has contributed more to total
dischargesduringthesametimeIrame.In1991,theU.S.AirForceaccountedIoronly15.9oI
total homosexual discharges: in 1994, the U.S. Air Force accounted Ior 30.1 oI total
homosexual discharge cases. The Pentagon's Iigures suggest that the Air Force has signiIicantly
increaseditseIIortstotargetanddischargehomosexualservicemembersoverthelastIouryears,
andespeciallyduringIiscalyear1994.
ThedollarcostsoIthemilitary'spolicyonhomosexualscontinuestobehigh. Based
on Iigures the Pentagon supplied to the General Accounting OIIice in 1992, the last time the
Pentagon provided such inIormation, the cost oI training servicemembers to replace those
discharged Ior homosexuality totaled $17.5 million in Iiscal year 1994 (See Table on Iollowing
page). The costs Irom 1991 to 1994 totaled $86.5 million. These Iigures are not adiusted Ior
inIlation and do not include the costs to investigate servicemembers, the costs oI holding and
preparing Ior administrative discharge hearings or the costs oI administering the policy. Nor do
the Iigures include the signiIicant cost oI deIending the policy in Iederal court. SLDN has no
independentestimatesoIthecostsoItheDODpolicy.
LCR 04029
LCR Appendix Page 1998
15
COSTSOFTRAININGREPLACEMENTSFORSERVICEMEMBERS
DISCHARGEDUNDERHOMOSEXUALCONDUCTPOLICY
Year(s) #Discharged Costs
3
1980-1990 16,919 $498,555,244
1991 949 $27,964,355
1992 708 $20,862,764
1993 682 $20,096,617
1994 597 $17,591,907
TOTAL 19,855 $585,070,887
Insummary,itisclearthatmanymilitarycommanderscontinuetoask,pursueandharass
servicemembersindirectviolationoIthenewpolicy.EvidenceoIthecontinuingviolationscomes
not only Irom servicemembers' cases documented by SLDN and its cooperating attorneys, but
Irom memoranda issued by the Department oI the Air Force, Department oI Navy and others.
Thequestioniswhytheseabuseshaveoccurred.
Analysis
3
Costs are based on Iigures and percentages reported in a General Accounting OIIice
study, DeIenseForceManagement:StatisticsRelatedToDOD'sPolicyonHomosexuality(June
1992).TheGAOreportedthattheDepartmentoIDeIensedischarged16,919servicemembersIor
homosexuality Irom 1980-1990 at a cost oI $498,555,244. The costs Iigures Ior 1991-1994 are
based on the ratio oI discharges in year x divided by the costs in year x set equal to the ratio oI
dischargesinyears1980-1990dividedbythecostsinyears1980-1990. Thecostfigureshavenot
beenaaiusteaforinflation.
LCR 04030
LCR Appendix Page 1999
16
Reasons for command violations. There are Iour common reasons Ior command
violationsoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tpursue,Don'tHarass:(1)commandersandotherslack
inIormation: (2) commanders and others do not understand the policy: (3) insubordination by
commanders,investigatorsandprosecutors:and(4)commandersandothershavenoincentiveto
learnorIollowtherules.
CommandersandOtherLeadersLackInIormation.Somecommandviolationscan
beattributedtolackoIinIormationaboutthenewpolicy.Amaiorproblemhasbeeninadequate
distribution oI the new regulations. Throughout the past year, numerous commanders, deIense
attorneysandservicemembershavecontactedSLDNinsearchoIcurrentcopiesoItheDoDand
service regulations because they were not available in their commands. As recently as three
weeksago,SLDNwasrequiredtoshiptheseregulationstoanoverseastrialdeIenseoIIice.
CommandersandOthersdonotUnderstandthePolicy.Othercommandviolations
stem Irom insuIIicient training, and thereIore understanding, oI the policy. Even the Pentagon
concedes that training on the new policy has been handled less diligently than other personnel
policies, such as those on sexual harassment.
4
The most striking gap in training has been the
IailureoItheDepartmentoIDeIense(DoD)toissuesuIIicientguidanceregardingtheintentoIthe
newpolicytomilitaryleadersaswellasservicemembers.Thisisanespeciallycriticaloversightin
lightoIthebroaddiscretionaIIordedcommandersunderthepolicy.WithoutanunderstandingoI
theintentoIthepolicy,manycommandersandprosecutorshaveIocusedtheireIIortsonhowto
skirttheletteroItheregulations.
4
ArtPine,"FewBeneIitFromNewMilitaryPolicyonGays,"LosAngelesTimes,A1,A8.
LCR 04031
LCR Appendix Page 2000
17
Insubordination by Commanders, Investigators and Prosecutors. An alarming
number oI command violations documented by SLDN result Irom outright insubordination, not
lack oI inIormation or inadequate training. These violations are Iueled, in part, by a climate oI
backlashinmanyunits.ThecontroversyoverPresidentClinton'sproposaltoliItthebancharged
the atmosphere in the military and Iocused unprecedented attention on the private lives oI
servicemembers. Since that time, everyone Irom private to general oIIicer has speculated about
who in the ranks might be gay. In this climate, many commanders and others have taken the
Congressional vote against liIting the ban as a license to go aIter those whom they suspect are
gay. As Lawrence J. Korb, Iormer Assistant Secretary oI DeIense Ior Personnel and Readiness
underPresidentReagan,recentlystated,"IthinkthemilitaryIeelstheyhavebeatenClintonback
on this issue and they're not going to change."
5
As a result, many servicemembers are actually
worseoIIthanbeIore.
CommandersHaveNoIncentivetoLearnorFollowtheRules.Amaiorproblem
is that the Department oI DeIense has established no means to monitor cases and to correct
violationsandmisapplicationsoIthepolicy.AlthoughDepartmentoIDeIenseregulationsprovide
that commanders and others who violate the policy may be disciplined, this provision has been
roundly ignored. SLDN knows oI no commander or other military member who has yet been
disciplinedIorabusingthepolicy,despitenumerouscomplaints.
Themilitary'streatmentoIservicememberswhoareharmedbycommandviolationsoIthe
policy exacerbates the problem oI accountability. Servicemembers presently have no oIIicial
meansoIredressIorcommandviolations.Asiustoneexample,ayoungsailoriscurrentlybeing
5
Id.
LCR 04032
LCR Appendix Page 2001
18
discharged solely because he responded truthIully to his supervisor's direct question about his
sexualorientation,eventhoughthecommandadmittedontherecordthatthesupervisor'saction
violatedthenewpolicy.Todate,DoDandtheserviceshavebeenunwillingtoprovideacommon
senseresolutiontothisandsimilarsituations.
Theclearmessagetocommandersisthattheydonothavetotakethenewpolicyseriously
andthat,iIsoinclined,theymayviolateitwithimpunity.
Analysis of "Don't Ask" Violations."Don'tAsk"isasimple,well-publicizedmandate.
Unlikesomeotherprovisions,thereisnoambiguityinthispartoItheregulations.Nevertheless,
commanders and other leaders continue to ask servicemembers about their sexual orientation,
oIten repeatedly. While a Iew commanders have done so inadvertently, the overwhelming
maiority have violated "Don't Ask" through direct questions about sexual orientation and
surrogate questions designed to circumvent the letter oI the regulations. The Iacts and
circumstancessurroundingtheseviolationsindicatethatalmostallweredeliberate.ThedegreeoI
thought and ingenuity evident in devising many oI the surrogate questions Iurther indicates a
climateoIinsubordinationinmanycommands.
Analysis of "Don't Tell" Violations. Most military leaders Iail to understand that the
new policy does not preclude all statements regarding sexual orientation and that it recognizes a
zoneoIprivacyIorallservicemembers.
6
Overthepastyear,militaryleadershaveestablishedtwo
clear trends that violate "Don't Tell." They have (1) punished statements oI sexual orientation
6
Inannouncingthenewpolicy,PresidentClintonchargedDoDcivilianandmilitaryleadersto
"carry out this policy with Iairness, with balance and with due regard Ior the privacy oI
individuals." "Text oI President Clinton's Announcement oI the New Policy," Washington Post,
July 20, 1993, A12. The new regulations also state that "sexual orientation is a personal and
privatematter."
LCR 04033
LCR Appendix Page 2002
19
that are permissible under the new policy, and (2) expanded the situations where telling is
prohibited in order to reach the most private spheres oI servicemembers' lives. The most
prominent cases involving the Iirst trend have occurred in the context oI security clearance
investigations. Security clearance regulations encourage gay servicemembers to be Iorthcoming
abouttheirsexualorientationandtorevealwhethertheirIamilyandcloseassociatesareawareoI
it. The regulations state that "inIormation about homosexual orientation or conduct obtained
during a security clearance investigation will not be used...in separation proceedings." The
regulations Iurther state that a servicemember may decline to answer questions about sexual
orientation without adverse consequence. In reality, however, security clearance personnel
continue to threaten servicemembers with denial oI clearances Ior either stating or declining to
state their sexual orientation. Denial oI a security clearance eIIectively kills the servicemember's
career. Additionally, some commands have attempted to use the inIormation obtained during
securityclearanceinterviewsIorpurposesoIdischarge,indirectviolationoIthenewpolicy.
ThechieIproblemwiththesecurityclearanceregulationsisthattheyareinconsistentwith
theothersectionsoIthemilitary'spolicyonhomosexuals.Thosechargedwithimplementingthe
securityclearanceregulationsinlightoItheotherpolicyprovisionsdonotknowwhetherornot
toaskaboutsexualorientationandhowtorespondtotheanswersIorthcoming.Servicemembers
do not know how or iI to respond to questions about sexual orientation, given the regulations'
conIlicting guidance. Thus, conIusion results and homosexual servicemembers typically receive
theshortendoIthestick.
ServicemembersandtheirIamilieshavealsobeenshockedbytheDepartmentoIDeIense's
expansionoIsituationswheretellingisprohibited.Atleastsomecommandershaveviolatedthis
LCR 04034
LCR Appendix Page 2003
20
prong oI "Don't Tell" as a direct result oI guidance Irom the top levels oI the Pentagon. A
DepartmentoItheAirForcememoIromJudgeAdvocateGeneralHeadquarterstoallStaIIJudge
Advocates and military iudges dated November 3, 1994 actually instructs inquiry oIIicers to
questionparentsaboutthesexualorientationandactivitiesoItheirchildrentoobtaininIormation
Ior purposes oI discharging their sons and daughters. The memo also instructs oIIicers to
interrogate close civilian Iriends and mentors, such as high school guidance counselors, to
determinewhetheraservicememberhaseverdiscussedtheirorientation.
Additionally, the Department oI DeIense instructs psychologists to turn in
servicememberswhoseekprivatecounselingabouttheirsexualorientation.Inresponsetopublic
outcry in the wake oI one case, the Department oI DeIense General Counsel's oIIice simply
announced that the military would not treat statements to psychologists as privileged and
conIidential.TheresponseentirelybrushesasidetheissueoIwhethersuchprivatestatementsare
thekindoIstatementscontemplatedasagroundsIordischargeunderthenewpolicy.
This attempt to enIorce a gag rule in the context oI communications with Iamily and
proIessional health care providers is chilling. Most Americans would be appalled to learn that
their tax dollars are being spent on such unprecedented invasions into relationships that are
generallyconsideredprivateandconIidential.
Arelatedproblemisthe"outing"oIgayservicemembersbytheircommanders.Although
a detailed analysis is outside the scope oI this report, it should be noted that some commanders
havetoldtheirunits,andevenaservicemember'sspouseandparents,thattheservicememberwas
under investigation Ior homosexual conduct, in direct violation oI the Privacy Act. "Outing" is
not only a violation oI servicemembers' privacy, but it has also ieopardized the saIety oI
LCR 04035
LCR Appendix Page 2004
21
servicemembersincommandswhereharassmentistolerated.
Analysis of "Don't Pursue" Violations. The words "Don't Pursue" do not actually
appear in the policy or regulations. Instead, the concept is communicated through two primary
standards.First,commandersorinvestigatorsmaynotinitiateaninquiryorinvestigationunless,
considering the source and surrounding circumstances, they have credible evidence that a
servicemember has engaged in homosexual conduct. InIormation based on opinion, rumor and
capricious claims does not constitute credible inIormation. Second, inquiries and investigations
mustbelimitedtothescopeoItheinstantallegation.
"Don't Pursue" was intended, in part, to stop the military's inIamous witch hunts oI
suspected homosexuals. Like "Don't Ask," this concept has been well-publicized and
communicated through the ranks. General Colin Powell testiIied beIore the Senate Armed
Services Committee that the new regulations held Iorth that "We won't witch hunt. We won't
chase. We will not seek to learn orientation."
7
Nevertheless, SLDN documented IiIteen
attemptedandactualwitchhuntsoverthepastyear.MostwereinitiatedindeliberateviolationoI
thenewpolicy.
Among those commanders who wish to Iollow the regulations, most do not comprehend
the actual standards oI "Don't Pursue." Some commanders know that they must be able to
articulateabasistobeginaninquiryagainstaservicemember.ArmyandAirForcecommanders
are supposed to write down their iustiIication Ior beginning an inquiry. A signiIicant problem,
however, is that the vast maiority oI commanders do not know what constitutes credible
7
FederalNewsService,TestimonyBeIoreSenateArmedServicesCommittee,July21,
1993.
LCR 04036
LCR Appendix Page 2005
22
inIormation. The policy itselI provides little guidance on how to interpret this inherently
subiectiveandvaguestandard. A maior consequence is that commanders apply the policy
inconsistently throughout the services and even in the same commands. Additionally,
commanders routinely initiate inquiries and investigations against servicemembers based only on
hearsay or circumstantial evidence, contrary to the clear intent oI the regulations. These trends
areevidentintheIollowingexamples.
In the case oI Corporal Blaesing, who asked questions oI his psychologist, his Iirst
commanderdidnotconsiderhisquestionsasevidenceoIhomosexualconductandallowedhimto
continue service. When this commander later retired, his successor revived the case,
notwithstanding the Iact that the Navy psychologist testiIied that she did not know Blaesing's
orientationandthathehadnotstatedittoher.Asaresult,BlaesingwasIorcedtoIacedischarge
proceedingsandwasrecommendedIorseparation.
In identical cases Irom the Air Force, two commanders inadvertently discovered private
lettersbelongingtooneoItheirairmenthatcontainedlanguagethatcouldbeinterpretedashints
about homosexuality. One commander made no issue oI the letters and allowed the airman to
stay:theotherinvestigatedanddischargedtheairmanbasedsolelyontheletters.SLDNhasalso
IoundthatmostcommandersarenotevenawareoIthestandardtolimitinquiriestothescopeoI
the instant allegations. Thus, even where inquiries are properly initiated, they inevitably become
Iishing expeditions into all aspects oI a servicemember's private liIe. In the case oI Lance
Corporal Elena Martinez, an inquiry that was not initiated properly, her supervisor directly
solicitedco-workerstomakeallegationsoIhomosexualconductagainsther.Twomalemarines
lodged allegations that Martinez had danced with both men and women at a popular local club
LCR 04037
LCR Appendix Page 2006
23
and that, on another occasion, she had given another woman a goodbye peck on the cheek.
Basedonthisreport,thecommandinitiatedaninquiryinwhichtheyquestionedovertwenty-Iive
co-workers and civilian acquaintances, including Iormer landlords, inviting them to speculate
abouteverydetailoIMartinez'privateliIe.Further,hersupervisordirectlyorderedco-workersto
monitor and report on Martinez's social activities. Even iI the basis oI this inquiry had been
legitimate,thecommand'swide-rangingcampaignintoMartinez'spersonalliIeclearlyviolatedthe
requirementtolimitinquiriestothescopeoItheinstantallegation.
ManycommandersandinvestigatorsusethistacticoIexpandinginvestigationsbeyondthe
scope oI the instant allegation in a deliberate eIIort to dig up inIormation to support a less than
honorable discharge characterization or criminal charges against servicemembers who are or are
perceivedtobegay.
Analysis of "Don't Harass" Violations. Like "Don't Ask," the mandate against
harassment is unambiguous. It Iorbids harassment oI any kind against any servicemember. This
mandateisnotunIamiliartocommanders.InthewakeoItheTailhookscandal,ithasbecomea
standard order. Nevertheless, SLDN's cases show that harassment and death threats against
suspectedgayservicemembersareworsethanever.
PoorleadershipistheprimaryreasonIorthehighincidenceoIharassment.AmaiorityoI
servicemembers who have called SLDN report that their supervisors have witnessed incidents oI
harassment and have taken no steps to correct it. In an alarming number oI SLDN's cases,
members oI the chain-oI-command have actually participated in harassment against suspected
gays. In addition, some commanders have retaliated against gay servicemembers through
downgradedperIormanceevaluationsorbydenyingthemreenlistment.Theseactionssendaclear
LCR 04038
LCR Appendix Page 2007
24
messagethatharassmentiscondoned.
SLDN's data also show a high correlation between harassment and "Don't Pursue"
violations. In units where commanders pursue gays, servicemembers report that they Ieel great
pressuretoprovethattheyarenotgay.Onewaytodosoistomakederogatorycommentsabout
gays in the company oI co-workers and to directly harass other servicemembers who are
perceived as gay. Servicemembers report that, iI they do not participate in such activities, they
arequicklylabeledasgayandharassed.
InlightoItheseIindings,itisnotsurprisingthatthemaiorityoIservicememberswhohave
called SLDN report that derogatory comments and harassment oI suspected gays has been a
regularoccurrenceintheirunitssincethenationaldebate.
ServicememberswhowishtocomplainaboutharassmentordeaththreatsIacesigniIicant
obstacles. There is no guarantee that commands will not use a report oI harassment or death
threats as a basis Ior investigation and discharge oI the threatened servicemember. At best,
servicemembers who have dared to Iile complaints have simply been ignored by their chain-oI-
command. As a result oI the lack oI response and threat oI discharge, most incidents oI death
threatsandharassmentgounreported.
Instarkcontrast,therehasnotbeenaproblemwithharassmentinthoseunitswithopenly
gayservicemembers,manyoIwhomareservingbycourtorder.Norhastherebeenaproblemin
units with commanders who have made it clear to their troops that they will not tolerate
harassment. This suggests the truth oI the old maxim that "Troops Iollow the Ilag." In short,
harassmentoccursbecauseoIaunit'sleadership,notdespiteit.
Conclusion/Recommendations
LCR 04039
LCR Appendix Page 2008
25
SLDN concludes that many military oIIicials continue to ask questions about sexual
orientation, conduct witch hunts and condone harassment oI lesbian and gay servicemembers in
directviolationoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue."SLDNIurtherconcludesthatthechieI
reasons Ior the continuing violations are lack oI inIormation, lack oI adequate training and
guidance regarding the new policy, and in some cases, willIul disregard oI military policy by
commandersandothers.
SLDNrecommendsthattheDepartmentoIDeIenseensuretheproperimplementationoI
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" by providing (1) adequate inIormation to and training Ior
allservicemembersaboutthenewpolicy,(2)commonsenseremediestoservicememberswhoare
harmedbycommandviolations,and(3)clearaccountabilityIorviolationsoIthepolicybymilitary
oIIicials.
Provide Adequate Information and Training.TheDepartmentoIDeIenseshouldensure
that Iull DOD Directives, Guidance and Service Regulations reach the Iield. Attorneys and
commanders oIten possess only the message text oI the service regulations sent to the Iield on
February 28, 1994, with no guidance on how to interpret those regulations. At a minimum,
military oIIicials should have the Iull DOD Directives, Commander's Guidance, DOD Guidelines
datedJuly20,1993,andallDODandserviceguidancenecessarytointerprettheregulations.
Additionally, the Department oI DeIense should clearly and strongly communicate the
intent oI the new policy to stop anti-gay harassment and pursuits oI suspected homosexual
servicemembers.Atpresent,theintentoIthenewpolicyhasnotbeenadequatelydisseminatedto
the Iield and, thus, is not widely known or understood. In order to apply the legal standards oI
the new policy, commanders must, as with all regulations, understand the "commander's intent"
LCR 04040
LCR Appendix Page 2009
26
behindthepolicyitselI.Advisorstothecommand,particularlymilitaryattorneysandInspectors
General, must also understand its intent. Clear intent is vital given the current hostile command
climateinmanycommands,thewidediscretionaIIordedcommandersandtheambiguityoIsome
policy standards. At a minimum, all existing command and advisory channels should be
vigorouslyutilizedtocommunicateandreinIorcetheintentoIthepolicy.Allservicemembersand
unitleadersneedtobetrainedonthepolicyandtheexpectationsIortheirbehavior.
The Department oI DeIense should also issue Iurther guidance on legal standards. Even
armedwithallexistingmaterials,thereisstillaclearneedIormoreinIormationonthemeaningoI
the new standards. The credible inIormation standard needs particular elaboration. Credible
inIormation should be deIined to exclude reports oI harassment or death threats, inIormation
obtainedbythecommandthroughillegalmeans,useoIprivatestatementstoparents,siblingsand
psychologists, or inadvertent disclosures, such as when a supervisor discovers a letter aIter
snoopingthroughthepersonalpossessionsoIaunitmember.
Provide Common Sense Remedies for Command Violations. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
Don'tPursue"meansnothingiIservicemembersmustpaythepriceIorimproperquestions,witch
hunts,andharassment.EnIorcementoImilitaryregulationsandactsoIlawisnotdiscretionary.
Thus, homosexual servicemembers who are discovered through improper methods should be
aIIorded a common sense remedy, like other victims oI command impropriety. Decisionmakers,
Ior example, are not permitted to disregard claims by women that they have been retaliated
againstIorreportingsexualharassmentandrape.Whereclaimsaresubstantiated,theymusttake
stepstocorrecttheretaliation.
The Department oI DeIense should establish measures to ensure command compliance
LCR 04041
LCR Appendix Page 2010
27
with the new regulations. Advisors to the command, including military prosecutors and
Inspectors General, must understand their role to ensure that credible inIormation exists at the
outset oI an inquiry or investigation, not merely to iustiIy poor, let alone illegal, actions by the
command. Where an inquiry is appropriate, JAGs need actively to advise inquiry oIIicers, who
typically have no legal training or experience with the regulations, on the parameters oI the
inquiry.
TheDepartmentoIDeIenseshouldalsoorderStaIIJudgeAdvocatestomonitorviolations
byinvestigativeagents. SJAsshouldmakecleartobaseMCIOsthatinvestigativeviolationswill
notbetoleratedandensurethatagentsaretrainedinproperandimproperinvestigativetactics.
TheDepartmentoIDeIenseshouldalsoissuestrong,clearguidanceregardingharassment
andthreats.Theonesentenceinthe"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"regulationsIorbidding
harassmenthasproveninadequate.Atop-downpolicyoIzerotoleranceisrequiredinstead.Asa
minimum, servicemembers must be able to report death threats and harassment and their
underlying basis without Iear that the report will be turned against them Ior purposes oI
investigationanddischarge.BasedonSLDN'sexperience,manycomplaintsarelikelytorequire
disclosureoIaservicemember'ssexualorientationordetailsoItheirprivatelives.Forthisreason,
and because even legitimate questions going to a servicemember's saIety can result in
"incriminating" answers, complainants should be exempted Irom discharge and investigation and
should be aIIorded counsel. It is reasonably Ioreseeable that iI the Department oI DeIense does
nottakecorrectiveactionsnow,deathsoIactualandperceivedhomosexualservicemembers,like
slainsailorAllenSchindler,willoccur.
The Department oI DeIense should prevent the use oI security clearance interviews as a
LCR 04042
LCR Appendix Page 2011
28
loophole Ior targeting suspected homosexuals. DOD should take strong steps to ensure
compliancebyDeIenseInvestigativeService(DIS)agentswithDISregulationsandtheintentoI
theDODdirectives.Thepresentsituationputtingservicemembers'careersandlibertyinieopardy
Ior truthIul responses regarding their sexual orientation is untenable. Already, without such
attention, the security clearance process has become a back channel to obtain inIormation Ior
commandsandpursuesuspectedhomosexuals.
Provide Adequate Review And Accountability. Those who are willIully disobeying the
letter and intent oI the new policy on homosexuals will continue to do so unless they are held
accountableIortheirinsubordination. Those violating the new regulations out oI ignorance will
alsocontinuetodosoaslongasthereisnoincentivetolearnandabidebythepolicy.
The Department oI DeIense needs to ampliIy disincentives to prevent violations oI the
policy. Currently, guidance is needed regarding procedures to initiate discipline against
commandersandotherswhoviolatethepolicy,asprovidedIorintheDODdirectives.Todate,
no commander has been disciplined Ior violating provisions in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't
Pursue"despitemanycomplaints.Further,inIormationobtainedastheresultoIviolationsshould
beexcludedandinquiries/investigationsIoundtohavebeeninitiatedwithoutcredibleinIormation
should bar prosecution and discharge. Security clearance regulations should bar transIer oI
inIormation to the military command. Annotations in servicemembers Iiles based on inIormation
obtainedastheresultoIimpropercommandactionsshouldbeprohibited.
These three broad recommendations, inIormation and training, common sense remedies,
and accountability, are only a handIul oI recommendations speciIically targeted to the violations
detailed in this report. The recommendations are intended to bring commanders and other
LCR 04043
LCR Appendix Page 2012
29
military oIIicials into compliance with military regulations and law. The recommendations are
intended to ensure that "Don't Ask" means don't ask: "Don't Tell" does not mean interrogate
Iamily,doctorsandpsychologists:"Don'tPursue"meansdon'tpursue:and"Don'tHarass"means
don'tharass.
SLDNwillcontinuetomonitortheDepartmentoIDeIense'simplementationoIitsnewest
policyonhomosexualsandreportonitsprogressincomplyingwiththepolicy'sprovisions.
LCR 04044
LCR Appendix Page 2013
i
CONDUCTUNBECOMING:
SECONDANNUALREPORTONDONTASK,DONTTELL,DONTPURSUE
MARCH 1, 1995 - FEBRUARY 27, 1996
InSouthKorea.avoungPrivateFirstClassreporteathatmalesolaiersassaultea
anathreateneatorapeher.Thesolaiersthenspreaafalserumorsthatshewasa
lesbian.Ratherthaninvestigatethemenwhoattackeaher.thecommanainSouth
Koreainvestigateaher.Thecommanatrieatoforcehertoconfesstobeinggav.
She refusea. The commana threatenea her with prison if she aia not iaentifv
suspectea lesbians in her unit. She refusea. The commana startea aischarge
proceeaings against her basea on the same trumpea up allegations. She still
refuseatobuckle.InJulv1995.aftertenmonthsofintenseeffortsbvherfamilv.
ServicemembersLegalDefenseNetworkanaitscooperatingprivateattornev.the
Armv finallv aroppea all charges ana retaliatorv actions against her. Her new
commana is excellent. but she ana her familv shoula never have haa to go
through what thev aia. What happenea to her is common. Straight or gav. the
DontAsk.DontTell.DontPursuepolicvhasbeenuseatoretaliateagainst
hunareasofservicemembers.
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
InitssecondannualreportontheimpactoItheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
policy,ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork(SLDN)revealsacontinuingpatternoIabuse
thathaseIIectivelyrenderedthecurrentpolicyasbadas,iInotworsethan,itspredecessors.
Manymilitarymembersclearlycontinuetoask,pursueandharasssuspectedgaytroopsinblatant
disregardoIthepolicyslimits.FromMarch1,1995-February27,1996,SLDNdocumented
363speciIicviolationsoIthecurrentpolicy.
1
Theresult,inpart,isthattheDepartmentoIDeIense
(DOD)dischargedmoreservicemembersunderitsgaypolicyinIiscalyear1995thanineachoI
thepastIouryearsatacostexceeding$21millionin1995.
2
1 SeeExhibitA. SLDNhaddocumented340violationsinthepolicysIirstyearoIoperation,resultingin703
documentedviolationsIorthepasttwoyears.ThedocumentedviolationsdonotincludeviolationsthatIalloutside
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuebutareneverthelessseriousbreachesoImilitaryregulations,suchasdenialoIor
ineIIectiveassistanceoIcounsel,threatsoIadverseactionbycriminalagentsagainstservicemembersunlessthey
cooperate,andviolationoItheservicemembersrightsunderthePrivacyAct.
2 SeeExhibitsB&C. ThecostoItrainingreplacementsIorthosedischargedin1995exceeded$21million,bringing
thecostunderthecurrentpolicytomorethan$38.5million,andthecostsince1980tomorethanone-halIbillion
LCR 04045
LCR Appendix Page 2014
ii
AmongSLDNsspeciIicIindingsIorMarch1,1995-February27,1996:
1. DOD discharged 722 people under the gay policy in Iiscal year 1995 - a
Iouryearhigh,anda21increaseover1994levels.
2. According to DOD Iigures, the Air Force accounted Ior 32 oI gay
dischargesaIigurethathasdoubledunderthecurrentpolicy.TheNavy
accounted Ior 36 oI gay discharges, a decrease oI 21 since 1992: the
Army and Marine Corps discharge rates remained about the same at 25
and6oIthetotals,respectively.
3. SLDNdocumented363violationsoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,
Don't Harass." The Navy was the worst service with 126 documented
violations, Iollowed by the Air Force with 114 documented violations, the
Armywith101andtheMarineCorpswith22.
4. SLDNdocumented141violationsoI"Don'tPursueand127violationsoI
"Don'tHarass"makingthemtheleadingproblemsunderthecurrentpolicy
Ior the second year in a row. The Air Force was the worst violator oI
DontPursue:theNavywastheworstatDontHarass.
5. The Air Force, more than the other services, is actively pressing criminal
charges and imprisoning gay servicemembers Ior allegations oI consensual
adultsexualrelationships,inviolationoIcurrentregulations.
6. Women were disproportionately hurt by the new policy, accounting Ior
30 oI SLDN cases and 21 oI DOD discharge Iigures, despite making
up only 13 oI the militarys active Iorce. Women are oIten accused as
gay aIter reporting sexual harassment or rape, regardless oI their actual
sexualorientation.
7. SLDN documented 28 witch hunts. Witch hunts oI women occurred in
locationsrangingIromKoreatoTexastotheMediterraneanlastyear.
8. AIter one lesbian oIIicer succeeded in arguing Ior retention, DOD, on
August18,1995,quietlyissuedamemorandumthatprohibitedtheservices
Iromacceptingsimilarargumentsbyothergayservicemembers.Thememo
alsoundercutslimitsoninvestigationsoIsuspectedgaytroopscontraryto
the original letter and intent oI the current policy. The new DOD memo
was apparently in response to lobbying by Senators Coats, Nunn and
Thurmond,asrevealedbytheFamilyResearchCouncilinIederalcourt.
dollars.ThesecostestimatesdonotincludethesubstantialcostsoIinvestigatingservicemembers,holding
administrativedischargehearingsordeIendingthenewpolicyinIederalcourt.
LCR 04046
LCR Appendix Page 2015
iii
9. On a positive note, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12968 on
August 4, 1995, prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in
theissuanceoIsecurityclearancesIorgaymilitaryandciviliangovernment
employees.
10. Another positive Iinding is that DOD oIIicially recognizes that more than
one dozen gay servicemembers have been serving openly and honestly Ior
onetoIourteenyears.
ThreeprimaryreasonsaccountIortheincreaseindischargesandthecontinuedviolations
oIthecurrentgaypolicy.TheIirstreasonisthat,accordingtoDODsowndata,dischargesIrom
theAirForcehaveskyrocketedwhiledischargesIromtheotherserviceshavedeclinedor
remainedthesame.TheAirForcenowaccountsIor32oIallgaydischarges,whilein1992,it
accountedIoronly16oIallgaydischarges.TheNavy,bycontrast,accountedIor57oIall
gaydischargesin1992,butnowaccountsIor36oIallgaydischarges.Furthermore,theAir
Forces1995Iiguresarehigherthanwouldbepredictedgivenitssize.TheAirForceaccountsIor
only26oItotalactivedutytroops,butitaccountsIor32oIallgaydischarges.TheIactthat
theAirForcedischargeshaveincreasedsodramaticallyisreIlectedinSLDNsIindingthattheAir
ForceistheworstviolatoroIDontPursue.
Asecondreasondischargesunderthegaypolicyremainhighisthatthemilitaryusesthe
policytoretaliateagainstwomen.DODdatashowthatwomenarebeingsingledoutIor
investigationanddischargeatratesexceedingthoseIormen.Thoughwomencompriseonly13
oIthetotalactivedutyIorce,theyaccountIor21oIalldischargesand30oISLDNscases
underthegaypolicy.AdisturbingconstantinwomenscasesistheIrequencywithwhichwomen
areaccusedaslesbianaIterreportingsexualharassmentorrape,regardlessoItheiractualsexual
orientation.ItwasbelievedthatDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewouldstopinvestigations
anddischargesbasedonretaliatoryaccusations,butithasnot.
LCR 04047
LCR Appendix Page 2016
iv
ThethirdmaiorreasondischargesunderthegaypolicyhaveescalatedisthatDODisnot
educatingoradequatelytrainingcommandersandtheirtroopsaboutthenewpolicyandwhatit
reallymeansintheireverydaylives.Further,DODandtheservicesonlytakestepstostopclear
violationsoIthecurrentpolicyinindividualcaseswhenconIrontedwithintenseoutsidepressure
IromservicemembersIamiliesandtheirlawyers.
ThisreportdetailsIourspeciIiccategoriesoIviolations.Itdocumentscaseswhere
militarymembershave(1)askedservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientation(DontAsk):(2)
punishedstatementsoIsexualorientationthatarepermissibleunderthenewpolicyorexpanded
thesituationswheretellingisprohibited(DontTell):(3)pursued,witchhuntedorcriminally
prosecutedsuspectedhomosexuals(DontPursue):and(4)condonedharassmentbasedon
perceivedsexualorientation(DontHarass).
ThisreportisdividedintoIoursectionswhichdescribeSLDNsdatainmoredetail.The
sectionsareentitledDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,andDontHarass.Each
sectionexplainswhatconstitutesaviolationoIthecurrentpolicyaccordingtotheletterandspirit
oItheregulations,summarizesSLDNsIindings,providesexamplesoItheviolationsdocumented
bySLDN,analyzeswhymanymilitaryleaderscontinuetoviolatethenewpolicyandrecommends
howthemilitarycanstoptheongoingviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
ThisreportisbasedonviolationsoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"documentedby
SLDN,locatedinWashington,D.C.SLDNisthesolenationallegalaidandwatchdog
organizationIorthosetargetedunderthemilitary'spolicyonservicebygaymenandlesbians,and
theonlymeanscurrentlyavailabletodocumentabuses.DODhasinstitutednomethodoI
identiIying,documentingorcorrectingabusesoIthenewpolicy.
SLDN'sdocumentedcasescaptureonlyaIractionoItheservicemembershurtbythe
LCR 04048
LCR Appendix Page 2017
v
"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"policy.ManyservicemembersaredischargedbyDODIor
allegedhomosexualitywithouteverhavingcontactedSLDN,andothersareremovedIromservice
Iorhomosexualitythroughulteriormeans,suchasdenialoIreenlistment.SLDN'soutreachis
limited.WeareintouchwithonlyaverysmallpercentageoIallservicemembersharmedbythe
currentpolicy.
ServicememberswhocontactSLDNarestraight,gayandbisexual.ThemilitarysDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursuepolicyisoItenusedasameanstoretaliateagainstanyone,
regardlessoItheirsexualorientation.
SLDNisaskedtoprovideawiderangeoIassistanceIrombasicinIormationaboutwhat
thepolicysaystointensiveeIIortstostopwitchhuntsorpreventdeaththreatsIrombeingcarried
out.SLDNcareIullytracksthosecaseswhereservicemembersneedongoingassistance.From
March1,1995-February27,1996,theperiodonwhichthisreportisbased,SLDNclosely
tracked180cases.ItsattorneysworktomonitoranddocumentviolationsoIthe"Don'tAsk,
Don'tTell,Don'tPursue"policyinconiunctionwithRepublicanandDemocraticCongressional
aidesandlawyersIromSLDN'snetworkoImorethan250cooperatingattorneysIromprivatelaw
Iirmsaroundthecountry.
3
SLDNsIindingsarewell-documented.Servicemembersandattorneyswhoworkedon
thecasesreportedareavailableuponrequest,exceptincaseswhereservicememberscouldsuIIer
retaliationIromspeakingpublicly.DuetoreasonsoIconIidentialityandtoprotect
servicemembersIrompotentialretaliation,thenamesoIservicemembersandotheridentiIying
IeaturesoIcasesareomittedinthisreport.
3
SLDNwouldliketothankitscooperatingattorneysIortheirtirelesseIIortsonbehalIoIlesbian,gay,bisexualand
straightservicemembershurtundertheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicy.SLDNwouldliketoextend
LCR 04049
LCR Appendix Page 2018
vi
SLDNisheadedbytwoattorneys,C.DixonOsburnandMichelleM.Benecke.Mr.
OsburnholdsaJ.D.andM.B.A.IromGeorgetownUniversityandanA.B.IromStanIord
University.Ms.BeneckeisagraduateoIHarvardLawSchoolandholdsaB.A.Iromthe
UniversityoIVirginia.Ms.BeneckeisalsoaIormerCaptainandBatteryCommanderintheU.S.
Army.Bothhavespokenextensivelyaboutthemilitarysgaypolicies,includingaspeechatthe
AmericanBarAssociationAnnualConventioninAugust1995.Theyhavealsobothpublished
respectedworksaboutthepolicies,includingarticlesinTheNewYorkTimes, TheHarvara
WomensLawJournal, TheUniversitvofMissouriKansasCitvLawReview,andcontributionsto
severalbooks.
specialrecognitiontoTedBumerandKathyGilberdoItheMilitaryLawTaskForceinSanDiego,andBridgetWilson,
aprivateattorneyinSanDiego,Iortheirlong-standingleadershipinIightingIortherightsoIservicemembers.
LCR 04050
LCR Appendix Page 2019
vii
RECOMMENDATIONS
SLDNconcludesthatmanymilitarymemberscontinuetoask,pursueandharasslesbian
gay,bisexualandstraightservicemembersindirectviolationoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don't
Pursue."SomeoItheviolationsresultIromadeliberatedisregardoIthepolicybycommanders,
criminalinvestigatorsandinquiryoIIicers.SomeviolationsresultIromtopPentagonoIIicials
backtrackingIromlimitsimposedbythecurrentpolicy.AndotherviolationsresultIrompoor
communicationtoservicemembersandtheAmericanpublicaboutwhatisandisnotpermitted
underthenewpolicy.SLDNrecommendsthatDODtaketheIollowingstepstostopthe
continuingabusesoIthecurrentpolicy:
1. DesignateanoIIicialIromtheOIIiceoItheSecretaryoIDeIenseandOIIiceoIthe
SecretaryIoreachservicewhoischargedwiththeresponsibilitytoresolveproblemsastheyarise
andsendaclearsignalthatabuseswillnotbetolerated.
2. DisciplinethosewhodisobeythelimitsoItheregulations.
3. RescinatheDepartmentoIDeIense,AirForceandNavymemorandathatgutthe
originalintentoIthenewpolicynottopursuegayservicemembers.
4. Issueclearguidancethatinquiriesandinvestigationscanonlybestartedwithgood
cause.NotallinIormationiscredible,suchasretaliatoryaccusations.
5. Stopharassment,includingdeaththreatsandhatecrimes,disciplinethosewhoharass,
andallowservicememberstoreportharassmentwithoutIearoIretribution.
6. RequirecommanderstorevealinwritingtotheservicememberthespeciIicreasonan
inquiryorinvestigationhasbeeninitiatedagainsttheservicemember.
7. ProviaeservicemembersaccesstoamilitaryattorneyatthebeginningoIaninquiryor
investigationtohelpdeterillegitimateeIIorts,asrecommendedbya1995AdvisoryBoardon
LCR 04051
LCR Appendix Page 2020
viii
DODInvestigativeCapabilityreport.
8. Requirecommanderstonotintrudeintoprivateconversationsbetweengay
servicemembersandtheirIamilies,doctorsandotherhealthcareproIessionalsandnotusesuch
statementsasthebasisIorretribution,investigationanddischarge.
9. PreventselectivecriminalprosecutionoIgay,butnotstraight,servicemembersIor
adult,consensualsexualrelationships,consistentwithregulationsrequiringeven-handed
treatment.
10. ExcluaeevidencethathasbeenwrongIullyobtainedIrombeingusedatan
administrativedischargeboardagainsttheservicemember,assuggestedbya1995Advisory
BoardonDODInvestigativeCapabilityreport.
DODshouldadopttheserecommendationsasaIirststeptobringitselIintocompliance
withthecurrentlawandregulations.TheserecommendationsiIIullyimplementedwould
improvethesaIetyoIservicemembersdailylivesundertheDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursuepolicy.TheserecommendationswouldinnowaycuretheconstitutionaldeIectsoIthe
policycurrentlybeinglitigatedinIederalcourt.
LCR 04052
LCR Appendix Page 2021
1
DONTASK
"What is Don't Ask?"The"Don'tAsk"regulationsstatethat"servicememberswillnot
beaskedaboutorrequiredtorevealtheirsexualorientation."ViolationsoI"Don'tAsk"
monitoredbySLDNinclude(1)directquestionsaboutsexualorientation,suchas"Areyou
gay?":(2)surrogatequestionsaboutsexualorientationwhereaservicememberisnotasked
directlyabouthisorherorientation,butisaskedthroughcreativephrasing,asin"DoyouIind
menattractive?":and(3)inadvertentquestions,inwhichamilitarymemberdoesnotrealizethat
thequestionaskedrequiresdisclosureoIsexualorientation,suchaswhenacommander,outoI
concernIorsomeoneinhisorherunit,askswhatistroublingtheservicemember,andtheanswer
isthattheservicememberisgrapplingwithissuesrelatedtosexuality.Thequestionwouldnot
poseaproblemIoraheterosexualservicememberbutitdoesIorthehomosexualservicemember.
Findings. SLDNdocumented77DontAskviolations.Directquestionsandsurrogate
questionsaboutsexualorientationconstituted99oIthoseviolations.SLDNdocumented
signiIicantviolationsoIDontAskineachservice.
Examples.ViolationsoIDon'tAskincludeaskingdirect,surrogate,orinadvertent
questionsaboutsexualorientation.
Direct Questions. An Air Force OIIice oI Special Investigations (OSI) agent
started a witch hunt by directly asking a seaman who was not under investigation iI he
were gay. In another case, a Iellow worker asked an enlisted Iemale airman iI she were
gay and then turned her in when she answered yes. One oIIicer in the Southwest
conIrontedawomanunderhiscommandwith,Iknowyourealesbian,lookingtoseeiI
shewouldrespond.Similarly,anArmyoIIiceraskedaIellowoIIicer,Whataboutthese
rumors|thatyourealesbian|.
Surrogate Questions.AmaleoIIicerintheNavyaskedaIemaleco-worker,Do
youdatemen?,aItersheturneddownseveraloIIersIoradatewithhim.AnArmy
noncommissionedoIIiceraskedanenlistedmemberwhetheranothersoldierwasIunny.
LCR 04053
LCR Appendix Page 2022
2
Numerousservicemembersreportbeingasked,Whomareyoudating?,andWhy
haventIseenyouwithany|peopleoItheoppositesex|?
Inadvertent Questions.Apsychologistaskedwhyaservicemanwashaving
maritaldiIIiculties.Herepliedthathewasattractedtoothermen,notknowingthatsucha
statementwouldhaverepercussions.Thepsychologistorderedhimtowriteastatement
tothateIIectandturnedhimovertohiscommanderIorinvestigationanddischarge.
Analysis."Don'tAsk"isasimple,unambiguousandwell-publicizedmandate.
Nevertheless,militarymemberscontinuetoaskservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientation.
WhileaIewhavedonesoinadvertently,theoverwhelmingmaiorityhaveviolated"Don'tAsk"
throughdirectquestionsaboutsexualorientationandsurrogatequestionsdesignedtocircumvent
theletteroItheregulations.Manyservicemembersalsoreportthattheyhavebeenbaitedbyanti-
gaycomments,questionsandiokes,andthatanyresponse,exceptioininginthegay-bashing,
immediatelyraisessuspicions.Notevensilencewillprotectaservicemember.Gay-baiting
shouldbeviewednotonlyasaIormoIharassment,butaIormoIasking.
Asking,however,alsooccursinawaythatismuchmorecongenialandroutine.This
IormoIaskingisnotIullyreIlectedinthisreport.ServicemembersreporttoSLDNthattheyare
askedeverydayabouttheirsexualorientationandtheirrelationships,orlackthereoI.Theyare
askedaboutdates.Theyareaskedaboutwhoioinedthematlunch.Theyareaskedaboutphotos
oIIriends,buddies,lovedonesandIamily.Theyareaskedaboutplanstogotothemilitaryball.
TheyareaskedaboutwithwhomtheywillspendChristmas.Theyareaskedabouttheirchurch
membership,neighborhoodswheretheylive,clubstheygoto.Theyareaskedtocommentabout
thelooksoIoppositesexmembers.
ThesequestionsareanaturalpartoIeverydayconversation,andtheyposenoproblems
LCR 04054
LCR Appendix Page 2023
3
Iorheterosexualservicemembers.Forgayservicemembers,however,thesequestionsplacethem
inanuntenableposition.SilenceoravoidingtheIormationoIIriendshipsisnoticeable.Lyingis
againstservicemembersvaluesandintegrity,nottomentiontheservicesowncodesoIconduct.
Yet,iIgayservicemembersrevealanintegralpartoItheiridentityandcommunity,theDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursuepolicymeansanendtotheircareers.Asimplemented,thepolicy
willnotprotectthem,eveniIthequestioneristheirbestIriend,momordoctor.
Recommendations.Clearly,eliminatingallquestionsaboutsexualorientationis
impossible.ItisonlynaturalIormenandwomenwhoworktogethertobeinterestedineach
otherslives.Thereare,however,somespeciIicstepsthemilitaryshouldtaketomaketheDont
AskportionoIitspolicymoremeaningIul.
Thosewhoaskdirectorsurrogatequestionstodetermineaservicememberssexual
orientationduringaninvestigationorinIormalcommandinquiry,orwhoturninIormationoverto
thecommandaIteraskingquestionsaboutsexualorientation,shouldbecounseledanddisciplined
Iortheiractions.Thisdoesnotmean,though,thatcommandersshouldpoliceprivate
conversationsbetweentroopsorerectbarrierstotheIormationoIIriendships.
A servicememberwhooIIersatruthIulanswertoadirect,surrogateorinadvertent
questionabouthisorherorientation,orspeaksoutinresponsetoanti-gayharassment,shouldnot
besubiecttoaninquiry,investigationordischarge.Further,nomarkshouldbemadeinhisorher
recordabouttheincident,norshouldheorshebesubiecttoIurtherretaliation.IIacommand
ignorestheseguidelines,andneverthelesstakesdischargeaction,suchactionshouldbeobviated.
Inshort,IortheDontAskportionoIthenewregulationstohaveanyteeth,thosewhoviolate
thepolicyshouldbedisciplined:theirvictimsshouldbeexonerated,notpunished.
LCR 04055
LCR Appendix Page 2024
4
DONTTELL
"What is Don't Tell?" The"Don'tTell"provisionoIthenewpolicydoesnotprohibitall
statementsaboutsexualorientation.Indeed,thenewregulationsspeciIicallypermitstatementsto
lawyers,chaplains,orsecurityclearancepersonnel,andinannouncingthecurrentpolicy,DOD
promiseditwouldprotectazoneoIprivacyIorallservicemembers.Yet,thePentagonhas
expanded"Don'tTell"inwaysthatmostAmericansarenotaware,toincludeprivatestatements
toIamilymembers,closeIriends,churchmembers,doctors,psychologistsandotherhealth
proIessionals.Further,iIachaplainorlawyerviolatesconIidentialityandrevealsa
servicememberssexualorientationtoacommander,themilitarywillusethatinIormationto
dischargetheservicemember.ViolationsoI"Don'tTell"includeincidentsinwhichstatementsto
anyoItheabovehaveresultedindischargeorthethreatoIdischargeoIlesbianandgay
servicemembers.
Findings. SLDNdocumented18violationsoIDontTellwhichrepresentsasmall
decreaseintotalDontTellviolationsIromthepreviousyear.Mostviolationsinvolved
statementstoIamilyanddoctorsthatwerethenusedtodischargeservicemembers.TheAirForce
accountedIor56oIdocumentedDontTellviolations.Inamarkedimprovementoverthe
previousyear,however,Iewerservicemembersreportedthatsecurityclearanceinvestigatorsused
inIormationabouttheirsexualorientationtodenytheirclearancesorinstigatedischarge
proceedings.
Examples.ViolationsoI"Don'tTell"primarilyincludeusingstatementsIromIamilyand
doctorsIorpurposesoIdischarge.
LCR 04056
LCR Appendix Page 2025
5
Families. AirForcecriminalinvestigatorsaskedayoungchildwhetherher
civilianIatherweregayandinvolvedwithamaleservicemember.Inanothercase,military
oIIicialsdischargedaservicememberaIterherevealedhisorientationtohisbrotherina
privateIamilyconversation.
Doctors. AnArmypsychologistturnedovertothecommanderamarried,male
servicememberwhoadmittedtobeingattractedtoothermen.Inanothercase,aNavy
commanderinitiatedaninquiryaIterreadingthroughaservicemembersmedicalrecords
anddiscoveringthattheservicememberwastreatedIoramedicalconditionthatthe
doctornotedoccurredprimarilyingaymen.
Analysis. ManymilitaryleadersIailtounderstandthatthenewpolicyallowssome
statementsregardingsexualorientationandthatitrecognizesazoneoIprivacyIorall
servicemembers.Inannouncingthenewpolicy,PresidentClintonchargedDODcivilianand
militaryleaderstocarryoutthispolicywithIairness,withbalanceandwithdueregardIorthe
privacyoIindividuals.ThenewpolicyIurthermadeclearthatsexualorientationwastobe
consideredapersonalandprivatematter.Manymilitarymembershavewronglyassumedthat
thepersonalandprivatelanguagemeansthatservicemembersmustkeeptheirsexualorientation
acompletesecret.
ServicemembersareconIusedbytheconIlictingguidancetheyhavebeengiven.They
havebeentoldtobeIullyhonestwithsecurityclearanceinvestigatorsabouttheirsexual
orientationandconductIorthepurposesoInationalsecurity.TheyareIurtherencouragedIor
securitypurposestobeIullyopenandhonestwiththeirIamilyandIriends.Inothercontexts,
theyhavebeentoldtobeIullyhonesttotheirdoctors,psychologistsandotherhealthcare
proIessionalstoensureIullandadequatetreatment.AndmostassumethattheycanbeIully
honestwithinthesanctityoIIamilyandchurchrelationships.
Yet,servicememberswhohavebeenhonestabouttheirsexualorientationinthese
LCR 04057
LCR Appendix Page 2026
6
contextshavesuIIered.MothersandIathershavebeenshockedwhenAirForceoIIicialshave
askedthemwhethertheirsonisgayandwhetherhehaseverhadsexwithanotherman.
ServicememberswhohaverevealedtheirorientationinaprivateIamilysettinghavebeen
dischargedaIterIamilymembersdisclosedthisinIormation.
Somecommandershaveviolated"Don'tTell"asadirectresultoIguidanceIromthetop
levelsoIthePentagon.AmemoIromtheAirForcestopuniIormedlawyeratthetime,Colonel
Peterson,toallmilitaryprosecutorsandmilitaryiudges,datedNovember3,1994,actually
instructsinquiryoIIicerstoquestionparentsaboutthesexualorientationandactivitiesoItheir
childrentoobtaininIormationIorthepurposeoIdischargingtheirsonsanddaughters.Thememo
alsoinstructsoIIicerstointerrogateclosecivilianIriendsandmentors,suchashighschool
guidancecounselors,todeterminewhetheraservicememberhaseverdiscussedhisorher
orientation.Thus,itisnotsurprisingthattheAirForceaccountsIor56oIDontTell
violations.
AmemorandumauthoredbyDODGeneralCounselJudithMilleronAugust18,1995,
seemstobuttresstheAirForcememobyinstructingcommandersandinquiryoIIicersto
investigatenotonlywhetheraservicememberhassaidheorsheisgay,butwhetherheorshehas
everbeeninasexualrelationshipwithapersonoIthesamegender.Thememogreatlyexpands
thescopeoIinvestigationsbeyondtheoriginalintentandletteroIDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
PursueandintrudesonprivateIamilyrelationshipsinawayneverbeIoreseen.TheDODmemo
couldmakeiteasierIortheArmy,NavyandMarineCorpstoIollowtheAirForcesunIortunate
lead.
TheserviceshavealsoinstructedmilitarypsychologistsandotherhealthproIessionalsto
LCR 04058
LCR Appendix Page 2027
7
turninservicememberswhodiscuss,revealorseekprivatecounselingabouttheirsexual
orientation.Lastyear,wereportedthecaseoIMarineCorporalKevinBlaesingwhowasturned
inbyhisNavalpsychologistmerelyIoraskingquestionsaboutsexualorientation.TheNaval
psychologistadmitsthatCorporalBlaesingneverrevealedhissexualorientationtoher,buthis
merequestionsaboutsexualidentitystartedanentireinvestigativeanddischargeprocessthathas
eIIectivelykilledCorporalBlaesingscareer.CorporalBlaesinghadbeenMarineoItheQuarter
andhadaverybrightIutureinthemilitaryuntilthisincident.
TheattempttoenIorceagagruleinthecontextoIcommunicationswithIamilyand
proIessionalhealthcareprovidersischilling.MostAmericanswouldbeappalledtolearnthat
theirtaxdollarsarebeingspentonsuchunprecedentedinvasionsintorelationshipsthatarewidely
acceptedasprivateandconIidential.
OnebrightspotintheDontTellcategoryisintheareaoIsecurityclearances.Security
clearanceregulationsencouragegayservicememberstobeIorthcomingabouttheirsexual
orientationandtorevealwhethertheirIamilyandcloseassociatesareawareoIit.The
regulationsstatethat"inIormationabouthomosexualorientationorconductobtainedduringa
securityclearanceinvestigationwillnotbeused...inseparationproceedings."Theregulations
Iurtherstatethataservicemembermaydeclinetoanswerquestionsaboutsexualorientation
withoutadverseconsequence.
IntheIirstyearoIthenewpolicy,somesecurityclearancepersonnelignoredthenew
regulationsandturnedservicemembersinIordischargewhostatedtheyaregay,oreIIectively
killedtheircareersbyremovingorencouragingdelaysingrantingtheirclearances.
SLDNhasreceivedIewercasesinvolvingsecurityclearanceviolationsduringthesecond
LCR 04059
LCR Appendix Page 2028
8
yearoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.SLDNbelievesthattheimprovementisbased,in
part,onbetterunderstandingbyinvestigatorsoIthelimitsplacedinthesecurityclearance
regulations,andinpartbyPresidentClintonsissuanceoIExecutiveOrder12968onAugust4,
1995,thatprohibitsquestioningaboutsexualorientationandsexualactivitiesandmakesclearthat
neitherareabartoissuanceoIsecurityclearancesinboththemilitaryandciviliancontexts.
Recommendations. ThechieIstepthemilitarymusttakeregardingDontTell
violationsistomakeclearthatprivatestatementsarenotprohibitedunderthenewpolicy.Gay
servicemembersshouldbepermittedtodiscusstheirsexualorientationinprivatesettingswith
Iamilymembers,doctorsandotherhealthcareproIessionalswithoutIear.Inthealternative,
DODshouldalsoconsiderextendingconIidentialitytothesameprivilegedrelationshipsthat
civiliansenioytoday,suchastopsychologists.AstandardthatpromotesIamilyintegrityis
consistentwithcurrentsecurityclearanceregulationsandtheoriginalintentoIthenewpolicy.
LCR 04060
LCR Appendix Page 2029
9
DONTPURSUE
"What is Don't Pursue?" InthewordsoIGeneralColinPowell,Don'tPursuemeans
that"Wewon'twitchhunt.Wewon'tchase.Wewillnotseektolearnorientation."
4
The
currentregulationsechoGeneralPowellswords.Witchhuntsareprohibited:commanders
cannot(1)askservicememberstoidentiIysuspectedgaysandlesbiansnorcanthey(2)IishIor
inIormationaboutaservicemembertoseewhattheycanturnup.Theregulationsarealsoclear
thatcommanderscannotstartinquiriesorinvestigationswithoutgoodcause.Thepolicyrequires
thatcommandershavecredibleinIormationoIastatement,actormarriagebeIorelaunchingan
inquiryorinvestigation.NotallinIormationisdeemedcredible.Lastly,theregulationsareclear
thatcommandersarenottoselectivelyprosecutesuspectedgayservicemembersIorconsensual,
adultsexualactivitieswhentheywouldnotpreIercriminalchargesagainstheterosexualsIorthe
sameactivities.
5
Theclearlimitsoninvestigationandcriminalprosecutionunderthenewpolicy
wereintendedtoprohibittheIar-ranginginvestigationsthathavecharacterizedpriorpolicies.
Theselimitshavebeenroundlyignored.
Findings. SLDNdocumented141violationsoIDontPursueinthesecondyearoIthe
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicy.SLDNdocumented28witchhunts,oIwhichthe
4
FederalNewsService,TestimonyBeIoreSenateArmedServicesCommittee,July21,1993.
5
Themilitaryhastwosystems:administrativeandcriminal.Administrativeseparationboardsrecommendwhethera
servicemembershouldberetainedintheserviceordischargedandwhatthecharacterizationoIanydischargeshouldbe.
Thecriminalsystemdetermineswhetheraservicememberhascommittedacrimeundermilitarylaw.Aservicemember
whohassaidheorsheisgay,hasengagedinsexualactivitywithapersonoIthesamegender,ormarriedsomeoneoI
thesamegenderissubiecttoadministrativedischargeundertheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Heterosexuals
arenotsubiecttoadministrativedischargeIorthesamestatements,actsormarriages.Aservicememberwhohas
engagedinsexualacts,suchasconsensualoralsex,whetherheterosexualorhomosexual,mayalsobesubiectto
criminalprosecutionundertheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice.Themilitaryrarelycriminallypunishesheterosexuals
Iorconsensualsexualactivities:themilitary,however,regularlyselectssuspectedgayservicemembersIorcriminal
prosecutionIorthesameactivties.
LCR 04061
LCR Appendix Page 2030
10
AirForceaccountedIor46andtheNavy32.TheNavywasresponsibleIorstarting26oIthe
inquirieswithoutcredibleinIormation,or42oIthetotal.TheAirForcethreatenedwithprison
elevensuspectedgayservicemembersIorconsensualsexualacts,or65oIthetotal.
Examples.ViolationsoI"Don'tPursue"include(1)witchhunts,(2)pursuitwithout
credibleinIormation,and(3)selectivecriminalprosecution.
Witch Hunts.SLDNdocumented28witchhuntsinthesecondyearoIDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue.InKorea,ArmyoIIicialspressuredayoungprivateIirst
classtoidentiIyothersuspectedlesbiansinherunit.InHawaii,AirForcecriminalagents
questionedtheIriendsoIanairmanunderinvestigationabouttheirsexualorientation.Ina
massivewitchhunttargetingwomenonashipinSardegna,Italy,atleast60sailorscame
underinvestigationIortheirsexualorientation.FishingIorincriminatingevidence,one
ArmyoIIiceraskedsubordinatestodetermineiItherewereanytruthtotherumorsthata
certain servicememberwasalesbian.Onseveraloccasions,AirForceoIIicialshave
attemptedtointerrogateparentstoIishIorincriminatinginIormationabouttheirchildren.
Pursuit Without Credible Information. OnewomanwasaccusedoIbeinga
lesbianinretaliationIorreportinganattemptedrape.AnotherwomanwasaccusedoI
beingalesbianaItersherebuIIedamanspersistentrequestsIoradateandreportedhim
Iorstalkingher.Inoverzealousinvestigations,agentshaveseizedcomputerIilestosearch
IorevidenceoIhomosexualconduct.Theyhaveseizeditemsthatindicatenothing
aboutsexualorientation,suchaspostersoIMelissaEtheridgeandk.d. lang,condoms,and
bookslikeExclusion,which,ironically,arguesinIavoroIthegayban,andConauct
Unbecoming,which,alsoironically,documentsthemilitaryslonghistoryoIwitchhunts.
Selective Criminal Prosecution. According to a base paper, one airman was
criminally convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison Ior engaging in private,
consensual, sexual activity with another man. Base personnel reIused to let a civilian
attorney retained by the airmans parents consult with the airman. In another case, a
woman Iaces criminal charges and the threat oI prison Ior an alleged consensual sexual
relationshipwithanotherwoman.
Analysis.LikeDontAsk,DontPursueisawell-publicizedmandate.Commanders
cannotwitchhuntorstartinquirieswithoutgoodcause.Somemilitarycommandersandcriminal
LCR 04062
LCR Appendix Page 2031
11
investigators,however,continuetopursuesuspectedlesbianandgayservicememberswithas
muchIervorasbeIore.
Witch Hunts. WitchhuntscontinueunabatedIortworeasons.One,top
PentagonoIIicialshavelegitimizedwitchhuntsbyissuingmemorandathatguttheoriginalintent
oIthecurrentpolicy.Asmentionedpreviously,thetopuniIormedlawyerIortheAirForceand
thetoplawyerIorthePentagonhaveissuedmemorandathatencourageinquiryoIIicersto
investigatenotonlywhetheraservicememberhaseversaidheorsheisgay,butwhetherheorshe
haseverengagedinhomosexualsexualactivity.
TheAirForcememoisveryspeciIic,statingthatitispermissibletointerrogate"parents
andsiblings,""schoolcounselors,"and"roommatesandcloseIriends,"amongothers,toIishIor
inIormationaboutaservicememberthatcanbeusedagainsthimorher.TheAirForcememoalso
unequivocallystatesthatiIothermilitarymembersarediscoveredduringthepropercourseoI
theinvestigationappropriateactionmaybetaken.NoproperinvestigationunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuewouldeverturnupotherpeople:thatisawitchhunt.
ThesecondreasonwitchhuntscontinueunabatedisthatDODandserviceoIIicialsare
unwillingtotakeactiontostopwitchhunts.Forexample,thePentagondidnothingwhen
apprisedbySLDNanditscooperatingattorneyoIawitchhuntinOkinawa,Japan,inthespring
oI1994inwhichcriminalinvestigatorsquestionedtwenty-onemarinesabouttheirsexual
orientationandthatoIothers.AsaresultoIthewitchhunt,onemarinewascriminally
prosecutedandconIinedinthebrigIormorethanonemonth.Oneandone-halIyearslater,on
August25,1995,aIterconstantpressure,DODreleasedareportbytheNavyadmittingthata
witchhunttookplace,butitsreportprovideslittlesolaceIortheservicememberwhowenttoiail
LCR 04063
LCR Appendix Page 2032
12
andlosthiscareer.HisprivateliIewouldhavebeenkeptprivatebutIorthewitchhunt.The
Pentagonhasnottakenanydisciplinaryactionagainstthecriminalinvestigatorsinvolved.
PentagonoIIicialswereagainalertedthatawitchhuntwastakingplaceinSouthKoreain
late1994.Astheopeninganecdotedescribes,aprivateIirstclasswasinvestigatedIorbeing
lesbianaIterIalserumorsaboutherwerestartedbymalesoldierswhomshehadreportedIor
assaultingher.HeroIIicerscriminallychargedherandthreatenedherwithprisonunlessshe
identiIiedothersuspectedlesbians.ShereIused.Whenamilitaryiudgedismissedthecharges
becausetherewasnoevidencetosubstantiatethem,herbattalioncommander,Lieutenant
Colonel Treuting,thenheldherinSouthKoreabeyondhertransIerdatetoinitiatedischarge
proceedingsagainstherbasedonthesameretaliatory,trumpedupallegations.Duringthistime
shemissedoutonapromotionduetotheallegations.IttooktenmonthsoIintenseeIIortby
thissoldiersIamily,SLDNanditsvolunteer,cooperatingattorneybeIoretheArmyIinally
droppedallchargesagainstherandallowedhertotransIertoanewcommand.Thissoldiers
Iamilyincurredmorethan$8,000innon-legalexpensesonbehalIoItheirdaughter.
Currently,SLDNisagainaskingthePentagontointervenetostopawitchhuntoIupto
sixtyIemalesailorsaboardtheUSSSimonLake,portedinSardegna,Italy.Thereisabundant
evidencethatNavypersonnelaskedservicemembersaboutthesexualorientationoIothers,and
castawidenettoidentiIyothersuspectedlesbiansonboardtheship.Whenalertedtothewitch
hunt,however,neithertheOIIiceoItheSecretaryoINavynortheOIIiceoItheNavyGeneral
Counseltookstepstoinvestigatethiswitchhuntordisciplinethosewhoorderedandconducted
it.OnesailorhasbeenIorcedoutoItheNavyasaresultoIthewitchhunt,andanotherhasbeen
recommendedIordischarge.TheIateoItheotherIiIty-eightsailorsisunclear.
LCR 04064
LCR Appendix Page 2033
13
ThePentagonIuelswitchhuntsbyrespondingslowlytothem,iIatall.ThelackoIan
exclusionaryrulemeansthatinquiryoIIicersandcriminalinvestigatorswhoobtainevidence
throughillegalwitchhuntscanstillusethatevidencetodischargetheservicememberswhoare
theirtargets.Failingtodisciplinethosewhoviolatethecurrentpolicysignalsthatcommanders
andotherscanpursuesuspectedlesbianandgayservicememberswithimpunity.
Pursuit Without Credible Information. Inadditiontowitchhunts,somemilitary
commanderscontinuetopursuesuspectedgaytroopsbylaunchinginquiriesorcriminal
investigationswithoutgoodcause.Theregulationsareclearthatcommandersshouldnotinitiate
inquiriesunlessthereis"credibleinIormation"thattheservicememberhasmadeaprohibited
statementthatheorsheisgay,engagedinsexualactswithapersonoIthesamegenderor
marriedorattemptedtomarryapersonoIthesamegender.Theregulationsrequirecommanders
tobeabletoexplainatalltimes"clearlyandspeciIically"whatgroundsIorseparationtheyare
attemptingtoveriIy.BoththeArmyandAirForcerequirethatcommanderswritedownwhat
theybelievethecredibleinIormationtobepriortoinitiatinganinquiryorinvestigation.
Thecurrentregulationsstatethatcommandersmustevaluatethe"sourceandsurrounding
circumstances"oItheallegationstodetermineiIcredibleinIormationexiststostartaninquiryor
investigation.CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistaccordingtocurrentpolicywhenthe
inIormationisbasedsolelyonopinion,rumor,orcapriciousclaims.CredibleinIormationalso
doesnotexistaccordingtocurrentpolicywhentheonlyevidenceisthataservicememberhas
attendedagaybaroragayprideparadeorthataservicememberisseenreadingagaynews
magazineorothergayliterature.TheregulatorylistdoesnotexhaustalltheinIormationthatis
considerednotcredible.
LCR 04065
LCR Appendix Page 2034
14
Mostcommanders,however,seemtohaveanextraordinarylackoIskepticismwhenit
comestoallegationsagainstsuspectedgaytroops.Ratherthanreviewthe"sourceand
surroundingcircumstances"oItheallegations,asrequiredbytheregulations,mostcommanders
tendtozealouslypursueanyallegationsmadeaboutsuspectedgayservicemembers.The
uncriticalpursuitoIservicemembersunderthegaypolicyopensthedoortoretaliation.
WomenareparticularlyvulnerabletoIalseclaimsasameansoIsexualharassment.For
example,whenaIemaleservicememberrebuIIsthesexualadvancesoImen,reprimandsamale
subordinateIorinIeriorperIormance,orsimplycompetesagainstmenIoraiobopening,sheoIten
IindsherselIbeingaccusedoIlesbianconductinretaliation.ThisisaIormoIsexualharassment
andshouldbetreatedassuch.GiventhemilitarystroubledhistoryoIaddressingsexual
harassment,itisnotsurprisingthatwomenhavebornethebruntoItheDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursuepolicy,beingdischargedunderitatratesIargreaterthanmen.
MenarealsosubiecttoIalseclaimsoIhomosexualacts.Inonecase,Iorexample,a
married,maleenlistedservicememberwithmorethantwelveyearsinservice,wasIalselyaccused
oIsolicitinganotherservicememberIorsexinIrontoItwohundredservicemembers.Nooneever
corroboratedtheallegations.Evenso,thecommandingoIIicersentthecasetoacourt-martial.
TheaccusedIacedthepossibilityoImorethanIiveyearsinprisonsimplybecausesomeone,out
oItheblue,decidedtoIalselyaccusehimundertheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicy.
TheservicememberwasIoundnotguiltyattrial,buthiscaseshouldhaveneverreachedthat
stage.
Itisclearthatcommandersrarely,iIever,takeintoaccountthecontextoItheallegations.
CommandersshouldconsiderwhethertheaccuserhasahistoryoIlyingorIraud,isaiilted
LCR 04066
LCR Appendix Page 2035
15
heterosexuallover,isattemptingtoextortmoney,orisaIormerIriendwhenaIriendshiphas
apparentlyturnedsour.Thecommandershouldconsiderwhethertheaccusersallegationsare
coherentandconsistentandwhetherthesuspectedgaysoldierhasaplausibleexplanation.
WithoutarationalreviewoIallegationsmade,thegaypolicysimplybecomesaweapontopunish
anyone,straightorgay.
CommandersastoundinglackoIskepticismregardingallegationsaboutsuspectedgay
troopspresentsseriousproblems.First,itmeansthatallegationsthatshouldbequicklydismissed
insteadlaunchalengthyandcostlycriminalinvestigationorcommandinquiry.Second,theIalse
allegationprovidescommanderstheopportunitytoIishIoradditionalevidencewhichmayreveal
thataservicememberisindeedgay,aIactthatwouldhaveremainedotherwiseunknown,butIor
theinitialIalseallegations.Third,giventhelaxityoItheadministrativedischargehearingprocess,
circumstantialevidence,Ialseallegations,hearsayandrumorareadmissibleandoItensuIIicientto
permitdischargeoItheservicemember.Andlastly,eveniItheservicememberisluckyenoughto
survivethenoncredibleallegations,theinquiry,investigationandhearingallbecomepartoIthe
servicemembersrecord,andwilllikelydestroythechancesIortheservicemembertoadvancein
themilitary.
Therearetwoprimaryreasonswhycommandersarelaunchinginquiriesandcriminal
investigationswithoutcredibleinIormation.DespiteanattemptinthecurrentpolicytodeIine
credibleinIormation,thestandardisstillvagueandsubiective.Thus,manycommandersviewall
allegationsaboutsuspectedgaytroopsascrediblewhentheyshouldnot.
Second,topPentagonoIIicialshavesignaledthatcommandershavewidediscretionto
ignorethecredibleinIormationstandard.InJune1994,Iorexample,theNavysappellate
LCR 04067
LCR Appendix Page 2036
16
litigationgroupissuedamemorandumentitledHomosexualAdministrativeDischarge
Board/ShowCauseHearing.Thememorandumsuggestedthatgayassociationalactivities,such
asbelongingtoagaymenschorus,areinconsistentwithgoodmilitarycharacter,eventhough
thecurrentpolicyexpresslypermitsservicememberstoattendgayprideparades,gaybarsand
engageinotherassociationalactivities.ThememoIurtherstatesthattheNavywouldprovide
additionallegalsupportIortheNavyprosecutioninanycaseswhereaservicememberaccused
underthenewpolicyseekssupportIromoutsideorganizations,civilianlawyers,thepressor
membersoICongress.TheNavysattempttochillIreedomoIassociation,accesstotheIree
press,therighttocounselandtherighttopetitionmembersoICongressclearlysignalsstrong
antipathyIorthoseevensuspectedoIbeinggay.
TheNavysantipathyhassurIacedintwoprominentcaseswhichhavesincemovedinto
Iederalcourt.AttheadministrativedischargehearingIorLieutenantPaulThomasson,whois
nowchallengingthecurrentpolicyinIederalcourt,theNavyprosecutorpresentedasevidenceoI
homosexualconductLieutenantThomassonsinvolvementinagaymenschorusinWashington,
D.C.AndattheadministrativedischargehearingIorLieutenantTracyThorne,anotherIederal
courtlitigant,theNavypresentedasevidenceoIhomosexualconductLieutenantThorneslisting
oIamanasaninsurancebeneIiciaryandIorassociatingwithknownhomosexuals.
ItdoesnotsurpriseSLDNthattheNavyispursuingservicememberswithoutcredible
inIormationmorethantheotherservices.Notonlyhasthevagueandambiguouscredible
inIormationstandardmadeitdiIIiculttoapplyitinanyconsistentorIorthrightmanner,butthe
1994Navymemo,liketheAirForceandDODmemorandadiscussedpreviously,clearlysignals
thatallisIairinitswaronsuspectedhomosexuals.
LCR 04068
LCR Appendix Page 2037
17
Selective Criminal Prosecution. TheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice(UCMJ)
criminalizessodomy,deIinedasoraloranalsex,andindecentactssuchasmasturbation,Ior
bothheterosexualsandhomosexuals.ThepenaltyIoreachactoIconsensualsodomyisupto
IiIteenyearsinprison:thepenaltyIoreachcountoIindecentactsisuptoIiveyearsinprison.
TheUCMJalsocriminalizesheterosexualactssuchasadultery.Thereisnostatethatactually
imprisonspeopleIorviolationsoIsimilarstatestatutes.Themilitaryalmostneverimprisons
heterosexualsIorconsensual,adultactsinviolationoItheUCMJ,thoughaIewheterosexual
servicemembersareadministrativelydischargedIorsuchacts.
UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,thepreIerredmethodoIhandling
allegationsoIconsensual,adulthomosexualactivityisintheadministrativesystem.Thecriminal
systemisnottoberesortedtocasuallyand,withinit,heterosexualsandhomosexualsmustbe
treatedthesame.Contrarytotheregulations,however,SLDNhasdocumentedacontinued
eIIort,especiallyintheAirForce,toprosecuteandimprisonservicemembersaccusedoIsame-
gender,butnotoppositegender,consensualadultactivities.
SelectivecriminalprosecutionoccursprimarilyIorthreereasons.One,commandershave
deliberatelydisregardedtheregulationsthatinstructthemtousetheadministrativesystemto
addressallegationsoIprivate,consensualadultactivities.Two,commandersoItenrushto
iudgmentwhengaysexualconductisalleged.Andthree,topoIIicialsreIusetointerveneto
preventcriminalprosecutions.
Somecommandershaveclearlyusedthecriminalsystemtopunishsuspectedgaytroops.
Inatleasttworecentcases,thecommandingoIIicerswhopreIerredcriminalchargesagainstthe
servicememberwereexpresslymadeawarethatthepreIerredmethodoIhandlingsuchallegations
LCR 04069
LCR Appendix Page 2038
18
wastheadministrativesystem.Theydeliberatelyignoredtheregulatoryguidanceeitherbecause
theydidnotunderstandtheintentoIthenewregulationsorbecausetheyweremotivatedbyanti-
gayanimus.
CloselyrelatedtothisdynamicisthesecondreasonIorincreasedprosecutionoIgay
conduct:therushtoiudgment.CommandershavedemonstratedadecidedlackoIcritical
evaluationoIgayconductallegations,beingalltoowillingtobelievewhateverisallegedinthe
lineoIgayconduct,regardlessoIthecredibilityoItheaccuser.
Third,topleadershavereIusedtointervenewhenpresentedwithevidenceoIimproper
criminalprosecutionIorallegationsoIadult,consensualgayconduct.ThisIailureIuelsthe
criminalprosecutionoIsuspectedgayandlesbianservicemembers.CommandersintheIieldget
themessagethattheireIIortstosingleoutsuspectedgayandlesbianservicemembersIorcriminal
prosecution,eventhoughdirectlyopposedtostatedDODpolicy,willbeneitheroverturnednor
punishedandis,inIact,condonedatthehighestlevelsoIthePentagon.
Recommendations.TheUnitedStatesmilitaryhasalongandsordidhistoryoIpursuing
andpurgingsuspectedgayservicemembers.ButoneoItheclearestpromisesthatemergedIrom
theClintonAdministration,CongressandthePentagonregardingthecurrentgaypolicywasthat
thedaysoIrelentlesspursuitwouldbeover.TomakeDontPursuemeaningIul,themilitary
will,ataminimum,havetotaketheIollowingsteps.
IIanymilitarymemberinitiatesorcondonesawitchhunt,heorsheshouldbeseverely
reprimandedanddischarged.TheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicymeansnothing
withoutaccountability.ThevictimsoIwitchhuntsshouldhaveallinquiries,investigationsand
criminaloradministrativeproceedingsagainstthemobviated,andallinIormationrelatedtothe
LCR 04070
LCR Appendix Page 2039
19
witchhuntexpungedIromtheirrecords.Alternatively,servicemembersshouldbeallowedto
excludeallinIormationobtainedthroughanillegalwitchhuntIrombeingusedatanadministrative
dischargeboard.The1995AdvisoryBoardonDODInvestigativeCapabilityreportstrongly
suggestedthatDODconsideradoptionoIanexclusionaryrule.
DODshouldrescindtheJune1994Navymemorandum,November1994AirForce
memorandum,andAugust1995DODmemorandumthatencouragewitchhuntsthatIishIor
incriminatinginIormationaboutaservicememberandpursuitoIservicememberswithoutcredible
inIormation.Troopsdowhattheyaretold.Instructionstoviolateregulationswillleadto
violations.
DODshouldalsoissueadditionalguidanceastowhatdoesorwhatdoesnotconstitute
credibleinIormation.Lesbian-baitingshouldbeconsideredpersenotcredible(i.e.,instances
wherewomenareaccusedoIbeinglesbianinretaliationIorreportingsexualharassment,orIor
otherretaliatorypurposes).Furthermore,allallegationsthatareretaliatoryshouldbeconsidered
persenotcredible.AccusationsmadebythosewithahistoryoIlyingandIraudshouldbe
consideredpersenotcredible.Anonymousaccusations,andthosemadebypartiesnotknownto
acommander,shouldalsobepersenotcredible.
DODshouldinstructtheNavytoadopttheArmyandAirForcepracticeoIstatingin
writingthespeciIiccredibleinIormationonwhichaninquiryisbasedandDODshouldensureIull
compliancebyallservices.Further,DODshouldrequirecommanderstodivulgethecredible
inIormationinwritingtoservicemembersbeIoreaninquiryisinitiatedagainstthem.
Lastly, DOD should make clear that no servicemember should be criminally charged,
convictedorincarceratedIorallegationsoIconsensual,adult,sexualactivities,absentaggravating
LCR 04071
LCR Appendix Page 2040
20
circumstances.Allsuchchargesshouldbedropped.AllconvictionsIorsuchchargesshouldbe
overturned. Further, DOD should instruct commanders and criminal investigators to rationally
and critically review accusations oI sexual acts prior to pressing charges to weed out Ialse
allegations.
LCR 04072
LCR Appendix Page 2041
21
DONTHARASS
"What is Don't Harass?" TheDontHarass"portionoIthenewregulationsmakesexplicit
that"theArmedForcesdonottolerateharassmentorviolenceagainstanyservicemember,Iorany
reason."ViolationsoI"Don'tHarass"includephysicalabuseandthreatsoIphysicalharmincluding
deaththreats,verbalharassment,gaybaiting,andhostilecommandclimates.Gaybaitingoccurswhen
apersonconIrontssomeonewithanassertionAreyougay?oraccusessomeoneoIbeinggayIor
retaliatoryreasonsbecausetheyknowthatamereallegationthatsomeoneisgayissuIIicienttocause
harm.Ahostilecommandclimateisonewhereleaderstolerateanti-gayslurs,andotherIormsoI
harassment,makingservicemembersIeelthattheycannottrustthecommandtotakeappropriatesteps
toremedytheproblemoIharassment.
Findings. Harassmenthasskyrocketed,notdecreased,contrarytotheclearintentoIDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue.TheNavyaccountedIor46oItheDontHarassviolations.The
biggestproblemsintermsoIthenumberoIreportedincidentsincludeverbalharassmentandhostile
commandclimates.TheseverityoIphysicalabuseanddeaththreats,however,makesevenonesuch
incidenttoomany.ThreeandahalIyearsago,SeamanAllenSchindlerwasbrutallymurderedby
shipmatesbecausehewasgay.HehadtoldhiscommandingoIIicerthathethoughthisliIewasin
danger.Thecommandtooknoaction,andwithindaysAllenhadbeenmurdered.Eventoday,DOD
hasneitherimplementedameansIorservicememberstoreportdeaththreatsorotherIormsoI
harassment,norissuedguidancetocommandersonhowtohandlesuchreportstoavoidarepeatoIthe
Schindlertragedy.
AnironicexceptiontotheprevalenceoIanti-gayharassmentintheranksisIoundinthemore
thanonedozenunitswheregaymenandlesbiansareandhavebeenservingopenlyIoronetoIourteen
LCR 04073
LCR Appendix Page 2042
22
years.Inthoseunits,harassmenthasbecomealmostnonexistent.(ExhibitD)Theseservicemembers
havebeenservingopenlyduetopendingdischargeorIederalcourtproceedings.Manyother
servicemembersareservingopenlywithintheirunitssimplybecausetheircommandershavechosennot
toactagainstthem.
Examples.ViolationsoI"Don'tHarass"include(1)physicalabuseandthreats,including
deaththreatsbasedonaservicemembersrealorperceivedsexualorientation:(2)targetedverbal
harassment:(3)gay-baitingand(4)hostilecommandclimates.
Physical Harm. One servicememberIoundanoteinhisroomthatsaidDieFag!
HiscommandersaidthatnoinvestigationwouldbelaunchedtodeterminethesourceoI
thethreat.AsailorintheSouthreportsbeingpunchedmorethan100timesandthathis
commandtooknoactionwhentheattackswerereported.Anothersoldierreportsthata
plasticbagwasplacedoverhishead,hewasbeaten,andtoldWedontneedqueers
aroundhere.AIormercivilianroommatethreatenedtoaccuseaslesbianaIemaleoIIicer
unlessshepaidhermoney,whichtheoIIicerreIusedtodo.Thecivilianroommatethen
threatenedtokillher,whichplacedtheoIIicerinthequandaryoIreportingthethreatsto
hercommanderandriskinganinvestigationintoherprivateliIeorkeepingquietand
riskingdeath.OnesailorIledhisunitaIterhiscommandreIusedtoinvestigatethreats
againsthim,suchasWeregoingtogetyou.Thesailorisnowbeingcriminally
prosecutedIorunauthorizedabsence.
Verbal Harassment.AnairmanreturnedtohisroomtoIindanti-gaystatements
writtenonhisclothing.Inanothercase,ratherthansquelchingrumorsabouta
subordinatessexualorientation,anoIIicerIueledtherumorsbyaskingothersto
corroboratethem.HavingsuIIeredphysicalabuse,asailoralsoenduredcommentssuch
asWhatareyougoingtodoaboutit,Iag?:Fuckyou,Iag:andIdontlikesissies.
Gay Baiting.AseniormaleoIIicerspreadrumorsaboutawomanoIIicer,
accusingheroIhavingalesbianaIIairaItersheearnedatopiobinaprestigiousIield.The
womanIiledacomplaintwiththeinspectorgeneral,whorespondedbyinvestigatingher
proIessionalism,notthemaleoIIicer,andbysolicitingcoworkerstoprovideIurther
rumorsagainsther.Inanothercase,coworkersstartedrumorsthatamalesailorwasgay
andverballyharassedhimbecausehewouldnotiointhegroupinoutingstolocal
heterosexualstripclubs.
Hostile Command Climate. The maiority oI servicemembers who contacted
SLDNlastyearreportedhostilecommandclimateswhereanti-gayslursarecommonand
LCR 04074
LCR Appendix Page 2043
23
are tolerated by their commands. Some commanders even reIuse to take action against
speciIic death threats and verbal harassment, and respond to complaints oI sexual
harassmentbyinvestigatingthevictimratherthantheperpetrator.
Analysis.Like"Don'tAsk,"themandateagainstharassmentisunambiguous.ItIorbids
harassmentoIanykindagainstanyservicemember.ThismandateisnotunIamiliarto
commanders.InthewakeoItheTailhookscandal,ithasbecomeastandardorder.Nevertheless,
SLDN'scasesshowthatharassmentanddeaththreatsagainstsuspectedgayservicemembersare
greaterthanever.
TherearethreemainreasonsIortheincreasedharassment:(1)alackoIleadership,(2)
continuedwitchhunts,and(3)alackoIrecourseIorvictimsoIanti-gayharassment.
TheprimaryreasonIorthehighincidenceoIharassmentislackoIleadership.Twoyearsinto
thispolicy,PentagonleadershaveyettoissueanyguidancetotheIieldregardingthisprovisionor
otherwisemakecleartosubordinatesthatharassmentwillnotbetolerated.Commanderswhoignore
complaintsoIdeaththreatsorharassmentsendaterriblemessagethatharassmentiscondoned.
AgainstthebackdropoItheJointChieIsvociIerousoppositiontoacknowledgedgayservicemembers
duringthenationaldebateonliItingtheban,thisomissionhasallowedanegativeclimatetogrowand
Iester.
TheresultoIsuchhostileclimatesistoIorceincreasingnumbersoIgayandlesbian
servicememberstoleavethemilitary,eitherbychoosingnottoreenlistorbycomingoutasalastresort
toescapethreatstotheirsaIetyandotherharassment.Leadersare,ineIIect,condoningasystem
whereinharassmenthasequaledwitchhuntsasameansoIIerretingoutgayandlesbian
servicemembersandIorcingthemIromtheservice.
LCR 04075
LCR Appendix Page 2044
24
Instarkcontrast,therehasnotbeenaproblemwithharassmentinthoseunitswithopenlygay
servicemembers.InIact,alldocumentationshowsthattheseindividualsenioythewidesupportoItheir
colleaguesIoratleasttworeasons.One,harassmentendswhenconditionsallowgayandlesbian
servicememberstobeIullyIorthrightwiththeircolleaguesabouttheirsexualorientation.Two,
harassmentoccursbecauseoIaunit'sleadership,notdespiteit.
Thesecondreasonthatharassmenthasescalatedunderthecurrentpolicyisthatwitchhunts
havecontinuedunabated.SLDN'sdatashowahighcorrelationbetweenharassmentand"Don't
Pursue"violations.InunitswherecommandersattempttoIerretoutgayandlesbiantroops,
servicemembersreportthattheyIeelgreatpressuretoprovethattheyarenotgay.Onewaytodosois
tomakederogatorycommentsaboutgaysinthecompanyoIco-workersandtodirectlyharassother
servicememberswhoareperceivedasgay.Servicemembersreportthat,iItheydonotparticipatein
suchactivities,theyarequicklylabeledasgayorlesbianandharassed.
Maleservicememberscanalsoprovetheyarenotgay,however,bymakingsexualadvances
towardwomenorbyioininginsexualharassmentoIwomen.Womendonotappeartohaveadopted
similarcopingtactics.Instead,womenreportgreatpressuretocomplywithmenssexualdemandsas
ameansoIwardingoIIrumorsandspeculationabouttheirsexualorientation.Inthisviciouscircle,
womenwhoreIusethemenssexualadvancesorwhoreportsexualharassmentthenbecomesuspect
aslesbiansandsuIIertheconsequencesoIlesbianbaiting,includingretaliatoryaccusationsand
investigation.ThedynamicoIlesbianbaitingexplains,inlargepart,whywomencontinuetobe
disproportionatelytargetedandinvestigatedundertheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicy.
TheseIindingsalsopointtoatleastonereasonwhyeIIortstostemsexualharassmentoI
womenhaveprovedinadequate,sincetheydonotaddressthedoubleimpactoIanti-gayharassmenton
LCR 04076
LCR Appendix Page 2045
25
women.TheseeIIortshavenotaddressedtheroleoIanti-gayharassmentinencouragingunwanted
sexualadvancesagainstwomen,norhavetheyconsideredthechillingeIIectoIlesbianbaitingin
deterringwomenIromreportingsexualharassment.
Finally,harassmentcontinuesbecauseitsvictimshavenoeIIectiverecourse.First,military
leadershaveestablishednomeansorguidelineswherebyservicemembersmayreportharassment,
meaningthosewhononethelesshaveattemptedtoreportharassmentIacesigniIicantobstacles.The
maiorobstacleisthemilitary'scurrentpracticeoIdischarginggayandlesbianservicememberswho
reportcrimesorharassmentiIinIormationabouttheirsexualorientationisdiscoveredintheprocessoI
investigatingtheirreport.Thus,itisimpossibleIorgayandlesbianservicememberstoreporthate
crimes,Iorexample,becausesuchreportsrequirethevictimtorevealthebasisIorthecrime,i.e.,their
sexualorientation.
InIormationaboutavictimssexualorientationcanariseinthemostwell-intentionedoI
circumstances,suchaswhenaconcernedsupervisorasksthevictimiItheyknowwhytheywere
targetedIordeaththreatsorharassment.Unknowntomostservicemembers,theywillIacedischargeiI
theyanswer,becauseIamgay.ServicememberscannotevenseekrecourseIromcivilianauthorities
iItheirlivesorsaIetyareindanger,sincecivilianpolicedepartmentsroutinelytransIerrecords
involvingmilitarymemberstothemilitarypoliceattheservicemembersbase.
TheunIortunatetendencyoImanycommanderstoinvestigatethevictimsoIanti-gay
harassment,insteadoItheperpetrators,Iurtherheightensservicemembers'riskoIdiscoveryiIthey
reportharassment.EvenwhereinvestigationsstartoutproperlytodeterminethesourceoIthreatsor
harassment,theytoooItenendupIocusinginsteadonthevictimsprivateliIe.ThisoccursIora
LCR 04077
LCR Appendix Page 2046
26
varietyoIreasons,includingbias,misguidedcuriosityonthepartoItheinvestigatingoIIiceror,like
lesbianbaiting,astheresultoIretaliatoryaccusationsbytheperpetrators.
Inaddition,servicememberswhoreportharassmentcanIacegreaterrisktotheirlives.The
Irequencywithwhichcommandersignoreservicemembers'reportsoIthreatsandharassmentisoI
particularconcern.ThemerelodgingoIareportoIanti-gayharassmentisenoughtocausespeculation
andrumorsaboutaservicemember'ssexualorientation.Commanderswhodonothinginresponseto
suchreportssendamessagetotheentireunit,notonlytheperpetrators,thatanti-gayharassmentis
condoned.TheresultistomakethevictimatargetIoralltosee,thusIurtherieopardizingthe
servicemember'ssaIety.
Evenwherecommandstakethreatsandharassmentseriously,andappropriatelylimitany
investigationtothesource,servicemembers'saIetycanbeieopardized.Withoutknowingbetter,
investigatorsputtheservicememberatriskoIIurtherharassmentbysimplyrevealingthenatureoIthe
threatsbeinginvestigatedandpermittingadditionalspeculationabouttheservicemembertosurIace.
BecauseservicemembersIacethelikelihoodoIlosingtheircareersandmakingharassment
worsebyreportingit,mostincidentsoIdeaththreatsandharassmentgounreported.
Recommendations. Therearethreebasic,criticalstepsthatmilitaryandcivilianleadersmust
takenowtostemthetideoIharassmentandtopreventphysicalharmanddeaths.EvenaIterthese
threestepsareinplace,though,DODandtheserviceswillneedtotakeIurtheractionstoaddressthis
problem.
First,leadersmustsendinstructionstotheIieldmakingitclearthatharassmentwillnotbe
toleratedandthatcommanderswillbeheldaccountableIortheircommandclimatesinthisregard.By
takingthisstep,DODwillsimplybedoingwhatisusuallydonetoimplementanynewpolicy.
LCR 04078
LCR Appendix Page 2047
27
Second,DODandtheservicesshouldissueclearguidelinestoservicemembersand
commandersregardinghowtohandlereportsoIharassment.Ataminimum,commandersshouldbe
instructedto(1)takethreatsandharassmentseriously,(2)limitthescopeoIanyinvestigationtothe
sourceoIthethreatsandnotthevictim'sprivateliIe,and(3)keepprivatethenatureoIthethreatsor
harassmentsoasnottocreaterumorsorspeculation.SLDN'sexperiencewithconcernedcommands
hasshownthatsuIIicientinvestigationscanbeconductedwithoutrevealingthisorothersensitive
inIormation.
Finally,commandersshouldbeinIormedthatgayaccusationsthatsurIaceshortlyaIteraman
orwomanreportsharassmentareautomaticallysuspectanddonotconstitutecredibleinIormationto
investigatethevictim.
LCR 04079
LCR Appendix Page 2048
28
CONCLUSION
Twoyearsintothecurrentpolicyongaysinthemilitary,itisclearthatmilitaryandcivilian
leadershavesettledIorbusinessasusual.Ratherthanputtinganendtoasking,witchhuntsor
harassmentasoriginallypromised,leadershavesentastrongmessagethattheywillturnablindeyeto
suchviolations.Gay,lesbian,bisexualandstraightservicemembersarecaughtinthetrap.DODhas
twochoices:itmusteitherbeIullyIorthcomingandhonesttotheAmericanpublicthatithasno
intentionoIstoppingasking,witchhuntsorharassment,oritmustactingoodIaithtoenIorcethe
originalspiritandintentoIthecurrentpolicy.Implementingtherecommendationsoutlinedinthis
reportwouldbeagoodIirststepinbringingDODintocompliancewithcurrentlawandregulations.
LCR 04080
LCR Appendix Page 2049
i
CONDUCTUNBECOMING:
THIRDANNUALREPORTONDONTASK,DONTTELL,DONTPURSUE
FEBRUARY 28, 1996 - FEBRUARY 26, 1997
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisevolvingintoaMachiavelliansystemwherethe
endsiustiIythemeans.In1996,thearmedIorcesrepeatedlyexcusedviolationsoIcurrentlaw
includingwitchhunts,seizureoIpersonaldiaries,andthreateningservicememberswithprison
unlesstheyaccusedothersasgay--allinaneIIorttotargetandIerretoutgaymenandwomen
whoserveourcountry.TheresultisthatgaydischargeshavesoaredtoaIive-yearhighatacost
exceeding$25millionin1996.
1
(Exhibit1)
TheIindingsoIthethirdannualreportbyServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork
(SLDN)onDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueinclude:
1. DODdischarged850peopleunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueinIiscal
year 1996 -- a Iive-year high, and the highest rate oI discharge since 1987.
2
(Exhibit2)
2. SLDN documented 443 speciIic violations where suspected gay servicemembers
wereasked,pursuedandharassed.
3
(Exhibit3)
3. Women were disproportionately targeted, accounting Ior 29 oI gay discharges,
despite making up only 13 oI the active Iorce. In the Army, women accounted
Ior 41 oI gay discharges, three times their presence in the service. Women are
oIten accused as gay aIter rebuIIing mens sexual advances or reporting sexual
abuse,regardlessoItheiractualorientation.(Exhibit4)
4. DODcontinuestocriminallyprosecuteservicemembersIorallegationsoIgay,but
not straight, consensual relationships, contrary to regulations requiring even-
handedtreatmentinthecriminalsystem.
5. The physical torture oI suspected gay servicemembers seems to have ended.
Tactics under prior policies included Iorced neurological testing, like that
endured by Iormer Lieutenant Jay Hatheway, and locking military members in
broomclosetswithnopersonalbreaksuntiltheyconIessedtobeinggay.
4
LCR 04081
LCR Appendix Page 2050
ii
RECOMMENDATIONS
SLDNconcludesthatmanymilitarymemberscontinuetoask,pursueandharass
servicemembersindirectviolationoI"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue."Theviolationsresult
IromalackoIleadership,trainingandrecoursetostopillegalinvestigations.Somecommanders,
criminalinvestigatorsandinquiryoIIicersblatantlydisregardtheclearlimitsongayinvestigations.
Otherssimplydonotknowanybetter,astheserviceshaveIailedtoimplementadequate,
ongoingtrainingintheIield.Lastly,thoseaccusedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
havenorecoursetostopimproperinvestigationsbeIoreitistoolate.SLDNrecommendsthat
DODtaketheIollowingstepstostopthecontinuingabusesoIthelaw:
1. Train all military personnel about the letter and intent oI Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
Dont Pursue, emphasizing the limits placed on investigations into gay
accusations. Most servicemembers report that they have received no training or
onlycursory,one-timetrainingthreeyearsago,whenthelawwasimplemented.
2. Discipline commanders who disobey the limits on investigations and who tolerate
harassment. The law and regulations will be respected when commanders know
thattheywillbeheldaccountableIortheiractions.
3. Allow women to report sexual abuse without Iear that they will be accused and
discharged as lesbians in retaliation. OIIicials should adopt, as a Iirst step, the
1989 recommendation oI the DeIense Advisory Committee on Women in the
Services
5
totraincommandersonthepotentialmisuseoIgayaccusations.
4. Provideservicememberswithawaytoreportanti-gayharassment,includingdeath
threatsandhatecrimes,withoutIearoIretributionanddischarge.
5. Exclude evidence that has been wrongIully obtained Irom being used at an
administrative discharge board, as suggested by a 1995 report by the Advisory
BoardonDODInvestigativeCapability.
6
6. Stop selective criminal prosecution oI servicemembers Ior allegations oI adult,
consensual gay relationships in circumstances where heterosexuals would not be
prosecuted,asrequiredbytheregulations.
7. Revise and replace obsolete recruiting Iorms written in January 1989 (DD Form
1966/1) with ones that do not ask recruits about their sexual orientation or
LCR 04082
LCR Appendix Page 2051
iii
conduct.
8. RequirecommanderstorevealinwritingtotheservicememberthespeciIicreason
an inquiry or investigation has been initiated against the servicemember so that
(s)heknowswhattheallegationsareandcanprovidecommandersanappropriate
responsetoexpeditiouslyresolveandendunwarrantedinvestigations.
9. Require commanders to not intrude into private conversations between gay
servicemembersandtheirIamilies,doctorsandotherhealthcareproIessionalsand
notusesuchstatementsasthebasisIorretribution,investigationanddischarge.
10. Make clear to commands that, under current law, inquiries and investigations can
only be started with credible inIormation. Not all inIormation is credible, such as
rumors or retaliatory accusations. Commanders cannot start inquiries on the
theorythattheywilldiscovercredibleinIormationiItheyinvestigate.
11. Discharge expeditiously individuals who come out as gay to commanders rather
than launch costly, wide-ranging investigations to establish bases Ior criminal
chargesorreducedbeneIitsagainsttheservicemember.
12. RescindtheDepartmentoIDeIense,AirForceandNavymemorandathatprovide
conIusing and contradictory guidance to military personnel regarding the original
letterandintentoIthelawnottopursuesuspectedgayservicemembers.
DODshouldadopttheserecommendationsasaIirststeptobringitselIintocompliance
withthecurrentlawandregulations.Theserecommendations,iIIullyimplemented,would
marginallyimprovethesaIetyoIservicemembersdailylives.Theywouldnoteliminateoralter
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,whichrequiresadministrativeseparationoI
servicememberswhosaythattheyaregay,engageinaIIectionalorsexualconductwithsomeone
oIthesamegender,orattempttomarryapersonoIthesamegender.Theserecommendations
wouldinnowaycuretheconstitutionaldeIectsoIthelaw,whichpunishesgayservicemembers
Iorsayinganddoingthesamethingspermittedtotheirstraightcounterparts.
LCR 04083
LCR Appendix Page 2052
1
OVERVIEW
Fouryearsago,PresidentClintonassumedoIIiceandannouncedthathewouldissuean
ExecutiveOrdertoprohibitthemandatorydischargeoIgaypersonnelhonorablyservingtheir
country.CongressopposedPresidentClintonseIIortsandcodiIiedintolawthesamerulesthat
hadbeenineIIectsince1981--thatservicememberswouldbedischargedIrommilitaryserviceiI
theystatedthattheyweregay,engagedinhandholding,huggingorotheraIIectionalorsexual
conductwithapersonoIthesamegender,orattemptedtomarrysomeoneoIthesamegender.
PresidentClinton,CongressandthePentagon,however,agreedtoendtheaIIirmative
eIIortstoIerretoutsuspectedgaymembers.Theyagreedtostopaskingservicemembersabout
theirsexualorientation,endwitchhuntsandpreventanti-gayharassment.Theyagreedto
implementthelawwithdueregardIortheprivacyoIservicemembers.Theyagreedtotreat
servicemembersinaneven-handedmannerinthecriminalsystem,bystoppingthecriminal
investigationandprosecutionoIservicemembersIorallegationsoIgayconsensualrelationships
whentheserviceswouldnotnormallyproceedinthesameIashionregardingallegationsoI
heterosexualconduct.ThelawbecameknownasDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueto
signiIythenewlimitsongayinvestigations.Whilethelawdidnotmarkanendtotreating
lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersdiIIerentlythantheirheterosexualcounterpartsIor
sayinganddoingthesamethings,itdidmarkwhatwastobeamorehumanepolicyoIco-
existence.TheDepartmentoIDeIensepromulgatedregulationsimplementingthecurrentlawon
February28,1994.
Forthepastthreeyears,therealityoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuehasbeen
anythingbuthumaneasmanycommandershavecontinuedtoask,pursueandharasssuspected
LCR 04084
LCR Appendix Page 2053
2
gayservicememberswithimpunity.Oneresultisthat,accordingtotheDepartmentoIDeIenses
ownIigures,gaydischargeshavesoaredto850inIiscalyear1996,aIive-yearhigh,andup42
since1994.TherateoIgaydischargesisatitshighestlevelsince1987.
7
ThisreportdetailstheviolationsoIcurrentlawdocumentedbyServicemembersLegal
DeIenseNetwork(SLDN)IromFebruary28,1996toFebruary26,1997.Locatedin
Washington,D.C.,SLDNisthesolenationallegalaidandwatchdogorganizationIorthose
targetedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,andtheonlymeanscurrentlyavailableto
documentabuses.DODhasinstitutednomethodoIidentiIying,documentingorcorrecting
commandviolations.
Inthepastyear,SLDNhasdocumented443violationsoIcurrentlawandregulationsin
256cases.SLDNhasdetectedthesametypesoIbasicviolationsineachoIthepastthreeyears,
raisingseriousconcernsaboutthegoodIaithoItheDepartmentoIDeIenseinensuringcommand
compliancewithDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.ExamplesoItheviolationsSLDNhas
detectedaregiventhroughoutthisreportandtheaccompanyingexhibits.SLDNrecordsonly
thoseviolationsincaseshandledandveriIiedbySLDNanditsnetworkoImorethan250
cooperatingattorneysIromprivateIirmsnationwide.Theservicemembersandattorneyswho
haveassistedSLDNonthecasesreportedhereareavailabletospeakuponrequest,exceptin
caseswhereservicememberscouldsuIIerretaliationIromspeakingpublicly.Attorney/client
conIidentialityandprotectingservicemembersIrompotentialreprisalrequiresSLDNtoomitthe
namesoIsomeservicemembersinthisreport.
LCR 04085
LCR Appendix Page 2054
3
DONTASK
The"Don'tAsk"regulationsstatethatservicememberswillnotbeaskedaboutorrequired
torevealtheirsexualorientation.
8
AsrecentlyasJanuary27,1997,SecretaryoIDeIenseWilliam
CohenstatedontheLarrvKingLiveshowthataskingisaclearviolationoIlaw.
9
Andyet,
SLDNdocumented89DontAskviolationsinthepastyearwhereservicememberswereasked
abouttheirsexualorientation.(Exhibit5)
SLDNhasIound,Iorexample,thatthearmedIorcescontinuetouseaJanuary1989
recruitingIormwhichasksrecruits:
10
(a)Areyouahomosexualorabisexual?and(b)Doyou
intendtoengageinhomosexualacts?Whilerecruitersaresupposedtolinethroughthissection,
somedonot.OnerecruiterevencircledtheIorbiddenquestionsasonesthathadtobeanswered.
(Exhibit6)ThecomplaintsSLDNhasreceivedtodateonthisissueIocusprimarilyontheEast
Coast CoastGuardrecruitingstations.SLDNnotedsimilarcomplaintsatlastyearspress
conIerenceregardingtheCoastGuardandnostepsappeartohavebeentakenbyeitherthe
DepartmentoITransportation
11
ortheDepartmentoIDeIensetoremedythesituation.In
general,weareconcernedthattheDepartmentoIDeIense,whichisresponsibleIorpromulgating
therecruitingIorm,hasyettotaketheverysimplestepoIredesigningtheIormtoensurethatno
unintentionalorintentionalquestioningoIrecruitsoccursinanyservice.
SLDNalsoremainsgravelyconcernedthatsomemilitarycommanderscontinuetoask
servicemembersabouttheirsexualorientationdespiteclearandunambiguousregulations
prohibitingsuchquestions.InSpring1996,LieutenantColonelAbrahamTurnerattheUnited
StatesMilitaryAcademyatWestPointconIrontedCadetNicoleGalvanabouthersexual
orientationinIrontoIIourcadeteyewitnesses.
12
ShereIusedtoanswerhisquestions.Atthe
LCR 04086
LCR Appendix Page 2055
4
suggestionoIaIacultymember,GalvansubmittedamemorandumcomplainingaboutLieutenant
ColonelTurnersharassingactions.Withinweeks,LieutenantColonelTurnerorderedtheseizure
oI GalvanspersonaldiaryundertheruseoIinvestigatingareportedIightbetweenGalvanand
anothercadet.GrieIcounselorsatWestPointhadsuggestedthatGalvankeepthediarytohelp
herdealwiththedeathoIhermother.Facinginvestigationintohersexualorientationandprivate
liIebasedoninIormationcontainedinherdiaryanddisillusionedbyTurnersactions,Galvan
resignedIromWestPoint.
Inacasethispastsummer,CaptainHowelloItheUSCGS CoutwellreportedlyaskedSS3
KelliSprague,Haveyouevertoldanyoneontheshipthatyouaregay?Haveyoueverbeen
conIusedaboutthewayyouare?HaveyoueveractedontheconIusion?CaptainHowell
reportedlythreatenedSS3SpraguewithcriminalprosecutionIormakingaIalseoIIicialstatement
iIshedidnotanswerhisquestionsandanswerthemtruthIully.Undergreatpressure,she
admittedtobeingalesbian.InacontemporaneousmemorandumIorrecord,shestated,When
yourCommandingOIIicerasksyouaquestionandinIormsyouthatlyingisagainsttheUCMJ,
whatchoicedoyouhave,buttotellthetruth.(Exhibit7)SS3Spraguehasbeendischarged
basedonherresponsetoCaptainHowellsquestioning.SheplanstoIileacomplaintwiththe
InspectorGeneral.
InadisturbingcasediscussedmoreIullyintheDontPursuesectionoIthisreport,
AirmanSeanFucciwasaskedbyhissupervisoriIheweregayaIterhereportedreceivingadeath
threatanoteplacedinhisroomthatreadDIEFAG!(Exhibit8)Questioningservicemembers
abouttheirsexualorientationwhentheyreportdeaththreatscouldIorcesomeservicemembersto
havetochoosebetweentheirlivesandtheircareers,becauseanyacknowledgmentthatoneis
LCR 04087
LCR Appendix Page 2056
5
indeedgayleadstomandatorydischargeprocessing.
SLDNisalsoconcernedaboutagrowingtrendinvolvingcoworkerswhointimidate
servicemembersintorevealingtheirsexualorientationandthenturnthemovertothecommand
Iordischarge.AtLacklandAirForceBaseinSanAntonio,Iorexample,anairmanwashounded
byunitmemberswhoaskedhimatleasttentimesiIheweregayduringthecourseoIaweek.
Notknowinghowtostoptheharassment,heIinallyansweredtruthIullythatheisgay.The
airmanscommandatLacklandsubsequentlydischargedhimbasedonhisresponsetohis
coworkers.
DontAskviolationsincreased16overlastyearsIiguresreportedbySLDN.The
CoastGuard,whichhadnoDontAskviolationsin1995,contributedtotheincreasewithsix
violationsthisyear.SLDNdocumentedcomparablelevelsoIDontAskviolationsIortheother
servicesIorboth1995and1996.(SeeExhibit5)
DONTTELL
"Don'tTell"requiresgay,thoughnotheterosexual,servicememberstokeeptheirsexual
orientationapersonalandprivatematter.DontTell,however,doesnotprohibitall
statementsaboutsexualorientation.Indeed,thecurrentregulationsspeciIicallypermitstatements
tolawyers,chaplains,andsecurityclearancepersonnel.
Duringthenationaldebatein1993,somepoliticiansconiuredupimagesoI
servicemembersstandingonthemesshalltables,shoutingouttheirsexualorientation.Thereality
isthatgayandlesbianservicemembersareIarmoreconcernedaboutmaintainingtheirprivacy
thanbroadcastingtheirsexualorientation.Decision-makerscalledDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
LCR 04088
LCR Appendix Page 2057
6
PursueacompromiseandpromisedthatservicememberswouldbeleItaloneiItheydidnt
Ilaunttheirorientationbyengaginginsuchpublicdeclarations.Asthelawhascometobe
implemented,however,thereisnoprivacyIorgayservicemembersaspromisedin1993.
IntheirzealouspursuitoIsuspectedgaymilitarymembersPentagonoIIicialshave
expanded"Don'tTell"inwaysthatmostAmericansarenotaware,toincludeprivatestatements
toIamilymembers,closeIriends,doctorsandpsychologists.Servicemembersmustkeeptheir
sexualorientationanabsolutesecret,hiddenevenIromtheirIamilies,orriskinvestigationand
discharge.UnlikeDontAskandDontPursue,whichlimitcommandactivities,this
misguidedinterpretationoIDontTellisbeingenIorcedwithvigoragainstservicemembers.
Thisiscontrarytocommonsense,decencyandPresidentClintonschargethatthePentagon
carryoutthispolicywithIairness,withbalanceandwithdueregardIortheprivacyoI
individuals.
13
Theservices,Iorexample,havereportedlyinstitutedthedisturbingpracticeoIrequiring
healthcareprovidersinthemilitaryandthosecontractedtothemilitarytoturningay
servicememberswhoseektheirhelpinprivatecounselingsessions.Anairmanwhocontacted
SLDNIorassistancethisyearreceivedaletteroInotiIicationinIorminghimthathewasbeing
consideredIordischargesolelybecausetheevidencesuggestsyoumadestatementstoacivilian
clinicalpsychologistthatyouhadengagedinhomosexualacts,hadenioyedahomosexual
relationship,andhadabasichomosexualattraction.(Exhibit9)Theairmanwasultimately
retainedbecausehehadneveractuallymadesuchstatementstohispsychologist,notbecausehe
couldinvokeanysortoIconIidentialityregardinghisconversationswiththepsychologistandnot
becausetheregulationsrecognizethatcertainstatementsaresupposedtobeprivateandoII-limits.
LCR 04089
LCR Appendix Page 2058
7
Inanothercase,anairmanstationedinCaliIorniasoughtcounselingatthementalhealth
cliniconbaseduetoconsiderablestresshewasIacingIromverbalharassmentandahostile
commandclimate,whichtoleratedanti-gayslursandgay-baitingcommentsdirectedagainsthim.
TheairmanwasunabletorespondinawaythatwoulddiIIusetherumorsabouthissexual
orientationorceasetheintimidationheIaced,sohesoughtadviceonhowtodealwiththe
situation.Thepsychologistreportedlydidnottelltheairmanthathewouldnotprotecthis
conIidences,andindeed,turnedtheairmanintothecommandaIterherevealedthatheisgay.In
addition,thepsychologistreportedlyaskedtheairmantorevealinIormationconcerningwhetherhe
hadengagedinanysexualconduct,withoutreadinghimhisrightsoradvisinghimoIthe
potentiallyseriousconsequencesthatcouldbeIallhim,includingpossiblecriminalchargesunder
theUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice.TheairmanhasbeendischargedasaresultoIthis
counselingsession.
OnepositivenoteunderDontTellistheapparentdecreaseduseoIparentsaswitnesses
againsttheirchildren.Lastyear,SLDNreportedonanAirForcememorandumbyColonel
RichardA.Peterson,atopAirForcelawyer,thatinstructedinquiryoIIicerstointerrogateparents
aboutthesexualorientationandprivatelivesoItheirchildrentoobtaininIormationagainstthe
servicemembersIorthepurposeoIdischargeorotherpunishment.(Exhibit10)TheAirForcehas
issuedamodiIiedmemorandumstatingthatthequestioningoIparentsisnowoptionalratherthan
mandatory.(Exhibit11)WhileSLDNisencouragedthatitscasesreIlectadecreaseinincidents
wheremilitaryoIIicialshaveinterIeredwithprivateIamilyconversations,weremainconcerned
that,withoutIurtherclariIication,somemilitaryoIIicialswillcontinuetopoliceIamily
relationships.
LCR 04090
LCR Appendix Page 2059
8
SLDNdocumented31DontTellviolationsinthepastyear,up72Iromtheprevious
year.TheNavyaccountedIorthesharpriseinoverallviolationsthisyear.NavyDontTell
violationsiumpedIrom4in1995to17in1996,a325increase.Mentalhealthcareproviders,
whoreportedlyhavebeenorderedtoturningayservicememberswhoseektheirhelp,arepartially
responsibleIorthissharpincrease.(Exhibit12)
DONTPURSUE
InthewordsoIGeneralColinPowell,Don'tPursuemeansthat"Wewon'twitchhunt.
Wewon'tchase.Wewillnotseektolearnorientation."
14
Thecurrentregulationsandguidelines
echoGeneralPowellswords.Witchhuntsareprohibited:commanderscannotexpand
investigationsbeyondtheinstantallegations
15
by(1)askingservicememberstoidentiIysuspected
gaysandlesbiansor(2)IishingIorinIormationaboutaservicemembertoseewhattheycanturn
up.CommandersmusthavecredibleinIormation
16
oIastatement,actormarriagebeIore
launchinganinquiryorinvestigation.NotallinIormationisdeemedcredible,includingrumors,
speculationandreportsIromunreliableindividuals.
17
Lastly,commandersarenottousethe
criminalsystemagainstsuspectedgayservicemembersIorconsensual,adultsexualactivitieswhen
theywouldnotinvestigateorpreIercriminalchargesagainstheterosexualsIorthesame
activities.
18
Theseclearlimitsoninvestigationsandcriminalprosecutionswereintendedto
prohibittheIar-ranging,punitiveandheavy-handedinvestigationsthathavecharacterizedprior
policies.Theselimitshavebeenroundlyignored.
Lastyear,Iorexample,wereportedthecaseoISeamanAmyBarnes,oneoIuptosixty
womenreportedlytargetedinawitchhuntonboardtheUSSSimonLakeinSardinia,Italy.Since
LCR 04091
LCR Appendix Page 2060
9
ourreportlastyear,therehavebeenseveraldisturbingdevelopmentsthattheNavyand
DepartmentoIDeIensehavenotaddressed.First,twoservicemembersIiledswornaIIidavitsin
Iederalcourtallegingthatthecommandsinvestigatorsthreatenedthemwithprisonunlessthey
conIessedtobeinglesbianoraccusedSeamanAmyBarnesaslesbian.InanaIIidavitdatedMarch
26,1996,HeatherHilbunstatesunderoaththatshewastoldbyaninvestigator,TM1Sleeman,
IIyoudonottellthetruth,youwillgotoiailIor10-15years.Hethenproceededtointerrogate
heraboutherownsexualorientationandthatoIatleastsixotherwomenbyname.(Exhibit13)
AnothersailorwhoremainsonactivedutyalsoIiledaswornaIIidavitdatedApril27,
1996stating,CommandInvestigatorsthreatenedandintimidatedmeintogivinginvoluntary
statementsbytellingmeIwouldbeviolatingArticle78oItheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice
|AccessoryAItertheFact|andwouldgotoiailiIIdidnotanswertheirquestionsand
cooperate.BeingIorcedintogivingstatementswhichhadthepotentialtobeusedagainst
RMSNBarnes,whoismyIriend,wasextremelyupsetting.(Exhibit14)Threatening
servicememberswithprisonunlesstheyaccuseothersorconIessasgaytobeinggaythemselvesis
patentlyoIIensiveandindirectconIlictwiththespiritandletteroIthelaw.
ThesecondnoteworthydevelopmentintheBarnescaseisthattheNavy,withoutever
concedingthatawitchhunttranspiredonboardtheUSSSimonLake,arguedbeIoreadistrict
courtthataservicememberhasnorighttochallengeawitchhuntorotherviolationsoIDont
Pursue.ThegovernmentarguedthatregardlessoIwhethertherecordcontainsevidence
showingtheNavysreasonIorcommencementoItheinvestigation,orthemannerinwhichthe
investigationwasconducted,plaintiIIhasnolegalbasisuponwhichtochallengethoseevents
LCR 04092
LCR Appendix Page 2061
10
here.
19
ThegovernmentIurtherarguedthattheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
guidelinescreatenoenIorceablerights
20
Iorservicememberstargetedinawitchhuntorbyother
impropercommandactions.Thegovernmenthasessentiallyarguedthattheservicescando
whatevertheywanttohuntdown,dischargeorimprisonsuspectedgayservicemembers.The
endsiustiIythemeans.
ThesameremarkabledisregardIorservicemembersrightsoIdueprocessisreIlectedin
theAirForcesactionsatHickamAirForceBaseinHonolulu,Hawaii.OnJanuary25,1996,Air
ForceoIIicialsenteredintoapre-trialagreementwithAirmanBryanHarris.(Exhibit15)Airman
HarriswasIacingliIeinprisonIoranallegedrapeoIanothermanandothercharges.AirForce
prosecutorsagreedtoreducehissentencetotwentymonthsontheconditionthatheturnoverthe
namesoIallmilitarymenwithwhomhehadallegedlyengagedinconsensualsex.
21
AirmanHarris
servedonlyelevenmonthsoIhissentence.Toourknowledge,theAirForcehasneverentereda
similarpre-trialagreementwithamanchargedwithrapingawomanIorthesolepurposeoI
dischargingorcriminallyprosecutinghisconsensualIemalepartners.
AccordingtotheReportoIInvestigation,AirmanHarrisaccusedseventeenmen,IiveoI
whomwereintheAirForce.(Exhibit16)TheAirForcehasdischargedtheIourenlistedmen
accused.TheIiIthman,anoIIicer,Iacesageneralcourt-martialonMarch5,1997andupto
thirtyyearsinprisonbasedontheallegationsoIconsensualsexmadeaspartoIthepre-trial
agreement.
OnJanuary10,1997,theAirForceInspectorGeneralconcludedthatthepre-trial
agreementinwhichtheAirForceeIIectivelypurchasedthenamesoIseventeenmendidnot
constituteawitchhunt.
22
(Exhibit17)TheAirForceInspectorGeneralreportalsoconcluded
LCR 04093
LCR Appendix Page 2062
11
thattheIollowingquestionsaskedbyanAirForceprosecutoroItheco-workersoIoneoIthe
accusedairmen,TechnicalSergeantDarylGandy,didnotconstitutequestionsaboutsexual
orientation
23
:
(1)DoyouhaveanyreasontobelievethatTSgt Gandydoesntlikegirls?
(2) HaveyoueverhadtheIeelingthatTsgt Gandyisinterestedinmen?
(3) HaveyoueverseenTSgt Gandyhug,kiss,orholdhandswithanothermanin
awaythatwasmorethaniustameansoIsayinghello?
(4) WouldyoubesurprisedtoIindoutthatTSgt Gandyisgay?
(5) Whatisitliketoworkinaunitwithsomanyhomosexuals?
(6) Has TSgt Gandy ever talked about women to you, you know, the way men
talkaboutwomen?
(7) WheredoesTSgt Gandyhangout?Withwhom?
(8) Has TSgt GandyeverhadagirlIriend?
(9) DoyouthinkitisunusualIorhimnottohaveagirlIriend?
(10)DoesanyoneinyouroIIiceknowthatTSgt Gandyisgay?
TheseareonlyaIewoItheglaringcommandviolationsintheHickamwitchhuntanditis
simplyastoundingthattheAirForceInspectorGeneralwouldsoeasilydismisstheactionstaken
byAirForceoIIicialsinthiscase.
DespitepromisesbyspokespersonsIortheArmyandNavythattheirserviceswouldnot
pursuemenaccusedbyAirmanHarris,
24
SLDNhasdocumentedthatthoseserviceshaveindeed
takenactionagainstsomeoItheaccusedandthatthereareotherswhoselibertyremainsatrisk.
Additionally,theMarineCorpsspeciIicallypulledSergeantBryanClarkoIIoIterminalleavein
Texas,wherehehadmovedtostarthiscivilianliIe,topotentiallypresscriminalchargesagainst
him.TheMarineCorpsinterrogatedClarkandquestionedhiscoworkersaboutClarkssexual
orientationandprivateliIe.AIterClarkretainedacivilianattorney,theMarineCorpsbackedoII,
allowinghimtoleavetheservice.MarineCorpsoIIicials,however,placedderogatorycomments
inhisIileandabartoIuturereenlistmentinhisrecords..
LCR 04094
LCR Appendix Page 2063
12
SenatorSamNunn,IormerChairmanoItheSenateArmedServicesCommittee,statedin
1993thatIdonotbelieveweshouldhavesexsquadslookingIorwaystoinvestigate
servicemembersprivate,consensualbehavior.
25
AndthenSenatorCohen,nowSecretaryoI
DeIense,inquestioningthenDODGeneralCounselJamieGorelick,askedwhethertheDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursuepolicywouldpreventthemilitaryIrompryingintoprivateliIe?
Gorelicksresponse:Yes.
26
ThewordthatDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueplacedlimitsongayinvestigations
apparentlydidnotreachprosecutorsatHickamAirForceBaseortheotherbasesthathave
initiatedactionagainstthoseaccusedbyAirmanHarris.EvenProIessorCharlesMoskos,oneoI
thearchitectsoIthe"Don'tAsk,Don'tTell,DontPursuepolicy,statedonNightlineon
September11,1996thatthepre-trialagreemententeredintobytheAirForceinthiscaseviolated
thespiritoIthepolicyhehelpedcreate.
27
SLDNwillasktheDODInspectorGeneraltoconduct
itsowninvestigationintothismatter.
SLDNwillalsoasktheDepartmentoIDeIenseInspectorGeneraltoinvestigateawitch
huntthatoccurredinSpring1996targetinguptothirtywomenattheUnitedStatesMilitary
AcademyatWestPoint,mentionedbrieIlyintheDontAsksectionoIthisreport.Thewitch
huntstartedwhenMasterSergeantStoneking,atthedirectionoILieutenantColonelAbraham
Turner,seizedthepersonaldiaryoICadetNicoleGalvan.InaletternotiIyingGalvanoIa
hearingtodeterminewhethershehadviolatedanyregulations,LieutenantColonelKerryPierce
conIirmsthatGalvanwaspursuedbasedonherpersonaldiary.InParagraph7,Lieutenant
ColonelPiercestatesthatCadetNicoleGalvandidviolateregulationsbymakingvarious
statements inheraiarvindicatingapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualactsor
LCR 04095
LCR Appendix Page 2064
13
conduct.(emphasisadded)(Exhibit18)Theallegationsinallotherparagraphscontainedin
thenotiIicationletterstemmedIromherpersonaldiarythathadbeenseizedbyhercommander.
AirForceMaiorDebraMeeksmadeheadlinesthispastyearinherIightagainstallegations
thatshehadbeeninaconsensuallesbianrelationship.TheAirForcespeciIicallyheldMaior
Meeksbeyondherretirementdateinordertocriminallyprosecuteherandpotentiallyimprison
herIoreightyearsbasedontheallegations.SLDNknowsoInocasewhereaservicememberhas
beenchargedwithconsensualheterosexualsodomyundersimilarcircumstances,thoughthe
regulationsrequireevenhandedtreatment.MaiorMeekswasacquittedatcourt-martialand
allowedtoretire,butonlyaIterriskingherveryliberty.
AirForceMaiorTerryNilsonwasnotsolucky.HewaspursuedonchargesoIsodomy
whenanemployeeoIaMotoPhotoIranchisemadeanextrasetoItheMaior'sphotographsand
turned them intotheOIIiceoISpecialInvestigations(OSI),thecriminalinvestigativeserviceoI
theAirForce.ThephotosshowedtheMaiorwithhisarmaroundanotherman,notsexorany
otheractivitythatcouldiustiIyasodomycharge.Nevertheless,theOSIlaunchedaIull-scale
investigation againsttheMaior.Havinglosthiscareerandpension,MaiorNilsonhasIiledsuit
against MotoPhoto,itsIranchiseeandtheemployeewhoturnedoverthephotos.Todate,
MotoPhotohasdeniedliability.
Thegovernmentsall-outeIIorttoidentiIylesbianandgayservicememberssometimes
reachestheabsurd.InthecaseoIoneMarineCorpsCorporal,theinquiryoIIicerdetermined,
amongotherIindings,thatattendingtheDinahShoregolItournamentandgivingpopularAnne
RicevampirenovelstoaIriendconstitutedhomosexualconduct.(Exhibit19)Thecorporalhas
sincebeendischarged.
LCR 04096
LCR Appendix Page 2065
14
ANavytrainingslidepresentedtocommandersintheAtlanticFleetsumsupthedesireoI
militaryleaderstoseekoutsuspectedlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers.(Exhibit20)
TheslidestatesDontAsk,DontTell,DoesNotMeanDontInvestigate.TheslideIurther
instructsthatthemembermustbeinterrogated.Questionsyoucanask,accordingtothe
slide,include(a)Hasmemberengagedinhomosexualactsormarriages?or(b)Attemptedto
engageinhomosexualactsormarriages?ImagineadiIIerentslide--onethatreadsDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuePlacesLimitsOnInvestigations.TheslidewouldthensetIorththe
investigativelimits.ThetoneoIthemessagewouldbeentirelydiIIerentandwouldsignalto
commandersthattheyshould,asPresidentClintonordered,carryoutthispolicywithIairness
andwithdueregardtotheprivacyoIservicemembers.
28
ThepushtolaunchgayinvestigationseveninIectssimplecomingoutcases.
ServicememberswhostatethattheyaregaytotheircommandersIacemandatoryprocessing.
Manycommands,however,orderintenseandunnecessaryinvestigationsagainstthesemembers
toIishIoradditionalinIormationtosubiectthesemenandwomentoIurtherpainandpunishment,
includingcriminalpenalties,recoupmentandlossoIbeneIits.Thisgoeswaybeyondthebounds
oIwhatwascontemplatedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.AsthenDODGeneral
CounselJamieGorelicksaidinexplainingtheparametersoIDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,OnceyouestablishtheelementsoItheoIIenseorbasisIordischarge,yougono
Iurther.
29
WhenNavycryptologistDavidComptoncameouttohiscommandatFt.Meade,
Maryland,Iorexample,theinquiryoIIicerappointedtohiscaseimmediatelytoldhimthatitwas
hisiobtoprovethattheservicememberwaslying.Further,theinquiryoIIicerstatedthat,iI
LCR 04097
LCR Appendix Page 2066
15
Comptonwaslying,hewouldbeimprisonedIormakingaIalseoIIicialstatement.Theinquiry
oIIicerthendemandedthatComptongivehimthephonenumbersIorhisparents,siblings,Iriends
andclergysothathecouldveriIyComptonssexualorientation.Healsodemandedthat
Comptonprovethatheisgay.WhattheinquiryoIIicerdidnottellComptonisthattheNavy
coulduseanyconversationwithhisIamilymembersandotherconIidantsagainsthim,toiustiIy
punishmentbeyondbeingdischarged.TheinquiryoIIiceralsodidnotinIormComptonthatthe
NavycouldpresscriminalchargesagainsthimiItheinquiryoIIicerIoundthatComptonhad
engagedinanysexualoraIIectionalconductwithanotherman.
AnArmyCaptainIacedasimilarexperience.AItershecameouttohercommand,the
appointedinquiryoIIiceraskedherquestionsIishingIoradditionalinIormationthatcouldbeused
toharmher.TheinquiryoIIiceraskedinwriting:(16)Howdoyouknowthatyouaregay?
(21)Doyouhaveapropensitytoengageinhomosexualacts?(22)Whoelseknowsthatyou
aregay?(23)Whatevidenceorwitnesses,iIany,canyouprovidetosupportyourstatementthat
youaregay?(Exhibit21)ThesenowappeartobestandardquestionsaskedoIgaypersonnel
whocomeoutinallbranchesoIservice.
Gayservicememberswhoarehonestwiththeirleadersareinalose-losesituation.They
oItenaretoldtoprovetheyaregayorelseIacecriminalchargesIoraIalseoIIicialstatement.
II,however,theyprovetheyaregaybyadmittingtoagayrelationship,theyIacetheriskoI
criminalchargesIorconsensualsexualconductandotherpunishment.
AIinalpieceoIcorrespondenceIromtheIieldprovidesawindowontheprevailingclimate
regardingDontPursue.AselI-identiIiedmarinerecentlysummeduphisintenttoIerretoutgay
militarymembersinapostingonAmericaOnlineonJanuary31,1997. JarheadDocstated,My
LCR 04098
LCR Appendix Page 2067
16
marinesandmyselIhaveweededouteveryknownIaggotinourunitwearedoingourpart.
(Exhibit22)
SLDNdocumented191DontPursueviolationsin1996,up35overlastyears
numbers.Aswereportedlastyear,theAirForceandtheNavyaretheworstabusersoIthe
DontPursueprovision.(Exhibit23)In1996,AirForceDontPursueviolationsiumped
Irom61to77,a26increase.NavyviolationsoIDontPursueiumpedIrom38to58,a53
increase.BothAirForceandNavycommandersareguiltyoIlaunchinginvestigationsand
inquirieswithoutcredibleinIormation,andinitiatingIar-reachinginvestigationstoIishIor
inIormationagainstservicemembersinanattempttodigupinIormationthatcansubsequentlybe
usedtoiustiIydischargeorcourt-martial.
DONTHARASS
TheDontHarass"portionoIthenewregulationsmakesexplicitthat"theArmedForcesdo
nottolerateharassmentorviolenceagainstanyservicemember,Ioranyreason."
30
ViolationsoI"Don't
Harass"includephysicalabuseandthreats(includingdeaththreats),verbalharassment,andhostile
commandclimatesmarkedbyconstantanti-gayslurs.ViolationsalsoincludesexualharassmentoI
womenthroughlesbian-baiting,thepracticeoIpressuringandharassingwomenbycalling,or
threateningtocallthem,lesbians.WomenIrequentlyareaccusedaslesbiansinretaliationIorrebuIIing
sexualadvancesbymenorreportingsexualabuse.
SLDNispleasedtoreportthat,in1996,theDepartmentoIDeIenserestateditscommitmentto
endanti-gayharassment.InaletterdatedApril18,1996,LieutenantGeneralSamuelE.Ebbesen
statedonbehalIoItheDepartmentoIDeIense,WeopposeharassmentoIanykindtoanyoIour
LCR 04099
LCR Appendix Page 2068
17
militarypersonnel.AndwewillinvestigatecareIullyanysuchcomplaint|and|takestrong
disciplinaryaction.(Exhibit24)GeneralEbbesonwrotethisletterinresponsetoinquiriesmadeby
RepresentativeBarneyFrank(D-MA)aIterlastyearsreportbySLDNonDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue.
Inanotherpositivedevelopment,theNavalJusticeSchoolhighlightedtheneedtoprotectthe
saIetyoIsailorspotentiallythreatenedbyanti-gayharassmentinACommanaersQuickReference
ManualForLegalIssues,datedMay1996.(Exhibit25)
Theproblemremains,however,thatservicemembershavenoguaranteesIromthePentagon
thatreportingharassmentwillnotleadtotheirowninvestigationanddischarge.Inaddition,many
commanderssimplydonottakeallegationsoIanti-gayharassmentseriously.
ThecaseoIAirmanSeanFuccidemonstratesthediIIicultiesanddangersIacinga
servicememberthreatenedbecauseoIperceptionsregardinghissexualorientation.Airman
Fuccisstorybeginsinearly1995,when,whilestationedinPanama,FucciconIidedtohis
commanderhisrealizationthatheisgay.AirmanFucciwantedtoremainintheAirForce.AIter
successIullyrebuttingtheregulationspresumptionthatheengagedingayconduct,hewas
retainedbyadischargeboard.AirmanFucciisoneoIonlyeightservicemembersinthreeyearsto
beretainedunderthisprovision.
Airman FuccispokeprivatelywithhiscommanderandneverintendedIorhissexual
orientationtobecomeamatteroIpublicrecord.Hiscommander,however,respondedby
launchinganextensiveinquiryintoAirmanFuccissexualorientation,IishingIorinIormationthat
couldbeusedagainsthim.Therewasnone.Intheprocess,however,theinquiryoIIicerouted
LCR 04100
LCR Appendix Page 2069
18
Airman FuccitohisentireunitbyquestioninghisIriendsandcoworkersabouthissexual
orientationandwhetherhehadeverdiscussedthematterwiththem.
InOctober1995,AirmanFucciwastransIerredtoFt.Meade,Maryland.Henever
mentionedhissexualorientationorthedischargeboardtoanyoneathisnewdutyassignment.In
mid-December,AirmanFucciIoundtheannotationSmiley(sic)FagonapadoIpaperinhis
room.Thoughhewasconcernedaboutthisincident,heshruggeditoIIasaone-timeeventand
didnotreportittohiscommand.TwodaysbeIoreChristmas,however,AirmanFucciawoke
IromanaIternoonnaptoIindanoteonhisdesk.ItreadDIEFAG.
Airman Fuccireportedthethreattohiscommander,whotooknoactioneitherto
determinewhohadmadethethreatortoguaranteeAirmanFuccissaIety.InamemorandumIor
record,thecommanderwrote,IcontactedOSIandlearnedthattheyhadnointerestin
investigatingtheincidents.|...|ItisanissueoIanonymousintimidationIorwhichthereisnot
muchthatcanbedone....(Exhibit26)Subsequently,AirmanFucciIaceddirectquestioning
Iromhissupervisorabouthissexualorientation,anentirelyinappropriateresponsetohis
complaintoIthedeaththreat.AirmanFucciresortedtolivingoIIbaseathisownexpense,
thoughhelackedIinancialresources,outoIIearIorhissaIety.
Airman FuccinextreportedthedeaththreathigherinthechainoIcommand.Though
FuccisFirstSergeantberatedhimIorgoingoverhiscommandershead,higheroIIicialstook
appropriatestepstoprotectAirmanFuccissaIety.AninquirywasopenedbytheAirForceinto
thedeaththreat.TheinquiryoIIicerperIormedhisdutiesinaproIessionalmanner,Iocusingon
thesourceoIthethreatsratherthanAirmanFuccissexualorientation.ItisunIortunate,
however,thatDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,asimplemented,barredAirmanFucciand
LCR 04101
LCR Appendix Page 2070
19
theinquiryoIIicerIromIullydiscussingmattersrelatedtohisorientationthatmighthavebeen
relevanttotheinquiry.Despiteanhonest,diligenteIIort,theinquirydidnotidentiIythesourceoI
thethreats.
Airman FuccimovedbackontothebaseaItertheconclusionoItheinquiry.Within
weeks,hereceivedyetanotherwrittenthreat,statingYoucanthide,Iag.BecauseFortMeade
isanArmybase,theAirForceturnedthismatterovertotheArmysmilitarypolicetoconducta
criminalinvestigationintothecontinuedthreats.ToSLDNsknowledge,InvestigatorCarlosV.
Arrieta,whowasassignedthiscase,IailedtoinvestigatethethreatsagainstAirmanFuccidespite
repeatedpromptingbySLDN.AirmanFuccisubsequentlyleIttheAirForceinJanuary1997at
theendoIhisenlistment.
FourandahalIyearsago,SeamanAllenSchindlertoldhiscommandingoIIicerthathewasgay
andthoughthisliIewasindanger,butthecommandtooknoaction.Withindays,twoIellowsailors
hadbeatenSchindlertodeath,rupturingeveryorganinhisbodyandobliteratingeveryidentiIying
Ieatureexceptatattooonhistorso.Bynow,authoritiesshouldunderstandthatdismissinganti-gay
deaththreatsiscounterproductiveanddownrightdangerous.
Seaman SchindlersshockingmurderseemstohavehadnoeIIectonthecommandoIhisship,
the USS BelleauWooas.Lastyear,atwenty-oneyearoldenlistedmanassignedtotheshipreportshe
wastoldbyhisChieIMasteratArmsthathewouldIacethesameIateasSeamanSchindleriIhe
exercisedhisrighttoadischargeboardtoIightallegationsoIgayconductthathadbeenmadeagainst
him.Thesamethingwillhappentoyou,theChieIMasteratArmsisreportedtohavetoldthis
sailor,youwillbekilled.ThesailordidnotIighttheallegationsandwasdischarged.
LCR 04102
LCR Appendix Page 2071
20
InyetanotherIrighteningexampleoIanti-gayharassment,anArmydrillinstructoratFort
BenninginColumbus,GeorgiareportedlyinIormedhisrecruitsatIormation,Youshouldknow
thattherearehomosexualshere.Ihatehomosexuals.IIyouIindone,youshouldbeattheshit
outoIhim.TheInspectorGeneraloItheArmyisinvestigatingthisincidentuponSLDNs
requestandoIIicerstherearetobecommendedIortheirrapidresponsetothecomplaint.SLDN
iswithholdingthenameoIthedrillinstructorpendingtheInspectorGeneralsreview.(Exhibit
27)
InthesummeroI1996,AirmanJenniIerDorsey,alsointheAirForceatFortMeadelike
Airman Fucci,sawherreportoIanti-gayharassmentturnintoapotentialinvestigationagainst
herselI.AirmanDorseyIiledawrittencomplaintwithMasterSergeantRobertL.Thomas,her
FirstSergeant,allegingthatshehadbeenharassedbytwoenlistedwomeninherdormwhowere
spreadingrumorsthatDorseywasgay.(Exhibit28)ThoughMasterSergeantThomaspromised
tospeakwiththewomen,theabusecontinued.InasubsequentmemorandumIorrecord,Airman
Dorseydetailshowthewomenattackedherinthelatrine,repeatedlystrikingherinthestomach
andchestwhiletellingher,YousickIuckingdyke!(Exhibit29)
Airman Dorseynextwenttohercommander,MaiorRichardC.Roche,tonoavail.
Airman DorseythenIiledaIormalcomplaintwiththesocialactionsoIIice.Subsequently,her
commandlecturedherunitaboutharassmentingeneralterms,butIailedtotakedisciplinary
actionagainstthetwowomenwhowerethesubiectoIAirmanDorseyscomplaint.Instead,
Maior RochereportedlythreatenedAirmanDorseywithaninvestigation,statingIIthatsyour
liIestyle,youneedtoceaseanddesist.Imsuretherewillbeaninvestigation.AItermuchsoul-
searching,continuedharassmentandanunresponsivecommand,AirmanDorseycametothe
LCR 04103
LCR Appendix Page 2072
21
realizationthatshemustcomeoutasalesbianandleavetheAirForceIorherwell-beingand
saIety.Asanextstep,Ms.DorseywillIileanInspectorGeneralcomplaintregardinghercase.
ManyservicememberswhowouldotherwiseservequietlyIoryearscomeoutspeciIically
toescapehostileenvironmentsorthreatstotheirsaIety.AirForceMaiorRobertL.Kittyleisan
example.ThoughtheinquiryoIIicerappointedinMaiorKittylescaseinitiallytriedtoprovethat
Kittylewasnotgay,heIinallyconcludedthat,ItappearsMaiorKittylemadethisannouncement
aIterhecouldnottoleratederogatorycommentsconcerninghomosexuals.Nothingwasdoneto
endthederogatorycomments.(Exhibit30)
IntheCoastGuard,ayoungmanendureddailyverbalharassment,suchasbeingcalled
Iaggot,homosexualand----sucker.OneoIhiscoworkerstoldhim,IIIeverIindoutIor
sureyoureaIag,Illkickyourass.TheCoastGuardmemberhadalsoIrequentlyIound
picturesoIunderwearcladmentapedtohisrack.Finally,hiscarwasvandalizedaItertherumors
abouthissexualorientationspreadIromhiscuttertothelocalcivilianpopulation.
DerogatorycommentsappearcommonplaceevenamongthecreamoIthecrop.Ata
NavalWarCollegeconIerencethispastIall,aMarineMaiorsaidtoconsiderableapplause.I
cantimagineamorebasicviolationoIthenaturallawthanhomosexuality.Theyarenotworthy
oIourtrust.Itsintolerable.
31
ViolationsoIDontHarassalsoincludelesbian-baiting,aIormoIsexualharassment.
Women,straightandgay,areaccusedaslesbianswhentheyrebuIIadvancesbymenorreport
sexualabuse.WomenwhoaretopperIormersinnontraditionalIieldsalsoIaceperpetual
speculationandrumorsthattheyarelesbians.ToooIten,commandersrespondbyinvestigating
thewomenundertheguiseoIenIorcingDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,ratherthan
LCR 04104
LCR Appendix Page 2073
22
discipliningmenwhostartsuchrumorsorwhoperpetratesexualabuse.Asaresult,manywomen
donotreportsexualharassmentorassaultoutoIIearthattheywillbeaccusedaslesbian,
investigatedanddischarged.OtherwomenreportthattheygiveintosexualdemandsspeciIically
toavoidbeingrumoredtobealesbian.
ThetolllesbianbaitingtakesonwomenisevidentinDODsownstatisticsIor1996.
ThoughwomencompriseonlythirteenpercentoItheactivedutyIorce,theyconstitutetwenty-
ninepercentoIthosekickedoutunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.IntheArmy,
womencompriseIorty-onepercentoIthosedischargedunderthegaypolicy,anastoundingIigure
thatisthreetimeswomenspresenceinthisservice.(Exhibit31)Whilewomenhavebeen
disproportionatelytargetedunderthemilitarysgaypoliciesIoryears,the1996IiguresreIlecta
sharpincreaseIrom1995.
Lastyear,wereportedtheexperienceoIaPrivateFirstClasswhowasIalselyaccusedoI
lesbianactivitiesinretaliationIorreportinganattemptedrape.AItershereIusedtoaccuseother
womenassuspectedlesbians,shewassenttoacourt-martialand,whenthateIIortIailedIorlack
oIevidence,hercommandattemptedtodischargethissoldierbasedonthesameIalseaccusations.
ThisoccurrednotwithstandinganInspectorGeneralreportinherIavor.Thoughtheattempted
rapewasundisputed,thesoldierswereneverdisciplinedIortheattack.
ADedicatedArmyWarrantOIIicerdescribesarecentincidentinalettertoSenator
Feinstein(Exhibit32)inwhichtwomaleiuniorsoldiersplantedagaynewspaperintheunits
commonarea,andthenspreadrumorsthatitbelongedtothewarrantoIIicer.Thesetroops
knewaswellasIdidthat,iIIIormallyaddressedtheirslanderousioke,IrantheriskoI
triggeringagayinvestigation.TheunitsleadersactuallyadvisedthiswarrantoIIicernotto
LCR 04105
LCR Appendix Page 2074
23
reportthisincident,underthethreatthatherreportwould,indeed,resultinaninvestigationinto
hersexualorientation.Thus,thewarrantoIIicerwasIorcedtochoosebetweenenduringthis
harassmentorriskinghercareerbydemandingthatitstop.
Likemostwomen,asrevealedbyDODsownsurveys,
32
thewarrantoIIicerchosenotto
pressasexualharassmentcomplaintIorIearoIreprisal.Theever-presentthreatoIan
investigationintoourprivatelivesthatisdesignedtokeepusquietisdoingiustthat,writesthis
warrantoIIicer.VeryIewwomenwillpubliclyaddresstheseissuesIorIearoItherepercussions.
IregretthatIamunabletoidentiIymyselI,IorIearoIsettingoIIanewroundoIrumorsand
speculationthatIamalesbian,withahighlikelihoodoImycommandcarryingthroughonthe
threattoinvestigatemeunderDontAsk,DontTell.
ChieIWarrantOIIicerVirginiaBueno,arecentlyretiredMarine,bestsumsupthe
insidiouseIIectoIlesbian-baitinginalettersenttoSenatorRobbinthewakeoItherecentSenate
hearingsontheAberdeenscandal."TobethevictimoIsexualharassmentis,initsownright,one
oIthemostdegradingandemotionallyiniuriouspositionsonecanbeplacedin,especiallyinthe
military.ButtobeblackmailedIorsupposedlybeingalesbiansothatthesexualharassmentcan
continuegoesbeyondthepale."(Exhibit33)
TheuseoIlesbian-baitingtoharasswomenisnotanewphenomenon,datingbackto
WorldWarIIaccordingtotheoIIicialhistoryoItheWomensArmyCorpsandotherestablished
sources.
33
Morerecently,in1989,theDeIenseAdvisoryCommitteeonWomenintheServices
(DACOWITS)heardtestimonyIrommilitarywomenwhohadbeenaccusedaslesbianandIaced
dischargeinretaliationIorreportingsexualabuse.TheDACOWITSmembers,appointeesoI
PresidentsReaganandBush,weresodisturbedbythistestimonythattheyrecommendedtraining
LCR 04106
LCR Appendix Page 2075
24
IorallcommandersonthepotentialmisuseoIsuchallegations.
34
ThearmedIorceshavenever
implementedtheDACOWITSrecommendation.
OneoIthewomenwhotestiIiedbeIoreDACOWITS,IormerNavyPettyOIIicerMary
BethHarrison,IinallywonhercasethisyearonappealtotheBoardIorCorrectionoINaval
Records,whichorderedherreinstatedwithbackpay.Nevertheless,aItermorethanIiveyears,
toomuchtimehaselapsedIorHarrisontosalvageherNavalcareer,showinghowthemere
accusationoIhomosexualitycanharmawomanscareerbeyondrepair.
AsSLDNhasurgedthepasttwoyears,thearmedIorceswillonlybeabletoaddressthe
issueoIsexualharassmentadequatelywhenleadersconIronttheunderlyingIactorsthatIoster
sexualharassment.OnemaiorIactoristhatwomenriskbeingaccusedaslesbianandlosingtheir
livelihoodswhentheyreportsexualabuse.Gayaccusationsgiveperpetratorsatrumpcardto
divertscrutinyawayIromtheiractionsandontotheirvictims.Thisiswrong.Nowomanshould
havetosubmittosexualabuseasaconditionoIservingourcountry.
AnironicexceptiontotheprevalenceoIharassmentintheranksisIoundintheunitswhere
knowngaymenandlesbiansareandhavebeenserving.Priortohisretirementthispastyear,Petty
OIIicerKeithMeinholdservedasanopenlygaymanIor3years,duringwhichtimehiscrewwas
namedthemostcombatreadyinthePaciIicFleet.PettyOIIicerMeinholdsIinalevaluationstatedthat
hisinspirationalleadershiphassigniIicantlycontributedtotheeIIiciency,trainingandreadinessoImy
squadron.MarineSergeantJustinElzieretiredonFebruary18,1997aIterservingIorIouryearsasan
openlygaymanatCampLeJeune,NorthCarolina.Duringthattime,SergeantElziewasnamedNCO
oItheQuarterandatopmarksmanIorthebase.HisIinalIitnessreportstatedthatElziepossessedthe
leadershipabilitiestoleadtheMarineCorpsintothetwenty-Iirstcentury. MeinholdandElzieareiust
LCR 04107
LCR Appendix Page 2076
25
twooImanyexampleswhereunitsthrivewithopenlygaypersonnel.
Itisclearthatanti-gayharassmentendsordiminisheswhenconditionsallowgayandlesbian
servicememberstobehonestwiththeircolleaguesabouttheirsexualorientation,thuscounteringthe
mythsandstereotypesoIwhatitmeanstobegay.Likewise,sexualharassmentwilldecreasewhen
mencannotuseDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuetoaccusewomenaslesbiansinretaliationIor
reportingsexualharassmentandabuse.HarassmentoccursbecauseoIaunit'sleadership,notdespite
it.
SLDNdocumented132DontHarassviolationsin1996comparedwith127violationsthe
yearbeIore.(Exhibit34)SLDNisencouragedbydecreasedreportsoIharassmentintheNavy(down
28Irom1995Iigures),includingtheMarineCorps(down69Irom1995Iigures).ThereportsoI
harassmentintheArmy,however,increased33in1996,upIrom33reportedviolationsin1995to
48reportedviolationsinthispastyear.Verbalabuseandhostilecommandclimatesappeartobethe
primary reasons Ior the Armys increased harassment violations. We note that the Army is also
currently under Iire Ior sexual harassment scandals at the Army Proving Grounds at Aberdeen and
other bases. The level oI harassment remains very high in all the services, however, and requires
concertedattentionIrommilitaryleaders.
ANALYSIS
Reasons Underlying The Continued Violations of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewasintendedtoprotectservicemembersIromanti-
gayharassment,selectivecriminalprosecutionandwitchhunts.Sinceitsimplementation,
LCR 04108
LCR Appendix Page 2077
26
however,commandviolationsoIthelawhaverunrampant,rangingIromcontinueddirect
questioningoImilitarypersonnelabouttheirsexualorientationtowitchhuntssuchasthe
investigationonboardtheUSSSimonLake,wheresailorswerethreatenedwithiailunlessthey
accusedothersasgayorconIessedtobeinggaythemselves.Manycommandershavehunted
suspectedgayservicememberswithasmuch,iInotmore,IervorthanbeIore,causinggay
dischargestosoar.
Lastyear,inresponsetoreporters'questions,thenSecretaryoIDeIensePerrypromisedto
investigatethecommandviolationsreportedbySLDN.ThoughSLDNoIIeredinwritingthree
timestoprovideinIormationoncommandviolations,theDepartmentoIDeIensenevercontacted
SLDN,theaIIectedservicemembers,theirmilitarylawyersor,toourknowledge,their
commanders.
CommandviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuehavecontinuedbecauseoI
alackoIleadershipbymilitaryandcivilianauthorities.Basicsteps,suchastraining,havebeen
ignored.Blatantabuseshavebeentoleratedand,inIact,iustiIiedinanongoingpatternthathas
renderedthelimitsoIthelawmeaningless.Personnelwhocommitorsanctionabuseshavenot
beendisciplined.Tomakemattersworse,thereisnorecourseIor servicememberswhoare
improperlytargetedbytheircommands.Theresultisacommandclimatewhereanythinggoes
inthepursuitoIsuspectedgaypersonnel.TheendshavecometoiustiIythemeans.Whilemany
commandersdonotsanctioninhumanetreatmentoIsuspectedgaypersonnel,thosewhodoare
supportedbythepresentleadershipandcommandclimate.
TheoutrightdisdainIorthelawisclearIromthearmedIorcescontinueduseoIaIorm
thatasksrecruitsabouttheirsexualorientation.NooIIicialcouldhaveemergedIromthedebates
LCR 04109
LCR Appendix Page 2078
27
in1993andnotknownthattheserviceswerenowIorbiddenbylawtoaskservicemembersabout
theirsexualorientation.ApromisetomarkoutthequestionsonexistingIormsisinadequate,and
subiecttoabuse.TheDepartmentoIDeIense,whichpromulgatestheIorm,mustreplaceonce
andIoralltherecruitingIormsthataskrecruitsiItheyaregay.
Inanotherglaringomission,theserviceshaveyettoinstituteongoingtrainingprogramsto
teachcommandersandservicemembersthelimitsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
35
ColonelBrownatHickamAirForceBase,thecommanderoIthe15
th
AirBaseWingwho
authorizedthepre-trialagreementintheHickamwitchhunt,conIirmedduringtheAirForce
InspectorGeneralinvestigationintothismatterthathehasnotbeentrainedonthelawor
regulations.Indeed,twenty-sevenwitnessesinterviewedbytheAirForceInspectorGeneralin
connectionwiththeeventsatHickamAirForceBase,Iromcommandertoprosecutorto
investigatortosuspect,statedthattheyhadreceivednotrainingonthelimitsintogay
investigations.OntheothersideoItheworldandinadiIIerentservice,LieutenantColonel
TurneratWestPoint,whoorderedtheseizureoICadetNicoleGalvansdiarytodetermineiIshe
werelesbian,likewiseconcededatGalvansadministrativehearingthathehadnotreceived
trainingonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Most,iInotall,servicememberswhocontact
SLDNreportthattheyhavehadnotrainingwhatsoeveronDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursueanditslimits.
SLDNhaspreviouslyexpressedconcernaboutthelackoIanongoing,adequatetraining
program.MovingintotheIourthyearunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,theabsence
oItrainingcanIairlybecharacterizedasawillIulomissiononthepartoImilitaryleaders.Some
servicemembershavespeciIicallyrequestedtrainingassistanceIromtheDeIenseEqual
LCR 04110
LCR Appendix Page 2079
28
OpportunityManagementInstitute(DEOMI).DOD,however,hasreportedlyIorbiddenDEOMI
IromteachinganycoursesonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
InthelittleguidancethathasbeenprovidedtotheIield,oIIicialshavebeenmore
concernedtoskirtthespiritandletteroIthelawratherthanenIorceit.ThemainpointoIthe
Navytrainingslide,mentionedearlier,istoencouragecommanderstoinvestigatesuspectedgay
personnel.ThisslidesendsamessagecontrarytotheintentoIDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,whichistoplacelimitsoninvestigations,andtomakecommandersstopandthink
beIorelaunchingthem.
SLDNhashighlightedadditionalguidanceinlastyearsreportthatundercutsthelimitson
gayinvestigations.TheseareprimarilylegalmemorandawrittenbyPentagonlawyers,upon
whomseniormilitaryandcivilianleadershavereliedheavily.InJune1994,Iorexample,the
Navysappellatelitigationgroupissuedamemorandumsuggestingthatgayassociational
activities,suchasbelongingtoagaymenschorus,areinconsistentwithgoodmilitary
character.(Exhibit35)ThiscontradictsDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,which
explicitlypermitsservicememberstoattendgayprideparades,gaybarsandengageinother
associationalactivities.
ThememoIurtherstatesthattheNavywillprovideadditionallegalsupportIorthe
prosecutioninanycaseswhereaservicememberaccusedunderDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
PursueseekshelpIromoutsideorganizations,civilianlawyers,thepressormembersoI
Congress.TheNavysattempttochillIreedomoIassociation,accesstotheIreepress,theright
tocounselandtherighttopetitionmembersoICongressclearlysignalsstrongantipathyIorthose
evensuspectedoIbeinggay.
LCR 04111
LCR Appendix Page 2080
29
Navy cryptologistDavidComptonexperiencedthekindoIintimidationexpressly
contemplatedintheNavymemo.TheinquiryoIIicer,LieutenantStevePearson,appointedto
investigateComptonattemptedtointimidatehimintonotseekinglegalassistance,persistently
questioninghimaboutwhetherhehadsoughtoutsidehelp.Subsequently,LieutenantPearson
calledServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork,demandingtoknowwhetherComptonhadbeen
intouchwithusinIormationthatwewouldneverrevealandshowingthelengthstowhich
inquiryoIIicerswillgoinpursuinggaycasesandintimidatingthoseunderinvestigation.
InamemorandumhighlightedbySLDNlastyear,theAirForceinstructsinquiryoIIicers
toconductwide-rangingIishingexpeditionsagainstservicememberswhostatetheyaregay.(See
Exhibits10&11)TheNovember3,1994memorandumanditsNovember17,1995successor
areveryspeciIic,permittinginterrogationsoIparentsandsiblings,""schoolcounselors,"and
"roommatesandcloseIriends,"amongothers.ThememorandaprovideoIIicerswithalaundry
listoItwenty-IivequestionstoasktoIishIorinIormationaboutservicemembersprivatelivesthat
canbeusedtopresscriminalchargesandotherharshpunishmentagainstthem.Thisisdespite
explicitprohibitionsinDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueagainstexpandingthescopeoI
inquiries.TheAirForceisusingstatementscasestobootstrapinquiriesintoservicemembers
privatelivesthatcouldneverbeiustiIiedontheirown,hopingtoturnupsomethingandthen
iustiIytheiractionsinretrospect.
TheAirForcememorandumalsounequivocallystatesthatiIothermilitarymembers
arediscoveredduringthepropercourseoItheinvestigationappropriateactionmaybetaken.
NoproperinvestigationunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewouldeverturnupother
people:thatisawitchhunt.Itisnotacoincidence,webelieve,thatAirForceoIIicialsatHickam
LCR 04112
LCR Appendix Page 2081
30
AirForceBase,withtheblessingoItheAirForceInspectorGeneral,haveattemptedtoargue
thattheydidnotengageinawitchhunt,butsimplyidentiIiedseventeenothermilitarymembers
duringthecourseoIprosecutinganotherservicemember.
IndeIendingitsmemo,theAirForceclaimsitisnecessarytoprotectagainstIraudin
caseswhereservicememberswhohavereceivedIundededucationmaystatethattheyaregayto
avoidaserviceobligation.TheunderlyingassumptionsoIthememoarethatthemenandwomen
whocomeoutareeitherlyingaboutbeinggayorlyingabouttheirdesiretoserve.These
assumptionsareproIoundlyoIIensive.Asdiscussedpreviously,theseassumptionsreIlecta
completemisunderstandingoIwhatitmeanstobegay,thesacriIiceandrisktoservicemembers
saIetyinvolvedincomingout,andtheethicaldilemmacreatedbythepresentregime,which
requiresservicememberstolieeventotheirparentsasaconditionoImilitaryservice.
Furthermore,despiteAirForceassertionstothecontrary,thesememorandaarebeing
usedinalmostallgaycases,notiustthoseinvolvingquestionsoIIundededucation.AirForce
oIIicialsusingthesememorandaareplacingsomeservicemembersatgreatrisk.AirmanSean
Fucci,whoreceiveddeaththreatsaIterhiscommandoutedhimtohisentireunitunderthe
pretenseoIinvestigatingthehonestyoIhisprivatestatementtohiscommander,isiustone
example.ThesememorandahavecreatedaclimateoIanythinggoesintheAirForcespursuit
oIsuspectedgaymilitarymembers.
TheDepartmentoIDeIense,initsownmemorandumdatedAugust18,1995,seemingly
approvedtheoIIensivetacticsinitiatedbytheAirForceanddescribedabove.(Exhibit36)This
memorandumbyDODGeneralCounselJudithMillerhasIueledmisguidedeIIortsinalloIthe
servicestodestroyanysaIespacewhatsoeverIorgayservicemembers.Thisdevelopmentmarks
LCR 04113
LCR Appendix Page 2082
31
anunprecedentedgovernmentalinIringementontheprivacyoIcivilians,notonlythe
servicememberswhoconIideinthem,turningevenparentsintopotentialwitnessesagainsttheir
children.
SLDNaskedthattheDepartmentoIDeIense,AirForceandNavyrescindthese
memorandalastyear,buttheyhavenot.
TheoneexceptiontooIIicialseIIortstoskirtthelawistheNavysguidebook,A
CommanaersQuickReferenceManualforLegalIssues.(SeeExhibit25)Inone-and-one-halI
pages,theHomosexualConductchapteroIthisguideaccuratelyconveyssomeoIthemaior
limitsoninvestigations.OuroneconcernisthattheDODGeneralCounselsletterdescribed
abovehasinIectedeveryservice,includingtheNavyanditsguidebook.Nevertheless,we
commendtheNavyIoraccuratelytellingcommanderstoplacesomelimitsongayinvestigations
inaccordancewiththespiritandintentoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
InadditiontolackoIleadershipandlackoItraining,aIinalreasonthatviolationscontinue
underDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisthatservicemembersaccusedunderthepolicy
havenorecourseiIimproperlytargeted.Theycannotstopaninvestigationonceithasstarted.
Theycannotexcludeillegallyobtainedevidenceorhearsayatanadministrativehearingthatwill
determinetheirIate.TheycannoteIIectivelyobiecttoadministrativedischargeboardmembers
whoexpressbald-Iacedanimustowardthem.AndmilitaryoIIicialshavereIusedincaseaItercase
tostopemergingwitchhunts,investigationsstartedwithoutcredibleinIormationorthecriminal
prosecutionoIservicemembersaccusedoIgayrelationships.
SeniorAirmanSonyaHardenknowsexactlywhattheobstaclestodueprocessare.While
stationedatEglinAFBinFlorida,shewasaccusedbyaIormerroommateoIbeingalesbian.
LCR 04114
LCR Appendix Page 2083
32
Thataccusationalonewasenoughtostartaninvestigationthatultimatelyledtoherdischarge.It
didnotmatterthatAirmanHardenwasMSSAirmanoItheQuarter,MSSAirmanoItheYearin
1992,PersonnelSpecialistoItheYearin1993orHurlbertFieldAirmanoItheQuarterin1995.
ItdidnotmatterthattherewasevidencethattheaccuserhadthreatenedtoaccuseAirman
HardenasalesbianiIshedidnotpaytheaccusermoney.Itdidnotmatterthattheaccuser
retractedherstatementinaswornaIIidavitpriortothedischargeboardandtestiIiedattheboard
thattheaccusationswereIalse.ItdidnotmatterthatAirmanHardenproducedwitnessesthat
testiIiedastoherheterosexualrelationships.AnditdidnotmatterthatAirmanHardenobiected
tooneoItheboardmemberswhomadeathumbs-upgesturetotheAssistantRecorderduring
theadministrativedischargehearing.HardenhadnoeIIectiverecoursetostopaninvestigation
thatwasimproperIrombeginningtoend.AirmanHardenhasbeendischargedandisnow
contemplatingwhethershewillIileacomplaintwiththeAirForceInspectorGeneral.(Exhibit
37)
AnotherSLDNcasehighlightsthesamedisregardwhengayaccusationsareinvolved.In
thiscase,ColonelswhohadbeencalledtositonaboardoIinquirywereaskedquestionsto
determineiItheycouldrenderanimpartialopinion.(Exhibit38)TheIirstColonelstated,Ithink
homosexualsareimmoral.ThesecondColonelstated,IIeelthatthey|gays|haveeithera
physiologicalorpsychologicalproblemasdeviantIromsociety.ThethirdoIIered,Myreligious
belieIsareagainsthomosexuality.ThedeIendantslawyerobiectedtoallthreememberssitting
onthepanelandaskedthattheyberemoved.TheLegalAdvisor,aLieutenantColonel,ruled:I
thinkitwouldbehardtoIindthreeboardmembersthatwouldhaveanopiniondiIIerentIrom
LCR 04115
LCR Appendix Page 2084
33
thosealreadyexpressed.Thiscaseisnotunusual.Kangaroocourtssuchasthishavenoplacein
theUnitedStatesmilitary.
CommandersandtroopsknowhowtoIolloworders.Commandersandtroopsalsoknow
whentoignorecertainguidelinesthatarenotsupportedbythetop.Congressandthe
Commander-in-ChieIhavegivenmilitaryleaderstheirmarchingorderstoendasking,witchhunts
andanti-gayharassment.Itisincumbentuponmilitaryleadersinourdemocracy,whichisbased
uponcivilianauthorityandrespectIortheruleoIlaw,tocomply.
WeareawarethatsomeleadersviewanyissueremotelyconnectedtoDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursueasathornyproposition.Fortheseleaders,thePentagonsvastarmyoI
lawyershasprovidedaconvenientdumpinggroundIortheseissues,resultinginrepeated
iustiIicationsoIcommandabuses.Leadershipisrequired.Stickingonesheadinthesand
regardingtheinhumanetreatmentoIservicemembers,includingthosewhoareperceivedasgay
butwhosharewiththeircolleaguesaproIounddedicationtomissionandcountry,willonlyresult
inIurtherscandal.TheinterestsoIthemilitaryandournationdependonleadersoIcouragewho
willstepIorwardatthistimeandsetthingsright.
AgoodIirststepwouldbetotrainallmilitarycommandersandservicemembersonthe
requirementsandlimitsoIcurrentlawandregulations.Commanders,inparticular,mustbe
trainedtotreatmorecriticallyevidenceoIgayaccusationssothattheydonotstartinquiries
withoutcredibleinIormation.AssuggestedbyDACOWITS,commandersshouldbewaryoIgay
accusationslodgedagainstwomenwhorebuIImenssexualadvancesorreportsexualabuse,and
shouldnotinitiateinquiriesbaseduponthem.Instead,servicememberswhostartsuchrumorsor
accusationsshouldbedisciplined.
LCR 04116
LCR Appendix Page 2085
34
ServicemembersneedtohaveawaytoobiecttoimproperlyinitiatedinvestigationsbeIore
theinvestigationsgotooIar.Servicemembersshouldbeabletoobtainrepresentationbymilitary
deIensecounselattheonsetoIanyinvestigation.Wearehighlyconcerned,however,that,among
otherreasons,thealreadyheavyworkloadexperiencedbythesparsenumberoIdeIensecounsel
typicallyIoundatanyonebaserendersthismechanismineIIectiveasameansoIstopping
commandabuses.AproceduralwaytodetercommandabusesisthroughtheadoptionoIan
exclusionaryruleIoradministrativehearings,assuggestedina1995reportbytheAdvisoryBoard
onDODInvestigativeCapability.Inaddition,commandersshouldberequiredtoprovide
servicememberswrittennoticeoIthespeciIicreasonIoranyinvestigationunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue.
TheexerciseoIleadershipisthemostimportantstepthatmustbetaken,however.When
immediatecommandersmakemistakesinotherareas,theirsuperiorsdonothesitatetocorrect
thosemistakes.Thesameshouldapplyhere.Asking,witchhuntsandharassmentwillonlystop
whensubordinatecommandersunderstandthattheirleaderstaketheseissuesseriously,andwill
holdthemaccountableIorabuses.
Ourscarcetaxdollarsshouldbespentonpurchasingthebestequipment,providingthe
besttrainingtoourtroops,andrecruitingthemosttalentedindividualstoserveinthemilitary.
SpendingtimeandresourcestoIerretouthardworkingmenandwomenwhomightbegaytakes
awayIrommissionreadinessandrevealsamisguidedsetoIpriorities. Weowealottothosewho
puttheirlivesonthelineIorourcountry.Ahalttoasking,witchhuntsandharassmentoIthose
whoareorareperceivedtobegayistheleasttoaskIortheminreturn.AsSecretaryWilliam
LCR 04117
LCR Appendix Page 2086
35
CohenrecentlytoldSamDonaldsononABCsThisWeek,thelimitsoIDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursueoughttobeadheredto.
36
Weagree.
CONCLUSION
ThreeyearsintoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,itisclearthatmilitaryandcivilian
leadershavesettledIorbusinessasusual.Ratherthanputtinganendtoasking,witchhuntsor
harassmentasoriginallypromised,leadershavesentastrongmessagethattheywillturnablindeyeto
suchviolations.Servicemembersarecaughtinthetrap.Militaryleadershavetwochoices:theymust
eitherbeIullyIorthcomingandhonesttotheAmericanpublicthattheyhavenointentionoIputtingan
endtoasking,witchhuntsorharassment,ortheymustactingoodIaithtocomplywiththeintentoI
thelaw.ImplementingtherecommendationsoutlinedinthisreportisanecessaryIirststepinbringing
DODintocompliancewithcurrentlawandregulations.
LCR 04118
LCR Appendix Page 2087
36
ENDNOTES
1
SeeExhibit1.ThecostoItrainingreplacementsIorthosedischargedin1996exceeded$25million,bringingthecost
underthecurrentpolicytomorethan$63.5million,andthecostsince1980tomorethanone-halIbilliondollars.These
costestimatesdonotincludethesubstantialcostsoIinvestigatingservicemembers,holdingadministrativedischarge
hearingsordeIendingthenewpolicyinIederalcourt,whichDODhasneverprovided.CostsarebasedonIiguresand
percentagesreportedinaGeneralAccountingOIIicestudy,DeIenseForceManagement:StatisticsRelatedtoDODs
PolicyonHomosexuality(June1992).
2
ThenumbersreportedarebasedonDepartmentoIDeIensedischargeIigures.TheIiguresdonotincludedischarges
IromtheUSCoastGuard.
3
SeeExhibit3. SLDNhaddocumented703violationsinthepolicysIirsttwoyearsoIoperation,bringingthetotalnow
to1121documentedviolationssincethepolicystarted. ThedocumentedviolationsdonotincludeviolationsthatIall
outsideDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuebutareneverthelessseriousbreachesoImilitaryregulations,suchas
denialoIorineIIectiveassistanceoIcounselandviolationoItheservicemembersrightsunderthePrivacyAct.
4
RandyShilts, ConductUnbecoming(St.MartinsPress)231-232,570.AirmanSteveWardtestiIiedthathewas
placedinabroomclosetuntilheconIessedtobeinggay.
5
DACOWITS1989SpringConIerenceRecommendation12,Harassment.DACOWITSrecommendsDODexpand
existingleadershiptrainingtoincludedealingwithunIoundedaccusationsoIhomosexualityagainstservicemembers.
6
TheSecretarysBoardonInvestigationsandtheServicesshouldconsiderappropriatedisincentivesIorabuseoI
subiectsrightsduringinIormalinvestigations.TheSecretaryoIDeIenseshouldtakeaIreshlookattheissueoI
imposinganexclusionaryruleonadministrativeseparationproceedingsornoniudicialpunishmentproceedings.
ReportoItheAdvisoryBoardontheInvestigativeCapabilityoItheDepartmentoIDeIense,CharlesF.C.RuII,
Chairman, volumeI,p.103.
7
TheAirForceclaimedlastyearthatithadinstitutedanewaccountingmechanismtocountgaydischargesatbasic
trainingcampsthatithadnotcountedbeIoreFY1995.WewouldwelcomeeIIortsbytheAirForcetodiscloseaccurate
numbersIorgaydischargesinyearspriortoFY1995.
8
GuidelinesIorFact-FindingInquiriesintoHomosexualConduct,DoDD1332.14|enlisted|,Enclosure4andDoDD
1332.30|oIIicers|,Enclosure8,D(3).
9
LarryKingLive,CNN,21:00EST,January27,1997,Transcript#97012700V22.
10
DDForm1966/1,Jan89,Question27.
11
TheCoastGuardispartoItheDepartmentoITransportationinpeacetime,butIallsunderDODduringwartime.All
CoastGuardmembersareboundbyDODregulations,includingtheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicy.
12
OneoIthesecadetstestiIiedunderoathatGalvansadministrativehearingthatsheheardTurneraskGalvanabout
hersexualorientation.
13
Martin KasindorI,Compromise:GaymilitarypolicyIocusesonconduct,Newsday,July20,1993,Tuesday,
at7.
14
FederalNewsService,TestimonyBeIoreSenateArmedServicesCommittee,July21,1993.
15
GuidelinesIorFact-FindingInquiriesintoHomosexualConduct,DoDD1332.14|enlisted|,Enclosure4andDoDD
1332.30|oIIicers|,Enclosure8,A(3).InIact,theGuidelinesrequirethat(1)inquiriesmustbelimitedtotheIactual
circumstancessurroundingtheallegation,and(2)Atanygivenpoint,thecommanderorappointedinquiryoIIicer
mustbeableclearlyandspeciIicallytoexplainwhichgroundsIorseparationheorsheisattemptingtoveriIyandhow
theinIormationbeingcollectedrelatedtothosespeciIicseparationgrounds. Ia.,D(4).
16
Ia.,A(1).CommandersshallexercisesounddiscretionregardingwhencredibleinIormationexists.Ia.,D(2).
CredibleinIormationisdeIinedinthenegative.Seenote17.
17
Ia.,E. A nonexhaustivelistoIexampleswherecredibleinIormationdoesnotexistisincludedintheregulations.
Credible inIormation does not exist wheretheonlyinIormationistheopinionsoIothers,theinquirywouldbebasedon
rumor,suspicionorcapriciousclaims,ortheonlyinIormationisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar.
18
Themilitaryhastwosystems:administrativeandcriminal.Administrativeseparationboardsrecommendwhethera
servicemembershouldberetainedintheserviceordischargedandwhatthecharacterizationoIanydischargeshouldbe.
Thecriminalsystemdetermineswhetheraservicememberhascommittedacrimeundermilitarylaw.Aservicemember
whohassaidheorsheisgay,hasengagedinsexualactivitywithapersonoIthesamegender,ormarriedsomeoneoI
LCR 04119
LCR Appendix Page 2088
37
thesamegenderissubiecttoadministrativedischargeundertheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Heterosexuals
arenotsubiecttoadministrativedischargeIorthesamestatements,actsormarriages.Aservicememberwhohas
engagedinsexualacts,suchasconsensualoralsex,whetherheterosexualorhomosexual,mayalsobesubiectto
criminalprosecutionundertheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice.Themilitaryrarelycriminallypunishesheterosexuals
Iorconsensualsexualactivities:themilitary,however,regularlyselectssuspectedgayservicemembersIorcriminal
prosecutionIorthesameactivities.
19
DeIendantsOppositiontoPlaintiIIsMotionIorPreliminaryIniunction,Barnesv.Perry,CivilActionNo.96-591-
ES,at11.
20
DeIendantsResponsetoPlaintiIIsApplicationIoraTemporaryRestrainingOrder,Barnesv.Perrv,CivilAction
No.96-591-ES,at16.
21
Exhibit15,Pre-trialagreement,andExhibit|AirForceInspectorGeneralReportoIInvestigation,11September
1996, pp7-9.
22
IGReport,p.26,para.2.
23
Ia.,p.27,para.3.
24
LouChibarro,Jr.,WitchHuntUnderWayinHawaii,TheWashingtonBlade,September20,1996.
25
QuotedinSt.LouisPost-Dispatcheditorial,PowellatHarvard:PoliticalPhenomenon,June17,1993,3C.
26
S.Hrg.103-845,PolicyConcerningHomosexualityintheArmedForces,p.788.
27
ABCNews,Nightline,September11,1996.
28
MartinKasindorI,supra,note12.
29
S.Hrg.103-845,PolicyConcerningHomosexualityintheArmedForces,p.789.
30
ApplicantBrieIingItemonSeparationPolicyissuedwithDoDD1304.26.
31
LindaBorg,NavalCollegeStudentsTalkEthicsWithBrass,ProvidenceJournal-Bulletin,November14,1996.
32
NormanKempster,PentagonSurveyFindsMuchSexHarassment,LosAngelesTimes,July3,1996,atA1.The
1995DODsurveyreportedthat78percentoIthemilitarywomensurveyedhadbeentheobiectoIsomeIormoI
sexualharassmentorabuse,howeveronly40oIthosewomenhadIiledcomplaintsregardingtheharassmentthey
Iaced.
33
ChristineL.Williams,GenaerDifferencesatWork.WomenanaMeninNontraaitionalOccupations31(1989).
MattieE.Treadwelldevotesanentirechapter,Chapter11,totheSlanderCampaignintheoIIicialhistoryoIthe
WomensArmyCorps,availablethroughtheOIIiceoItheChieIoIMilitaryHistory,UnitedStatesArmySpecial
Studies.Seealso,LeisaD.Meyer,Creating G.I.Jane.SexualitvanaPowerintheWomensArmvCorpsDuring
WorlaWarII(1996):LorryM.Fenner, IaeologvanaAmnesia.ThePublicDebateonWomenintheAmerican
Militarv1940-1973(Iorthcoming).
34
DACOWITS,note5,supra.
35
AttheoutsetoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,theArmydesignedanddistributedanoteworthytraining
program.However,thisturnedouttobeaone-timeevent,ascommandersintheIieldhavenotconductedtrainingon
thisissuesincethattime.
36
ABCNews,ThisWeek,January26,1997.
LCR 04120
LCR Appendix Page 2089
1
FINDINGS
# Dont Ask Violations Surge By 39. SLDN documented 124 Dont Ask
violations in 1997, up Irom 89 reported violations in 1996. The Navy led the
serviceswith46DontAskviolations.
# DontPursueViolationsRankAsWorstProblem. SLDN documented 235
Dont Pursueviolations,up23IromlastyearsIigureoI191.TheAirForce
ledtheserviceswith90DontPursueviolations.
# Dont Harass Violations Show Violent Increase. Incidents oI anti-gay
harassment increased38Irom132reportedincidentsin1996to182incidentsin
1997,includingdeaththreatsandphysicalassaults.
# Total Command Violations Climb For Fourth Straight Year. For the Iourth
year in a row, command violations oI Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue
climbed,Irom443in1996to563in1997,up27.
# NavyCommitsMostViolations.TheNavycommitted193violationsoIcurrent
rules.TheNavywasworstinanti-gayharassmentandasking.
# Commands Use Heavy-Handed Tactics To Pursue Gays. SLDN documented
IrequentuseoIthreatsduringgayinvestigationstoextractconIessions,including
threatsoIcriminalcharges,conIinement,non-iudicialpunishmentandouting.
# Commands Need Training on Limits To Gay Investigations. SLDN
documentedonlyonecasethisyearwheremilitarymembershadbeentrainedon
thelimitstoinvestigationsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
# Commands Need Written Guidance on Limits To Gay Investigations. Four
yearsintoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,mostleadershavenotreceived
or read a copy oI the current regulations and guidelines, and most do not know
whatthelimitsaretogayinvestigations.
# DoDOrdersRecruitersToStopAsking.SecretaryCohenorderedreplacement
oIa1989recruitingIormthataskedrecruitsiItheyweregay.
# DoD Orders End To Anti-Gay Harassment and Lesbian-Baiting. Former
UnderSecretaryoIDeIenseEdwinDorn issued a ground-breaking memorandum
clariIyingthatcommandersshouldinvestigateperpetratorsoIanti-gayharassment
and lesbian-baiting, not their victims. No one in the Iield, however, is aware oI
thisguidance.
LCR 04121
LCR Appendix Page 2090
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
# IssueGuidanceonLimitsTo Gay Investigations. DoD should issue guidance
stating the limits to investigations under Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue
andtheintentoIthepolicytostoppryingintoservicemembersprivatelives.
# Distribute Memo On Anti-Gay Harassment and Lesbian-Baiting. The Dorn
memoonanti-gayharassmentandlesbian-baitinghasyettoreachtheIield.The
servicesshouldmoveswiItlytogetthisguidancetoeveryone.
# Train All Service Members on Limits To Gay Investigations. DoD has not
trainedmostservicemembersonthepolicyslimitsortheintent.
# DisciplineCommandersWhoDisobeyLimits.Nooneinthepasttwoyearshas
been disciplined Ior violating the limits to gay investigations. There must be
disincentivestodeterviolationsandincentivestodotherightthing.
# Provide Recourse To Service Members To Stop Improper Investigations.
Local commanders do not know the rules. Superiors reIuse to correct their
mistakes.Thus,servicemembershavenowheretoturntostopillegalwitchhunts
orotherviolations.
# Require Commanders To State In Writing Reasons For Investigation. DoD
should instruct local commanders to articulate the reasons Ior starting an inquiry
inwritingtopreventinvestigationswheretheendsiustiIythemeans.
# CeaseUseofHeavy-HandedTacticsinGayInvestigations.DoDshouldtrain
inquiry oIIicers and criminal agents in proper investigative techniques that avoid
heavy-handedtacticssuchasthreatsoIimprisonment.
# Adopt Exclusionary Rule. DoD should adopt an exclusionary rule so that
evidence obtained illegally, as in a witch hunt, can be excluded at administrative
dischargeboards.
# Adopt Rule of Privacy for Psychotherapist/Patient Confidentiality. DoD
shouldadoptaruleoIconIidentialityIorpsychotherapist/patientconversationsor
adopt a rule that such conversations are private communications and protected
underDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
# Appoint Panel of Experts To Review Administrative Separation Process. An
expert panel including representation Irom outside the military should review the
administrativeseparationprocessandmakerecommendationsIorimprovement.
LCR 04122
LCR Appendix Page 2091
3
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
CommandviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueincreasedIorthe
Iourthyearinarow.Commandviolationsincludeinstanceswherecommandsasked,
pursuedandharassedservicemembersindirectviolationoIthelimitstogay
investigationsundercurrentpolicy. ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork(SLDN)
documented563commandviolationsin1997,upIrom443reportedviolationsin1996
(Exhibit1).SLDNdocumentedincreasedasking,increasedpursuitsandincreased
harassmentin1997.TheNavywastheworstinDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
compliance:theAirForcewasaclosesecond.
ThereasonunderlyingcontinuedviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
PursueisalackoIcommitmentIromtopmilitaryandcivilianauthorities.Military
leadershavenotcommunicatedtotheIieldthepolicyslimitstogayinvestigationsorits
intenttoendpryingintoservicemembersprivatelives. ThelackoIcommitmentis
reIlectedby: (1) TheabsenceoIclearandthoroughguidanceortrainingoninvestigative
limits:(2)heavy-handedandincreasinglyintrusiveinvestigativetacticsagainstsuspected
gays,includingcoercionandIishingexpeditions:(3)norecourseorredressIorservice
membersasked,pursuedorharassed:and(4)alackoIaccountabilityIorthosewho
violatecurrentpolicy.
TheresultisaclimateinmanycommandswhereanythinggoesinthepursuitoI
suspectedgaypersonnel.Commanderswhowanttodotherightthingmustswimagainst
thetide.
ThereareglimmersoIhope.ThispastyearmarkedtheIirsttimetheDepartment
oIDeIensehasorderedreplacementoIoldrecruitingIormsthataskedprospective
LCR 04123
LCR Appendix Page 2092
4
recruitsiItheyaregay,aproblemnotedinSLDNsThiraAnnualReport.In1997,DoD
alsoissueditsIirstpolicyclariIyingthatcommandersshouldinvestigatethosewho
threatenorharassservicemembers,notthosewhoreportanti-gayharassmentorlesbian-
baiting.LastyearalsomarkedtheIirsttimeSLDNhasdocumentedmorethanoneor
twocaseswherecommandscompliedwiththemandatesDontAsk,DontPursue,
andDontHarass.
AswemoveintotheIiIthyearunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,
however, DoDandtheservicesneedtoissueguidancestatingthecurrentlimitsto
investigationsandtheintentoIthepolicynottopryintoservicemembersprivatelives.
DoDthenneedstotrainallservicemembersthoroughlyonthoselimitsandthepolicys
intent.Thepromisestostopasking,pursuitsandharassmentin1993wereclear.General
Colin Powellstatedin1993:Wewillnotwitchhunt.Wewillnotchase.Wewillnot
seektolearnorientation.
1
SenatorSamNunn,IormerChairmanoItheSenateArmed
ServicesCommittee,said,Idonotbelieveweshouldhavesexsquadspryingintothe
privatelivesoIourservicemembers.
2
PresidentWilliamJ.Clintonpledgedthatthe
policywouldprovideIoradecentregardIorthelegitimateprivacyandassociational
rightsoIallservicemembers.
3
ThenSenator,nowSecretaryoIDeIense,William
Cohen,expressedasimilarunderstandingoIthepolicywhenheaskedthenDoDGeneral
CounselJamieGorelickwhetherthesmallamountoIprivacyunderthecurrentpolicy
wasintendedtopreventthemilitaryIrompryingintopeoplesprivatelives. Gorelick
1
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmea
Services. 103rd Cong.,2dSess.(1993)at709(statementoIGeneralColinPowell).
2
FormerSenatorandChairmanoItheSenateArmedServicesCommittee,SamNunn, THE RECORD A10
(May31,1993).
3
PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNewPolicv, THE WASHINGTON POSTA12
(July20,1993).
LCR 04124
LCR Appendix Page 2093
5
answeredwitharesoundingyes.
4
LastFebruary,SecretaryCohenagainreiteratedhiscommitmenttoIair
enIorcementoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewhenhestatedonABCWorla
NewsTonightthathewouldstopanycontinuedpursuitsandprosecutionsunderthe
policy.
5
Shortly,thereaIter,SecretaryCohenaskedaninternalreviewgrouptoexamine
theimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,aprocessthatisunderway
asthisreportgoestopublication.SLDNlooksIorwardtoanysubstantive
recommendationsthereviewgroupmayhavetostopthecontinuedasking,pursuitand
harassmentoIservicemembers.
ThisistheFourthAnnualReportonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueby
SLDN. ThisreportdetailscommandviolationsoIcurrentlawdocumentedbySLDN
IromFebruary26,1997toFebruary19,1998.LocatedinWashington,D.C.,SLDNisan
independentlegalaidandwatchdogorganizationIorthoseharmedbyDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,andtheonlymeanscurrentlyavailabletodocumentabuses.DoD
hasinstitutednomethodoIidentiIying,documentingorcorrectingcommandviolations.
Indeed,lastMay,inaWashingtonPoststory,DoDconcededthatitreliesonSLDNs
annualreportstoknowwhatishappeningintheIieldunderitspolicy.
6
4
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmea
Services. 103
rd
Cong.2dSess.(1993)at788(statementoIJamieGorelick).
5
WorlaNewsTonight(ABCnewsbroadcast,Transcript#97022604-J04,February26,1997).
6
BradleyGraham,MilitarvReviewsAllegationsofHarassmentAgainstGavs. THE WASHINGTON POST A1
(May14,1997).
LCR 04125
LCR Appendix Page 2094
6
DONTASK
The"Don'tAsk"regulationsstatethat commandersorappointedinquiry
oIIicialsshallnotask,andmembersshallnotberequired,torevealtheirsexual
orientation.
7
SecretaryoIDeIenseWilliamCohenreaIIirmedtherulelastyear,stating
on LarrvKingLivethataskingisaclearviolationoIlaw.
8
SLDNdocumented124
Dont Askviolationsinthepastyear.Thatisup39Irom1996whenSLDNreported
89DontAskviolations.
The Homosexual/Bisexual Questionnaire
ANavalinquiryoIIicerIlagrantlyviolatedDontAskthispastyearwhenhe
askedasailoraseriesoIquestionsIromaIormentitledHomosexual/Bisexual
Questionnaire(Exhibit2).Thequestionnaireasked:
1. Doyouengageinhomosexual/bisexualactivity?
IIso,whenwasthelasttime?
IIso,withwhom?
IIso,ishe/sheinthemilitary?
2. Haveyouattemptedtoengageinhomosexual/bisexualactivity?
IIso,when?
IIso,withwhom?
IIso,ishe/sheinthemilitary?
3. Doyouhaveapropensitytoengageinhomosexual/bisexualacts?
IIso,when?
IIso,withwhom?
IIso,ishe/sheinthemilitary?
4. Doyouintendtoengageinhomosexual/bisexualacts?
IIso,when?
7
DoDD1332.30,Enclosure8(D)(3)(1994)andDoDD.1332.14,Enclosure4(D)(3)(1994)|HereinaIter
InquiryGuidelines|:SeealsoCommentsbyIormerDoDGeneralCounselJamieGorelick, Policv
ConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmeaServices,
103rd Cong.,2dSess.(1993),p.789(|W|edonotaskaboutorientationnotonlyataccessionbutatany
time.)
8
LarrvKingLive,(CNNtelevisionbroadcast,Transcript#97012700V22,January27,1997).
LCR 04126
LCR Appendix Page 2095
7
IIso,withwhom?
IIso,ishe/sheinthemilitary?
5. Areyouengagedinahomosexual/bisexualmarriage?
IIso,whendidyou?
IIso,withwhom?
IIso,ishe/sheinthemilitary?
SupplementingtheHomosexual/BisexualQuestionnaire,theinquiryoIIicerthen
askedthesailoranadditionaltwenty-ninequestions(Exhibit3),including:
1. Haveyouinthepastengagedinhomosexualbehavior?
2. Areyouhavingahomosexualrelationshipcurrently?
3. Isyourpartnerinthemilitary?
4. Areyoumonogamous?
5. Whoisyourcurrentpartner?
6. Haveyoueverhadhomosexualrelationswith|A|?
7. Haveyouhadintercoursewithanyoneelsesince
youvebeenintheNavy?
8. Weretheyinthemilitary?
9. Doyouremembertheirnames?
10. Areyoucurrentlyinvolvedinahomosexual
relationshipwithanyoneintheNavyormilitary?
11. AreyouhavingaIlingwithanyone?
12. Haveyoupropositioned(sic)anyonetoengageina
homosexualrelationshipwithyouwhoisinthe
military?
13. Sonooneinthemilitaryisinvolvedwithyou?
Fiftvquestions'IntheIaceoItheclearmandatesDontAskandDont
Pursue,aNavyinquiryoIIiceraskedonesailorIiItyquestionsabouthissexual
orientationandprivateliIe.
WecannotthinkoIanysituationinwhichsuchaquestionnairecouldbeiustiIied
underexistinglaw.Therulesareclear.AninquiryoIIicercannotaskaboutonessexual
orientationoraskquestionsdesignedtoelicitinIormationaboutonessexualorientation.
9
EvenwherecommandshavethecredibleevidenceoIhomosexualconductnecessaryto
9
InquiryGuidelines,D(3)(CommandersorappointedinquiryoIIicialsshallnotask,andmembersshall
notberequiredtoreveal,theirsexualorientation.)
LCR 04127
LCR Appendix Page 2096
8
initiateaninquiry,inquiryoIIicerscannotexpandthescopeoItheirinvestigationbeyond
thespeciIicallegationatissue.
10
AninquiryoIIicercannotgoonaIishingexpeditionto
seewhatinIormationhecannet.
11
Inthiscase,thecommandneverspeciIiedinwritingthecredibleinIormation
necessarytoinitiateaninquiry.
12
Instead,accordingtoaVoluntaryStatementIiledby
thesailorconcerningtheeventsleadingtohisinterrogation,hisMasteratArmsstarted
askingsomepersonalquestionsabout|thesailors|sexualorientation(Exhibit4).The
sailorwasdistraught,becausehedidnotthinkanyonewouldIindoutabouthim,andhe
didnotwantthemtoIindout.Inhisstatement,thesailorwrites,WhenIheard|thatthe
MasteratArmswasaskingpersonalquestionsaboutmysexualorientation|,Ibecame
veryupsetandevenmorescared|sic|thelastthingIwantedwasIorthistobecome
knownaboutme.TheNavy,however,IorcedhimoutoIthecloset,costinghimhis
career.
The Air Force Asks Civilians If They Are Gay
AnAirForceStaIISergeantwithastellarrecordIoundherselIinasimilar
situationwhenanAirForceinquiryoIIicerinterrogatedherroommates,oneamilitary
memberandtwocivilians.Astoundingly,theinquiryoIIicerquestionedtheroommates
abouttheirownsexualorientationaswellasthatoItheStaIISergeant.Theinquiry
oIIiceraskedthemilitaryroommate(Exhibit5):
10
InquiryGuidelines,A(3)(InquiriesshallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothe
speciIicallegations.).
11
SeeDontPursuesectioninfra.
12
InquiryGuidelines,B(3)(CredibleinIormationexistswhentheinIormation,consideringitssource
andthesurroundingcircumstances,supportsareasonablebelieIthataServicememberhasengagedin
homosexualconduct.ItrequiresadeterminationbasedonarticulableIacts,notiustabelieIorsuspicion.):
seealsoInquiryGuidelinesD(4)(AtanygivenpointoItheinquiry,thecommanderorappointedinquiry
LCR 04128
LCR Appendix Page 2097
9
1. Did|A|evertellyouthatsheisgay?
2. Has|A|everbeentoagaybar?
3. Howdidyoumeet|A|?
4. Has|A|everconIidedinyouthatsheisa
homosexual?
5. AreyouaHomosexual?
6. Haveyoueverbeentoagayestablishment?
7. Wereyouawarethatyourroommates
werelesbians?
TheinquiryoIIicerthenquestionedtheStaIISergeantstwocivilianroommates.
TheinquiryoIIicercalledoneroommateatwork,andreportedlyasked(Exhibit6):
1. Howlonghaveyouknown|A|?
2. Haveyoueverseenorheard|A|engage
inhomosexualactivity?
3. Has|A|evertoldyouthatsheisgay?
4. Areyouhomosexual?
TheinquiryoIIicerthenspokewiththenextcivilianroommate,placedherunder
oath,andreportedlyasked(Exhibit7):
1. Is|themilitaryroommate|gay?
2. Haveyoueverseen|A|engage
inhomosexualactivity?
3. Howdoyouknow|A|?
3. Has|A|everstatedthatsheisgay?
Thecurrentregulationsunequivocallyprohibitasking.
13
ThatanAirForceinquiry
oIIicerwouldquestionciviliansaswellasamilitarymemberabouttheirsexual
orientationdemonstratesanutterlackoIproprietyandcompletedisregardIortherules.
Additionally,theinquiryoIIicerviolatedtheregulationsthatprohibitexpanding
thescopeoIinquirieswhenhequestionedthemilitaryroommate,whowasnotsupposed
tobeunderinvestigation,aboutherselIandwhenheattemptedtodredgeupadditional
allegationsagainsttheStaIISergeant.InquiryoIIicerscannotaskaboutanysexualor
oIIicialmustbeableclearlyandspeciIicallytoexplainwhichgroundsIorseparationheorsheisattempting
toveriIyandhowtheinIormationbeingcollectedrelatestothosespeciIicseparationgrounds.).
LCR 04129
LCR Appendix Page 2098
10
aIIectionalactsengagedinbyaservicememberabsentaspeciIic,credibleallegation
madeaboutanact.ThesameistrueIorstatementsoIsexualorientation.Theregulations
areclearthatgoingtoagaybarispermitted
14
andassociatingwithgaypeopleis
allowed.
15
ThesortoIwide-rangingIishingexpeditionthatoccurredinthiscaseis
strictlyIorbiddenundercurrentrules.
Asking Leads To Harassment
ThemostdisturbingsetoIaskingcasesthatSLDNhasdocumentediswhen
askingislinkedtoanti-gayharassmentorbecomesharassmentitselI.Twocases
illustratethepoint.
ANBarryWaldropIacedrepeatedquestionsabouthissexualorientationIrom
othersailorsontheUSSEisenhowerthisyear.Thequestioningescalatedtothepointthat
AN WaldropbecameconcernedIorhissaIety.IwasconcernedthatiIpeoplewere
talkingaboutme,someonemighttakethenextstepandtrytohurtme,hewroteina
memorandumIorrecord(Exhibit8). AN Waldropdecidedtheonlywaytoensurehis
saIetywastotellhissupervisorheisgayandbedischargedIromtheNavy.Becauseso
manypeoplewereaskingmeiIIwasgay,IdecidedthatIdidnotwanttoremaintrapped
inthissituationandhavetocontinuedenyingwhoIambutstillbeaIraidthatsomeone
mightIindoutanywayWaldropwrote.
AN Waldropsleptinthecommonareasothathewouldneverbealone,outoI
Iearhewouldbeattackedinhisrack.HetoldhiscommandheIearedIorhissaIety.
13
InquiryGuidelines,D(3).
14
InquiryGuidelines,E(4)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhen4.TheonlyinIormation
knownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar,possessingorreadinghomosexual
publications,associatingwithknownhomosexuals,ormarchinginagayrightsrallyincivilianclothes.).
15
Ia.
LCR 04130
LCR Appendix Page 2099
11
Lessthantwoweekslater,AN WaldropreturnedtohisberthingareaandIoundYoure
adeadIaggotscrawledinmagicmarkeronhisrack.AnothersailorwhowitnessedAN
Waldropreadingthenoteimmediatelyasked,Areyougay?Displayingakeensense
oIselI-preservation,hesaidno,inaneIIorttoavoidexactlythekindoIdanger
threatenedonmyrack.
AsdiscussedIurtherintheDontHarasssection,thecommandinitiallyreIused
todischargeANWaldropbecause,withoutapparentbasis,itdidnotbelievehim.The
shipscommandplacedAN Waldropinanuntenableanddangerousbindbynottaking
measurestoprotecthissaIetywhenheIirstreportedharassment.Thecommandonthe
USSEisenhowercreatedexactlythescenariothatSeamanAllenSchindlerIacedin1992
whenhewasmurderedIorbeinggaybyIellowshipmates.NavyoIIicialsshouldlearn
IrompastmistakessothathistorydoesnotrepeatitselI.
Inanothercase,aLanceCorporalintheMarineCorpsreportsthatheIaced
constantharassmentandconstantquestioningabouthissexualorientation.Ultimately,
theclimategrewmoreandmorehostileuntilhereceivedadeaththreat.TheLance
Corporalreportsthatothermarineswoulddroptheirpants,taunthim,andaskhimiIhe
wantedtoengageinIellatio.Toourknowledge,thecommandtooknoactiontostopthe
askingortheharassment,sendingthemessagethatsuchbehaviorisacceptableinthe
MarineCorps.
ThecircumstancesIacedbyWaldropandtheLanceCorporalcannotbetolerated.
AskingcannotbecomeaIormoIharassment.Harassmentcannotleadtoasking.Today,
thePentagonIailsonbothequations.
LCR 04131
LCR Appendix Page 2100
12
Inadvertent Questioning
ThelastseriesoIDontAskcaseshighlightedinthisreportcanbestbe
describedasinadvertentquestioning.Thesearecaseswherewell-meaningcommanders
andothersaskquestionsthat,ontheirIace,arenotdesignedtoaskaboutsexual
orientation,buttheconsequenceisthattheydoelicitsuchinIormation.Theproblemis
thatsomecommandsareactingontheinIormationinadvertentlydiscoveredand
dischargingservicemembersratherthantreatingtheinIormationaspersonaland
privateandtakingnoaction.
Inonecase,acommanderorderedasailorandhiswiIetoattendcounselinginan
eIIorttorepairtheirmarriageandIorestalldivorce.Theservicememberattemptedtotell
hiscommanderthatcounselingwouldnotbeaneIIectiveandproductiveroute.The
commanderinsisted.Finally,thesailorclosedthedoortothecommandersoIIiceand
toldthecommanderthatthecounselingwouldnotbeproductivebecauseheandhiswiIe
hadcometoacceptthatheisgayandhaddeterminedthatitwasinbothoItheirinterests
toseekadivorce.ThecommanderthendischargedthesailorIorhisstatement.
ArmyrecruitRobinChatelleIoundherselIIacingamoraldilemmathisyear
duringbasictraining.Likeanygooddrillinstructor,Chatellesdrillinstructortriedto
scarethedaylightsoutoIhisIreshcropoIeagerrecruits.Thedrillinstructortoldthe
recruitsthattheyhadtocomeIorwardwithanyandallskeletonsintheirpast.Thedrill
instructorwarnedtherecruitsthatiItheydidnotcomply,andsecurityclearance
investigatorslaterdiscoveredthoseskeletons,theArmywouldharshlypunish,even
court-martial,recruitswhohadIailedtodiscloseeverydetailoItheirpast. Chatelle
experiencedhermomentoItruth.ShetoldherdrillinstructorthatshehadconIidedina
LCR 04132
LCR Appendix Page 2101
13
highschoolcounseloraboutaprivatematterandaskedwhethersheshoulddisclosethat
conIidencetohim.Thedrillinstructorinsistedshehadtotellhimeverything.Shetold
himshediscussedthatshewasstrugglingwithhersexualidentity.Hisresponse:You
shouldnthavetoldmethat.HercommanderthenprocessedherIordischarge.
SLDNnotesoneareawheretherehasbeensomeimprovementthisyear:
recruitingIorms.ThisyearSecretaryCoheninstructedtheservicestoreplaceold
recruitingIormswithanewIormthatdoesnotquestionprospectiverecruitsabouttheir
sexualorientation(Exhibit9).Inourreportlastyear,SLDNreportedthattheoldIorms,
Irom1989,hadnotbeenreplacedandthatprospectiverecruits,especiallyintheCoast
Guard,werebeingaskedinviolationoIcurrentpolicy.
16
SLDNrecentlyconductedarandomsurveyoI26Army,Navy,AirForce,Marine
CorpsandCoastGuardrecruitingstationsaroundthecountrytodetermineiISecretary
CohensinstructionswerebeingIollowed.OIthosestationssurveyed,SLDNIoundtwo,
or7.6percent,thatcontinuetousethe1989Iorms,aCoastGuardrecruitingstationin
Miami,FloridaandaMarineCorpsrecruitingstationinSiouxCity,Iowa.SLDNis
pleasedtoreportthat,in1997,noprospectiverecruitsreportedbeingaskedabouttheir
sexualorientationduringtherecruitingprocess.SLDNurgesallservicestoensureIull
compliancewithSecretaryCohensinstructionstoimmediatelyreplacetheoldrecruiting
Iorms.
16
C.DIXON OSBURNETAL.,SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK,CONDUCT UNBECOMING:THE
THIRD ANNUAL REPORTONDONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE(1997).
LCR 04133
LCR Appendix Page 2102
14
DONTTELL
TheDontTellregulationsarecommonlyviewedasarestrictionongayservice
membersIrompubliclydeclaringtheirsexualorientation.Sexualorientation,however,is
apersonalandprivatematteraccordingtotheregulations.SLDNbelievesthat
lawmakersdidnotintendthemilitarytopryintopersonalandprivatecommunications,
suchasthosetoparents,siblings,doctors,psycho-therapistsandclosepersonalIriends.
Indeed,thecurrentregulationsspeciIicallypermitgaymilitarymemberstotell
lawyers:
17
chaplains:
18
and
securityclearancepersonnel.
19
SLDNishappytoreportthatthenumberoIDontTellviolationsthisyear
droppedsigniIicantly.InboththeArmyandNavy,theviolationshavedroppedby
approximatelyIiItypercent,whileAirForceviolationshavedroppedapproximately
twentypercent.SLDNdocumented22DontTellviolationsinthepastyear,down
29Irom31inthepreviousyear.
Inanotherpotentiallygooddevelopment,SLDNhasbeentoldthattheNavy
GeneralCounselsoIIicemayhavetakenthepositionthatservicemembersmaydiscuss
theirsexualorientationwithmentalhealthcounselors,butiIthatisthecase,theguidance
hasnotreachedtheIield.
Despitethesedevelopments,DontTellviolationscontinuetobeaproblem,
especiallygiventheintrusivenatureoItheseviolations.Psychotherapistsandother
17
MilitaryRuleoIEvidence502.
18
MilitaryRuleoIEvidence503.
19
DODPolicyGuidelinesonHomosexualConductintheArmedForces,July19,1993.Seealso,DeIense
InvestigativeServiceManualManualIorPersonnelSecurityInvestigationsDIS-20-1-M(Encl.18),
January1993.
LCR 04134
LCR Appendix Page 2103
15
healthproviderscontinuetoreporttoSLDNthattheyhavebeenorderedtoturningay
servicememberswhoconIideinthemduringprivatecounselingsessions.Service
memberscontinuetoreportthattheirmilitarypsychotherapistshaveviolatedtheirtrust,
usuallyresultingintheservicemembersdischarge.
Private Conversations With Psychotherapists
OnecaseinvolvesanAirForcecryptologistwhowasoutedbyhismilitary
psychologist.ThoughhewaspromisedconIidentiality,theairmanlearnedthat,instead,
thepsychologisthadrevealedtheircounselingsessionstohisFirstSergeant.Ina
memorandumIorrecorddatedSeptember17,1997,theairmanwrites,The|First
Sergeant|toldmethat|thepsychologist|hadgonetoher,toldherthatIwasgay,and
askedIoradviceonwhattodoaboutit(Exhibit10).Thenextweek,accordingtothe
AirForcemember,aIriendtoldmethatheheardthatIhadmentionedtothe
psychologistthatIwasgay.ConcernedthattheinIormationhadspreadthroughouthis
squadron,theairmansawnorealoptionbuttobehonestwithhiscommander.Hewas
dischargedasaresult.
Thepsychologistsactionsinthiscasearereprehensible,butundercurrentpolicy,
servicemembershavenorecourse.ThereisnoruleoIconIidentiality.Andwhilesuch
conversationsaresupposedtobetreatedaspersonalandprivate,theysometimesare
not.Asaresult,gayservicemembersIindthatthereisabsolutelynosaIespaceto
discusstheirsexualorientationandrelatedissueswithoutriskoIdischarge.
SLDNisawareoIatleastthreeothercaseswherepsychotherapists outedservice
membersorwhereinquiryoIIicersobtainedservicemembersmentalhealthrecordsto
lookIorinIormationabouttheirsexualorientation.OneAirForceinquiryoIIicer,in
LCR 04135
LCR Appendix Page 2104
16
concludingthataservicememberwasgay,madespecialnoteoItheIactthatthemental
healthrecordsindicatedthattheservicememberdeclinedtodiscussoneproblem
(Exhibit11).ItisastoundingthataninquiryoIIicercouldplaceanysigniIicanceonthe
absenceoIinIormationinamedicalIile.
Seeking Out Family and Friends
Inothercases,SLDNremainsconcernedthatinquiryoIIicersandinvestigators
areseekingoutIamilymembersandclosepersonalIriendstosolicitinIormationthatcan
beusedagainsttheirlovedones.OneAirForceinquiryoIIicerrequiredanoIIicerto
answermorethan150questionsabouthersexualorientationandprivateliIe,including
numerousquestionsseekinginIormationonhowtocontactIamilymembersandIriends.
TheoIIicerwasveryclearinstatingthatherorientationwasapersonalandprivatematter
aboutwhichshedidnotwanttheAirForcequestioningherIriendsandIamily.The
transcriptoIthisinterviewshows,however,thattheinquiryoIIicerpersistedinhounding
herIorthisinIormation(Exhibit12).
61Q Forinstance,haveyoutalkedaboutthiswithIamily
members?
61A. Ive talked about it with a Iew and basically told
themaboutmyIeelings.
62Q WouldtherebepeopleIcouldcontact?
62A. There I guess I Ieel that this is a personal matter
and that I would preIer that iI you do need a
statement,thatthatcouldbeawrittenstatementand
Im willing to provide that, but I guess I dont Ieel
that its necessary Ior you to actually talk to those
people yourselI and I would be happy to provide a
written statement Irom a Iamily member Ior you.
ButIguessIiustdontIeelcomIortablehavingyou
talkwiththemdirectlybecauseitisapersonalissue
withme.
LCR 04136
LCR Appendix Page 2105
17
63Q. Okay. Are there people, other than Iamily mem-
bers,thatyoudiscussedthiswith?
63A. |Conversations with a Iew Iriends about what it
meanstobegay.|
65Q. Are there any oI those people that you could give
me theirnamesandphonenumbersthatIcouldtalk
with?
65A. Again, I guess Ill answer that the same way as my
Iamily,IcouldalsoprovideyouwithaletterIroma
Iriendiusttellingyou,youknow,whatIvetoldher.
But I would rather that you didnt speak with her
personally.
66Q. Why is that? Why would you rather I not talk to
thesepeoplepersonally?
66A. IguessitsiustIIeelthisallhastodowithmeand
my personal Ieelings and I mean its a sensitive
issue and I guess I would iust like to deal with this
myselI instead oI getting a lot oI other people
involved. . . . I dont know, its iust a personal
issue.
123Q. IIIweretocalloneorbothoIyourparentsandiust
identiIymyselIandexplainwhatthisisallaboutare
they going to be iust dumbIounded in having heard
nothingaboutthisoraretheygoingtobe.
123A. Basically,myIatherknowsnothingaboutit....
Wewishwecouldsaythatthisheavy-handedinquiryoIIicerwastheexception,
nottherule.Wecannot.Interviewsliketheoneabovehavebecomestandardpractice,
particularlyintheAirForce,andincreasinglyintheArmy.WheninquiryoIIicersare
successIulinlocatingIamilymembersandIriends,theyhavebeenaggressivein
pressuringtheseindividualstoprovidedamaginginIormationagainstservicemembers.
NumerousIamilymembersandIriendshavecontactedSLDN.Allhaveviewed
themilitarystacticsashighlyoIIensive.Intheabovecase,Iorexample,theoIIicers
relativeandIriendonlyreluctantlyprovidedwrittenstatementsconIirmingthatthe
oIIicerisalesbian.TheoIIicersauntmadeitapointtostate,Idonotwanttodiscuss
LCR 04137
LCR Appendix Page 2106
18
anythingaboutmyniecespersonalliIe,andIhopethatyouwilldirectanyIurther
questionstoher(Exhibit13).InasimilarlyIirmtone,theIriendconIirmedthatthe
oIIicerhadrecentlybeguntoquestionherorientation,andconcluded,Otherthanthis,I
donotwishtomakeanyIurthercommentonsuchaprivateandpersonalmatter
(Exhibit14).Militaryleadersshouldendtheseintrusivetactics.
Insomecases,inquiryoIIicershaveevendelvedintocivilianssexualorientation
andprivatelives.ThecaseoItheAirForceSergeantdiscussedintheDontAsk
sectionisiustoneexample.ShewasIorcedoutoIthemilitarybasedoninIormation
solicitedbytheAirForceinquiryoIIicerIromherthreeroommates.TwooIthe
roommateswerecivilian:onewasinthemilitary.Allwereaskedabouttheirprivate
lives.IntheIaceoImilitaryauthority,allbelievedthattheywererequiredtoanswerthe
questionsputtothem.Thelargerissue,however,isthattheinquiryoIIicershouldnot
havepriedintoconversationsbetweenamilitarymemberandherclosepersonalIriends.
Similarly,anAirForceOIIiceoISpecialInvestigations(OSI)agentinstructeda
civilianIriendoIaservicememberwhowasunderinvestigationtotellhimeverything,
Ialselymaintainingthat(1)healreadyknewthattheservicememberwasgay,and(2)
theDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicyprohibitedtheAirForceIrom
prosecutingherIriendIorhissexualorientation.Thinkingthatshewasnotrevealingany
newinIormation,theIriendconIirmedtheOSIagentssuspicions.Theservicemembers
dischargeispendingasaresult.
Privacy Not Assured with Chaplains
OneIinalissuedeservesmention.SLDNcontinuestobeconcernedaboutthe
conIidentialityoIconversationsbetweenservicemembersandtheirmilitarychaplains,
LCR 04138
LCR Appendix Page 2107
19
whicharecoveredbylimitedprivilegeundermilitarylaw. ANavyoIIicerreportsthis
yearthathismilitarychaplain,uponbeingquestionedbyaninquiryoIIicer,divulgedthe
contentsoIconversationsspanningmorethantwoyearsinwhichtheoIIicerhadsought
spiritualcounselingbecausehewasstrugglingwithatensionheIeltbetweenhissexual
orientationandhisIaith.
Inothercases,chaplainshaveadvisedgayservicememberstoturnthemselvesin
totheircommands,withoutensuringthatservicemembersareIullyinIormedaboutthe
legalconsequencesandthepossibleriskstotheirsaIetyoIsuchacourseoIaction.Some
chaplainshavegivenservicememberslegalinIormationthatwasiustplainwrong.
ServicememberswhohavereliedonthiserroneousinIormationhaveexperiencedgreat
harm.
SLDNIindsitoutrageousthataninquiryoIIicerwouldquestionachaplainabout
hisdiscussionswithaservicemember,andweareequallyconcernedthatchaplains
woulddivulgethisinIormation.Furthermore,weareconcernedthatsomechaplainshave
attemptedtoprovidelegalcounselingtoservicemembersratherthansendingthemtoa
deIenseattorneytoobtainaccuratelegaladvice.
WhileSLDNdoesnotrecordalargenumberoIcaseswherechaplainsbreak
conIidentialityorgivebadlegalcounseling,theIactthatthesecasesoccuratallIorces
SLDNtowarnservicemembersthatitisriskytoconIideinmilitarychaplains.Thisisa
tragedy.Chaplains,andtheabilityoIservicememberstosaIelyconIideinthem,have
alwaysbeenthoughttobeessentialtoservicememberswell-beingandinthebest
interestsoIthecommand.UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,however,
nothingissacred.
LCR 04139
LCR Appendix Page 2108
20
Asreportedabove,DontTellviolationsdecreasedby29in1997.Wethink
thattheresultissigniIicant.TherearetwopossiblereasonswhyDontTellviolations
decreasedin1997.Onepossibilityisthat,aIterthreeyearsoIwitnessingmilitary
policingoIprivateconversations,gayservicemembershavelearnedthat,inpractice,the
zoneoIprivacymeansnothingandsurvivalunderDontTellrequiresabsolute
secrecy.
TheotherpossibilityisthattheserviceshavereducedeIIortstoquestiondoctors,
psychotherapists,parents,siblingsandclosepersonalIriendsoIservicemembersunder
inquiry.SLDNnotes,however,thatneitherDoDnortheserviceshaspublishedany
guidanceclariIyingthattheseprivateconversationswillbeoII-limitstoinquiryoIIicers.
SLDNurgesDoDandtheservicestoissueguidancethisyear.
SLDNisalsopleasedtoreporttheIirstadvanceintheareaoIpsychotherapist
conIidentiality.OnMay6,1997,theJointServiceCommitteeissuedarecommendation
toamendtheManualIorCourtsMartialtoprovideIoralimitedpsychotherapist
conIidentialityIormilitaryretireesandmilitarydependents.
20
TheDepartmentoI
DeIensehasyettoadoptthisrecommendation.SLDNalsourgesDoDandtheservicesto
consideradoptingaruleoIIullconIidentialityIorpsychotherapist/patientconversations,
bringingthemintocompliancewiththe1996UnitedStatesSupremeCourtopinion,
Jaffeev.Reamona.
21
20
62Fed.Reg.24640(1997).
21
518U.S.1(1996).
LCR 04140
LCR Appendix Page 2109
21
DONTPURSUE
TheDontPursueregulationscontainexpresslimitsongayinvestigations.
Theseinclude,butarenotlimitedto,theIollowing:
Only a service members commander may initiate an
inquiryintohomosexualconduct.
22
Commanders may initiate inquiries only upon receipt
oIcredibleinIormationoIhomosexualconduct.
23
Credible inIormation exists when inIormation,
considering its source and the surrounding
circumstances, supports a reasonable belieI that a
service member has engaged in homosexual
conduct.
24
Credible inIormation requires a determination based
on articulableIacts,notiustbelieIorsuspicion.
25
Not all accusations oI homosexual conduct constitute
credible inIormation as a basis Ior inquiry or
discharge.
26
Credible inIormation does not exist when the source
oItheaccusationisnotcredibleorreliable.
27
Credible inIormation does not exist when the
accusation concerns an associational activity, such as
going to a gay bar, associating with known
homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in
civilianclothes.
28
22
InquiryGuidelines,A(1)(OnlythememberscommanderisauthorizedtoinitiateIact-Iinding
inquiriesinvolvinghomosexualconduct.).
23
InquiryGuidelines,A(1)(AcommandermayinitiateaIact-Iindinginquiryonlywhenheorshehas
receivedcredibleinIormationthatthereisabasisIordischarge.).
24
InquiryGuidelines,B(3)(CredibleinIormationexistswheninIormation,consideringitssourceand
thesurroundingcircumstances,supportsareasonablebelieIthataservicememberhasengagedin
homosexualconduct.)
25
InquiryGuidelines,B(3)(CredibleinIormationrequiresadeterminationbasedonarticulableIacts,not
iustbelieIorsuspicion.)
26
Ia.
27
InquiryGuidelines,F(1)(CredibleinIormationrequiresanaccusationbyareliableperson.).
28
InquiryGuidelines,E(4)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhentheaccusationconcernsan
associationalactivity,suchasgoingtoagaybar,associatingwithknownhomosexuals,membershipor
participationingayorganizationsormarchinginagayrightsrallyincivilianclothes.).
LCR 04141
LCR Appendix Page 2110
22
Credible inIormation does not exist when the
inIormation concerns possessing or reading
homosexualpublications.
29
Credible inIormation does not exist when the
inIormation concerns listing by a service member oI
someone oI the same gender as the person to be
contacted in the case oI an emergency, as an
insurancebeneIiciary,orinasimilarcontext.
30
Credible inIormation does not exist when the
inIormation concerns an allegation by another that a
servicememberishomosexual.
31
Credible inIormation does not exist when the inquiry
would be based on rumor, suspicion, or capricious
claimsconcerningamemberssexualorientation.
32
Credible inIormation does not exist when a service
memberreportsbeingthreatenedbecauseheorsheis
saidorperceivedtobeahomosexual.
33
InquiriesshallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstances
directlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.
34
29
InquiryGuidelines,E(4)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhentheinIormation
concernspossessingorreadinghomosexualpublications.).
30
DoDPolicyGuidelinesonHomosexualConductintheArmedForces,July19,1993(Thelistingbya
servicememberoIsomeoneoIthesamegenderasthepersontobecontactedinthecaseoIanemergency,
asaninsurancebeneIiciary,orinasimilarcontext,doesnotprovideabasisIorseparationorIurther
investigation.).
31
InquiryGuidelines,E(2)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhentheonlyinIormationisthe
opinionsoIothersthatamemberishomosexual.).
32
InquiryGuidelines,E(3)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhentheinquirywouldbebasedon
rumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaimsconcerningamemberssexualorientation.).
33
MemorandumoIUnderSecretaryoIDeIenseEdwinDorn, GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainst
ServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv,(March24,1997)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexist
whenaservicememberreportsbeingthreatenedbecauseheorsheissaidorperceivedtobea
homosexual.).
34
InquiryGuidelines,A(3)(InquiriesshallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothe
speciIicallegations.) SeealsoDoDInstruction5505.8,InvestigationsoISexualMisconductbythe
DeIenseCriminalInvestigativeOrganizationsandOtherDoDLawEnIorcementOrganizations,December
21,1993|HereinaIter,GuidelinesIorDCIOs|(InvestigationsshallbelimitedtotheIactual
circumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.)Seealso PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvin
theArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmeaServices,103rdCong., 2d Sess.(1993)
p.789(commentsbythenDoDGeneralCounselJamieGorelick:OnceyouestablishtheelementsoIthe
oIIenseorbasisIordischarge,yougonoIurther.).
LCR 04142
LCR Appendix Page 2111
23
Commanders shall exercise sound discretion
regardingwhencredibleinIormationexists.
35
Commanders shall examine the inIormation and
decide whether an inquiry is warranted or no action
shouldbetaken.
36
Commanders will consider, in allocating scarce
investigative resources,
37
that sexual orientation is a
personal and private matter, and that under current
policy, there is a decent regard to the legitimate
privacy and associational rights oI all service
members.
38
Whatdotheselimitsongayinvestigationsmean?InthewordsoIGeneral
Powell,nowitchhunts.
39
InthewordsoISenatorSamNunn,nosexsquads.
40
In
thewordsoIPresidentClinton,adecentregardtothelegitimateprivacyand
associationalrightsoIallservicemembers.
41
InthewordsoISecretaryoIDeIense
WilliamCohen,nopursuits.
42
ThelimitssetIorthunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewereintendedto
stoptheIar-ranging,punitiveandheavy-handedinvestigationsthatcharacterizedthe
militarystreatmentoIitsgaymembersunderpriorpolicies.Theselimitshavebeen
roundlyignored.InvestigativeexcesseshavebeenroutinelyiustiIied.
35
InquiryGuidelines,D(2)(Commandersshallexercisesounddiscretionregardingwhencredible
inIormationexists.).
36
Ia.(TheyshallexaminetheinIormationanddecidewhetheraninquiryiswarrantedornoactionshould
betaken.).
37
GuidelinesIorDCIOs,(asamatteroIinvestigativeprioritiesandresourcelimitations,DeIense
CriminalInvestigativeOrganizations(DCIOs)andotherDoDlawenIorcementorganizationswillnormally
reIerallegationsinvolvingonlyadultprivateconsensualsexualmisconducttotheservicemembers
commanderIorappropriatedisposition.).
38
DoDD1304.26,Enclosure2(8)(a)(1994),DoDD1332.30,Enclosure2-2(C)(1994),andDoDD1332.14,
Enclosure4(H)(1)(1994)(Sexualorientationisconsideredapersonalandprivatematter.).
39
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmea
Services. 103rd Cong.,2dSess.(1993)at709(statementoIGeneralColinPowell).
40
FormerSenatorandChairmanoItheSenateArmedServicesCommittee,SamNunn, THE RECORD A10
(May31,1993).
41
PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNewPolicv, THE WASHINGTON POST A12
(July20,1993).
LCR 04143
LCR Appendix Page 2112
24
McVeigh Case: The Navy Goes Too Far
AsalientexampleoIthecontinuedpursuitoIsuspectedgayservicemembersis
therecent,highly-publicizedcaseoISeniorChieIPettyOIIicerTimothyR.McVeigh
(who,asnotedbythepress,isnorelationtotheOklahomaCitybomber).Senior
ChieIPettyOIIicerMcVeighisaseventeen-yearcareersailorwithanimpeccablerecord.
Atage36,hehadrisentobecometheseniorenlistedman(ChieIoIBoat)aboarda
nuclearsubmarine,theUSSChicago.TheNavyattemptedtodischargehim,however,
basedoninIormationtheNavysurreptitiouslyobtainedaboutMcVeighsidentityIrom
the internetserviceproviderAmericaOnline(AOL).
OnJanuary29,1998,JudgeStanleySporkin,aReaganappointee,granteda
permanentiniunctioninSeniorChieIPettyOIIicerMcVeighsIavorpreventingtheNavy
Iromdischarginghim.JudgeSporkinruledthattheNavywenttooIar
43
andtheNavy
violatedtheveryessenceoIDontAsk,DontPursuebylaunchingasearchand
destroymission
44
(Exhibit15).JudgeSporkinalsoruledthattheNavyviolatedthe
ElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActbyIailingtoobtaintherequiredwarrantorcourt
orderbeIoreseekingthisinIormationIromAOL.
45
OnJanuary21,1998,priortoJudgeSporkinsdecision,AmericaOnlineissueda
statementreportingthecompanysIinding,basedonaninternalinvestigationintothe
matter,thattheNavyhaddeliberatelyviolatedIederallaw(Exhibit16).AOLalso
admittedthatitsemployeehadmadeamistakeinreleasinganyinIormationaboutSenior
ChieIPettyOIIicerMcVeigh.
42
WorlaNewsTonight(ABCnewsbroadcast,Transcript#97022604-J04,February26,1997).
43
McJeighv.Cohen,(D.C.D.C.)Civ.ActionNo.98-116,MemorandumOpinionSupportingPreliminary
IniunctionOrder,Jan.26,1998,at9.
44
Ia.at7.
LCR 04144
LCR Appendix Page 2113
25
Onthesameday,ProIessorCharlesMoskos,thearchitectoIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,submittedadeclarationinIederalcourtconcludingthattheNavy
hadviolatedthepolicyslimitsoninvestigations(Exhibit17).
Inamovethathasbecometypical,NavyleaderspersistintheirdenialsoI
wrongdoing.
46
TheNavyinsists,Iorexample,thatitcouldinvestigateSeniorChieIPetty
OIIicer McVeighbasedonasuspicionthattheonlineproIilewashis.Thatconclusion
IliesintheIaceoItheregulations,whichstatethatcredibleinIormationdoesnotexist
whentheinquirywouldbebasedonrumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaims.
47
The
NavyprosecutorwhoactedastheinquiryoIIicerinthiscaseclaimedatSeniorChieI
PettyOIIicerMcVeighsadministrativedischargeboardthatIwasnotonawitch
hunt.IwaspermittedtoaskquestionsthatmayleadhimtovolunteerinIormation
regardinghomosexualconduct.(Exhibit18)That,however,istheverydeIinitionoIa
witchhuntandisexpresslyIorbiddenundercurrentregulations.Evenwhereinquiries
arelegitimate,inquiryoIIicersarenotpermittedtoIishIorinIormationtoseewhatthey
candigup.
48
TheNavyarguedinIederalcourtthat,eveniIJudgeSporkinIoundwrongdoing
onthepartoINavyoIIicials,SeniorChieIPettyOIIicerMcVeighshouldstillbe
discharged.TheNavyarguedthatSeniorChieIPettyOIIicerMcVeighhadnorecourse
becauseDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuecreatesnosubstantiveorprocedural
rightsIorservicemembers.Basically,theNavyspositionisthattheendiustiIiesthe
meansinagayinvestigation.
45
Ia.at8.
46
TrevaJones,NavvSecretarvBoostsScouting, THE NEWS OBSERVER(RALEIGH,N.C.) B3(Jan.31,1998).
(WhenaskedaboutJudgeSporkinsrulinginMcVeighsIavor,SecretaryDaltonresponded,Weare
conIidentwedidcomplywiththelawandDepartmentoIDeIenseregulations.)
LCR 04145
LCR Appendix Page 2114
26
WelookIorwardtothedaywhengovernmentoIIicialsstopattemptingtoexcuse
andiustiIytheactionsoItheiragentsandinsteadputtheirenergyintotraining
investigatorstocomplywiththelawintheIirstplace.AmericaOnlineadmitted
wrongdoingandhaspledgedtotakestepstoensurethatthemistakeisnotrepeated.The
Navyshoulddothesame.
The Army Stops A Witch Hunt
SLDNcannothelpbutcontrasttheNavysactionsintheMcJeighcasewiththose
takenbytheArmythisyeartostopawitchhuntthatwasinprogressatanArmy
installationintheSoutheast.TherecordinthecaseshowsthelackoIdisciplinetypical
Iorthoseinvestigatingsuspectedgayservicemembers.Therecordalsoprovidesagood
exampleoIwhatoIIicialsathigherheadquartersshoulddowhentheylearnoIwitch
huntsbytheircommands.
Inthiscase,Armyinvestigatorsinterrogatedasoldierwhowasallegedtohave
beenamaleprostitute,stripperinagaynightclub,pornstaranddrugdealer.Ratherthan
chargehimIoralloIhisallegedcrimes,however,Armyinvestigatorsbrokeredadealand
turnedhimintoaninIormantinordertoidentiIygaysoldiers.
Accordingtotherecordinthiscase,ArmyinvestigatorsobtainedphotosoIthe
inIormantatagaybarandaskedhimtoidentiIythepatronsoIthebar(Exhibit19).The
questionsaskedincludedtheIollowing:
1. Im showing you photograph #1, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
2. Im showing you photograph #2, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
47
InquiryGuidelines,E(3).
48
InquiryGuidelines,A(3).
LCR 04146
LCR Appendix Page 2115
27
3. Im showing you photograph #3, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
4. Im showing you photograph #4, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
5. Im showing you photograph #5, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
6. Im showing you photograph #6, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
7. Im showing you photograph #7, can you identiIy
thisindividual?
TheinvestigatorsthenaskedquestionsaboutspeciIicindividualstheinIormant
identiIiedIromthephotos.
8. Tellmeeverythingyouknowabout|A|?
9. Howmanytimesdidyouand|A|havesexand
where?
10. Describe the diIIerent sexual acts you and |A|
wouldperIorm?
11. Describethelocationsinthehousewhereyouhad
sex?
12. Tellmeeverythingyouknowabout|B|?
13. Tellmeeverythingyouknowabout|C|?
14. Tellmeeverythingyouknowabout|D|?
15. How many other men have you had sex with that
areinthemilitaryat|base|?
16. Tellmeeverythingyouknowabout|E|?
TheArmysreIreshingresponsewhenapprisedoIthewitchhuntwastoreview
thecase,notautomaticallyrushtoiustiIythecommandsactions.SLDNapplaudsthe
AssistantStaIIJudgeAdvocatewhoreviewedthecaseIorstoppingthewitchhuntbeIore
itdestroyedthelivesandcareersoIpossiblydozensoIsoldiers.Inalettertothe
commanddatedApril7,1997(Exhibit20),theAssistantStaIIJudgeAdvocateconcludes
theIollowing:
DoD Instruction 5505.8 not only prohibits this
command Irom conducting investigations solely to
determine a service members sexual orientation, it
limits investigations into adult private consensual
sexual misconduct to the factual circumstances
airectlvrelevanttothespecificallegations.
LCR 04147
LCR Appendix Page 2116
28
Specialist|A|sstatementsareriIewithquestionsand
areas oI investigation which, although not illegal,
suggest a goal oI the investigation is identiIying the
sexualorientationoIthesoldiersamongthisgroup.
Broad, cryptic questions such as Do you understand
why you are here? are easily interpreted as a veiled
hint that the subsequent interview is about sexual
orientation.
AttemptingtoidentiIysoldierswhoassociatewith|B|
and asking witnesses to identiIy soldiers in
photographs is easily portrayed as a witch-hunt
baseduponsexualorientation.
Broad questions such as Tell me everything you
knowaboutSGTXorTellmeeverythingyouknow
about Y are easily interpreted as improper questions
aboutsexualorientation.
TheArmydidtherightthinginthiscaseandshouldbecommended.TheArmys
actionsinthiscasesharplycontrastwiththeNavysinsistencethatitbehavedproperlyin
the McVeighcase.
TheArmysgoodactionsalsostandinsharpcontrasttotheAirForcesresponse
lastyeartoawitchhuntatHickamAirForceBaseinHonolulu,Hawaii.Thewitchhunt
targetedseventeenservicemen,theHawaii17,inallbranchesoIthemilitaryexceptthe
CoastGuard.AirForceoIIicialsenteredintoapre-trialagreementwithAirmanBryan
Harris,anadmittedIelon,whowasIacingliIeinprisonIortherapeoIanothermanand
othercharges(Exhibit21).SimilartotheArmycasediscussedabove,AirForce
prosecutorscutadeal.TheAirForceagreedtoreduceHarrissentenceIromliIeto
twentymonthsontheconditionthatheturnoverthenamesoIallmilitarymenwith
whomhehadallegedlyengagedinconsensualsex.Harrisaccusedseventeenmen.All
oItheaccusedAirForcemembershavebeendischarged.AirmanHarrisservedonly
LCR 04148
LCR Appendix Page 2117
29
elevenmonthsoIhissentence.
TheAirForcecontinuestoiustiIyitsactionsinthiscasedespitethe
overwhelmingrecordoIcommandimproprieties.TheAirForceInspectorGeneral(IG)
concludedthat,althoughprosecutorspressuredAirmanHarristonamenames,the
Hickaminvestigationwasnotawitchhunt.TheIGalsoveriIiedthatinquiryoIIicers
askedtheIollowingquestionsaboutoneoIthemenaccusedbyAirmanHarris,yethas
concludedthattheydidnotconstitutequestionsaboutsexualorientation(Exhibit22):
1. DoyouhaveanyreasontobelievethatTSgt Gandy
doesntlikegirls?
2. Have you ever had the Ieeling that TSgt Gandy is
interestedinmen?
3. Have you ever seen TSgt Gandy hug, kiss, or hold
hands with another man in a way that was more
thaniustameansoIsayinghello?
4. WouldyoubesurprisedtoIindoutthatTSgt Gandy
isgay?
5. What is it like to work in a unit with so many
homosexuals?
6. Has TSgt Gandy ever talked about women to you,
youknow,thewaymentalkaboutwomen?
7. WheredoesTSgt Gandyhangout? Withwhom?
8. Has TSgt GandyeverhadagirlIriend?
9. Do you think it is unusual Ior him not to have a
girlIriend?
10. Does anyone in your oIIice know that TSgt Gandy
isgay?
TheDepartmentoIDeIenseInspectorGeneralandtheDepartmentoIDeIense
GeneralCounselsoIIicehavedeclinedtoreopentheAirForceInspectorGenerals
investigationin1997.
McVeigh Is Not Alone: Services Take Witch Hunts Online
The McVeighcaseisonlyoneoIseveralSLDNhasdocumentedinwhich
militaryoIIicialshavetakenwitchhunttacticsonlineinthepastyear.CoastGuardPetty
LCR 04149
LCR Appendix Page 2118
30
OIIicerTimBauerreportsthatinvestigatorstoldhimtheyhadmonitoredhisonline
activitiesIorsixmonthsbeIoremovingtodischargehim.HisNotiIicationoI
AdministrativeSeparation,datedSeptember8,1997,statesthattheonlyreasonIor
dischargeisthatIromJuly2,1997toAugust28,1997,PettyOIIicerBaueruseda
governmentcomputertoaccessaninternetchatroomIorgaymen(Exhibit23).Other
militarymembersinBauersworkplace,however,arereportedtoroutinelyaccessthe
internetIromgovernmentcomputersIorpersonaluse.TheunitsunoIIicialpolicy
reportedlypermitsthisaslongasitdoesnotinterIerewithworkrequirements.The
command,however,tookadverseactionagainstBauersolelybecausetheinternetactivity
indicatedinterestingayissues,notwithstandingDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
guidelinesthatexpresslyprotectassociationalactivities.
49
SLDNdoesnottakethepositionthatthereshouldbenocomputerusepolicies.
Rather,wheresuchpoliciesexist,theyshouldbeappliedinaneven-handedmanner,not
selectivelyenIorcedasarusetoskirtthelimitstoinvestigationsunderDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue.
AnAirForceinquiryinvolvingonlineprivacyultimatelyledoneservicemember
toleavetheAirForceratherthanIacecontinuedpryingintohisprivateliIeanddischarge
proceedings.TherecordinthecaseisinstructiveinshowingiusthowIartheservicesare
goingtopursuesuspectedgaypersonnel.
AccordingtotheReportoIInvestigation,thiscasestartedbasedonan
anonymousphonecallaboutanAirForcemember,allegingthatheusedgovernment
computerstoaccesstheinternetandthathisinternethomepagecontainedhomosexual
images(Exhibit24).ThecommanderinvestigatedtheallegationoImisuseoI
49
InquiryGuidelines,E(4).
LCR 04150
LCR Appendix Page 2119
31
governmentpropertyanddisciplinedthemember.Thecommander,however,also
initiatedaninquiryintotheservicememberssexualorientationbasedonthissame
anonymoustip.
Atthisiuncture,therulesandregulationsareclearthatcommanderscannot
initiateaninquiryunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuebasedonanonymous
tips.
50
AccordingtotheReportoIInvestigation,however,thecommandinitiatedan
inquirytoexploretheissueoI|As|homosexuality.TheinquiryoIIicerwastaskedto
conductareviewoIallaspectsoIthecomputerInternetwebsitehomepageallegedly
producedandmaintainedby|A|,andavailablee-maildocumentsassociatedwiththat
websiteandpertinenttothisinquiry.
Accordingly,theinquiryoIIicerextracted565pagesoIcomputercode,webpages
andelectronicmaildetailingthehistoryoIinternetusebytheservicemember.The
inquiryoIIicerseIIortsweresowide-rangingthathealsopulledtheservicemembers
medicalandmentalhealthrecords.
Inaddition,theinquiryoIIicerinterviewedtwenty-threecoworkers,Iriends,
supervisorsandothers,attemptingtosolicitinIormationabouttheservicemembers
sexualorientationandprivateliIe.Heaskedtwenty-oneoItheintervieweesthe
Iollowing overly-broadquestions:
1. Have you seen a web site home page relating to
|A|?
2. Have you observed any on or oII duty actions by
|A|relatingtothenatureoIthisinvestigation?
3. Do you have any additional comments relating to
thenatureoIthisinvestigation?
50
InquiryGuidelines,B(3):E(3)(BydeIinition,credibleinIormationrequiresasourcewhosecredibility
canbeassessed.Ananonymousphonecallcannotbeassessedanddeemedcredibleinthesamewaythat
rumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaimsarenotdeemedcredible.).
LCR 04151
LCR Appendix Page 2120
32
4. Can you suggest any individuals that would have
inIormation relating to the nature oI this
investigation?
Occasionally,theinquiryoIIicerwouldelicitsomeirrelevantspeculationIromthe
interviewees.OnewitnessnotedthatsheknewthatthebeneIiciarythat|A|namedIor
hisLiIeInsurancewasamaleCaptainthathedescribedasaIriend(Exhibit25).
CurrentrulesspeciIicallystatethatthelistingoIasamegenderbeneIiciaryisnotcredible
inIormation.
51
Anotherintervieweeresponded,TheonlycommentthatIcouldrelate
wasthat|As|roommateappearedsomewhateIIeminate(Exhibit26).Suchcomments
are,atbest,stereotypical,aIter-the-Iactspeculation.DontAsk,DontTell,Dont
PursuespeciIicallyprotectsassociationalrights
52
andstatesthatspeculation
53
abouta
servicememberandhisorherIriendsisnotcredibleinIormation.
OneoIthetwenty-threewitnesses,however,IinallyprovidedoneoIthetwoitems
thatthecommandeventuallyusedtorecommenddischarge.Thatintervieweesaid,
DuringtheconversationthatIhadwith|A|thateveningheconIidedinmethathewas
gay.AstatementoIsexualorientationcanbeabasisIordischargeunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue,butthispurportedstatementwasmadeinaprivatecontext.
54
Furthermore,thestatementmadebythiswitnesswasnottheoriginalallegationagainst
51
DoDPolicyGuidelinesonHomosexualConductintheArmedForces,July19,1993(Thelistingbya
servicememberoIsomeoneoIthesamegenderasthepersontobecontactedinthecaseoIanemergency,
asaninsurancebeneIiciary,orinasimilarcontext,doesnotprovideabasisIorseparationorIurther
investigation.).
52
InquiryGuidelines,E(4).
53
InquiryGuidelines,E(1-3)(CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhen:1.Theindividualis
suspectedoIengaginginhomosexualconduct,butthereisnocredibleinIormationtosupportthat
suspicion: or2.TheonlyinIormationistheopinionsoIothersthatamemberishomosexual:or3.The
inquirywouldbebasedonrumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaimsconcerningamemberssexualorientation
).
54
InquiryGuidelines,C(2)(AbasisIordischargeexistsiI:Thememberhassaidthatheorsheisa
homosexualorbisexual,ormadesomeotherstatementthatindicatesapropensityorintenttoengagein
homosexualacts.).
LCR 04152
LCR Appendix Page 2121
33
theservicemember,andDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueprohibitsinquiryoIIicers
IromIishingIoradditionalgroundsIordischarge.
55
TheonlyotherpieceoIinIormationthatthisservicememberscommandIound
andusedtorecommenddischargewasonee-mailmessagerecoveredusingseveralon-
linesearchengines.Intheelectronicmessage,theservicememberallegedlyadmitsthat
heisgay(Exhibit27).InthenoticeoIadministrativeseparation,theservicemembers
commanderwrites:
You did on or about September 16, 1996, make a
homosexualstatement,inthatyousentane-mailIromyour
governmentownedcomputertoJohninwhichyoustated,
Ireallydontconsidermysexualorientationanaberration:
although, I suppose some people deIinitely do. As you
know, the reality is that there are quite a Iew lesbian and
gay Iolks in the USAF and other branches. Were iust
trying to live our lives as best we can given the current
circumstances.Iseemyweb-pageasameanstoexpress
my sexuality, as well as other interests in a somewhat low
exposureenvironment,orwordstothateIIect.
Thise-mailwasnottheoriginalallegationagainsttheservicemember.Itwas
uncoveredonlyinthecourseoIaIishingexpedition.Timeandtimeagain,SLDNhas
documentedcaseswhereproperlylimitedinquiriesandinvestigationsunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuewouldnothaveresultedinadverseactionagainstasuspected
servicemember.InquiryoIIicerswhoaregivenIreereigntoconductIishingexpeditions,
however,maywellturnupsomethingiItheydiglongenough.HowmanyoIthesame
commandersandinquiryoIIicerscouldwithstandgovernmentagentssearchingevery
nookandcrannyoItheirlivestodredgeupconIidencessharedwithIriends,oranyother
inIormationagainstthem,howeverslight?
55
InquiryGuidelines,A(3).
LCR 04153
LCR Appendix Page 2122
34
TheNavy,CoastGuardandAirForcearenottheonlyservicesthathavepursued
suspectedgaypersonnelonline.SLDNhashandledsuchcasesineveryservicethisyear,
raisingseriousconcernsaboutonlineprivacyandservicemembersassociationalrights.
InissuinghisopinioninMcJeighv.Perrv,JudgeSporkinwarnsthat,InthesedaysoI
bigbrother,wherethroughtechnologyandotherwisetheprivacyinterestsoIindividuals
IromallwalksoIliIearebeingmarginalized,itisimperativethatstatutesexplicitly
protectingtheserightsbestrictlyobserved.WebelievemostAmericansviewtheir
onlineactivitiesasprivate.ItisclearthattheAirForcememberdiscussedabovedid.
EveniIonlinecommunicationssomehowdonotinhereareasonableexpectationoI
privacy,theycertainlyareoIthesamecaliberoIassociationalactivitiespurportedly
protectedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,suchasgoingtoagaybar,
marchinginagayrightsparadeorreadinggaymagazinessuchasOUTMagazine.a
culturalmagazineIorthegaycommunity,andTheAavocate.anewsmagazine.
56
The Prove Youre Gay Fishing Expedition
Anothergrowinganddisturbingtrendamongallservicesistheproveyoure
gayphenomenon.Intheproveyouregaycases,inquiryoIIicersconductwide-
rangingIishingexpeditionsinviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueinan
eIIorttodigupadditionalinIormationaboutaservicememberwhohasalreadymadea
statementthatheorsheisgay.ThetrendstartedintheAirForcein1994
57
andis
spreadingnowtotheotherservices.TheseproveyouregayIishingexpeditionsare
placingservicememberslivesandlibertyatrisk.
56
InquiryGuidelines,E(4).
57
C.DIXON OSBURN ET. AL.,SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK,CONDUCT UNBECOMING:THE
THIRD ANNUAL REPORTONDONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE(1997).
LCR 04154
LCR Appendix Page 2123
35
IntheDontAsksection,Iorexample,wedescribedtheseriousconsequences
oItheproveyouregayapproachinthecaseoIANBarryWaldrop. AN Waldropisthe
sailorwhocameouttohiscommandinresponsetoanti-gayharassmentandwho
subsequentlyreceivedadeaththreat.Ratherthandischargehimexpeditiously,AN
WaldropscommandspeciIicallytoldhimhemustprovethatheisgayinordertobe
discharged.ThecommandthenlaunchedaninquirytodeterminewhetherAN Waldrop
hadengagedingayacts.
ByconductingaIishingexpeditionintoANWaldropsprivateliIe,ratherthan
investigatingthosewhohadthreatenedhim,thecommandexposedANWaldropto
Iurtherdangerandsentaterriblemessagetothecrew:harassmentwillbetoleratedand
gayservicememberswhoreportitwillbepunished.
TheproveyouregayIishingexpeditionalsothreatenedAN Waldropwith
additionaladverseconsequences,includingimprisonment.Thecommand,Iorexample,
threatened AN WaldropwithcriminalchargesiIhedidnotadmittopriorgay
relationships,underthetheorythathewaslyingabouthissexualorientationand
thereIoremakingaIalseoIIicialstatement.UndertheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice
(UCMJ),however,ANWaldropcouldhavebeencriminallychargedandimprisonedIor
IiveyearsperchargeiIhehadconIirmedengaginginsodomy,whichincludesoralsex,
orindecentacts,whichincludesalmostanythinginthecontextoIagayrelationship,
includinghand-holding.HowcouldAN WaldropingoodIaithcomplywithhis
commandsdemandtoprovideinIormationaboutgayrelationshipsknowingthatany
suchinIormation,iIitindeedexisted,couldhavelandedhiminiail?Theproveyoure
gayinvestigativetacticplacesservicemembersinanuntenable,lose-losesituationand
LCR 04155
LCR Appendix Page 2124
36
demonstratesacompletelackoIgoodIaithonthepartoIcommandersandinquiry
oIIicersinIollowingthelimitstoinvestigationsunderDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue.
Inanothercase,ahighly-trainedNavyoIIicerwasorderedtostayondutyand
proceedtohisnextassignmentbytheBureauoINavyPersonnel(BUPERS)althoughhe
hadmadeastatementoIhissexualorientationinresponsetoanti-gaycommentsinhis
unitandbecauseoIethicalconcerns.InalettertotheoIIicer,aBUPERSoIIicial
explainedhisdecision,stating,"Nothinginyourstatementsindicatesyouengagein
homosexualacts,orthatyouwillengageinhomosexualacts."BUPERSevenwentso
IarastoaccusetheoIIiceroIlyingabouthisorientation,aconclusionthatisIlatout
wrong(Exhibit28).
IItheNavyhasadoptedthepositionthatstatementsoIhomosexualorbisexual
orientationarenolongergroundsIordischarge,thatwouldbeamaiordevelopmentthat
SLDNwouldwelcome.SLDNasksNavyoIIicialstoconIirmwhetherthisis,indeed,
theirposition.IIitisnot,thissituationraisesseriousconcernsaboutwhethertheintent
oIBUPERSissimplytopunishservicememberswhocomeoutintheIaceoI
harassment,thethreatoIbeingouted,orduetoethicalconcernsbysettingthemupIor
evenharsherpunishmentthandischarge.
InnumerousAirForcecases,SLDNhasdocumentedthatinvestigatorshave
askedorhaveattemptedtoasktheIollowingstandardquestionswiththepurposeoI
Iorcingservicememberstoprovetheyaregay(Exhibit29):
1. Whatwasyourintentinmakingthestatement?
2. WhatwasyourpurposeIorstatingthatyouarea
homosexual?
3. Doyourparentsandsiblingsknow?
LCR 04156
LCR Appendix Page 2125
37
4. Howcantheybecontacted?
5. Howdidyoudiscoverthatyouareahomosexual?
6. Whendidyoudiscoverthatyouareahomosexual?
7. Wheredoyouliveanddoyouhaveanyroommates?
8. Howdoyouknowyouhaveahomosexualorientation?
9. Whendidyourealizethis?
10. Who(sic)haveyoutold?
11. Whendidyoutellthem?
12. Whydidyoutellthem?
13. Haveyoubeendatinganyone?
14. Oppositeorsamesex?
15. HowIrequentlyhaveyoudated?
16. Howrecently?
17. Howcanthesepersonsbecontacted?
18. Doyoubelongtoanyhomosexualorganizations?
19. WhoareyourcloseIriends?
20. Howcantheybecontacted?
21. Arethereanyotherwitnessesordocumentsthatcould
veriIythatyouareahomosexual?
22. IsthereanyIurtherinIormation,statementsorevidence
concerningthismatter?
TheAirForcehasbeenquiteIorceIulinattemptingtoiustiIyitsactions,claiming
thatproveyouregaytacticsareusedonlyinalimitednumberoIcasesinvolving
servicememberswhocomeoutandwhohavereceivededucationalIunding,specialpay
orbonusesinexchangeIoraIurtherserviceobligation.TheAirForceassertsthatthis
punitiveapproachisnecessarytopreventIraudbyheterosexualservicemembersorgay
slackardswhomightclaimtobegayinordertoavoidpartoItheirserviceobligation.
TheservicehasprovidednoIactstosupportitsassertion.
TheAirForcepositiondoesnotstanduptoscrutiny.First,theAirForcehasbad
Iacts.InthepastIouryears,SLDNhasassisted1,300menandwomenharmedby
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueandnotoncehavewereceivedanyevidenceto
supporttheAirForcescontentionthattheserviceisplaguedbyheterosexualIraudsor
LCR 04157
LCR Appendix Page 2126
38
gay slackards.WeagreewithTheWashingtonPostseditorialonMay15,1997:We
wouldliketoseetheevidenceonthatone.
58
Second,theAirForceisusingthesememorandainnumerouscases,suchasthat
oIIormerSeniorAirmanWendyWilkins,whereservicemembershavenotreceivedany
educationalassistanceorenlistmentbonuses.
Third,theAirForcememorandaarebasedoncompletelyinaccurateassumptions
aboutwhatitmeanstobegay.AirForceoIIicialsdonotacknowledgethesacriIiceand
risktoservicememberssaIetyinvolvedincomingout.Nordotheycomprehendthe
ethicaldilemmacreatedbythepresentregime,whichrequiresservicememberstolie,
eventotheirparents,asaconditionoImilitaryservice.Thisresultisdiametrically
opposedtotheproIessedCoreValuesoItheAirForce.Theethicaldilemmaimposedon
servicemembersbythispolicyhasonlyintensiIiedinayearduringwhichalloIthe
serviceshaveplacedrenewedemphasisonCoreValues,anotherwiselaudableeIIort.
InalettertoSecretaryCohendatedSeptember25,1997,S.MichaelYongue
statesthatthereasonhehadtobehonestabouthissexualorientationhadeverythingto
dowiththelistoIAirForceCoreValueswhichherecitedinhisletter(Exhibit30):
Courage. a person oI integrity, Ior example, is
capableoIactingonconviction.
Honesty. Honesty is the hallmark oI the military
proIessional because in the military, our word must
be our bond. The bottom line is we dont lie, and
wecantiustiIyanydeviation.
Responsibility. No person oI integrity is
irresponsible: a person oI true integrity
acknowledges his or her duties and acts
accordingly.
58
TheWashingtonPost,AGoodTimetoReviewGayPolicy,May15,1997,A22.
LCR 04158
LCR Appendix Page 2127
39
Self-Respect. To have integrity also is to respect
oneselIasaproIessionalandahumanbeing
Mutual Respect. Genuine respect involves
viewing another person as an individual oI
Iundamentalworth.
ContrarytotheAirForcesownCoreValues,itsinstructionstoinquiryoIIicersto
treatservicememberswhocomeoutasheterosexualIraudsorgayslackardshas
producedaclimatewherehonestyisharshlypunishedandmutualrespectisdiscarded.
Anythinggoesistheruleingaycases.Thehypocrisyiscleartoheterosexualand
homosexualservicemembersalike,underminingtheservicesbestintentionstoinculcate
strongvaluesintoourmilitarymembers.
Inadditiontotheethicalconcernswhichmotivatesomeservicemembers,many
otherswhowouldotherwiseservequietlyIoryearscomeoutspeciIicallytoescape
hostileenvironmentsorthreatstotheirsaIety.AirForceMaiorRobertL.Kittyleisan
example.ThoughtheinquiryoIIicerappointedinMaiorKittylescaseinitiallytriedto
provethatKittylewasnotgay,heIinallyconcludedthat,ItappearsMaiorKittylemade
thisannouncementaIterhecouldnottoleratederogatorycommentsconcerning
homosexuals.Nothingwasdonetoendthederogatorycomments(Exhibit31).
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisclearlynotazerodischargepolicy.
ThosewhomakepublicdeclarationsoIahomosexualorbisexualorientationwillbe
dischargedandtheserviceswilllosethevaluablecontributionsoIthesemembers.
Militaryleadersinsistedonthispolicyin1993,andtheywon.InlightoIthis,itisrather
disingenuousIorAirForceleaderstocomplainnowthattheyarenothappywithallthe
resultsoItheirpolicy,namelythattheyarelosinghighly-skilledpersonnelsuchas
doctors,pilots,physicists,andseniorenlistedmembers.
LCR 04159
LCR Appendix Page 2128
40
AstheAirForcehasadoptedmoreandmorepunitivemeasurestotargetthetiny
subsetoIskilledmemberswhohavereceivedgovernmentIunding,thetailhascometo
wagthedog.TheintrusivetacticsrequiredbytheAirForcememoranda,oIIensive
enoughunderanycircumstances,havebledovertobecomethenorminallgaycases,
evenspreadingtotheotherservices.TheeIIectistounnecessarilyratchetupthepain
thresholdoIgaycasesaswellasthecost,whichoItenexceedstheamountoIIunding
receivedbytheservicemember.Evermoreintrusivetacticsandprolongeddischarge
proceedingsarebeingusedinsimplecaseswherestatementsoIsexualorientationshould,
undercurrentpolicy,resultinexpeditiousdischarges.Investigationsarelaunchedand
dischargesinitiatedevenincaseswherenoinquiryordischargeshouldbeatissue
becausetheservicememberhasnotviolatedthepolicy.
ThisapproachispouringIuelontotheIlamesoIanalreadyexplosivesituationin
caseswhereservicememberscomeoutastheironlyrealrecoursetoprotecttheirsaIety,
suchasthoseinvolvingdeaththreatsandotherharassment.Thisservesnopurposebutto
IurtherieopardizeservicememberssaIety.ThepracticeoIaskingoverly-broad,
intrusivequestionsisnotlimitedtocomingoutcases,butisindicativeoIthewitchhunt
mindsetthatcontinuestoexistintheservices.
Good Command Actions
Thenewsisnotallbad.SLDNhasdocumentedsomeisolatedcaseswhere
commandsdidnotpursuesuspectedgayservicemembers,correctlycomplyingwiththe
letterandintentoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Thesecases,liketheArmys
responsetothewitchhuntdescribedearlier,shouldserveasacompasstopointtheway
toaDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuepolicythatisproperlyimplemented.
LCR 04160
LCR Appendix Page 2129
41
IntheAirForce,acommandlaunchedaninquiryagainstaten-yearservice
memberbasedonIalseallegationsthathewasgay.Thecommandeventuallyclosedthe
inquiry,however,aItertheinquiryoIIicerdeterminedthattherewasnocredible
inIormationoIhomosexualconduct.AlloIthecircumstancestakentogethersuggest
thattheallegationsarenotcredible,concludedtheinquiryoIIicerintheReportoI
Inquiry.Hecontinued,Theindividualwhoallegesthemhasamotivetoliethatwould
renderhimdiIIiculttobelieveinadischargeboard.Further,aIterhearingIrom
witnesseswhostatedthattheservicemember'IitthestereotypeoIahomosexual,the
inquiryoIIicercorrectlyconcluded,ItisspeciIicallynotedthathomosexualmannerisms,
suchasthosecitedbythewitnesses,arenothomosexualstatements(Exhibit32).
SLDNlaudstheresultoIthisinquiry.However,wenotethattheinquiryshould
nothavebeeninitiated.CredibleinIormationisrequiredbeIorelaunchinganinquiry:
commandsmaynotinvestigatetotrytoIindcredibleinIormation.Thedangerin
allowinginquiriestoproceedisthatinquiryoIIicerswhoarelessconscientiousor
inIormedthantheinquiryoIIicerinthiscaseoItenIishIorinIormationthatisnotatissue,
asintheonlinecasesdescribedearlier.
AnotherexampleoIagoodcommandactioninvolvesacareermemberoIthe
militarywhoIacedadischargeboardbasedonalettertohispartnerthathadbeen
inadvertentlydiscoveredbyaco-worker.Thedischargeboardrecommendedretention,
statingthatthereleaseoItheletterwasentirelyinadvertent.Itwasintendedasaprivate
communicationIoronepersononly.SLDNagreeswiththeboardsconclusionthat
private,inadvertentlydiscoveredinIormationwasnotintendedtobepolicedunder
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
LCR 04161
LCR Appendix Page 2130
42
AFt.Sill,Oklahoma,commanderreIusedtoinitiateaninquirywhenasoldier
turnedinagay-relatedvideobelongingtoabarracksroommate.WhiletheArmy
commanderchewedoutthesoldierIorhavingthevideo,healsostatedthatthe
soldiersprivateliIewasprivate,whichisexactlywhatDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursueprovides.ThecommandersactionsalsoreIlectedacorrectunderstandingthat
neithergay-relatedvideosnorinadvertentdiscoveriesarecredibleinIormation.
InasimilarsituationatCharlestonAirForceBase,anairmandiscoveredagay
adultmagazineleItbehindbyaSeniorAirmanwhenhemovedoutoIhison-base
housing.Theairmanscommanderproperlydeclinedtoinitiateaninquirygiventhe
currentrulesprotectingassociationalrights,includingthepossessionoIgay-related
publications.
One IinalcaseinvolvesaNavyPettyOIIicerwhowassuspectedoIbeinggay.
ThesuspicionsstartedwhenaciviliannursewhotreatedhimIoriniuriesIroman
automobileaccidentatahospitalemergencyroomsearchedhisbelongingsand
discovereditemsthatledhertobelievehemightbegay.Thenursetoldherhusband,
whowasaNavyoIIicer,aboutwhatshehadIoundandthehusbandrelayedthe
inIormationtothePettyOIIicerscommander.Thecommandercorrectlydeterminedthat
theservicememberhadnotmadeanypublicstatementsoIhissexualorientationandthat
suspicionsabouthissexualorientationwereaninsuIIicientbasisIoraninquiry.
ThemostsigniIicantimprovementinDontPursuecomplianceisthatSLDN
didnotdocumentasingleinstancein1997wherecommandscourt-martialedservice
membersonallegationsoIconsensualgaysexualconduct.AirForceMaiorDebra
MeeksmadeheadlinestwoyearsagowhensheIoughtallegationsthatshehadbeenina
LCR 04162
LCR Appendix Page 2131
43
consensuallesbianrelationshipandwasacquittedatcourt-martial.
59
TheAirForcehad
speciIicallyheldMaiorMeeksbeyondhertwenty-yearretirementdateinorderto
criminallyprosecuteandpotentiallyimprisonherIoreightyearsbasedonthe
allegations.
60
SLDNremainsconcerned,however,thatinvestigatorsandinquiryoIIicers
continuetothreatenservicememberswithcriminalcharges,oItenIorcingthemtoaccept
dischargecharacterizationsthatarelowerthantheirrecordsmerit.
Inthepreviousthreeyears,SLDNdocumentedadozencaseswherecommanders
hadattemptedtocriminallyprosecutegayservicemembersIorconsensualsexual
conduct.
61
Eachyear,SLDNnotedthatthecurrentregulationsinstructcommandersto
pursueadministrativeratherthancriminalremediesinsuchcases,
62
andtoensureeven-
handedenIorcementinthecriminalsystemregardlessoIsexualorientation.
63
Wealso
notedthatweknewoInocaseinthoseyearswhereheterosexualservicememberswere
criminallyprosecutedIorconsensualsexualconductinsimilarcircumstances.
SLDNcommendstheapparentceaseIireoncriminalprosecutionsoIgaypeople.
DoDandtheservicesshouldtakethenextstepandensurethatnocommander,
investigatororinquiryoIIicerusesthethreatoIcriminalchargesincasesarisingunder
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
Thebottomline:despitesomebrightspots,DontPursueenIorcement
continuestonotmeetstandards.DontPursueviolationssurgedIrom191in1996to
235in1997,a23increase.TheAirForceandNavycontinuetoleadthepackin
59
Ia.
60
Ia.
61
Ia.
62
InquiryGuidelines,D(1)(InIormalIact-Iindinginquiriesandadministrativeseparationproceduresare
thepreIerredmethodoIaddressinghomosexualconduct.Thisdoesnotpreventdisciplinaryactionortrial
bycourts-martialwhenappropriate.).
63
GuidelinesIorDCIOs,(D)(3).
LCR 04163
LCR Appendix Page 2132
44
documentedDontPursueviolations.BothAirForceandNavycommandersareguilty
oIlaunchinginvestigationsandinquirieswithoutcredibleinIormation,andinitiatingIar-
reachinginvestigationstoIishIorinIormationagainstservicemembersinanattemptto
digupinIormationthatcansubsequentlybeusedtoiustiIydischargesorcourt-martials.
HighercommandstypicallyrespondbyiustiIying,notstopping,violations.Some
commands,however,arebeginningtodotherightthing.CriminalprosecutionsoI
servicemembersIorconsensualgayconducthavewanedthisyear.AIewcommands
havecorrectlyreIusedtoinitiateinquiriesbasedonprivatecommunicationsor
inadvertentdiscoveries.DoDandtheservicesshouldexaminethereal-liIescenarios
wherecommandersdidtherightthingandusethemtotrainothercommandersonthe
Iactthatthecurrentpolicycontainslimitsoninvestigations.
LCR 04164
LCR Appendix Page 2133
45
DONTHARASS
TheDontHarassregulationsstateclearlythattheArmedForcesdonot
tolerateharassmentorviolenceagainstanyservicememberIoranyreason.
64
Inamaior
developmentin1997,theDepartmentoIDeIenseissuedguidanceclariIyingthat
commandersshouldrespondtoanti-gayharassmentandlesbian-baitingbyinvestigatingthe
harassmentitselI,notservicememberswhoreportit(theDornmemo)(Exhibit33).
65
The
memorandumstates:
ThisguidanceisissuedbecauseoIinIormationwehave
received that some service members have been
threatened with being homosexual aIter they rebuIIed
sexualadvances.
TheIactthataservicememberreportsbeingthreatened
because he or she is said or is perceived to be a
homosexual shall not by itselI constitute credible
inIormation iustiIying the initiation oI an investigation
oIthethreatenedservicemember.
The report oI a threat should result in the prompt
investigationoIthethreatitselI.
Investigators should not solicit allegations concerning
the sexual orientation or homosexual conduct oI the
threatenedperson.
Service members should be able to report crimes Iree
Irom Iear oI harm, reprisal or inappropriate or
inadequategovernmentalresponse.
Pleaseensurethatcommanderstakeappropriateactions
insuchinstances,withdueconsiderationbeinggivento
the saIety oI persons who report threats, and see that
commanders hold Iully accountable persons Iound to
havemadethreatsorengagedinthreateningconduct.
64
ApplicantBrieIingItemonSeparationPolicyissuedwithDoDD1304.26.
65
MemorandumoIUnderSecretaryoIDeIenseEdwinDorn, GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainst
ServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv,(March24,1997)
LCR 04165
LCR Appendix Page 2134
46
Theservices,however,haveIailedtodistributetheDornmemototheIield.No
commander,attorney,inquiryoIIicer,investigatororotherservicememberaskedby
SLDNinthecourseoIassistingservicememberslastyearhadeverheardoItheDorn
memo,muchlessreadit.
OneresultoIthelackoIguidanceonanti-gayharassmentandlesbian-baitingin
theIieldisthatDontHarassviolationssurgedin1997.SLDNdocumented182
Dont Harassviolationsin1997,up38Iromthe132DontHarassviolations
reportedlastyear.TheNavyledtheserviceswith66DontHarassviolations,though
thisseriousproblemcutsacrosseveryservice.
Anti-Gay Threats Aboard the USS Eisenhower
InoneoIthemostharrowingsetsoIcasesthisyear,SLDNreceivedreportsoI
anti-gaythreats,includingdeaththreats,againstIoursailorsonboardtheUSSEisenhower
withinatwo-monthperiod.OneoIthesailorstargetedwasANBarryWaldrop.
AsdescribedintheDontAsksectionoIthisreport,ANWaldrophadIaced
repeatedquestionsabouthissexualorientationthatgaverisetoconcernsIorhissaIety.
InthemiddleoISeptember,1997hereturnedtohisberthingareaonedaytoIindthe
warningYoureadeadIaggotscrawledinmagicmarkeronhisrack.Asailorinthe
nextrack,whohadseenthethreat,askedANWaldroppointblankiIitweretruethathe
isgay(Exhibit8).
AN Waldropreportedthethreattohischain-oI-command.Previously,hehad
inIormedhissuperioroIIiceroItheharassmenthewasexperiencingandhisconcernIor
hissaIety.ToSLDNsknowledge,thechain-oI-commanddidnothingtoinvestigatethe
threatortoprotectWaldrop.OnlyaIterWaldropsoughthelpIromSLDNand,atour
LCR 04166
LCR Appendix Page 2135
47
urging,amilitarydeIenseattorney,didtheshipssecurityoIIiceevensendpersonnelto
photographthethreat.InamemorandumIorrecorddatedJanuary21,1998,AN
Waldropwrites,Thiswastwoweekslater,andthemagicmarkerwasstillthere.
AN WaldropwasthesecondoIIoursailorsontheUSSEisenhowerwhowere
targetedwithinathree-monthperiod.InAugust,theIirstsailorreceivedthewritten
threat,LeaveorDieFag,tackedtohisrack.
InSeptember1997,athirdsailorwasknockedunconsciousbyanunknown
assailantwhocalledhimIaggotinanoII-baseassault.Theassaultoccurrediustdays
aIterhiscartireshadbeenslashedwhilethecarwasparkedonbase.Thethreats
IollowedendlessharanguingbyIellowsailorsthatwentundisciplinedbythecommand.
Thissailor,Iorexample,reportsthatgroupsnumberinguptotensailorsyelledIaggot
athim,inIullviewandhearingoInoncommissionedoIIicerswhenhewasontheships
deck.Theseincidentsoccurrednolessthantwiceaweek,accordingtothesailor.
AIourthsailorIoundLeaveFagwritteninblood-likeketchuponhisrackin
October1997.Thissailorreportsthattwicehewasawakenedatnightwhensomeone
hadopenedthecurtainsonhisrack.
Thesethreesailorsalsoreportedthethreatsandharassmenttheyreceivedtothe
shipssecuritypersonnel,amongothers.ToSLDNsknowledge,thesecuritypersonnel
madenoseriouseIIorttoinvestigatethethreats.InIact,securitypersonneltoldthesailor
whoIoundLeaveFagwritteninketchupthatitwasnotathreat.
AtonepointaIterSLDNlearnedoIthethreatsontheUSSEisenhower,theships
senioroIIicersappearedtotakethethreatsagainsttheIourthsailorseriously,agreeingto
removethesailorIromtheshipbeIoreitgotunderway.Sevendayslater,however,the
LCR 04167
LCR Appendix Page 2136
48
commandrenegedonthisunderstandingandhelicopteredthesailorouttotheshipatsea,
withnonotice.Whenhereachedtheship,thesailorwasreportedlyplacedonrestriction,
questionedabouthissexualorientationandpressuredtodrophisreportoIthethreats.
ThelegaloIIicethenaccusedhimoIvandalizinghisownrack.
Like AN Waldrop,theotherthreatenedsailorsindependentlycametothe
conclusionthattheonlywaytoprotecttheirsaIetywastocomeouttothemilitaryand
bedischarged.TheIirstsailortobethreatenedwasdischargedexpeditiously.Theother
sailorswerenot.
AtthebehestoItheshipslegaloIIice,thecommandreIusedtoexpeditiously
dischargetheremainingthreesailors,andbyallappearances,itreIusedtotakethedeath
threatsseriously.Instead,thecommandrequiredthesailorstoprovethattheyaregay
bydemandingevidencetheyhadengagedinhomosexualacts.ThisinIormationwas
unnecessaryIordischargeandcouldhavesubiectedthesailorstocriminalcharges.The
sailorswerealsotoldthat,iItheydidnotprovethattheyweregay,theywouldbe
criminallychargedIormakingIalseoIIicialstatements,placingtheminanuntenable
Catch-22.
Thecommandsdecisiontoinvestigatethethreatenedsailorsprivatelivesserved
onlytoIueltheshipsrumormillandincreasethesailorsvulnerability.ANWaldrop,
whohadalreadytakentosleepinginthecommonareabecauseoIIearIorhissaIety,
becameaIraidtosleepatallaIterlearningoIanewroundoIthreatstowhiphisIaggot
ass(Exhibit8). Atthispoint,nearlytwomonthsaIterhereportedtheIirstthreat,
WaldropsworriedparentsmadeawrittenappealtotheshipsCaptaintoprotecttheir
sonssaIetyandrevealedtheirprivateIamilyconversationsabouthissexualorientation
LCR 04168
LCR Appendix Page 2137
49
inaneIIorttosatisIythecommandthatheisindeedgayandclearthewayIorhis
discharge.
Inanutshell,whenanapparentpatternoItargetingperceivedgaymenemerged
ontheUSSEisenhower,theshipscommanddidlittletoattempttotrackdownthe
perpetratorsandinsteadinvestigatedtheprivatelivesoIthethreatenedsailorsand
questionedtheirveracity.
ThecommandsactionsviolatedtheclearmandatesoIDontAsk,DontTell,
Dont PursueandtheDornmemo.DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueprohibits
commandsIromaskingservicememberstoprovideinIormationabouttheirsexual
activitiesincasesinvolvingstatementsoIsexualorientation.ThisisaIishing
expedition.
66
AstatementoIsexualorientationaloneisasuIIicientbasisIordischarge.
67
The Dornmemoisalsoveryclear.TheDornmemostatesthatThereportoIa
threatshouldresultinthepromptinvestigationoIthethreatitselI.
68
Thisdidnotoccur
ontheUSS Eisenhower.TheDornmemostatesthatInvestigatorsshouldnotsolicit
allegationsconcerningthesexualorientationorhomosexualconductoIthethreatened
person.
69
Yet,intheEisenhowercases,thecommandaskedthesailorstoprovethatthat
aregaybyprovidingdetailsoItheirsexuallives,iIany.AndtheDornmemostatesthat
ServicemembersshouldbeabletoreportcrimesIreeIromIearoIharm,reprisalor
inappropriateorinadequategovernmentalresponse.
70
TheEisenhowersresponsewas
notonlyinappropriateandinadequate,itpotentiallyieopardizedthesailorslives.
66
InquiryGuidelines,A(3).
67
InquiryGuidelines,C(2).
68
MemorandumoIUnderSecretaryoIDeIenseEdwinDorn, GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainst
ServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv.(March24,1997)
69
Ia.
70
Ia.
LCR 04169
LCR Appendix Page 2138
50
Ultimately, alloItheEisenhowersailorswhoreceivedanti-gaythreatswere
dischargedaIterinterventionbythesailorsIamilies,topNavyoIIicialsandmembersoI
Congress.ItisanunIortunateresultthatthesesailorshadtochoosebetweentheircareers
andtheirsaIety,butthatisthepredicamentinwhichDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursueandtheircommandsmisguidedactionsplacedthem.SLDNnoteswith
gratitudetheresponseoItopNavyoIIicialswhenalertedtothissituation.SLDN,
however,urgestheNavytoholdaccountablethoseresponsibleIorboththethreatsand
commandviolationsinthismatter.
Gay Bashing Against A Marine
FormerMarineLanceCorporalKevinSmithcanalsotestiIytothedouble-edged
swordoIanti-gayharassmentwhencommandsdonotknowtherulesordonottake
appropriatestepstoensurethesaIetyoItheirtroops.OnSeptember26,1997,Smithwas
assaultedbytwomenoutsideoIagaybarinSanAngelo,Texas.Hisiniurieswere
severeenoughtopromptwitnessestocallanambulance.SmithmadethediIIicult
decisionnottopressassaultchargesagainsthisassailant,because,ashedetailedina
subsequentlettertohiscommander,datedOctober9,1997,Ididnotwantthemilitary
tolearnabouttheattack.IIearedthatthecircumstancessurroundingtheattackwouldbe
usedasanexcusetoinitiateaninvestigationintomysexualorientation(Exhibit34).
Eventhoughhedidnotpresscharges,Smithsplatoonsergeantsomehowlearned
oItheassaultandquestionedhimaboutitthreedayslater.Theplatoonsergeants
responseconIirmedLanceCorporalSmithsIears.AsstatedbyLanceCorporalSmithin
alettertohiscommander,|ThePlatoonSergeant|askedmeiIIknewwhatkindoIa
barIwasat(sic).HealsoquestionedmeastoiItherewasanythingthatIwantedtotell
LCR 04170
LCR Appendix Page 2139
51
himandwhetherornotIwantedtogetoutoIthemilitary,Smithreports.Theplatoon
sergeantwarnedSmiththataNavalCriminalInvestigativeService(NCIS)investigation
intotheassaultwouldbeverythorough.
BecauseoIthecommandsmisguidedIocusonhissuspectedsexualorientation
ratherthantheassault,LanceCorporalSmithreluctantlydecidedthathisonlyreal
option,likethesailorsonboardtheUSSEisenhower,wastocomeoutandbedischarged
Iromthemilitary.Inthelettertohiscommander,LanceCorporalSmithexplains,I
enioymyserviceintheMarinesandamdistressedatthepositioninwhichtheDoDs
antigaypolicyhasplacedme.However,thepriceoIservingmycountryistoohighiIthe
militaryputsmoreoIapremiumoninvestigatingmyprivateliIethaninassistingme
withbringingthosewhoassaultedmetoiustice(Exhibit34).LanceCorporalSmithhas
IiledanIGcomplaintaboutthisincident.TheIGhasreleasednoresultsoIthereviewto
date.
Investigators Threaten Soldier With Death
IntheArmy,anoncommissionedoIIicer(NCO)reportsthathereceivedadeath
threatatthehandsoIagentsIortheCriminalInvestigationCommand(CID).Thethreat
occurredintheArmywitchhuntmentionedintheDontPursuesection.TheNCO
whowasthreatenedreportsthathewasquestionedaboutgayallegationsinhis
workplace.Whenhesaidthathedidnotwanttodiscusstheallegationsandinvokedhis
righttoconsultwithanattorney,theagentsreportedlyhandcuIIedhiminIrontoIhis
subordinates,tellinghimhewasnotcooperating,andhauledhimdowntotheir
headquarters.Oncethere,oneoItheagentsreportedlythreatenedhim,stating,There
areaccidentsindivisions.Sometimespeopledie.Whenwordgetsout,youmaybeone
LCR 04171
LCR Appendix Page 2140
52
oIthose.TheNCOdidnotoIIiciallyreportthethreats.Inhisview,suchareportwould
onlyinviteIurtherinvestigationontrumpedupcharges.AlthoughtheNCOwascleared
ontheIalseallegations,hereportslastingconsequencesoItheCIDagentsoutrageous
behavior.Theseincludelingeringsuspicionsthatheisgayanddiminishedstandingin
theeyesoIhiscommand,despitehisstellarproIessionalrecord.
Additional Incidents Of Anti-Gay Harassment
OtherincidentsoIanti-gayharassmentrecordedbySLDNin1997include,but
arenotlimitedto,theIollowing:
AsoldierreportsthathereceivedtheIollowingmessageon
his answering machine: I better not Iind you up on the
second Iloor, you Iaggot. II I do, I'm going to kick your
ass. Ill kick your I---ing teeth out oI the back oI your
head.Whilethecommanddidnotinvestigatethesoldiers
sexual orientation when he reported the threat -- a good
development -- neither did the command or military police
take steps actually to investigate the source oI the threat.
The threatened soldier lived in Iear until the suspect was
transIerredattheendoIhistourseveralmonthslater.
Shortly aIter an airman was questioned by his supervisor
and coworkers about his sexual orientation, questions
which he evaded, a coworker said to him, II I ever saw
two guys kissing, Id beat them with a baseball bat. The
airman is very much aIraid oI coming Iorward with these
IactsIorIearoIhissaIetyandhiscareer.
A marine reports that his car was vandalized aIter he was
placed under investigation Ior allegedly dancing with two
meninacrowdedmixed-genderbar.Thecarwaskeyedin
several places, holes were punched in the trunk and
someone had kicked dents in it. An acquaintance oI this
marine reportedly received two phone calls saying, Die
Iag and II I catch you around town, Im going to kill
you.
LCR 04172
LCR Appendix Page 2141
53
Hostile Command Climate Tolerated
ManyservicememberswhocontactSLDNreportenduringhostileclimates
characterizedbyendlessanti-gayepithets,commentsandiokes.Queer,Faggotand
DykearestandardIare.SomeoIthemanyexamplesrecordedin1997includethe
Iollowing:
At the Marine Corps Recruiting Training Depot in San
Diego, it is reported that drill instructors call recruits butt
I---ing c---suckers and reprimand recruits who under-
perIorm by stating, in the case oI marching, show us how
queersmarch.
In the Army, a physician reports hearing a supervisor say,
IIIhadagayson,Idkillhim.
In Italy, a marine Iirst sergeant reportedly greets new unit
memberswith,TherearethreethingsIhate:liars,thieves
andIaggots.
There is no room in todays military Ior comments such as these. Especially
giventheriskthatservicemembersIaceinreportingtheseincidentstotheircommands,it
is incumbent on leaders to IulIill their responsibilities in setting the command climate.
Todate,thathasnothappened.
Hostilecommandclimateserodeunitcohesion.Moraledipswheneverunit
members,gayandstraight,perceivethatthecommandisnotIairorevenhanded.
Commandsthatcondone,oratleasttolerate,harassmentrisktheveryrealperceptionthat
theydonotIollowtherulesanddonotrespecttheworkoImembersintheunit.
Commandsthatpermitanti-gayharassmentsendtheterriblesignalthatanti-gayviolence
isokayandthatthosewhoharassneednotIearconsequences.
LCR 04173
LCR Appendix Page 2142
54
Lesbian-Baiting As A Weapon of Sexual Harassment
Inadditiontoanti-gayharassment,violationsoIDontHarassalsoinclude
lesbian-baiting,aIormoIsexualharassment. Womenstraight,gay,andbisexual
oItenareaccusedoIbeinglesbianswhentheyrebuIIsexualadvancesbymenorreport
sexualabuse.WomenwhoaretopperIormersinnontraditionalIieldsarealsosubiectto
lesbianaccusations,rumorsandspeculationdesignedtounderminetheirproIessional
standing.ToooIten,commandersrespondbyinvestigatingmilitarywomenunderthe
guiseoIenIorcingDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,ratherthandiscipliningthe
individualswhostartsuchrumorsorwhoperpetratesexualabuse.Asaresult,many
womendonotreportsexualassaultorharassmentbecausetheyrealisticallyIearthatthey
willbeaccusedaslesbians,investigatedandevendischarged.OthersbacktrackIromthe
assertiveleadershipstylesthathavemadethemcompetentmilitaryleadersand
vulnerabletargetsIorlesbianaccusations.
Thegoodnewsin1997isthatthisIormoIsexualharassmentIinallybeganto
receivethehigh-levelattentionitdeserves.ThepreviouslymentionedDornmemomarks
theIirsttimeinhistorythatDoDhasacknowledgedthatlesbian-baitingexistsandhas
takenstepstoaddressit,thoughDoDadvisorybodieshaveaddressedtheissue
previously.
71
InMay1997,theSenateArmedServicesCommitteealsoaddressedthisIormoI
harassmentIortheIirsttime,inSenateReport105-29supportingtheDoDAuthorization
Bill(Exhibit35):
71
DeIenseAdvisoryCommitteeonWomenintheServices(DACOWITS)1989SpringConIerence,
Recommendation#12(1989)(TheDACOWITSrecommendsDoDexpandexistingleadershiptrainingto
includedealingwithunIoundedaccusationsoIhomosexualityagainstServicemembers.).
LCR 04174
LCR Appendix Page 2143
55
The committee is concerned by an increasing number oI
reports that service members who reIuse to participate in
improper sexual activities or who report improper sexual
activities by others are being labeled as being homosexual
as a Iorm oI retaliation. Such labeling is especially
insidious in its secondary eIIects which Irequently include
additional harassment, humiliation, ostracism, and, in
extremecases,improperinvestigationIorhomosexuality.
ThecommitteereporturgestheDepartmentoIDeIenseandleadersatalllevels
to ensure that no individual experience |sic| the need to submit to unwanted sexual
advancesorharassmentIoranyreasonandtopermitindividualstoreportinappropriate
activitieswithoutIearoIretaliation.
72
ThereportIurtherstatesthecommittees concern
that the right to investigate individual conduct is not used as a threat or abused in any
manner.
73
Though lesbian-baitingisprevalentinalloItheservices,theArmyistheonly
servicethathasexplicitlyaddressedtheissue.TheSeniorReviewPanelReporton
SexualHarassment, releasedinSeptember1997,notesthat|I|emalesoldierswhoreIuse
thesexualadvancesoImalesoldiersmaybeaccusedoIbeinglesbiansandsubiectedto
investigationIorhomosexualconduct
74
(Exhibit36).Further,thereportcontinues,
WomenaccusedoIlesbianismbelievethatthemereallegationharmstheircareersand
reputationsirreparably.
75
Giventheseriousrisksinvolvedinreportinglesbian-baiting,
itissigniIicantthatsoldiersraisedthisissueontheirowninitiativeinIocusgroups,as
wellasothervenues,duringthePanelsvisitstoArmybases.ThePanelitselIdidnot
speciIicallysurveyorquestionsoldiersaboutlesbian-baiting.
72
SenateReport#105-29(1997)at281.
73
Ia.
74
THE SECRETARYOFTHEARMYS SENIOR REVIEWPANEL REPORTONSEXUAL HARASSMENT,VOLUME 1(July1997)at66.
75
Ia.
LCR 04175
LCR Appendix Page 2144
56
SLDNcommendstheArmyIoritscourageinconductingthisreviewand
appreciatesthePanelsacknowledgmentoIsoldiersconcernsregardinglesbian-baiting,
placingtheArmyastepaheadoItheotherservices.SLDNisconcerned,however,that
theprocessIorimplementingthePanelsrecommendationsappearstohavestalled.
AnindependentInspectorGeneralsurveyoItheArmys91
st
Division(Training)
conductedin1992andobtainedthisyearbySLDNIoreshadowedtheresultsoItheArmy
SeniorReviewPanel(Exhibit37).AccordingtothisInspectorGeneral,|T|he
prohibitionagainsthomosexualsintheArmyresultsinasubtlebillyclubIoranyoneto
useagainstsinglewomenintheArmy.Whentheyturndownadatewithanother
soldier,itisoItenwhispereduniustiIiably,thatsheislesbian.
76
DespitetheseoIIiciallandmarks,lesbian-baitingkeptturningupinhighproIile
casesin1997.WhenretiredSergeantMaiorBrendaHosteraccusedtheArmystop
enlistedman,SergeantMaioroItheArmyGeneMcKinney,oIsexualmisconduct,
anonymousallegationsthatHosterisalesbiansurIacedalmostimmediatelyintheLos
AngelesTimesandotherpublications.
77
ShortlythereaIter,McKinneysattorneybegan
openlytoaccuseHosteroIbeingalesbianandtoquestionherIriendshipswithIemale
Armycolleagues.
PerhapsthemostironiccaseoIlesbian-baitinginvolvedAirForceLieutenant
Kelly Flinn.UnderinvestigationIoradulterywithaman,amongothercharges,
Lieutenant Flinnwasquestionedout-oI-the-bluebyAirForceinvestigatorsaboutwhether
76
SURVEY RESULTS, DEPTOFTHEARMY 91ST DIVISION (TRAINING), SexualHarassmentanaSexual
Discrimination (October20,1992)at6.
77
CasperZeuthen, AccusersStorvDisputeinArmvSexCase, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES A10(July30,
1997).
LCR 04176
LCR Appendix Page 2145
57
shewasinvolvedinalesbianrelationship.
78
Inresponsetoareportersquestionabout
theinterrogation,Flinnremarkedonthelesbian-baitingdynamicatwork:TheIactthat
IwasntdatingopenlysparkedrumorsthatIwashomosexual....Youcantwin.
79
ThoughinvitedtodosobySLDN,theAirForcehasnotdisputedthispublishedaccount
oI Flinnsinterrogation(Exhibit38).ToSLDNsknowledge,noonehasbeenheld
accountableIortheblatantviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuethat
occurredinthisincident.
Thatinvestigatorswould,duringaheterosexualadulteryinvestigation,question
Lieutenant FlinnabouthersexualorientationandthenatureoIherIriendshipswithother
militarywomenunderscorestheprevalenceoIlong-heldstereotypesthatIuellesbian-
baiting.RetiredAirForceColonelBarbaraWilsoncharacterizedtheperceptionoI
militarywomenonarecentCNNtelevisionspecial:WhenwomenIirstwentinservice,
theadagewasthatonlyqueersorprostituteswentinserviceAndIthinkthathasiust
carrieddownIromgenerationtogeneration.
80
ColonelWilsoncontinued,Butitsnot
iustlesbiansthatarebaited,itswomen,generallyspeaking|whodonotgiveintosexual
overtures|.
81
SLDNscasesin1997reIlectedthecontinuedproblemoIlesbian-baitinginthe
ranks.FormerArmySergeantVictoriaCasperreportsthatshewasIorcedoutoIthe
Armyduetolesbian-baiting.InacomplaintIiledwiththeDepartmentoIDeIense
InspectorGeneral,SergeantCasperstatesthatamalecoworkerconstantlymade
degradingremarksabouther,includingCasperisaI---inglesbian,CasperisaI---ing
78
TamaraJones,ThePilotsClouavFuture, THE WASHINGTON POST D1(April29,1997).
79
ElaineSciolino, FromaLoveAffairtoaCourt-Martial. NEWYORK TIMES,Section1,page1,Column5,
NationalDesk(May11,1997).
80
SexualBiasintheMilitarv(CNNImpactbroadcast,Transcript#98020100V55 February1,1998).
LCR 04177
LCR Appendix Page 2146
58
woman.SergeantCasperreportsthatthecoworkerroutinelyaccusedheroIbeinga
carpet muncher,Iaggot,queeranddykeinIrontoIwitnesses,andoIadvancing
proIessionallybygivingsexualIavors.
SergeantCasperIiledasexualharassmentcomplaintagainstthecoworkerwith
thebaseEqualOpportunityoIIice.ShortlythereaIter,allegationswerelodgedagainst
SergeantCasperbyaclosepersonalIriendoIthecoworker,accusingSergeantCasperoI
engaginginahomosexualmarriage.SergeantCaspervigorouslydeniedtheallegations.
Theallegations,constantharassmentandlackoIanappropriatecommandresponsetook
theirtoll.Ultimately,shecametothediIIicultconclusionthatIightingtheallegations
wouldieopardizethehonorabledischargeshehadbeenoIIeredandshedecidedtoleave
themilitary.TheDepartmentoIDeIenseInspectorGeneralhasyettoconcludeareview
oIthismatter.
InaMarineCorpscase,aIemalemarinereportsthatherhusbandaccusedherasa
lesbianaItersheIiledIordivorceproceedings.TheIemalemarinehasastellarrecord,
whileherhusbandhasarecordoIdisciplinaryproblems,includingsexualharassment,
andahistoryoIdomesticviolence.DespitethehusbandsclearmotivesIorretaliation,
theIemalemarinescommandinitiallyaskedheriIsheweregayandthreatenedherwith
unspeciIiedcriminalcharges.WhilethissituationultimatelydissipatedwhenthewiIe
movedtoanewcommand,sheIearsthatherex-husbandwillsoontryagaintoderailher
careerthroughIalseallegations.SLDNisnotawareoIanyactiontakenagainstthe
husbandbyhiscommand.
InonelastexampleoIlesbian-baiting,asenioroIIicerwritesthat,evenaIter
twentyyearsoIstellarservice,sheisstillbaitedasalesbian(Exhibit39).Sherecounts
81
Ia.
LCR 04178
LCR Appendix Page 2147
59
thattwentyyearsagoIwaspropositioneddailyandwhenIquestionedtheirbehavior
andreIusedtoplaythegameIwascallednames,labeledasadyke.Obviouslythere
wassomethingwrongwithmeiIIdidnotwanttobewiththem!Shehasendured
repeatedinvestigations,threats,rumorsandIalseallegationsduringhercareer.
Recently,hercommanderreceivedaseriesoIanonymousallegationsthatsheisa
lesbian.Sheisinagoodcommandthatrecognizesthatanonymousallegationsarenota
suIIicientbasistostartaninquiryandthatgoodleadersmayhaveaccusationsoIonesort
oranotherthrownatthembydetractors.Sheremainsworriedthatonedayacommander
willtaketheallegationsandrunwiththem,thoughtheyareunIounded.Shehas
witnessedcountlessepisodesherselIwhenwomenscareershavebeenderailedbyIalse
allegationsoIlesbianism.
AFreedomoIInIormationAct(FOIA)requestsubmittedintheearly1990s
producedaredactedIilewithdocumentsallegingthatsheisalesbian.AIterreadingthe
Iile,sheknewthatthosewhohadmadepriorallegationsagainstherweremenwhomshe
hadoutperIormedinhercareer.InaletterdatedJanuary28,1998,shewrites,The
peopleIhadpassedbywithearlypromotionsandplumassignmentscontinuetoname
callmetoday!
Aswehaveinpastyears,SLDNurgesDoDandtheservicestoaddresslesbian-
baitingasanintegralpartoItheirsexualharassmentprograms.Themilitarysbest
eIIortswillnothaltsexualharassmentaslongasperpetratorscanusegayaccusationsas
atrumpcardtosilencetheirvictims,derailsexualabuseinvestigationsandpunish
womenwhoexcelinthemilitary.Sexualextortionandsmearcampaignsimposean
LCR 04179
LCR Appendix Page 2148
60
unnecessaryburdenonwomeninthemilitaryandareanuniustreturnIortheirdedicated
servicetoournation.
Good Command Actions To Stop Harassment
SLDNdocumentedsomecaseswherecommanderstookappropriatestepsto
protectservicemembersIromanti-gayharassmentorlesbian-baiting.Thehigh-ranking
womanoIIicermentionedabovereportsthathercurrentcommandissupportiveinher
eIIortstocombatongoinglesbian-baitingthreats.Thewomanwhoseex-husbandhas
retaliatedagainstherbyaccusingherasalesbianreportsthathernewcommandis
supportiveandawareoIhisretaliatorymotives.Inanothercase,anAirForce
commanderappropriatelydroppedaninquirystartedwhenasoldierreportedanti-gay
harassmentaIterSLDNalertedhimtothestandardssetIorthintheDornmemo.Asailor
reportsthathiscommandtookimmediatestepstostopanti-gayslursandgraIIitidirected
athimwhenthecommandwasalertedtothesituation.SLDNishappytoreportthatall
oItheseservicememberscontinuetoserve.
SLDNalsocommendstheMarineCorpsIorholdingaccountableIivemarines
whodetonatedastolenmilitaryteargascanisterinRemingtons,alocalgaybarin
Washington,D.C.MorethanadozenRemingtonscustomerssuIIeredsevereburningoI
theeyesandthroataIterbreathingtheIumesreleasedbytheteargasgrenade.
82
A
MarineCorpsinvestigationrevealedthatIivemarineshaddeliberatelyplannedtheJuly
1997attackagainstthegaybarandcarrieditout.TheMarinesincludedLanceCorporals
CarlRichardBennett,Jr.,SeanFalsey,RichardToddNanceandRyanBarrett.The
MarineCorpscourt-martialedallIiveaccusedoItheattack.AllIivehavebeen
LCR 04180
LCR Appendix Page 2149
61
convicted.FourhavebeensentencedtoconIinementIromIourweekstoIourmonths,
reducedinrankandIined.ThreeoIthoseIourwillreceivebadconductdischarges.One
willbeallowedtoserveouthistermoIenlistment.Onemarineawaitssentencing,and
hasnotbeenidentiIied.
83
SLDNisalsohappytoreportthatonMay6,1997,theJointServiceCommittee
issuedarecommendationtoamendtheManualIorCourtsMartialtoprovideIorsentence
enhancementincasesoIhatecrimesinvolvingsexualorientation,amongotherIactors.
84
TheDepartmentoIDeIensehasnotactedontherecommendationtodate.
SLDNurgestheDepartmentoIDeIenseandtheservicestoIullydistributethe
Dornmemoonanti-gayharassmentandlesbian-baitingtotheIield.SLDNalsourges
DoDandtheservicestotakeaIIirmativemeasurestopreventanti-gayharassmentand
lesbian-baitingintheIirstplace.MissioneIIectivenessdependsoncohesion,notthesort
oIdivisioncreatedbythreats,harassment,extortionandhostilecommandclimates.
82
JenniIer Ordonez, PoliceCriticizeaforResponseToTearGasAttackatD.C.Bar.THE WASHINGTON
POST A16(July17,1997).
83
Lou Chibbarro,Jr.,MarinesDemotea.SenttoBrig, THE WASHINGTON BLADE(February13,1998).
84
62Fed.Reg.24640(1997).
LCR 04181
LCR Appendix Page 2150
62
ANALYSIS
Reasons Underlying The Continued Violations of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue
Whydocommandscontinuetoask,pursueandharassindirectviolationoIDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue?Thereasonissimple:alackoIcommitmentIromtop
militaryandcivilianauthoritiestoensurethatthelimitsongayinvestigationsare
Iollowed.MilitaryleadershaveIorgottentheintentoIthepolicytoprovideadecent
regardIorthelegitimateprivacyandassociationalrightsoIallservicemembers
85
andto
preventthemilitaryIrompryingintopeoplesprivatelives.
86
JustoneexampleoIthis
probleminvolvesIormerAirForceSecretarySheilaWidnallwho,inresponsetoa
reportersquestions,couldnotexplainwhatthezoneoIprivacywasIorservice
membersunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.SecretaryWidnallsresponse:
NeverheardoIit.
87
ThreeareasillustrateleaderscurrentlackoIcommitmentinIollowingtherules
andguidelinesunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.One,militaryleadershave
donelittletocommunicatetheintentandletteroIthepolicyortotrainallservice
memberstoensurethatthelimitsongayinvestigationsareIollowedintheIield.
Two,investigatorsandinquiryoIIicershaverunrough-shodoverservice
memberslegalrights,usingheavy-handedinvestigativetacticstocoerceandintimidate
suspectedgaymembers.
Three,noeIIectiverecoursecurrentlyexistsIorservicememberstochallenge
commandviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,andthereisno
85
PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNewPolicv, THE WASHINGTON POSTA12
(July20,1993).
86
WorlaNewsTonight.(ABCnewsbroadcast,Transcriptnumber97022604-J04,Feb.26,1997).
LCR 04182
LCR Appendix Page 2151
63
accountability.Commandsdonotknowwhattherulesare.Administrativedischarge
boardstoooItenrubberstampcommandactions.AndInspectorsGeneralhaveproven
consistentlyineIIectiveinaddressingallegationsoIcommandviolationsinany
meaningIulway.
Therearenoincentivestodotherightthing,andtherearenodisincentivesnotto
dothewrongthing.TheresultisaclimatewhereanythinggoesinthepursuitoI
suspectedgaypeople.Commanderswhowanttodotherightthinghavelittlesupport.
The Absence of Guidance and Training
TheDepartmentoIDeIenseandtheserviceshaveprovidednorealguidancetothe
IieldontheintentoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuetoaIIordazoneoIprivacy
Iorservicemembersandtolimitgayinvestigations.
SLDN,Iorexample,continuestoberequiredtosendcopiesoItheDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuepolicyandserviceregulationstoasigniIicantnumberoI
militaryattorneysandservicemembers,includingleadersinthechain-oI-command.
Thesearebasicdocuments,withoutwhichitisimpossibletocorrectlyhandlegaycases,
andyettheyarenotavailableinmanyunitsintheIield.Thisisaprobleminallthe
services.
TheregulationsandguidelinesunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuealso
remainunwieldy.TheDoDimplementingregulationsareonehundredpageslongand
arewritteninlegalese.Theexpresslimitstogayinvestigationsarescatteredthroughout
theregulationssuchthatevenmanyoIthemostexperiencedmilitaryattorneysdonot
knowthatlimitsoninvestigationsexist.Fouryearsintothecurrentpolicy,the
87
DontAsk.DontTell,(ABCnewsbroadcast,November1997).
LCR 04183
LCR Appendix Page 2152
64
DepartmentoIDeIensehas,withoneexception,notissuedanyconciseguidanceonthe
limitstogayinvestigationsandtheintenttostopprying.
TheoneexceptionistheDornmemorandum,whichstatesthatreportsoIanti-gay
harassmentandlesbian-baitingarenottobeusedasabasisIorinvestigatingthosewho
reporttheharassment. AIullelevenmonthsaIteritwasissued,however,thememohas
notbeendistributedtotheIield.OIthehundredsoIcommanders,servicemembersand
attorneysSLDNhashadcontactwiththisyear,notonehadevenheardoItheDorn
memorandum.ServicememberswhosuIIeredharassmentthisyeardidnotbeneIitIrom
thisguidance.Commanderswhowereconcernedaboutanti-gayharassmentandlesbian-
baitingdidnotknowtheyhadthebackingoIthePentagontotakeappropriatesteps.The
resultisthat,inayearwhenwehopedtoseeadramaticdecreaseinharassment,wesaw
harassmentsurge.
Whenguidanceisprovided,itoItenIocusesattentiononhowtogetgaypeople
insteadoIhowtolimitinvestigations.Threememorandainparticular,asdiscussedin
lastyearsreport,areIuelinginappropriateIishingexpeditionsagainstsuspectedgay
personnel.
TheIirstisaNavymemorandumissuedinJune1994bytheNavysappellate
litigationgroup.Thememorandumsuggeststhatgayassociationalactivities,suchas
belongingtoagaymenschorus,areinconsistentwithgoodmilitarycharacter(Exhibit
40).ThiscontradictsDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,whichexplicitlypermits
servicememberstoattendgayprideparades,gaybarsandengageinotherassociational
activities.
88
Thesecondmemorandum,IromtheAirForce,instructsinquiryoIIicersto
LCR 04184
LCR Appendix Page 2153
65
conductwide-rangingIishingexpeditionsagainstservicememberswhostatetheyare
gay.TheNovember3,1994memorandum(Exhibit41)anditsNovember17,1995
(Exhibit42)successorareveryspeciIic,encouraginginquiryoIIicerstointerrogate
parentsandsiblings,""schoolcounselors"and"roommatesandcloseIriends,"among
others.
89
ThememorandaprovideoIIicerswithalaundrylistoItwenty-Iivequestionsto
IishIorinIormationaboutservicemembersprivatelivesthatcanbeusedtopress
criminalchargesandotherharshpunishmentagainstthem.
90
Theguidancecontradicts
explicitprohibitionsinDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueagainstexpandingthe
scopeoIinquiriesbeyondtheinstantIactualallegationsinacase.
91
TheAirForceis
usingstatementscasestobootstrapinquiriesintoservicemembersprivatelivesthat
couldneverbeiustiIiedontheirown,hopingtoturnupsomethingandtheniustiIytheir
actionsinretrospect.
TheAirForcememorandumoINovember3,1996alsounequivocallystatesthat
iIothermilitarymembersarediscoveredduringthepropercourseoIthe
investigationappropriateactionmaybetaken.
92
NoproperinvestigationunderDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursuewouldeverturnupotherpeople:thatisawitchhunt.
AsexplainedintheDontPursuesection,theAirForcehasdeIendedits
memorandaasnecessarytoprotectagainstIraudincaseswhereservicememberswho
havereceivedIundededucationmaystatethattheyaregaytoavoidaserviceobligation.
Thereis,however,noevidencethatbacksuptheAirForcesclaims.Furthermore,the
88
InquiryGuidelines,E(4).
89
MemorandumIorallStaIIJudgeAdvocates,CommanaerInquiriesonmembersstatingthevare
homosexual.HarlanG.Wilder,ChieI,GeneralLawDivision,OIIiceoItheStaIIJudgeAdvocate,
DepartmentoItheAirForce,November17,1995.
90
Ia.
91
InquiryGuidelines,A(3).
92
AirForcememorandum,note89.
LCR 04185
LCR Appendix Page 2154
66
AirForcesargumentdoesnotexplainwhytheAirForceisusingtheIishingexpedition
tacticsdescribedinitsmemorandainmanycasesthatdonotinvolveIundededucationor
bonuses.Thus,theAirForcehasiustiIiedover-the-top,proveyouregay
investigationstopurportedlysnagthehypotheticalheterosexualIraudsorslackerswho
wanttoavoidmilitaryservice.
TheDepartmentoIDeIense,initsownmemorandumdatedAugust18,1995,
seeminglyapprovedtheoIIensivetacticsinitiatedbytheAirForceanddescribedabove.
(Exhibit43)ThismemorandumbyDoDGeneralCounselJudithMillerhasIueled
misguidedeIIortsinalloItheservicestodestroyanysaIespacewhatsoeverIorgay
servicemembers.ThisdevelopmentmarksanunprecedentedgovernmentalinIringement
ontheprivacyoIcivilians,notonlytheservicememberswhoconIideinthem,turning
evenparentsintopotentialwitnessesagainsttheirchildren.
SLDNhasaskedthattheDepartmentoIDeIense,AirForceandNavyrescind
thesememorandaorissuenewguidancetosupercedethesepoliciesineachoIthepast
twoyears,but,todate,theyhavenot.
ThelackoItrainingorincorrecttrainingmirrorsthelackoIguidanceandwrong
guidancecoveringthelimitstoinvestigationsunderDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue.
Lastyear,SLDNhighlightedaNavytrainingslidepresentedtocommandersin
theAtlanticFleetthatencouragescommandstoseekoutsuspectedlesbian,gayand
bisexualservicemembers(Exhibit44).TheslidestatesDontAsk,DontTell,Does
NotMeanDontInvestigate.TheslideIurtherinstructsthatthemembermustbe
interrogated.Questionsyoucanask,accordingtotheslide,include(a)Hasmember
LCR 04186
LCR Appendix Page 2155
67
engagedinhomosexualactsormarriages?or(b)Attemptedtoengageinhomosexual
actsormarriages?
ImagineadiIIerentslide--onethatreadsDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
PlacesLimitsOnInvestigations.TheslidewouldthensetIorththeinvestigativelimits.
ThetoneoIthemessagewouldbeentirelydiIIerentandwouldsignaltocommandersthat
theyshould,asPresidentClintonordered,carryoutthispolicywithIairnessandwith
dueregardtotheprivacyoIservicemembers.
93
Toourknowledge,therehasbeenno
changeinNavytraining.
Also,lastyear,SLDNreportedthatsomeEqualOpportunityoIIicersandNCOshad
speciIicallyrequestedguidanceandtrainingIromtheDeIenseEqualOpportunity
ManagementInstitute(DEOMI),butDoDreportedlyorderedDEOMInottoteachany
coursesonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Toourknowledge,thesituationhas
notchanged.
Heavy-Handed Investigative Tactics
ThesecondreasonthatservicememberscontinuetoIacewitchhuntsandother
violationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisthatcommandersandinvestigators
haveIreereintorunrough-shodoverservicememberslegalrights.Ononelevel,thisis
asystemicproblemaboutwhichconcernhasbeenexpressedbymanyentities,both
civilianandmilitary,besidesSLDN.Ontheotherhand,theuseoIheavy-handedtactics
ingaycasesisamorespeciIicconcernthatisdirectlyrelatedtothepunitiveguidance
thathasbeenissuedtotheIieldandthelackoIadequatetrainingonDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,discussedabove.
LCR 04187
LCR Appendix Page 2156
68
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueexplicitlyrequirescommandersandothers
toinIormservicemembersoIthepolicyandtoreadservicememberstheirlegalrights
priortoanyquestioning.
94
SLDN,however,documentedtwenty-oneseparateincidents
in1997whereinquiryoIIicersandinvestigatorsIailedtoinIormservicemembersoItheir
legalrightstoremainsilentandconsultwithanattorneyunderArticle31oItheUniIorm
CodeoIMilitaryJustice.Inanadditionalsevencases,inquiryoIIicersorinvestigators
Iailedtoendtheirquestioning,inviolationoImilitarylaw,onceaservicememberhad
invokedhisorherrights.
Inthirty-IourcasesdocumentedbySLDNthisyear,inquiryoIIicersand
investigatorsthreatenedadverseactionagainstservicemembersiItheyIailedto
cooperatebyadmittingthattheyaregay,conIessingtogayconductoraccusingothers
asgay.ThreatsusedinthiscontextincludedthreatsoIcriminalcharges,conIinement,
Iorcedpolygraphs,non-iudicialpunishment,retaliatorypersonnelactions,outingservice
memberstoIamilyandIriendsandunwarrantedOtherThanHonorabledischarge
characterizations.SuchthreatsarepreciselythekindoIactivitiesthatthispolicywas
supposedtostop.Thattheycontinueunderscoresthebusinessasusualclimatethat
existsintheIield.
Finally,ineightcases,inquiryoIIicersandinvestigatorsconductedillegal
searchesandseizuresinviolationoImilitarylawandtheFourthAmendmenttothe
UnitedStatesConstitution.
Someexamplesillustratetheproblem.InonecasedescribedintheDont
Pursuesection,aseniorenlistedAirForcemembercameunderinvestigationbasedon
93
PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNewPolicv, THE WASHINGTON POSTA12
(July20,1993).
LCR 04188
LCR Appendix Page 2157
69
IalseallegationsthathehadmadeastatementoIgayorientationandmadeadvancestoa
malecoworker.Theinquirywasconductedbyaprosecutorwho,oIallpeople,Iailedto
readtheservicememberhisrightsandwhoreIusedtohaltthequestioningaItertheAir
Forcemember,onhisowninitiative,invokedhisrighttoremainsilentandconsultwitha
deIenseattorney.
TheprosecutortooktheAirForcememberintoanemptycourtroom,directedhim
tothewitnessboxandmadehimraisehisrighthandtobeswornin.TheAirForce
memberwastoldhehadnochoicebuttorespondtotheallegationsagainsthim.The
prosecutorbeganhisquestioningbystating,|ThepurposeoI|myinquiryistodevelop
evidencepreiudicialtoyou.HetheninsistedagainthattheAirForcemembercould
notreIusetoanswerhisquestions,whileproceedingtoposequestionsthatwere
potentiallyincriminating.
AlaterlegalreviewoItheoIIicersactionssubstantiatedmanyoIthese
investigativeabuses,butexcusedthemasinconsequential,basicallyharmlesserrors,
becausethecommandultimatelyconcludedthattheaccuserwasnotcredibleanddropped
theinvestigation(Exhibit45).Thisgetsthestandardbackward,however.Credible
inIormationisrequiredbeforecommandersmayinitiateinvestigations.Commanders
maynotIishIorinIormationinaneIIorttoiustiIy,posthoc,theinquiriestheylaunch.
Thisprosecutorwasneverheldaccountable,sendingthemessagethatleaderswillwink
atblatantlyillegalactionsingaycases.
AnotherNavyenlistedmanwasphysicallyassaultedonbasebecauseoI
suspicionsthathemightbegay.Inquestioninghim,basepoliceinterrogatedtheservice
memberabouthissexualorientation,ratherthantheassault.Theservicememberwas
94
InquiryGuidelines,D(3).
LCR 04189
LCR Appendix Page 2158
70
notreadhisrightsuntilaIterhehadalreadybeendupedintoconIirmingthesuspicions
regardinghissexualorientation.
DuringalmostthreehoursoIquestioning,investigatorsthreatenedtomakehim
takeapolygraph,IalselytoldhimthathewouldnotlosehisrighttoanattorneyiIhe
signedarightswaiverIorm,andthreatenedtovisitlocalgaybarswithhisphotographto
obtainconIirmationthathehadpatronizedthoseestablishments.
Separately,andpriortotheinterrogationoIthissailor,theinvestigatorsalso
questionedoneoIhisIriends.Duringthisinterview,investigatorsIalselytoldtheIriend
thattheservicememberhadalreadyconIessedtobeinggay,inanattempttopressureher
tomakeawrittenstatementconIirminghisorientation.
AlastexampleinvolvesthesailorwhowasaskedIiItyquestionsabouthisprivate
liIeintheHomosexual/BisexualQuestionnaireandsupplementalquestionsas
discussedintheDontAsksection.ThesailorwasnotreadhisrightsbeIorebeing
questioned.Heandanothersailorquestionedwere,betweenthetwooIthem,threatened
withcriminalprosecutionIorsodomy,indecentacts,andmakingIalseoIIicialstatements,
non-iudicialpunishmentandunwarrantedOtherThanHonorable(OTH)discharges.
Evenmoredisturbing,theyweretoldtostopreportingtheanti-gayharassmenttheywere
experiencing.AccordingtooneoIthesailors,aseniormilitaryattorneyontheirship
threatenedthemasIollows(Exhibit4):
You are going to Mast, its iust that the Captain doesnt
havetimeIoryouandyourproblemsrightnow:youarenot
a priority. You are not at risk. I dont believe youre
scared, so stop telling people that you are. Now, iI you
want to stay in the Navy, tell the truth now that you lied
andIllchargeyouwithIalseoIIicialstatementsorkeepon
lyingandstickwithyouroriginalstatementandIllseeyou
LCR 04190
LCR Appendix Page 2159
71
get an OTH.
95
Did |the paralegal| and |the chaplain| tell
you that you would be discharged without mast iI you
turned yourselI in? Well, thats the way we have always
done it but this is diIIerent, you work in security, and we
have to start to punish you people so you wont come
Iorwardwheneveryouwantanhonorabledischarge.
Theattorneysreportedstatementdemonstratesthepunitivetrendthathas
emergedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Servicememberswhoreport
anti-gayharassmentareviewedastheproblemandtheresponseistothreatenandpunish
themintosilence.OnceaservicememberissuspectedoIbeinggay,hisorherlegal
rightsandthealreadyweakguaranteesoIdueprocessinthemilitaryaretrampled.
Numerousotherexampleshavebeenmentionedthroughoutthisreport.
TheDepartmentoIDeIensehasbeencriticizedinthepastIornotreininginthe
heavy-handedtacticsoIinquiryoIIicersandmilitaryinvestigators. Ina1995report,a
blue-ribbonpanelreviewingtheinvestigativecapabilitiesoItheDepartmentoIDeIense
criticizedreportedincidentsoIcriminalinvestigatorsIailingtoadvisesubiectsoIthe
crimesoIwhichtheyweresuspected,asrequiredbymilitarylaw,andcoercing
conIessionsthroughabusiveinterviewtechniques.
96
ThepanelalsonotedreportsoI
subiectsrightsbeingviolatedincommanddirectedinquiries,includingtheIailureoI
inquiryoIIicerstoinIormsubiectsoIthereasonIorinvestigationoroItheirrights,and
improperseizureorcollectionoIevidence.
97
Initsreport,theAdvisoryBoardonDoDInvestigativeCapabilitystated,Actual
protectionoIanindividualsrightsduringaninvestigationhingesontheconductoIthe
95
DoDD1332.30,Enclosure7,CharacteroIDischarge,B(1)(Undercurrentregulations,astatementoI
gayorientationcannotbeapersebasisIorloweringaservicemembersdischargecharacterization.).
96
REPORTOFTHEADVISORY BOARDONTHEINVESTIGATIVE CAPABILITYOFTHEDEPARTMENTOF
DEFENSE,CharlesF.C.RuII,Chairmanat34.
97
Ia.at93.
LCR 04191
LCR Appendix Page 2160
72
agentpursuingtheinvestigationandthesuppressionoIanyevidence,realortestimonial,
gainedinviolationoIthoserights.
98
ToIurtherthegoaloIresponsibilitybythose
conductinginvestigations,thepanelrecommendedincreasedtrainingandguidance,
particularlyincommanddirectedinquiries.
99
Thepanelalsorecommendedthatthe
militaryincreaseaccountabilityIorinvestigativeabusescommittedbyinquiryoIIicers,
suggestingaccountabilitywithintheevaluationandpromotionprocessaswellas
considerationoIanexclusionaryrulethatwouldprohibitimproperlyobtained
inIormationIrombeingusedinadministrativeproceedings.
100
TherecommendationsoItheAdvisoryBoardonDoDInvestigativeCapability
mirrorrecommendationsmadebySLDNinourpreviousannualreports.Thecontinuing
lackoIguidance,trainingandproperinvestigativetacticssigniIicantlycontributetothe
investigativeabusesdescribedaboveandshouldbeaddressedbythemilitaryleadership.
Lack of Recourse and Accountability
ThelastsigniIicantreasonwhycommandscontinuetoask,pursueandharassin
directviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisthattherearenoincentives
notto.Inthepasttwoyears,SLDNisnotawareoIasinglecommanderwhohasbeen
disciplinedIorviolatingthelimitstogayinvestigations.ToooIten,asinthecaseoIthe
AirForcememberdescribedabovewhowastakenintotheiuryroom,placedunderoath,
notreadhisrightsanddeniedanattorney,thosereviewingthematterconcludethatthe
commandactionsconstituteharmlesserror.InthecaseoISeniorChieIPettyOIIicer
TimothyR.McVeigh,theNavyassertsthat,eveniIinvestigatorsviolatedthelimitsto
98
Ia.at42.
99
Ia.at59,62,102.
100
Ia.at103.
LCR 04192
LCR Appendix Page 2161
73
investigationsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,SeniorChieIMcVeighhad
nobasistochallengethoseviolations.
SowherecanaservicememberturnwhenheorsheisthesubiectoIanimproper
inquiryorinvestigationunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue?Commandsdo
notknowwhattherulesare.TherearenoproceduralmeansthatenablemilitarydeIense
attorneystochallengeandstopIishingexpeditions.Servicememberscannotexclude
evidenceobtainedduringthecourseoIimproperinquiriesatadministrativedischarge
boardsbecausethereisnoexclusionaryrule.Rumor,innuendoandspeculationare
permissibleevidence.ThelackoIevidentiarysaIeguardsresultsinadministrative
dischargeboardsthatoItenrubberstampcommandactions.Thechain-oI-commandhas
Iailedtimeandtimeagaintoexertleadershipandcorrectcommandmistakes.Thus,the
administrativesystemservestoencouragecommandviolationsoIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,notcurbthem.
Previously,theGeneralCounselsoIIiceoItheDepartmentoIDeIenseinstructed
SLDNtodirectservicememberswhoarebeingdischargedasaresultoIcommand
violationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuetotheirInspectorGeneral.Wehave
doneso.Inourexperience,however,InspectorsGeneralconsistentlyIailtooIIer
eIIectiveredress,ortakesolongtoreviewthematterthatthedelayeIIectivelyderailsa
servicememberscareer.
Inthreecasesreportedlastyear,Iorexample,neithertheservicenorDepartment
oIDeIenseInspectorsGeneralhavereviewedthecomplaintsinameaningIulway.One
casewasthatoISeniorAirmanSonyaHarden.Hardenwasdischargeddespitethere
beingnoevidenceoIhomosexualconductbeIorethedischargeboard.
LCR 04193
LCR Appendix Page 2162
74
WhileSeniorAirmanHardenwasstationedatEglinAirForceBaseinFlorida,a
IormerroommateaccusedheroIbeingalesbian.Thewomanlaterretractedthe
accusationandtestiIiedatthedischargeboardthattheaccusationwasIalse.Atthe
board,SeniorAirmanHardenpresentedevidencethatheraccuserhadpreviously
threatenedtoaccuseheroIbeingalesbianiIshedidnotpaytheaccusermoney.Senior
AirmanHardenproducedwitnessesthattestiIiedaboutherheterosexualrelationships.
TheoriginalIalseallegation,however,wasenoughtoendSeniorAirmanHardens
career.
SeniorAirmanHardenhadbeenMSSAirmanoItheQuarter,MSSAirmanoIthe
Yearin1992,PersonnelSpecialistoItheYearin1993andHurlbertFieldAirmanoIthe
Quarterin1995.
SeniorAirmanHardenIiledacomplaintwiththeAirForceInspectorGeneral
priortoherdischarge(Exhibit46).TheInspectorGeneralreIusedtoreviewthecase
whiledischargeproceedingswerependingagainstSeniorAirmanHarden.OnSenior
Airman HardensbehalI,SLDNthenIiledacomplaintwiththeDepartmentoIDeIense
(DoD)InspectorGenerals(IG)oIIicesubsequenttoherdischarge.InApril1997,the
DoDIGreIusedtoreviewthematter,erroneouslyinterpretingthepurposeoIthe
complaint.OnApril30,1997,SLDNrequestedthattheDoDIGreconsiderthisdecision,
pointingoutthatthepurposeoIthecomplaintwastoseekreviewoIthecommands
improperactions,arequestthatiswithintheIGsauthority.OnJune3,1997,theDoD
IGagreedtotasktheAirForceInspectorGeneraltoreviewthecase.OnDecember23,
1997,theAirForceInspectorGeneralconcludedthattheinquiryagainstSeniorAirman
HardenwasIairandimpartialandconsistentwithpolicy.TheAirForceInspector
LCR 04194
LCR Appendix Page 2163
75
GeneralnevercontactedSeniorAirmanHardennorSLDNduringthereview.Nordid
theAirForceInspectorGeneraladdressanyoIthespeciIicallegationsbySeniorAirman
HardenthathercommandIailedtoIollowthelimitsoninvestigationsunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue.
TheInspectorGeneralhasalsoIailed,todate,toaddressthecomplaintIiledby
IormerAirmanJenniIerDorsey(Exhibit47).AirmanDorseyreportedthatshehadbeen
attackedinthelatrinebytwowomencoworkerswhorepeatedlyhitherinthestomach
whiletellingher,YousickI---kingdyke!ThisattackoccurredaIterAirmanDorsey
hadalreadybroughtpriorincidentsoIharassmenttotheattentionoIherFirstSergeant.
WhenapprisedoItheharassmentincidents,AirmanDorseyscommander,accordingto
hercomplaint,Iailedtodisciplinethewomenwhoattackedherandinsteadthreatened
Airman Dorseywithagayinvestigation(Exhibit48andExhibit49).
TheDepartmentoIDeIenseInspectorGeneralagreedtoreviewAirmanDorseys
complaintonApril24,1997.OnNovember21,1997,theDoDIGrespondedtoastatus
inquirythattheyhadtaskedtheAirForceInspectorGeneraltoreviewthematteranddid
notknowanyresultsyet.SLDNhasinquiredintoAirmanDorseyscomplaintsixtimes
sinceJune1997.Todate,however,norepresentativeIromtheAirForceInspector
GeneralsoIIicehascontactedAirmanDorsey,hermilitaryattorneyorSLDN.
SS3 KelliSpraguescomplainthasalsonotbeenresolved.SS3Spraguereported
thathercommanderdirectlyquestionedherabouthersexualorientation,threateningher
withcriminalprosecutionIormakingaIalseoIIicialstatementiIshedidnotanswerhis
questionsanddosotruthIully(Exhibit50).Undergreatpressure,sheadmittedtobeinga
lesbian.Basedsolelyonthiscoercedadmission,shewasdischarged.SixmonthsaIter
LCR 04195
LCR Appendix Page 2164
76
IilingthecomplaintwiththeDepartmentoIDeIenseInspectorGeneral,norepresentative
hascontactedSS3SpragueorSLDN.
Inacasehighlightedtwoyearsago,theNavyInspectorGeneralhasonlyrecently
completedareviewoIallegationsbySeamanAmyBarnes,substantiatingmanyoIher
claims.BarnesreportedthatshewasoneoIuptoIiItywomentargetedinawitchhunt
onboardtheUSSSimonLake.TwoshipmatesIiledaIIidavitsinIederalcourtinthiscase,
statingthattheyhadbeenthreatenedwithprisonunlesstheyaccusedSeamanBarnesoI
beingalesbianorconIessedtobeinglesbiansthemselves(Exhibit51andExhibit52).
TheInspectorGeneralreportinthiscaseconcludesthatNavyoIIicialsIailedto
readSeamanBarnesherArticle31rightstoremainsilentandconsultwithanattorney
andimproperlyexpandedthescopeoItheinvestigationbeyondtheoriginalallegations
againstSeamanBarnes.SLDNwelcomestheseconclusions.However,theInspector
GeneralexcusedtheviolationsasnotintentionalandtheNavyhasdeclinedtoholdany
oIthosewhocommittedviolationsoItherulesaccountable.Whetherornotintentional,
theeIIectoItheviolationsisthesame:SeamanBarneslostherNavycareer.Evenmore
disturbing,theNavydoesnotappeartobetakingstepstopreventIutureunintentional
violationsthatwillhavethesameresultIorothersailors.
Asshownabove,thereiscurrentlynoeIIectivewayIorservicemembersto
addressviolationswhentheyoccur.EveniItheoverworkedInspectorsGeneraloIIices
hadtheresourcestheyneedtoIullyaddressthemanycomplaintstheyreceive,itwould
notcurethedeIicienciespointedoutinthisreport.ThebottomlineisthatthekindoI
basicviolationdocumentedbySLDNshouldnotbeoccurringintheIirstplaceatthis
point,nearlyIiveyearsintoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Thisresponsibility
LCR 04196
LCR Appendix Page 2165
77
restssquarelyonthechain-oI-command.TheenergyspentbymilitaryleaderstoiustiIy
commandabuseswhentheyoccurwouldbebetterspenttrainingtheirsubordinatesto
Iollowthelimitsoninvestigations.
Thevigorwithwhichcommandshavepursuedsuspectedgaypersonnelstandsin
starkcontrasttothelackadaisicalattitudeoItopuniIormedleadersregardingtraining,
accountabilityandotherissuesnecessarytostopviolations.ThelackoIinterestatthe
topoIthechain-oI-commandregardingthelimitsongayinvestigationssignalstolocal
commandsthatthehuntisstillon.
LCR 04197
LCR Appendix Page 2166
78
CONCLUSION
ItistimeIormilitaryleaderstoobeythelaw.CommandviolationsoIDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursuesurgedIortheIourthyearinarow.Commandersasked.
Commanderspursued.Commandersharassed.Theseviolationsmuststop.Theycannot
andshouldnotbeiustiIiedbyuniIormedleadersorsenioroIIicialsoIanyservice.
Thepathisclear.TheDepartmentoIDeIenseandtheservicesneedtoissue
writtenguidancetoallservicemembersaboutthelimitsoninvestigationsunderDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue.LeadersmusttraineveryonesothattheintentoIthe
policy,asarticulatedbyGeneralColinPowell,SenatorSamNunn,SecretaryoIDeIense
WilliamCohenandtheCommander-in-ChieI,PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,isperIectly
clear:Stopprying.
Lastyear,inresponsetoSLDNsThiraAnnualReportonDontAsk,DontTell,
Dont Pursue,SecretaryCohenorderedareviewoItheimplementationoIthecurrent
policy.Hepromisedanendtothepursuitsandprosecutions.WelookIorwardtothe
resultsoIDoDsreviewandhopethatthePentagonwillbegintoaddresstheproblems
shownintheimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueoverthepastIour
years.
Itshouldbeawake-upcalltomilitaryleadersthatProIessorCharlesMoskos,the
architectoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,hascriticizedtheheavy-handed
enIorcementoIcurrentregulations.InthewordsoIProIessorMoskos:heavy-handed
enIorcementwillinadvertentlyunderminetheDontAsk,DontTellpolicyby
erodingconIidenceamongservicementhatthe|military|willnotaskiItheydonot
tell.ItisthesekindsoIactionsbythemilitarythatposethegreatestthreattothe
LCR 04198
LCR Appendix Page 2167
79
eIIicacyoIthepolicy(Exhibit17).WhilewedonotagreewithProIessorMoskos
abouttheeIIicacyoIthepolicy,wedoagreethatthemilitarymustobeyitsownrules.
ContinuedcommandviolationsoIthebasiclimitsoninvestigationsunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuewillnotonlyerodeconIidencewithinthemilitary,itwillerode
theconIidenceoItheAmericanpeople.AmericanscannotviewmilitaryoIIicialsas
actingingoodIaithinlightoIreportsthatcommandersareinterrogatingparentsand
psychologistsandconductingintrusiveIishingexpeditionsintheirendlesspursuitoI
suspectedgaysintheranks.
LCR 04199
LCR Appendix Page 2168
1
CONDUCT UNBECOMING:
THE FIFTH ANNUAL REPORTON
DONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Living in forced isolation, in constant fear of investigation and
inadvertent disclosure is harmful to gay service personnel. Each
day I am witness toanti-gay comments and attitudes. The Navy
takes no action to stop this improper and outrageous behavior on
the part of its best and brightest officers. My witness to this
unfortunate anti-gay climate, and the direct harm that it causes
me, forces me to disclose to you that I am gay. Navy Officer
ThePentagonsimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisaIailure.
Anti-gayharassment,askingandpursuitshavesurgedtorecordlevelssinceCongressenacted
thislawIiveyearsago. Lastyearalone,reportsoIanti-gayharassmentmorethandoubled.
ReportsoIaskingandpursuitsincreased42. TheseviolationsareduetolackoIleadership.
MilitaryleadershavereIusedtosendguidancetotheIieldexplainingtheexplicitinvestigative
limitsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueanditsintenttorespectservicemembers
privacy.MilitaryleadershaveheldnooneaccountableIorasking,pursuitsorharassment.Asa
result,manycommandersandinvestigatorsdonotknowtheintentorletteroIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue.Othersdeliberatelyviolatethepolicy,knowingtheirleadersdonottakeit
seriously.
ServicemembershavenowaytoprotectthemselvesIromharassmentortostopimproper
investigations.ThereisnowheretheycanturnIorhelpwithoutIearoIreprisal. Militaryleaders
havewronglyrequiredservicememberstokeeptheirsexualorientationatotalsecret,Iorcing
themtolieaboutwhotheyare,eventotheirIamilies,bestIriendsandhealthcareproviders.
LCR 04200
LCR Appendix Page 2169
2
TheresultisthatdischargesunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuehavesoared.
ThePentagonisIiringthreetoIourpeopleeverydayIorbeinglesbian,gayorbisexualatotal
oI1,149dischargeslastyearalone(Exhibit1).Gaydischargeslastyearwerethehighestina
decade,andrepresentan86increasesinceDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewasIirst
implemented.
1
ThepinkslipsthepastIiveyearshavecostAmericantaxpayers$130million
(Exhibit2).
2
Manymorededicated,competentservicemembershaveleItattheendoItheir
terms,IedupwithconstantIear,dissemblingandharassment.
ThenewsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisnotallbad.Physicalabuseby
investigatorshasdeclined.
3
Massinvestigationshavewaned.CriminalprosecutionsoIlesbian,
gayandbisexualservicemembershavedecreasedasmoreareadministrativelydischarged.
Whilewelcome,thesestepsIorwardreIlectthelowbaselineusedtomeasuresuccess.
NotalloIIicersandenlistedleadersengageinverbalgay-bashingorsnoopontheir
servicemembers.Thecurrentclimate,however,supportsthosewhodo.Servicemembers
experiencedailyharassment. CommentssuchastheIollowingareroutineinmanyunits:
YoudbetternotbequeerbecauseintheNavywekillourIags:ThatdykeisgoingtoIry:
YoureadeadIaggot:TheresnothingwrongwithkillingaIewIags:ThatIag(Matthew
Shepard)deservedtodie:andTheresnothingtodoinSasebounlessyouareahomokiller,a
chillingreIerencetothemurderoIgaysailorAllenSchindlerin1992byshipmatesinSasebo,
1
ThesenumbersarebasedonDepartmentoIDeIenseIigureswhichdonotinclude14CoastGuarddischargesin
1998ordischargesinpreviousyears.TheCoastGuardispartoItheDepartmentoITransportationinpeacetime,but
ioinstheNavyduringwar.
2
ThisdoesnotincludethecostsoIinvestigation,dischargeorlitigation.
3
SeeRANDY SHILTS, CONDUCT UNBECOMING, 231-232(citingIormerArmyLieutenantJayHatheways
testimonythathewasIorcedtoundergoneurologicaltestingthatincludedapsychiatristspuncturinghisscalp
withpinstoattachsensors):570(citingSteveWardstestimonythathewasplacedintoabroomclosetwithout
personalbreaksuntilheconIessedtobeinggay).
LCR 04201
LCR Appendix Page 2170
3
Japan.TheseareiustaIractionoIexamplesIromthecaseshandledbyServicemembersLegal
DeIenseNetwork(SLDN)inthepastyear.
4
LeadershipIromthetopdownisrequiredtochangetheincentives,andtosupportthose
leadersintheIieldwhotrytodotherightthing.Militaryleadersshould,asrecommendedbyan
April1998DepartmentoIDeIensereportonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,
5
issuethe
two-year-oldguidanceonanti-gayharassmentthatispendingatthePentagon.
6
Other
recommendationsintheApril1998Pentagonreport,whilewelcome,donotaddressothercore
issues:privacy,investigativelimits,accountabilityandrecourse.Militaryleadersshouldsend
guidancetotheIieldaboutthepolicysintenttorespectservicemembersprivacyanditsexplicit
limitstoinvestigations(Exhibit3).Militaryleadersshouldholdthosewhoask,pursueand
harassaccountable,andproviderecoursetoservicememberswhoareimproperlytargeted.Were
thesestepstaken,commandviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewouldIall.
SLDNsFiIthAnnualReportonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Conauct
Unbecoming,reviewswhatthepolicysays,andrecapsmaiordevelopmentsinthepastIive
years.
7
Thereportthenzeroesinonwhathappenedinthepastyear,examiningthemilitarys
IailuretoimplementthecorepartsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueandhowthathas
impactedmilitaryreadiness.Thereportalsorecognizesinstanceswhereindividualleadershave
4
ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetworkisanindependentlegalaidandwatchdogorganization.
5
OFFICEOFTHEUNDER SECRETARYOFDEFENSE(PERSONNELANDREADINESS, DEPTOFDEFENSE,
REPORTTOTHESECRETARYOFDEFENSE: REVIEWOFTHEEFFECTIVENESSOFTHEAPPLICATIONAND
ENFORCEMENTOFTHEDEPARTMENTS POLICYONHOMOSEXUAL CONDUCTINTHEMILITARY (Apr.1998),
hereinaItercitedasDEPTOFDEFENSE APRIL 1998REPORT.
6
MemoranaumofUnaerSecretarvofDefenseEawinDorn.GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainstService
MembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv,DEPTOFDEFENSE (Mar.24,1997).Thisguidanceinstructs
commanderstoinvestigatethosewhothreatenservicemembers,notthosewhoreportanti-gaythreats(Exhibit4).
TheservicechieIsIailedtodistributetheguidance.InApril1998,thePentagonrecommendedthattheinstructions
beexpandedtoincludeaprohibitiononharassment,andIinallybesenttotheIield.Noguidancehasbeensentto
theIieldyet.Inthemeantime,theNavysenttheoriginalDornmemototheIieldviamessagetraIIic.
7
SLDNhasassistedmorethan1,600servicemembersinthepastIiveyearswhohavebeenharmedbyDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue.
LCR 04202
LCR Appendix Page 2171
4
takenappropriateactiononbehalIoItheirservicemembers.Thereportconcludesthat,as
militaryleadersstrugglewithcriticalretentionandrecruitingshortIalls,
8
theycanill-aIIordto
violatetheletterandintentoIthepolicy,orcontinuetoletthevaluablecontributionsoIlesbian,
gayandbisexualservicemembersbeIritteredawaybyindiIIerenceoroutrighthostility.
8
DanaPriest,MilitarvLagsinFillingRanks.ArmvChiefWantsChangeinEaucationRequirements,THE WASH.
POST,Feb.17,1999atA1(citingArmySecretaryLouisCalderasstatementaskingtheDepartmentoIDeIenseto
changecurrentrecruitmentpolicytoallowmorethan10oInewrecruitstobehighschooldropoutswith
equivalencydiplomasinordertosolveashortageproblemthatwillonlygetworse).
LCR 04203
LCR Appendix Page 2172
5
WHAT IS DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE?
WhenPresidentClintonassumedoIIiceandpledgedtosignanExecutiveOrderliIting
thebanonmilitaryservicebylesbian,gayandbisexualAmericans,hestirredupahornetsnest
inCongressandthemilitary.Ultimately,Congresstookmattersintoitsownhands,andwrote
intolawthesamegroundsIordischargethathadexistedinpolicysince1981.
9
Today,asinpast
years,lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersareIiredIromthemilitaryIorstatingtheir
sexualorientationorbeinginacommittedadultrelationshipwithsomeoneoIthesamegender.
10
Heterosexualservicemembersarenotsubiecttothesamerestrictions.
Intworespects,however,thislawissigniIicantlydiIIerent.Congressionalandmilitary
leadersacknowledged,IortheIirsttime,thatlesbians,gaymenandbisexualsserveournation
anddosohonorably
11
andthatsexualorientationisnolongerabartomilitaryservice.
12
Second,
PresidentClinton,Congressandmilitaryleadersagreedtoendintrusivequestionsaboutservice
memberssexualorientationandtostopthemilitarysinIamousinvestigationstoIerretout
suspectedlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers.
13
Theyagreedtotakestepstoprevent
9
10U.S.C.654.
10
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.3H.1.a.(1994):Ia. NO. 1332.30,encl.2C.(Dec.22,1993),
Homosexualconductincludeshomosexualacts,astatementbyamemberthatdemonstratesapropensityorintent
toengageinhomosexualacts,orahomosexualmarriageorattemptedmarriage. DoDhasbroadlydeIined
homosexualacttoincludehugging,kissingorhand-holdingwithsomeoneoIthesamegender.
11
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OntheArmea
Services,S.Hrg.103-845,103rdCong.,at707(1993).|H|omosexualshaveprivatelyservedwellinthepastand
arecontinuingtoservewelltoday.(TestimonyoIGeneralColinPowell).
12
DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO. 1332.14,encl.3H.1.a.: Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.2C.Sexualorientationis
consideredapersonalandprivatematter,andhomosexualorientationisnotabartocontinuedserviceunless
maniIestedbyhomosexualconduct.
13
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmeaServices.
103rd Cong.,2dSess.(1993)at709(statementoIGeneralColinPowell).Wewillnotwitchhunt.Wewillnot
chase.Wewillnotseektolearnorientation. TheseincludetheinvestigationoIwomenonboardtheUSSNorton
Sounain1980,whichresultedinthedischargeoIeightwomensailors:investigationsonthehospitalshipSanctuarv
andontheUSSDixon:theArmysousteroIeightmilitarypoliceoIIicersatWestPointin1986:the1988
investigationoIthirtywomen,includingeveryAIricanAmericanwoman,onboardthedestroyer-tenderUSS
Yellowstone,whichresultedinthedischargeoIeightwomen:the1988investigationoIIiveoIthethirteenIemale
crewmembersonboardtheUSSGrapple:andthe1986-1988investigationattheMarineCorpsRecruitTraining
DepotatParrisIsland,SouthCarolina,where246womenwerequestioned,atleasttwenty-sevenwomenwere
discharged,andthreewereiailed. SeeSHILTS,supranote3.
LCR 04204
LCR Appendix Page 2173
6
anti-gayharassment.
14
Theyagreedtotreatlesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberseven-
handedlyinthecriminalsystem,insteadoIcriminallyprosecutingthemincircumstanceswhere
theywouldnotprosecuteheterosexualservicemembers.
15
Theyagreedtoimplementthelaw
withdueregardIortheprivacyandassociationsoIservicemembers.
16
Thelawbecameknown
asDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuetosigniIythenewlimitstoinvestigationsandthe
intenttorespectservicemembersprivacy.
14
DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO.1304.26.TheArmedForcesdonottolerateharassmentorviolenceagainst
anyservicemember,Ioranyreason.
15
DirectivesImplementingtheNewDoDPolicvonHomosexualConauctintheArmeaForces.OVERVIEW,III.
CriminalInvestigations.|T|henewdirectiveprovidesthatinvestigationsintosexualmisconductwillbeconducted
inanevenhandedmanner.
16
PresidentClintonpledgedthatthepolicywouldprovideIoradecentregardIorthelegitimateprivacyand
associationalrightsoIallservicemembers.PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNew
Policv, THE WASH.POSTA12(July20,1993).ThenSenator,nowSecretaryoIDeIense,WilliamCohenunderstood
thatthesmallamountoIprivacyunderthecurrentpolicywasintendedtopreventthemilitaryIrompryinginto
peoplesprivatelives.PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.
OnArmeaServices.S. Hrg.103-845,103rdCong.,at788(1993).
LCR 04205
LCR Appendix Page 2174
7
LOOKING BACK ON FIVE YEARS OF ASKING, PURSUITANDHARASSMENT
ThePentagonsrecordthepastIiveyearsisoneoInonIeasance.Militaryleadershave
Iailedtodistributeguidanceagainstanti-gayharassment,
17
onthepolicysinvestigativelimits
18
andonitsintenttoprotectservicemembersprivacy.
19
Theresultisthatlesbian,gayand
bisexualservicemembersincreasinglyareasked,pursuedandharassed.
SLDNclientsIromthepastIiveyearsreportdaily,evenhourly,verbalgay-bashingand
threats.JustaIewexamplesoIderogatorycommentsreportedinSLDNscasesinclude:
DieFag.
KillallIags.
Youregoingtodie.
Youcanthide,Iag.
Youwillbekilled.
Weregoingtokillyou.
Weregoingtogetyou.
YousickIuckingdyke!
ThatdykeisgoingtoIry.
ThatIag(MatthewShepard)deservedtodie.
Wedontneedqueersaroundhere.
Whatareyougoingtodoaboutit,Iag?
Youredead,youdick-suckingIaggot.
Theresnothingwrongwithbeatingupgays.
IIIIindagayguyonthisship,Iwould(sic)throwhimoverboard.
TheresnothingtodoinSasebounlessyouareahomokiller.
YoudbetternotbequeerbecauseintheNavywekillourIags.
IIIeversawtwoguyskissing,Idbeatthemwithabaseballbat.
Wecantwaittogetouttoseasothatwecanthrowyouoverboard.
Ihatehomosexuals.IIyouIindonebeattheshitoutoIhim.
IIIeverIindoutIorsureyoureaIag,Illkickyourass.
TherearethreethingsIhate:liars,thievesandIaggots.
IIIcatchyouaroundtown,Imgoingtokillyou.
There are accidents in divisions. Sometimes people die. When word
getsout,youmaybeoneoIthose.
YoureadeadIaggot.
WhiphisIaggotass.
LeaveorDieFag.
17
Seesupranote6,at3.
18
SLDNhasaskedDoDtodistributeunderstandableguidancebecausecommanders,investigatorsandattorneys
whoadvisethemdonotknowtherules.
19
Seesupranote16,at5.
LCR 04206
LCR Appendix Page 2175
8
Thesethreatsandcommentsprovideinsightintotheovertanti-gayclimatethatexistsin
manymilitaryunits.ThisclimateservesasabackdropIormanyoIthecasesSLDNhashandled
inthepastIiveyears.AIewexamplesIollow.
Supervisor Threatens Marine Who Was Gay-Bashed with Criminal
Investigation. When Marine Lance Corporal Kevin Smith was gay-
bashed by civilians in San Angelo, Texas, his supervisor threatened
him with an investigation into his private liIe rather than helping him
bringhisassailantstoiustice(Exhibit5).
Commander Fails to Help Airman Who Received Death Threat.
FormerAirmanSeanFucciwokeuptwodaysbeIoreChristmastoIind
thenote,DieFag!nexttohisbed.ThiswasthesecondthreatFucci
had received. When Fucci reported the threats, his commander
responded with a written memorandum telling him there was nothing
hecoulddotoprotectFucci(Exhibit6).
Sailors Threatened with Death or Assault. Four sailors aboard the
USSEisenhowerreportedbeingassaultedorthreatenedwiththeirlives
because they were perceived as being gay. Their supervisors did
nothingtoprotectthem.Whentheycameoutandsoughtdischargedue
tothethreats,theirsupervisorsinsteadaccusedthemoItryingtoavoid
their military duties and launched an investigation into their private
lives(Exhibit7).
Federal Judge Says Navy Launched Search and Outing Mission.
The Navy pursued Master ChieI Petty OIIicer Timothy McVeigh
based on an anonymous America Online proIile containing the word
gay. A Iederal iudge ruled in McVeighs Iavor, stating, Although
OIIicer (sic) McVeigh did not publicly announce his sexual
orientation,theNavynonethelessimpermissiblyembarkedonasearch
and outing mission.
20
Ultimately, the Navy dropped its appeal
under pressure, and permitted McVeigh to retire at the rank he had
earned. Navy leaders maintain they did nothing wrong in pursuing
McVeigh.
Air Force Cuts Deal with Felon to Get Names of Suspected Gay
Men. Prosecutors at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii reduced the
sentence oI a convicted Ielon Irom liIe to twenty months on the
condition that he accuse others oI being in gay relationships. He
namedseventeenmeninallservices.TheNavyiailedonesailor.The
Air Force pursued and discharged all Air Force members Iingered by
20
McJeighv.Cohen,983F.Supp.215(D.D.C.Jan.26,1998).
LCR 04207
LCR Appendix Page 2176
9
the Ielon, including Senior Airman Andre Taylor and Technical
Sergeant Daryl Gandy. Investigators also questioned dozens oI
GandyscoworkersinaneIIorttodigupadditionalallegationsandto
Iindothersuspectedgayservicemembers.
21
The Okinawa Witch Hunt. Corporal Craig Haack and ten other
marineswerequestionedatlengthabouttheirsexualorientationduring
a witch hunt in Okinawa (Exhibit 8). A criminal investigator, Agent
Jose Abrante, banged on Haacks door and loudly announced that he
wasunderinvestigationIorbeinggaysothattheentirebarrackscould
hear. Agent Abrante overturned Haacks bed, ransacked his
belongingsandseizedhiscomputer,computerdisksandaddressbook,
lookingIoranyindicationoIHaackssexualorientation.Astheresult
oI outside pressure, the Marine Corps released Haack. The Marine
Corpsiailedanothermarine,however,Iorthirtydays.
Career Officer Court-Martialed After Witch Hunt. The Air Force
criminally prosecuted Maior Debra Meeks based on allegations that
she was in a relationship with a civilian woman, iust as the Maior
approached retirement. Air Force criminal investigators at Lackland
Air Force Base solicited the allegations against her in the course oI a
witch hunt against Meeks and eleven other women named in the
Report oI Investigation (Exhibit 9). Meeks, who Iaced up to eight
years in prison and IorIeiture oI her entire pension, was acquitted at
trialinawidelypublicizedcase.
22
Airman of the Year Discharged Although Accuser Recants.TheAir
Force discharged Iormer Airman Sonya Harden based solely on an
allegationlaterrecantedbyheraccuser.Theaccuseradmittedshelied
aboutAirmanHardenbeinginalesbianrelationshipinretaliationIora
Iinancial dispute between the two women (Exhibit 10). Airman
Harden had presented ex-boyIriends to testiIy on her behalI at the
dischargeboard,tonoavail.
Soldier Accused of Being a Lesbian After Reporting Attempted Rape.
A young Private First Class, away Irom home Ior the Iirst time, was
attackedandnearlyrapedinherbarrackshallwayinKorea.Whenshe
reported the attack, the perpetrators retaliated by Ialsely accusing her
oI being involved in a lesbian relationship. The unit commander
pressured her to accuse other women oI being lesbians and when she
reIused sent her to a court-martial based on the Ialse allegations.
21
Two years aIter the witch hunt, a Pentagon review weighed in against the use oI pretrial agreements to
obtaininIormationaboutconsensualsexualconduct.DEPTOFDEFENSE APRIL 1998REPORTat13.No
actionhasbeentakentomakeamendstotheIormerservicememberswhoweretargetedinthiswitchhunt
ortodisciplinetheerrantprosecutors.
22
JurvAcquitsAirForceMaiorAccuseaofLesbianAffair,N.Y.TIMES,Aug.17,1996atL7.
LCR 04208
LCR Appendix Page 2177
10
When a military iudge threw out the charges Ior lack oI evidence, the
commander tried instead to discharge her. The commander dropped
the charges only aIter substantial outside intervention. This soldier
remainsanonymousbecausesheservesonactiveduty.
Psychiatrist Turns in Marine Who Asks About Homosexuality. A
Navy psychiatrist turned in Iormer Marine Corporal Kevin Blaesing
Ior merely asking what it meant to be gay (Exhibit 11). The
psychiatristtestiIiedathisdischargeboardthatBlaesingnever,inIact,
revealed his sexual orientation. Blaesings commander, Lieutenant
Colonel Martinson, nevertheless, pursued his discharge.
23
When
Blaesing successIully sought, with outside help, to overturn his
discharge, his commander retaliated by Ioreclosing his opportunity to
reenlist.
West Point Seizes Cadets Diary. The Army pursued and disenrolled
Cadet Nikki Galvan oI West Point based on statements she made in
her personal diary (Exhibit 12). Galvans commander, Lieutenant
Colonel Abraham Turner, seized her diary and three years worth oI
email messages aIter Galvan Iiled a complaint against him Ior
questioning her about her sexual orientation and private liIe. Galvan
had started keeping her diary at the suggestion oI West Point
counselors, who Ielt it would help her deal with the grieI oI her
mothersdeath.
Women Threatened with Prison During Witch Hunt. Investigators
onboardtheUSSSimonLakedirectlyquestionedIormerSeamanAmy
Barnes and other women about their sexual orientation. Investigators
threatenedthemwithprisoniItheydidnotconIessoraccuseothers
oI being lesbians, according to sworn aIIidavits the women later
submitted in Iederal court (Exhibit 13). The Navy Iorced Seaman
Barnes into court when Navy oIIicials, apprised oI the illegal
investigation, reIused to intervene to stop it. The Navy ultimately
settledthiscase,althoughSeamanBarneslosthercareer.
Navy Uses Homosexual/Bisexual Questionnaire to Ferret out Gay
Sailors. The Navy discharged two sailors aIter asking them IiIty
questions about their sexual orientation and activities, in part Irom a
document titled The Homosexual/Bisexual Questionnaire. The
questionnaireappearstobeastandardIormusedonthesailorsshipto
investigatesuspectedgaypersonnel(Exhibit14).
23
LincolnCaplan, DontAsk.DontTellMarineStvle,NEWSWEEK,June13,1994,at28.
LCR 04209
LCR Appendix Page 2178
11
THE REASONS FOR COMMAND VIOLATIONS
CommandviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,liketheonesdescribed
above,continuedthroughtheIiIthyearoIthispolicyprimarilybecauseoIalackoIleadershipon
thepartoIseniormilitaryleaders.Militaryleadershavenotimplementedtheprivacyprotections
promisedunderthispolicyorenIorceditslimitstoinvestigations.Leadershaveheldnoone
accountableIorviolationsandhaveprovidednomeansoIrecourseIorservicememberswhoare
harassedorimproperlyinvestigated.
MilitaryLeadersIgnorePrivacyProtections
WhenDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewasadopted,greatemphasiswasplacedon
respectingservicemembersprivacy.Itwaswidelyunderstoodatthetimethatlesbian,gayand
bisexualservicememberswouldbeleItalone.
MilitaryleadershaveIailed,however,toimplementtheintentoIthispolicytorespect
servicemembersprivacy.InIiveyears,notoneinstruction,memorandum,regulationorpolicy
letterhasbeensenttotheIieldinIormingpersonneloIthepolicysintenttorespectservice
membersprivacy.WhenaskedbyareporteraboutthepromisetocreateazoneoIprivacy
underthispolicy,thenSecretaryoItheAirForceSheilaWidnallproIessedignorance,
responding,NeverheardoIit.
24
Asnewleadershavetakenthehelm,pledgesmadebytheir
predecessorshavebeenIorgotten.
InplaceoIprivacy,militaryleadershaveimposedaruleoItotalsecrecyonlesbian,gay
andbisexualservicemembers.MilitaryleadersaredischargingservicememberswhoconIidein
theirparents,bestIriendsandpsychologists.Psychologistshavebeeninstructedtoturningay
24
ABCNews,SantaBarbara,November1997.
LCR 04210
LCR Appendix Page 2179
12
servicememberswhoseektheirhelpinprivatecounselingsessions.
25
Theseprivate
conversationsareaIarcryIromthekindoIpublicstatements,suchasthosemadeontelevision
orinIrontoIamilitaryIormation,thatlawmakersexpressedconcernaboutduringthe1993
debateongaysinthemilitary.ThatmilitaryleaderswouldeventhinkoIdischargingservice
memberswhoconIideintheirIamiliesorhealthcareprovidersisanindicationthatthepolicys
intenttorespectservicemembersprivacyhasbeenignored.
MilitaryLeadersRefusetoSendInvestigativeLimitstotheField
MilitaryleadershaveIailedtodistributeanyguidanceinthepastIiveyearsexplaining
thelimitstoinvestigationsinanunderstandable,accessibleway.Theresultisthatmostleaders
andservicemembersintheIielddonotknowthelimitstoinvestigationsestablishedbyDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue.
TheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuedirectivesareanunwieldy100pageslong,
withimportantinvestigativelimitsscatteredthroughout.Intheservices,therelevantregulations
aretypicallybrokendownintoanumberoImanuals,notalloIwhicharekeptonhandbyunit
commanders.Thedirectivesandserviceregulationsarewritteninlegalese,makingthemeven
moreinaccessible.Mostcommanders,attorneysandinquiryoIIicershaveneverreadthem,
muchlessunderstoodthem.
IntheabsenceoIPentagonleadership,SLDNdistributedmorethan1,000copiesoIour
ownthree-pagememorandumonthelimitstoinvestigationsinlate1998andearly1999(Exhibit
3).ThememorandumsetsIorththeinvestigativelimits,usingexactquotesIromtheDepartment
oIDeIensedirectives.SLDNsentthememorandumtoeverymaiorcommandineachoIthe
servicesandtoeveryNavyship,atacostoIamere$1,130.OneSLDNclienthasalready
25
SeetheDontTellsectionoIthisreport,infra at34-35,Iordocumentedexamples.
LCR 04211
LCR Appendix Page 2180
13
reportedthathiscommanderdroppedaninquiryagainsthimdaysaIterSLDNsentthe
commanderacopyoIthememorandumoninvestigativelimits.SLDNbelieves,iItheruleswere
distributedandproperlyenIorced,manycommandersandinquiryoIIicerswouldtrytocomply
withthemand,asaresult,commandviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewould
decline.
ServiceMembersHaveNoRecoursetoStopAsking,PursuitsandHarassment
IneveryoneoIthecaseexamplesdescribedabove,servicememberstriedtoresolvethe
commandviolationsagainstthemwithinthemilitary.Ineverycase,theirchain-oI-command
Iailedthem.Ineverycase,militaryleadersdugintheirheelsandattemptedtoiustiIythe
commandviolations,ratherthanstoppingthem.InIiveyears,theServicesoIIiciallyhaveheld
nooneaccountableIorasking,pursuingorharassingservicemembersinviolationoIthelaw.
InspectorGeneral(IG)complaintshaveprovednobetter.Invariably,servicemembers
receiveonlyacursoryreply,rubber-stampingthecommandsviolations,arrivingmonthsand
evenyearsaItertheyhavealreadybeendischarged.
26
InacasewhereanInspectorGeneral
providedmorethanacursoryreply,theHawaii17witchhuntdescribedabove,theIGiustiIied
theprosecutorsdecisiontosigniIicantlyreducethesentenceoIaconvictedIeloninexchange
IorthenamesoIsuspectedgaymen.ThePentagonsApril1998reviewoIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursuelaterrepudiatedthissortoIagreementbutthetargetedservicemembershad
longsincelosttheircareers.
26
AirmanSonyaHarden,mentionedabove,isoneexample.SheIiledanIGcomplaintmorethanthreeyearsago.
Twoyearslater,aItershehadbeendischarged,sheIinallyreceivedareply.WithoutexplainingthebasisoIhis
actionsandwithoutspeakingtoHardenorherattorney,theIGIoundthecommanddidnothingwrong.TheIive
sentencereplytheIGsentIormerAirForceMaiorJamesStrader,whowaswronglypursuedbasedonan
anonymousaccusation,isanotherexampleoIthecursorytreatmentInspectorsGeneralgivethesecases(Exhibit
15).
LCR 04212
LCR Appendix Page 2181
14
ThereisnowaywithinthemilitaryIoraservicemembertostopharassmentorrunaway
investigations.Instead,servicemembershavebeenIorcedtoseekoutsidehelpIromSLDN,our
privatecooperatingattorneysandtheirCongressionalMembers,evenincasesinvolvingthemost
obviousoIcommandviolations.AIew,likeMasterChieIPettyOIIicerTimothyMcVeigh,have
successIullygoneintoIederalcourtasalastresorttomakethePentagonIollowitsownrules.
Servicemembersshouldnothavetoseekoutsidehelp,however,tohavetheirleadersthe
peoplechargedwiththeirwelIareenIorcethemilitarysownrulesagainstasking,pursuitsand
harassment.UnIortunately,theyhavenootheroptionatpresent.
LCR 04213
LCR Appendix Page 2182
15
GAY DISCHARGES SOAR TO HIGHEST LEVELINADECADE
MilitaryleadersarenowpayingthepriceIortheintolerableclimatethathasIlourishedon
theirwatch.Dischargeshaveincreased86underDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.The
PentagonhasIired4,378
27
dedicated,hard-workingAmericansatatimewhenshortIallsin
recruitingandretentionhavereachedcrisisproportions.Hundreds,iInotthousands,morehave
leItattheendoItheirserviceterms.ServicemembersareIedupwithconstantasking,pursuits
andharassmentandthemisguidedrequirementthattheylieaboutwhotheyaretotheirparents,
bestIriendsanddoctorsasaconditionoImilitaryservice.
PentagonoIIicialssaythatmostdischargesinvolveservicememberswhovoluntarily
statetheirsexualorientation.PentagonoIIicialshavebeenlessthanIorthcoming,however,in
tellingtheAmericanpublicthattheydeIineanvdisclosureoIsexualorientationasvoluntary.
Asseeninthecaseexamplesabove,statementsincludedisclosuresmadetopsychotherapists:
inpersonaldiaries:inresponsetodirectquestionsabouttheirsexualorientation:inanonymous
onlineproIiles:andthosecoercedoutoIservicemembersduetoIear,intimidation,assaults,
deaththreatsandthreatsoIcriminalprosecution.Servicemembersoutedbythemilitaryinthe
thesecircumstancescertainlydonotexperiencebeingIorcedoutoItheclosetasvoluntary.
SomemilitaryoIIicialshavealsosuggestedthatservicememberswhodisclosetheir
sexualorientationaresimplylookingIoraneasywayoutoIthemilitary,particularlywheresuch
disclosuresaremadetosuperiors.
28
OIIicialshaveoIIerednosupportIorthisassertion,which
IliesintheIaceoItheharshconsequencesimposedonservicememberswhocomeout.These
27
TheCoastGuard,whichispartoItheDepartmentoITransportation(DoT),hasIiredanadditional51service
membersIrom1995-1998:1994Iigureswerenotavailable.TotalDoDandDoTdischargesare4,429.
28
StevenLeeMyers,DespiteDontAskPolicv.GavOustersRosein98, NEWYORK TIMES,Jan.23,1999,at
A13: Sig Christenson, Militarv.Risingnumberofgavskickeaoutofthemilitarv,SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS,
Jan.22,1999,at1.
LCR 04214
LCR Appendix Page 2183
16
includepotentialcriminalprosecution,
29
reprimand,
30
recoupment,
31
lowerdischarge
characterizations,
32
lossoIeducational,
33
unemployment
34
andpensionbeneIits,
35
civilian
employmentdiscrimination,
36
and,oIcourse,lossoIemploymentandlivelihood.
Inreality,PentagonoIIicialsdonotknowtheIactsbehindthesecases.ThePentagons
ownApril1998reportontheimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuecandidly
admitsthereasonsIorthisincrease|instatementsdischarges|arenotknownandwouldbe
diIIiculttoascertain.
37
ThePentagonreportincludedtheIirstpublicmentionoIanomalous
dischargeIiguresatLacklandAirForceBase,theservicesbasictrainingcenter,which
accountedIor65oIAirForcedischargeslastyear.TheseIiguresIarexceedthoseIorbasic
trainingdischargesintheotherservices.
38
Todate,noonehasspokenwithtraineesdischarged
inthepasttolearntheirexperiences,orconductedacomprehensivereviewtodeterminethe
29
SeethreatsoIcriminalprosecutioninDontPursuesection,infraat55-58.
30
AnAirForcecommanderissuedanairmanaLetteroIReprimandIorcomingouttoIriendsonthebase.
DischargeauthoritiesreviewaservicemembersoverallrecordtodeterminecharacterizationoIdischarge.
CommandersmayloweradischargecharacterizationbasedonaletteroIreprimandinanairmansrecord(Exhibit
16).
31
FormerWestPointcadetJincyPacecurrentlyIacesrecoupmentoI$80,000inscholarshipIundsbecauseshecame
outwhileservingonactiveduty,includingOperationUpholdDemocracyinHaiti.TheInternalRevenueService
hasseizedhertaxreIundsandplacedabadmarkonhercreditrating,preventingherIromobtainingacarloanor
creditcard.
32
FormerMarineLanceCorporalDavidRaleighscommanderrecommendedanOtherThanHonorable(OTH)
dischargesimplybecauseLanceCorporalRaleighadmittedtobeinggay.HadhereceivedanOTH,Raleighcould
haveIacedsubstantialpreiudiceincivilianemployment.SLDNintervenedonhisbehalIandhereceivedthe
Honorabledischargehedeservedbasedonhisrecord.Raleighscaseisnotuncommon.
33
AnArmySpecialistinMonterrey,CaliIorniaIacedlosinghisGIBillbeneIits,including$1200hepaidintothe
programoutoIhisownpocket,whenhiscommanderrecommendedaGeneraldischargeservicecharacterization
iustIorcomingout.InordertoqualiIyIorGIBillbeneIits,servicemembersneedanHonorabledischarge.
SLDNintervenedtoprotecthisbeneIitssothathecouldgoontocollege.AllGIBillbeneIitsarelostunlessservice
membersservetheminimumtimerequired,usually2-3years.
34
ServicemembersdischargedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuemayIacediIIicultiesinobtaining
unemploymentbeneIitsinsomestates,regardlessoIthecharacterizationoItheirdischarge.Manyiurisdictionswill
notgiveunemploymentbeneIitstothoseseparatedIorbeinglesbian,gayorbisexual.
35
BothMaiorDebraMeeks, supra at8,andMasterChieIPettyOIIicerTimothyMcVeigh, supraat7,Iacedthe
prospectoIlosingtheirpensionbeneIitsiIdischarged.
36
Formerservicemembersreportcivilianemploymentdiscriminationbecausetheirdischargepaperwork(DDForm
214),whichmanyemployersrequirepriortohiring,containsthereasonIordischarge,usuallystatinghomosexual
conductorhomosexualadmission.
37
DEPTOFDEFENSEAPRIL1998REPORTat5.
38
RichardParker,ConfusionReignsFromDontAsk.DontTell.KNIGHTRIDDER,Jan.26,1999.
LCR 04215
LCR Appendix Page 2184
17
reasonsIorthesedischarges.PressaccountscitereasonsrangingIromharassmenttothe
isolationexperiencedbylesbian,gayandbisexualrecruitsasreasonsIorthesedischarges.
39
SLDNkeepsanopenmind,havinghadIewcasesIromAirForcebasictraining.AirForce
recruits,unlikethoseintheotherservices,arebeingdischargedonlydaysaIterarrivingatbasic
training,beIoretheylearnoISLDNsexistence.
IncaseshandledbySLDN,anti-gayharassmentistheprimaryreasonwhyservice
membersdisclosetheirsexualorientationtotheirsuperiors.Lesbian,gayandbisexualservice
membersarepreparedtoIacetheenemyandwalkintotheiawsoIdeathinservicetoournation.
Lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersarenot,however,preparedtorisktheirlivesand
physicalsaIetyatthehandsoIbigotsintheranks.WhileSLDNbelievesthatservicemembers
generallyarebecomingmoretolerantoIlesbians,gaysandbisexuals,
40
SLDNhasalso
documentedagroupoIpeopleinthemilitarywhoIeelIreetoexpressanti-gaysentimentsand
threatentheircoworkers.ThesadIactoItodaysmilitaryclimateisthatbigotsaregivenIree
rein.
AsecondreasonservicememberscomeoutisthattheyIaceanethicaldilemmanotoI
theirownmaking.Militaryleadershavewronglyrequiredservicememberstokeeptheir
orientationatotalsecret,evenIromtheirIamilies.MilitaryleadersareIorcingservicemembers
tolieanddissemble,contrarytotheirownvaluesandtothemilitarysCoreValuesoIhonesty
andintegrity.ThismisguidedapproachalsodeniesservicememberstheguidancetheyoIten
39
SeeIa.,Sig Christenson, RecruitsDenvLacklanaHarassment, SANANTONIOEXPRESSNEWS,Jan.22,
1999.
40
InarecentpolltakenbyNorthwesternUniversityProIessorCharlesMoskos,thearchitectoIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,thenumberoIArmymaleswhoregisteredstronglydisagreetothequestionoIwhethergays
shouldbeallowedtoserveopenlyinthearmedIorcesdroppedto36Iromits1993leveloI63. See
MILLER/MOSKOS NONRANDOMSURVEYSOFARMY PERSONNEL,ProIessorCharlesMoskos,Northwestern
University, Sep.1998.
LCR 04216
LCR Appendix Page 2185
18
needIromtheirparents,closeIriendsandhealthcareproIessionalsindealingwiththeirsexual
orientation.
ServicememberstellSLDNtheywanttoserveourcountry,buttheyseenorecoursein
theIaceoIdailyharassmentandtheuntenableethicaldilemmamilitaryleadershaveimposed
uponthem.
Militaryleadershavedonelittletostopanti-gayharassmentandenIorcetheinvestigative
limitsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Militaryleadersshouldtakeresponsibility
IorthecurrenthostileclimateandIorcontinuedcommandviolations,ratherthanscapegoating
lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersIorincreaseddischarges,whichonlyservesto
inIlameIurtherhostilityagainstthem.
LCR 04217
LCR Appendix Page 2186
19
DONT ASK
Dont AskstatesthatcommandersorappointedinquiryoIIicialsshallnotask,and
membersshallnotberequiredtorevealtheirsexualorientation.
41
In1997,SecretaryoI
DeIenseWilliamCohenreaIIirmedtherule,statingonLarryKingLivethataskingisaclear
violationoIlaw.
42
ThePentagonreaIIirmedthataskingiswronginitsApril1998reportonthe
eIIectivenessoItheimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
43
SLDNdocumented161DontAskviolationsin1998.Thatisup30Irom1997,
whenSLDNreported124DontAskviolations.TheNavyledalltheServiceswith67Dont
Askviolations:theAirForcehadthesecondmostviolationswith45.DontAskviolations
areupalmost335overIiveyearsunderthispolicy.
ViolationsoIDontAskcontinuetorise,ashostilesupervisors,coworkersand
investigatorsquestionservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientation.Servicememberssilence
intheIaceoIhostilequestioning,inaneIIorttocomplywithDontTell,onlyIuelsspeculation
abouttheirsexualorientation,andinvitesanti-gayharassmentinthecurrentmilitary
environment.
ThissectionaddressesIourcommonDontAskscenarios:(1)questionsaskedby
supervisorsandcoworkersasameansoIharassmentorintimidation:(2)questionsIrom
investigators:(3)questionsIromwell-meaningIriends:and(4)inadvertentquestions.
RegardlessoIwhoasks,servicemembersrisklosingeverythingiItheyanswertruthIullyornot
atall.
41
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,Encl.4D.3.: Ia. NO.1332.30,Encl.8D.3. Seealso. Policv
ConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OntheArmeaServices,S.
Hrg.103-845,103rdCong.,at789(1993).CommentsbythenDoDGeneralCounselJamieGorelick,|W|edonot
askaboutorientationnotonlyataccessionbutatanytime.
42
LarrvKingLive,(CNNtelevisionbroadcast,Transcript#97012700V22,January27,1997).
43
DEPTOFDEFENSEAPRIL1998REPORTat1.
LCR 04218
LCR Appendix Page 2187
20
AskingasAnti-GayHarassment
ThemostdisturbingtrenddocumentedbySLDNisthegrowinglinkbetweenaskingand
anti-gayharassment.Hostilecommanders,supervisors,colleaguesandinvestigatorshound
servicememberswithconstantquestionsabouttheirsexualorientationandconduct.Sometimes
theyquestiontheindividualdirectly.Manytimes,theyquestionservicemembersinIrontoI
theirpeers.Lesbians,gaysandbisexualsexperiencethequestioningnotonlyasasking,but
harassment,intimidationandhostility.InIiveyearsunderDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,thePentagonhasoIIiciallyheldnooneaccountableIoraskingorharassingaservice
memberinviolationoIthepolicy.Asaresult,moreservicemembersaredisclosingtheirsexual
orientationinresponsetotheaskingandharassmentastheonlymeanstoprotectthemselves.
ThistrendwilllikelycontinueintheabsenceoImilitaryleadershiptostopcommandviolations,
ensureaccountabilityandproviderecourseIorservicememberswhoarequestionedorharassed.
OfficerAsksMiashipmanAboutHisSexualOrientation
FormerMidshipmanRobertGaigereportedlastyearthathehadbeenaskedonatleast
Iourseparateoccasionswhetherheisgay(Exhibit17).Inoneincident,MarineMaiorRichard
Stickel, GaigesNavyReserveOIIicersTrainingCorps(NROTC)instructoratCornell
University,askedaboutthesigniIicanceoIaredribbonwornbyGaige.WhenMidshipman
GaigerespondedthattheredribbonsigniIiedhopeIoracureIorAIDS,MaiorStickelasked
derisively,Whatareyou,somekindoIIuckinghomo?
Midshipman Gaigewasconsideredagung-hoNROTCstudent.Amongother
activities,hewastheOperationsOIIiceroISemperFi,anorganizationIoraspiringMarine
CorpsoIIicersledbyMaiorStickel.MidshipmanGaigesdedication,however,didlittletoward
LCR 04219
LCR Appendix Page 2188
21
oIIMaiorStickelsquestionsabouthissexualorientation.Accordingtoothermidshipmen,
Maior StickelroutinelyaskedthemaboutthesexualorientationoIGaigeandanotherNROTC
student,MarkNavin.
Ononeoccasion,MaiorStickelreportedlyaskedaboutGaigesandNavinssexual
orientationinIrontoItheentirebattalion,asalloIthemidshipmensattogetheraItercompleting
aphysicalIitnesstest.WithGaigeandNavinpresent,MaiorStickelstated,Sometimesits
helpIultoIindaworkoutpartner.LookatGaigeandNavin...Theyrealwaysworkingout
together.Idontknowwhatelsetheydotogether,butwerenotallowedtotalkaboutit
anyway.ThemidshipmenreportedlygreetedMaiorStickelscommentswithprolonged,
raucouslaughter:manyharassedGaigeandNavinIortheremainderoItheday.Thiswasonly
oneoInumerousincidents,describedIurtherintheDontHarasssectionoIthisreport.
Midshipman GaigesexperienceonboardNavyshipsduringsummertrainingcruises
indicatethataskingisthenormintodaysNavy,nottheexception.Ononecruise,shipmates
asked GaigeabouthissexualorientationbecausehereIusedtoiointheminvisitingprostitutesat
brothelswhentheshipwasinport.Enlistedmenwhohadbeenchargedwithmakingsurethat
GaigehadagoodtimebegantoquestionGaigeaIterhewouldnottakethepooloImoneythey
hadcollectedtobuyaprostitutesservicesIorhim.WhenGaigebeggedoII,inventinga
girlIriendathomeasareasonnottovisitprostitutes,oneoItheenlistedmenallegedlysaid,
DonttellmeyouplayIortheotherteam,kid?Thesailorreportedlycontinued,Ithinkwe
gotamidshipmanIagaboard,boys.AItermorequestionsabouthissexualorientation,
Midshipman GaigeIinallywentintoaroomwithaprostitute.Unknowntotheenlistedmen
however,hedidnotavailhimselIoItheprostitutesservices. GaigeIeltthatthiswashisonly
recoursetowardoIIIurtherquestionsabouthissexualorientation(Exhibit18).
LCR 04220
LCR Appendix Page 2189
22
Midshipman GaigeremainedsilentintheIaceoIquestionsabouthissexualorientationin
anattempttocomplywithDontTell.Thisonlyledtoincreasedspeculationabouthissexual
orientationandIurtheranti-gayharassment.Ultimately,MidshipmanGaigeconcludedhehadno
wayoIstoppingthequestionsandharassment.Asaresult,hecameoutasbisexualtohis
commanderinthecourseoIreportingtheharassmenthehadexperienced.Despitehisstrong
desiretoserve,hewasseparatedIromNROTC.Toourknowledge,noactionhasbeentaken
againstMaiorStickelorotherswhoquestionedandharassedMidshipmanGaige.
OfficersanaEnlisteaSailorsAskMiashipmanIfHeIsGav
MidshipmanMarkNavin,mentionedabove,reportsthatIellowmidshipmenand
supervisorsquestionedhimonnolessthansixseparateoccasionsabouthissexualorientation.
Maior StickelandothermidshipmeninCornellUniversitysNROTCprogramaskedNavin
abouthissexualorientationbeIoreheevenkneworacceptedthatheisbisexual.Duringa
IreshmanyeartriptoQuanticoMarineCorpsBase,inVirginia,withtheNROTCpistolteam,
Maior Stickelandothermidshipmeninventedarunningiokeaboutasupposedrelationship
between NavinandMidshipmanGaige.Commonquestionsincluded,SoNavin,whatsupwith
youandGaige?andYeah,areyoutwotogether?.OtherNROTCstudentscalledNavinIag
andhomo(Exhibit19).
SailorsalsoquestionedMidshipmanNavinabouthissexualorientationduringhis
summercruisesonboardNavyships.DuringalatenightbridgewatchonboardtheUSSBoone,
Iorexample,twosailorsthreatenedMidshipmanNavin,tellinghim,Youdbetternotbequeer
becauseintheNavywekillourIags.DuringasecondsummercruiseontheUSSRoariguez,
LCR 04221
LCR Appendix Page 2190
23
bothhismidshipmanrunningmateandaiunioroIIicerwithwhomhesharedastateroomasked
himdirectlywhetherheweregay(Exhibit20).
Midshipman Navinindependentlycametotheconclusionthathehadnorecourseagainst
questionsabouthissexualorientationoranti-gayharassment.LikeMidshipmanGaige,
Midshipman NavincameoutinalettertohiscommanderrecountingthequestionshehadIaced
inhisyoungcareer.Despitehisdesiretoserve,theNavydisenrolledhimaswell.
SergeantAsksNewMarineAboutSexualOrientation
AMarinenoncommissionedoIIicer,SergeantDewey,reportedlyquestionedIormer
PrivateFirstClassGabrielleButlerabouthersexualorientationlastMay,duringheradvanced
MilitaryOccupationSpecialtytraining.SergeantDeweysurprisedButleroneday,askingher,
DoyouplanonmarryingaIemale?FearIulthathersergeanthadIiguredoutthatsheisa
lesbian,ButlermadethemistakeoIgoingUA(unauthorizedabsence).Butler,whoreturnedto
trainingandtookresponsibilityIorgoingUA,explainedherIearinasubsequentlettertoher
commander:
During the second week oI May, I was approached, unprovoked,
by Sgt. Dewey and asked, Do you plan on marrying a Iemale?
Since then, Ive dreaded the possibility oI an intrusive
investigation, it getting back to my peers, or having punitive
actionstakenagainstme.TheincidentwithSgt.Deweymademe
aware oI the reality oI serving as a closeted lesbian in the United
StatesMarineCorps:IwouldliveinconstantIearoIbeingIound
out no matter how discreet my private behavior. It was this
realization that led to my becoming aIraid and conIused. My
decision to go UA was driven by my Iear . . . I truly Iear Ior my
saIety iI word oI my sexual orientation becomes common
knowledge(Exhibit21).
UnIortunately,ButlersIearswerewell-Iounded.Wordspreadrapidlythroughherunit
thatsheisalesbian.Shehassincebeendischarged.
LCR 04222
LCR Appendix Page 2191
24
RecruiteranaDrillInstructorQuestionMarine
LanceCorporalDavidRaleighwasaskedabouthissexualorientationIromthetimehe
signeduptoserveintheMarineCorps.Raleighsrecruiter,aMasterGunnerySergeant,saidto
him,BecauseoIPresidentClintonsnewpolicy,IcantaskyouiIyoureaIag.SoIlliustask
iIyousuckcock.
DuringbootcampattheMarineCorpsRecruitingDepotinSanDiego,RaleighsDrill
InstructorrepeatedlytoldhiminIrontoIhissquadthathewastimid,clumsyandweak.
RaleighrespondedtoeachchargewithavehementNo,sir.Finally,theDrillSergeantasked,
YoureaIagarentyou,Raleigh?RaleighwaspetriIied.HeremainedsilentoutoIIearthat
anytypeoIresponsewouldruinhisyoungcareer.
OfficersAskEnsignAboutHisSexualOrientation
ANavalAcademygraduatewithpriorexperienceasanenlistedsailorrecentlyIaced
directquestionsabouthissexualorientationIromclassmatesinaprestigiousNavyprogram.
ClassmatesreportedlyaskedtheEnsign,Wouldyousleepwithagirl?andquestionedhis
IriendshipswithothermilitaryoIIicers.TheEnsignreportsthatIellowoIIicersengagedin
verbalgay-bashingdaily.TheEnsigndescribedhisexperienceinalettertohiscommander
disclosinghissexualorientationandexplainingwhyhecameout:
Living in Iorced isolation, in constant Iear oI investigation and
inadvertent disclosure is harmIul to gay service personnel. Each
day I am witness to unproIessional, anti-gay comments and
attitudes. The Navy takes no action to stop this improper and
outrageous behavior on the part oI its best and brightest oIIicers.
My witness to this unIortunate anti-gay climate, and the direct
harmthatitcausesme,IorcesmetodisclosetoyouthatIamgay.
Whenclassmates,whoaresupposedtobeproIessionalsupholding
LCR 04223
LCR Appendix Page 2192
25
the high values oI the Naval oIIicer corps Irequently ask me
questions designed to determine whether or not I am gay, I can
onlyconcludethattheirintrusivequestionsarecalculatedtocause
meharm.IevadetheirquestionsIorIearoIhowtheywouldreact
iItheyknewthetruth.ItissimplydiIIiculttobelievethatin1999
such antiquated un-American attitudes are Ilourishing in our
nationsNavy(Exhibit22).
TheEnsignsletterspeakseloquentlytothedilemmaIacinglesbian,gayandbisexual
servicemembersintodaysmilitary.WhileenIorcingDontTellwithavengeance,senior
uniIormedleadershavedemonstrated100toleranceIoraskingandanti-gayharassment.The
entireburdenisongayservicememberstoevadeanddissemblewhenquestionedabouttheir
sexualorientation.
MasterChiefAsksSuborainateAboutHisSexualOrientation
ANavyMasterChieIPettyOIIicerconIrontedaPettyOIIicerSecondClass,abouthis
sexualorientation.TheMasterChieIcrudelyaskedthePettyOIIiceriIhewouldliketoseehis
penileimplantbecausehethoughtthePettyOIIicerwasintothat.ThoughthePettyOIIicer,a
nine-yearcareersailorwithastellarrecord,warnedhimthatheconsideredthecommenttobe
sexualharassment,theMasterChieIconIrontedhimagainthenextday.
Thistime,seekingareactionIromthePettyOIIicer,theMasterChieIpointedtotheword
homosexualcontainedinNavyregulationsgoverningdischargesandstated,Thatsyou.
AIterturningaIewmorepages,theMasterChieIwentbacktothesamepage,pointedagainto
thewordhomosexualandstated,See,rightthere|PettyOIIicersname|.Inathird
incident,thisMasterChieIandacoworkerspeculatedaboutthePettyOIIicerssexual
orientationwhilestandingrightinIrontoIhim.
LCR 04224
LCR Appendix Page 2193
26
ThePettyOIIicersmilitaryexperienceprovidedhimnomoremeanstodeIendagainst
questionsabouthissexualorientationthantheyoungmilitarymembersmentionedabove.Ina
lettertohiscommander,inwhichthePettyOIIicerdocumentedtheseincidents,hewrote,IIeel
unabletodeIendmyselIIromtheseattackswithoutraisingevenmoresuspicion(Exhibit23).
Asaresult,hereluctantlycameouttohiscommander,statinginpart,TheonlymeansIsee
to...avoidbecomingavictimoIharassmentisbymakingthisdisclosuretoyou.
FortunatelyIorthisPettyOIIicer,hiscommandertookhisreportoIharassmentseriously
andplacedaletteroIcounselingintheMasterChieIspersonnelIiledescribinghisharassment
andorderinghimtoceaseanddesist.ThecommanderisretainingthePettyOIIicerinhis
positionandhaspromisedthathewillnotinvestigatehissexualorientation.SLDNapplaudsthis
commanderIorsettingtherightprioritiesinhisunit,andIorhiscommonsenseapproachto
resolvingthissituation.IIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuewereproperlyenIorced,the
leadershipthiscommanderdemonstratedbyholdingtheMasterChieIaccountableIorhis
harassmentwouldbetherule,nottheexception.
ServiceMembersAreAskeaEvervDavAboutTheirSexualOrientation
Servicemembersareaskedabouttheirsexualorientationeverydaybyhostilesupervisors
andcoworkers.ThisaIIectsanyonewhoisperceivedasgay,regardlessoItheservicemembers
actualsexualorientation.Asking,whenitisagainstthelawandwhenanswerscanbepunished
withlossoIlivelihood,sowsIearanddistrustamongcoworkers.DontAskhurtsunit
cohesion.AsMarineLanceCorporalDavidRaleightoldSLDN,inreIerencetocoworkerswho
hadharassedhim,IIIwereincombatwiththem,Iwouldnottrustthem.
LCR 04225
LCR Appendix Page 2194
27
Askinghasbecomearoutineoccurrence.TheIollowingareiustaIewadditional
examplesthataretypicaloISLDNscases:
Ayoungsailorreportsbeingasked,Whatsup,lesbian?andtoldby
coworkers that she must be gay because she never talks about a
boyIriendwheneveryoneelseistalkingabouttheirhusbandsorwives
(Exhibit24).
A military IireIighter recently Iiled a sexual harassment complaint
aIter enduring repeated questions and a physical assault based on a
perception that he is gay. His supervisor and several coworkers have
asked:Areyougay?AreyoucomingoutoIthecloset?andYes,
Imasking:areyouhomosexual?(Exhibit25).
A sailor in an aviation unit on an aircraIt carrier reports being asked
more than twenty times by shipmates about his sexual orientation.
Recent questions include: Are you gay? Are you a Ilaming
Iaggot? and I heard that you are gay. Because oI these hostile
questions,thesailorIearsIorhissaIetywhileatsea.
AnArmyCaptaincameouttohiscommanderaIterbeingaskedabout
his own sexual orientation and hearing degrading comments about
soldiersthoughttobegay,includingIrequentanti-gayiokes,ateachoI
thethreebaseswherehehadbeenstationedinhiscareer(Exhibit26).
An Army Corporal reports being asked, Are you gay? by a Iormer
roommate whom the Corporal subsequently learned had stolen his
diary. Later, the Iormer roommate asked the Corporal, in Iront oI his
coworkers,Doyoulikewomen?
AsailoronthesubmarineUSSHoustonreportsbeingaskednumerous
questionsabouthissexualorientationbycoworkers,including:What
are you, a Iag? and Well, we already know youre a Iag, so what
kindareyou,anartIagoraregularIag?(Exhibit27).
InvestigatorsAskAboutSexualOrientation
NavvInvestigatorsAskAboutSexualOrientation
LCR 04226
LCR Appendix Page 2195
28
AgentsIromtheNavalCriminalInvestigativeServices(NCIS)blatantlyviolatedDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursuelastyearwhentheyquestionedaNavyPettyOIIicerandhis
coworkers.Inthiscase,NCISagentsrepeatedaseriesoIquestionswithseveralwitnesses
Iollowingthepatternbelow,assetIorthinaletterIromthePettyOIIicersattorneytohis
commander(Exhibit28):
The witness is questioned concerning whether or not he knows about
theliIestyleoI|A|:
Andwhat|A|doesIorIun:
Andwherehegoessocially(i.e.typesoIbars,socialgatheringplaces,
etc.):
Andwhatheslikeinpublic:
And whether he has been buddy buddy with male Iriends and
roommates.
Accordingtotheattorney,thesailorunderinvestigationwasquestionedpersonallyalong
thesesamelines,givingrisetotheDontAskviolationsinthiscase.Thequestionsaskedby
theNCISagentsledwitnessesandthesailorscommandertoconcludethattheagentswere
engagedinawitchhuntIorgaypersonnel,asdescribedmoreIullyintheDontPursuesection.
Despiterepeatedrequests,NCISneverinIormedthesailoroItheallegationsagainsthim.When
pressedbyhiscommandIorthereasonbehindtheinvestigation,theagentssuggestedthatthe
sailorsmarriagewasnotvalidandthathiswiIethereIoreIraudulentlyobtainedmedicalbeneIits.
TheagentsoIIerednosupportIorthisoIIensivetheory.Asnotedbythesailorsmilitary
attorney,theNCISagentsquestionsexceededwhatisneededtoinvestigateamedicalIraud
case.
AirForceInvestigatorsAskAboutSexualOrientation
LCR 04227
LCR Appendix Page 2196
29
AnAirForceinvestigatorviolatedDontAskwhenheaskedaLieutenanttheIollowing
wide-rangingquestionsabouthissexualorientation,assetIorthintheinvestigatorsReportoI
Inquiry(ROI)(Exhibit29).TheinvestigatoraskedtheLieutenant:
when |was| the last time he had had a girlIriend and what her name
was:
whathethoughtoIhomosexuals:
iIhethoughthomosexualsbelongedinthemilitary:
iI he had ever had any kind oI homosexual contact with anybody at
anytimeinhisliIe:and
iI he had ever thought about it or otherwise had any desire to ever
engageinhomosexualacts.
TheinvestigatoralsoquestionedacoworkeraboutwhetherthisLieutenanthadever
mentionedanythingaboutIormergirlIriendsorhisprivateliIe,questionsthatareIorbidden
underDontPursue(Exhibit30).
InanotherAirForcecase,investigatorsquestionedaseniornoncommissionedoIIicerlast
yearabouthissexualorientationinthecourseoIinvestigatingacivilianemployeeoItheAir
ForcewhomthenoncommissionedoIIicerknew.Theallegationsagainstthecivilianemployee
hadnothingtodowithhomosexualconduct.Thatdidnotdetertheinvestigators,whoaskedthe
noncommissionedoIIicer:Areyougay?Areyoumarried?WhatkindoIbarsdoyougo
to?WhatkindoIrestaurantsdoyougoto?andWhatkindoImagazinesdoyouread?In
everyway,thesequestionsviolateDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
FriendsAskServiceMembersAboutTheirSexualOrientation
Increasingly,superiorsandcoworkersaskservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientation
outoIIriendshiporconcern,notasameansoIharassment.Theproblemisthatthemilitary
dischargesservicemembersbasedontheirresponses.ThismisguidedapplicationoIthepolicy
makesservicemembersvulnerabletoanyleakoIinIormationabouttheiridentity,requiring
LCR 04228
LCR Appendix Page 2197
30
servicememberstoavoidIriendshipsandtobewaryoItrustinganyone.Italsohurtsthemilitary
bymakingitmorediIIicultIorleaderstolookaItertheirsubordinatesandbycreatingdistrust
amongcoworkers.
Inonegoodexampleillustratinghowthingsshouldworkunderthispolicy,amarine
reportsthathisFirstSergeantagreedtohelphimaIteraGunnerySergeantquestionedhimIour
timesabouthissexualorientation.TheFirstSergeantstated:Iknowaboutyou.Mybrotheris
thatway.IIyouhaveaproblem,cometomeandIlltrytohelpyou.Iknowyoureagood
marine.IlovemybrotherandIsupportyou.ThisFirstSergeantshouldbecommendedIor
takingthemarinescomplaintoIDontAskviolationsseriouslyandIornotturninghiminto
bedischarged.
InanumberoIcases,coworkershavegoneoutoItheirwaytoaIIirmsuspectedgay
servicemembers.InoneNavycase,Iorexample,asailorIacedrepeatedquestionsabouthis
sexualorientation.Whenanothercoworkeraskedhimdirectly,Areyougay?heIearedthe
worst.Thecoworker,however,hastenedtoadd,IknowyouregayandIveneverhada
problemwithit.Thecoworkerdidnotstartrumorsorturninthegaysailorandthesailor
continuestoserveonactiveduty.
OtherservicemembershavenotbeensoIortunate.ThestoryoIoneairmanis
representativeoImanycasesSLDNhashandled.WhenaIriendprivatelyquestionedthisairman
abouthissexualorientation,herespondedtruthIullythatheisgay.TheIriendmadethenave
mistakeoImentioningthisconversationtothreeotherIriends,oneoIwhominIormedasuperior.
Thecommandstartedaninvestigation,andquestionedtheIriend.AccordingtotheReportoI
Investigation,theinvestigatingoIIicerobserved|theIriend|tobehonest,althoughsomewhat
uncomIortable.HebrieIlyexpressedconcernaboutburningaIellow|coworker|(Exhibit31).
LCR 04229
LCR Appendix Page 2198
31
TheAirForcedischargedthegayairmaninthiscasebasedsolelyontheIriendsstatementsto
theinvestigatingoIIicer,madeasadirectresultoItheinvestigatorsprompting.
Inadvertent Questioning
TheIinalgroupoIDontAskcaseshighlightedinthisreportisbestdescribedas
inadvertentquestioning.Thesearecaseswherecommandersandothersaskquestionsthat,on
theirIace,arenotdesignedtoaskaboutsexualorientation,but,inIact,do.Theproblemisthat
somecommandersareactingontheinIormationinadvertentlydiscoveredanddischarging
servicemembers,ratherthantreatingtheinIormationaspersonalandprivate
44
andtakingno
action.
Inarecentcase,investigatorsIromanInspectorGeneral(IG)oIIicequestionedasailor
whosetop-notchrecordincludesbeingselectedasSailoroItheQuarteronnumerous
occasions.Thesailorsaysthattheinvestigatorsneverexplainedwho,whatorwhytheywere
investigating.Investigatorsquestionedthesailoratlengthonseveraloccasions.Duringthelast
interrogation,investigatorsinsistedtheyknewthetruthandtoldthesailorthatherstatements
tothemconIlictwiththetruth.Whenthesailoraskedwhytheinvestigatorswerequestioning
her,theyreplied,Toletyoutellthetruth.AIterhoursoIquestioning,thesailorIinallyblurted
out,HowmuchmorehumiliationcanItake?YouknowImgay.Thesailorthoughtthey
wantedtoelicithersexualorientation:theydidnot.ShenowIacesapossibledischargeIorher
statementunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
AnobserverunIamiliarwithliIeasagayservicemembermightbetemptedtoviewthis
responseassomewhatparanoid.UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,however,service
membersliveeverydayinIearoIeventsthatcauselittleconcernIortheirstraightcolleagues.
LCR 04230
LCR Appendix Page 2199
32
Thepolicyrequireslesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstodissembleateveryturn,even
inthemostmundanedailyconversations.Forgayservicemembers,Iacingquestionssuchas
Whatchurchdoyougoto?Whatbasketballteamdoyouplayon?Whatdidyoudothis
weekend?andDoyouhaveaboyIriend/girlIriendbackhome?islikestandingontheedgeoI
amineIield.HeterosexualcolleaguesdonotintendtoelicitinIormationaboutacoworkers
sexualorientationwiththesecommonquestions,whichtheyexperienceasinnocuous.Lesbian,
gayandbisexualservicememberswhoanswerthesequestionstruthIully,however,couldreveal
theirsexualorientation.Avoidingorprovidingvagueanswerscouldalsoraisesuspicions.One
slipupcouldendtheircareers.
ThemilitaryslonghistoryoIwitchhuntstoIerretoutlesbians,gaysandbisexualsinthe
ranksreinIorcesservicemembersanxiety,distrustandsuspicion.TheyworkinconstantIear
thateverytimetheirFirstSergeantorCommanderunexpectedlycallsthemintotheiroIIice,it
maysignalthattheyhavebeendiscoveredandtheircareerisover.
IntryingtostampoutanyhintoIhomosexuality,militaryleadershaveironicallycreated
asituationwherelesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersmustbeproIoundlyselI-conscious
abouttheirsexualorientationateveryturn.Notonlymusttheylearntomaskanysignthat
mightbetraytheirsexualorientation,theyarealsorequiredtoaIIirmativelyproiectanimageoI
someonetheyarenotaheterosexual.Underthesecircumstances,itisnowonderthatthe
womansailorintheaboveexampleconcludedthattheNavyinvestigators,instatingtheywanted
theIulltruth,hadunmaskedhertrueidentity.
44
Seesupranote16,at5.
LCR 04231
LCR Appendix Page 2200
33
Conclusion
Thecurrentmilitaryclimatesendsadirectmessagetocommandersandservicemembers
thatitispermissibletoaskquestionsaboutapersonssexualorientation.Withoutameansto
punishthosewhoviolatetherules,askingwillcontinueuncheckedandincidentsoIaskingwill
increase.Furthermore,untiltherealintentoIthepolicyisenIorced,thoseIriends,Iamily
membersandhealthcareproviderswhoaskoutoIconcernorsupportIorservicememberswill
beplacedinanuntenablepositionwhereinvestigatorscouldelicitinIormationthathurtstheones
theycareabout.ThisclimateonlyIostersIearinservicememberswhethertheyaregay,
straightorbisexualanditperpetuatesalackoItrustandunityamongourtroops.Service
membersshouldbeprotectedIromillegalandintrusivequestionsabouttheirsexualorientation
andshouldhaveadequaterecoursetostopaskingwithoutIearoIreprisal.
LCR 04232
LCR Appendix Page 2201
34
DONT TELL
Dont Tellrequireslesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstokeeptheirsexual
orientationapersonalandprivatematter.DontTell,however,doesnotprohibitall
disclosuresoIsexualorientation.Servicemembersmaydisclosetheirsexualorientationto
deIenseattorneys,
45
chaplains,
46
securityclearancepersonnel,
47
and,inlimitedcircumstances,
doctorswhoaretreatingpatientsIorHIV.
48
ThepolicyprotectsservicemembersIreedomoI
associationwithIriendsandextracurricularorganizations.
49
ThepolicysintentistoaIIord
servicememberssomeprivate,saIespaceinwhichtheycanhaveprivateconversationswithout
IearoIinvestigationordischarge. AsIormerSecretaryoIDeIenseLes Aspinexplainedto
Senator Bingamanduringthe1993Senatehearingsonthepolicy,IIIcametothecommander
andsaidthatyoutoldmethatyouaregay,iIthatwastheonlythinggoing,myexpectation
wouldbethecommanderwouldnotdoanything.
50
SLDNdocumented23DontTellviolationsthisyear.Theseareincidentsinwhich
commandsinvestigatedordischargedservicemembersbasedonprivateconversationsthatwere
intendedtobeoII-limitsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.TheAirForce,which
traditionallyhastheworstDontTellrecord,ledtheotherservicesagainthisyearwith11
violations.The1998Iiguresareconsistentwiththoseinpastyears.ForthepurposesoIthis
report,SLDNcountsonlycommandviolationsoIDontTellratherthaninstanceswhere
45
MILITARYR.EVID.502.
46
MILITARYR.EVID.503.
47
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVE5200.2-R10-100. Seealso,DEFENSEINVESTIGATIVESERVICE
MANUAL,DIS-20-1-M,encl.18,Jan.1993.
48
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.6485.1,encl.3.2(Mar.19,1991).InIormationobtainedIromaService
memberduring,orasaresultoI,anepidemiologicalassessmentinterviewmaynotbeusedagainsttheService
member(inadversecriminaloradministrativeactions).
49
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4E.4.:Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.8E.4..|Credible
inIormationdoesnotexistwhen|theonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar,
possessingorreadinghomosexualpublications,associatingwithknownhomosexuals....
LCR 04233
LCR Appendix Page 2202
35
lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersIacepossibledischargeIorstatementsoIsexual
orientation.
ThereisnosaIespaceIorservicemembersasDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueis
beingimplemented.ContrarytotheintentoIthepolicy,servicememberscannotseekguidance
Iromtheirpsychotherapists,chaplains,IamilyorclosestIriendsIorIearoIbeingoutedand
losingtheirlivelihoods.ThiscontrastssharplywiththemilitarystreatmentoIheterosexual
servicemembers,whoareencouragedtoseekguidanceIromthesesourcesinrecognitionthat
theyareimportantpressurevalvesIorservicemembersdealingwiththestressesoImilitaryliIe.
PsychotherapistsandDoctorsOrderedtoTurninGays
Healthcareprovidershavebeenorderedtoturninlesbian,gayandbisexualservice
memberswhoseektheirhelp,inviolationoIDontTell.SLDNhasidentiIiedthisproblemin
pastreports.Lastyear,DepartmentoIDeIenseoIIicialsdisputedSLDNsIindingsbasedon
representationsmadetothembytheServicesandstatedthathealthcareproviderswerenot
requiredtoturnintheirpatients.
51
EvidenceobtainedbySLDNshows,however,thatthe
Pentagonsassertionsareincorrect.
TheNavysGeneralMeaicalOfficerManual,obtainedbySLDNthisyear,Iorexample,
speciIicallyinstructshealthcareproviderstoturninlesbian,gayandbisexualservice
members.
52
UpdatedinMay1996,theManualisgiventodoctorswhohavecompletedtheir
internship,priortobeginningtheirresidency.TheManualdispensesadviceoneverythingIrom
anginatophobias.OnechapterIocusesspeciIicallyonhomosexuality,urgingmedicaloIIicers
toturningayservicemembers.TheManualstates:
50
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmeaServices,
S. Hrg.103-845,103rdCong.at721(TestimonyoIthenSecretaryoIDeIenseLes Aspin).
LCR 04234
LCR Appendix Page 2203
36
Homosexuals should not be reIerred to psychiatry. This is not a
medicalmatter,butalegalmatter.ThereIerralshouldbemadeto
thecommandlegaloIIiceroriudgeadvocategeneral....|T|hose
whoseekouttheGMOtodisclosehomosexualconductortheidea
that they are being over-stimulated by members oI the same sex
are asking to be discharged. One way oI looking at homosexuals
in the military is to distinguish between those who adapt to the
military environment and those who do not. The adapters are
invisible and do not seek to disclose their homosexuality. The
nonadapters realize they made a mistake in ioining the military,
and they need to get out. When a nonadapter goes to the
physician, the physician will be most helpIul by Iacilitating the
legal process....
53
The ManualslackoImedicalbearingisstriking.Itdoesnotdiscusslesbian,gayand
bisexualhealthconcerns.ItdoesnotrecognizethatdisclosureoIonessexualorientationmay
beanecessarypartoIthepatientshealthcare.Itdoesnotrecognizethatsexualorientationis
notabartoserviceunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
54
Instead,thetextsuggests
thatdoctorsshoulddenyhealthcaretolesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersiItheyreveal
theirsexualorientation.Thatisbadmedicine.InstructinghealthcareoIIicialstoturninlesbian,
gayandbisexualservicemembersisalsobadpolicy,againsteventhePentagonspositiononthe
subiect.
PentagonoIIicialsremovedthesectiononhomosexualityIromtheonlineversionoIthe
GeneralMeaicalOfficerManualinFebruary1999,aIterSLDNbroughttheManualtotheir
attention.TheIactthattheguidanceexistedintheIirstplace,however,underscoresSLDNs
concernthatmilitaryleadersdonotknow,orhavechosentoignore,theintentoIDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuetorespectservicemembersprivacy.
IntheAirForce,apsychiatristtellsSLDNthatshehasbeenspeciIicallydirectedbyher
51
DEPTOFDEFENSEAPRIL1998REPORTat10.
52
DEPTOFTHENAVY,NAVMEDP-5134,GENERALMEDICALOFFICER(GMO)MANUAL(May1996).
53
Ia.
54
Seesupranote12,at5.
LCR 04235
LCR Appendix Page 2204
37
superiornottoprovidementalhealthcounselingonissuesoIsexualorientationandconduct.
ShealsoreportsthatherIellowdoctorsIrequentlyuseanti-gayepithetsandengageinverbal
gay-bashingatwork.YetanotherAirForcepsychiatristreportsthatitisnotuncommonIor
commanderstosearchmedicalnotestosnoopontheirairmenandIerretoutlesbian,gayand
bisexualservicemembers.Accordingtothehealthcareproviders,theseproblemspreventthem
Iromadequatelytreatingtheirpatients.
Militaryhealthcareprovidershave,inIact,turnedinlesbian,gayandbisexualservice
members.ANavypsychologistturnedinMarineCorporalKevinBlaesingmerelyIorasking
questionsabouthomosexuality,asdescribedintheintroduction.Lastyear,anAirForce
psychologist outedStaIISergeantVictorPeralta,aRussianlanguagecryptologist,tohisFirst
Sergeantandtohisunit.BothBlaesingandPeraltaultimatelylosttheircareers.Theseareiust
twooImanyexamples.
ThereisaclearneedIorPentagonoIIicialstoinIormhealthcareprovidersthattheyare
notrequiredtoturninlesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberswhoseektheirhelp.
55
PentagonoIIicialsshouldIurtherclariIythatdisclosuresoIsexualorientationorconductinthe
courseoImedicaltreatmentarenotabasisIorinvestigationordischargeunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue.ThePentagonscurrentproposaltoadoptalimitedpsychotherapist
privilegedoesnotaddresstheproblemoIhealthcareprovidersturningintheirgaypatients,asit
islimitedtocriminalproceedings.
56
UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,mostgay
casesarenowhandledintheadministrativesystem.Militaryreadinessdependsonservice
55
DEPTOFDEFENSE APRIL 1998REPORT at10.
56
Thereisnopsychotherapistprivilegeinthemilitary.ThePentagonhasrecommendedadoptionoIalimited
psychotherapistprivilegeinlightoItheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsholdingin Jaffeev.Reamona.116S.Ct.
1923(1996).
LCR 04236
LCR Appendix Page 2205
38
membersreceivingadequatehealthcare,whichisimpossibleiItheyarenotabletospeakwith
healthcareproviderswithoutIearoIreprisal.
MilitaryChaplainsImproperlyGiveLegalAdvice
Somemilitarychaplainsaretellinglesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberswhoseek
theirguidancetoturnthemselvesin.OtherchaplainsencourageIriendstobecometurncoatsand
reportlesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstotheircommanders.
57
AnAirForcechaplain,Iorexample,threatenedtooutanAirForceoIIicerstationedin
Florida.TheoIIicerhadconIidedinaIriend,anotheroIIicerintheunit,thatsheisalesbianand
involvedinarelationship.AIterward,whentheIriendsoughtguidanceIromtheunitschaplain,
heencouragedhertoturnintheoIIicer.ThechaplainconvenedameetingwiththeIriendand
theoIIicerinwhichhegavetheoIIiceranultimatum:turnherselIinbytheendoItheweekor
theIriendwouldouttheoIIicertohercommander.ThechaplainreportedlythreatenedtotestiIy
againsttheoIIiceratanadministrativeseparationhearingiIshedidnotturnherselIinandleave
themilitary.ThechaplainreportedlytoldthelesbianoIIicersheshouldnotbesurprisedabout
whatwashappeningtoherbaseduponthechoicesshemadeinliIe.When,bytheendoIthe
week,theoIIicerhadnotoutedherselI,theIriendIollowedthroughwiththeultimatumand
turnedherin.AninvestigationagainsttheoIIicerensued.
AtthetimeoIthisincident,doctorshaddiagnosedthelesbianoIIicerwithaserious
degenerativedisease.Asaresult,shewaseligibleIoramedicalseparationincludingbeneIits
Iorhercare.HadtheAirForcedischargedherunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,she
wouldhavelostalleligibilityIormedicalbeneIits.Fortunately,hercommanderwassympathetic
and,despitepressureIromhissuperiors,hepermittedthemedicalseparationtogoIorward,
LCR 04237
LCR Appendix Page 2206
39
insteadoIdischargingherunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Thechaplainsactions,
however,andtheresultinginvestigationcausedsigniIicantemotionalstress,negativelyaIIecting
theservicemembershealthatacriticaltime.
Inanothercase,describedinmoredetailintheDontPursuesection,theAirForce
IiredaSeniorAirmanatOIIuttAirForceBasewiththree-and-a-halIyearsoIserviceaItera
Iriend,ontheadviceoIamilitarychaplain,turnedhiminIorconIidinginhimthatheisgay.
TheSeniorAirmanhadthoughthecouldtrusthisIriendwhohadtalkedabouthislesbiansister,
statingthathelovedher.Hewaswrong.TheIriendwasaturncoat.Thecommandstartedan
inquiryultimatelyleadingtotheservicemembersdischarge.
WhileSLDNdoesnotrecordalargenumberoIcaseswherechaplainsparticipatein
outinglesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers,theIactthatthesecasesoccuratallis
troubling.ThePentagonshouldensurethatchaplainsknowsexualorientationisnolongerabar
tomilitaryserviceandisapersonalandprivatematter.Chaplainsshouldnotpressureservice
memberstooutthemselvesorencourageotherstoratontheirIriends.
MilitaryOfficialsSeekoutFamilyandFriends
SLDNremainsconcernedthatinquiryoIIicersandinvestigatorsareseekingoutIamily
membersandcloseIriendstosolicitinIormationthatcanbeusedagainsttheirlovedones,
contrarytoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
InacasedescribedmoreIullyintheDontPursuesection,aNavyprosecutor
threatenedaservicemembersmotherandsister-in-lawwithsubpoenasiItheydidnotprovide
herwithincriminatinginIormationabouttheservicemember(Exhibit32).Anadministrative
57
Seeinfraat49.
LCR 04238
LCR Appendix Page 2207
40
separationboardretainedtheservicememberdespitetheevidenceagainsttheservicemember
garneredbytheprosecutorsmisconduct.
IntheAirForce,toplawyershaveactuallyinstructedinquiryoIIicers,inwriting,toseek
outservicemembersparents,brothersandsisters,closeIriendsandevenhighschoolguidance
counselorsIorquestioning(Exhibit33).TheIollowingexcerptIromanAirForceReportoI
Inquiryconductedinapendingcaseistypical(Exhibit34):
Have you told any oI your Iamily members that you are homosexual?
When?HowcanIcontactthem?
WhoaresomeoIyourclosestIriends?HowcanIcontactthem?
Do you belong to any homosexual organizations? Which? When did
youbecomeamember?CanIveriIybytalkingtoothermemberswho
know?Whom?
TheinquiryoIIiceraskedthisAirForceoIIicertwenty-threequestionsabouthissexual
orientation,privateliIe,associates,closeIriendsandIamilymembers.Interviewslikethisone
havebecomestandardpractice.WheninquiryoIIicersaresuccessIulinlocatingIamilymembers
andIriends,theyhavepressuredthemtoprovidedamaginginIormationagainstservicemembers.
TheAirForcehasattemptedtoiustiIyitsintrusivetacticsbyclaimingthatinquiry
oIIicersusethemonlyinalimitednumberoIcasesinvolvingservicememberswhocomeout
andwhohavereceivededucationalIunding,specialpayorbonusesinexchangeIorIurther
serviceobligations.First,DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuedoesnotauthorizeexpanded
inquiriesinrecoupmentcases.Second,theAirForcehasexpandedsuchintrusivetacticsto
casesnotinvolvingrecoupmentoImonetarybeneIits.Intheabovecase,Iorexample,theAir
ForceoIIicerhadnotreceivedanyIundingthatwouldcausehimtoincuraIurtherservice
obligation.WhiletheseviolationsarenotlimitedtotheAirForce,theAirForcehasbeenthe
worstviolatoroIDontTelleveryyearIorthepastIiveyears.
LCR 04239
LCR Appendix Page 2208
41
Conclusion
ServicemembershavenosaIespaceorprivacy,contrarytotheintentoIDontTell.
Psychotherapistshavebeenorderedtoturninlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers.Some
chaplainsareIorcingservicememberstooutthemselves,andencouragingtheirIriendsto
becometurncoats.InvestigatorsarepursuingcloseIriendsandIamilymembersinaneIIortto
digupallegationsagainstsuspectedgayservicemembers.TocleanuptheDontTell
violations,militaryleadersneedtomakeitclearthatprivateconversationstoIamily,health
careprovidersandbestIriendsshouldnotbeusedasabasisIorinquiryordischarge.
LCR 04240
LCR Appendix Page 2209
42
DONT PURSUE
Dont PursueisintendedtogetcommandersandinvestigatorstobackoIIandto
respectservicemembersprivacy.MorethanadozenspeciIicinvestigativelimitscomprise
DontPursue(Exhibit3).Theselimitsestablishaminimumthresholdtostartaninquiryand
restrictthescopeoIaninquiryeveniIproperlyinitiated.Theinvestigativelimitswouldhelp,iI
Iollowed,buttheyhavenotbeen.Commandersandinvestigatorscontinuetosnoop,pry,search
anddiginviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
SLDNdocumented350DontPursueviolationsin1998comparedto235in1997.
ReportsoIDontPursueviolationsintheArmyandMarineCorpsmorethandoubledIromlast
yearto101and45violationsrespectively.AirForceviolationsincreased29Irom90to116
violationswhileNavyviolationsincreased20Irom71to85violations.
ThemostcommonDontPursueviolationsare(1)startinginquirieswithoutcredible
inIormation,and(2)witchhunts,whereinquiriesareexpandedbeyondtheoriginalallegationto
seekoutadditionalallegationsagainsttheservicememberorotherswhoaresuspectedoIbeing
lesbian,gayorbisexual.Insomecases,commandersandinvestigatorsareexpandinginquiries
toseekoutpossiblecriminalchargesagainstservicemembers.
58
Inadevelopmenthighlightedlastyear,militaryleadersarestillattemptingtoIorce
knownlesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstoprovetheyaregaybyproviding
inIormationthatcouldleadtocriminalprosecution.
59
Whatisnewthisyearismilitaryleaders
havereIusedtodischargesomelesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberswhocomeoutand
declinetoprovideanyinIormationthatcouldcausethemIurtherlegalharm. OIgreatconcern,
58
ThisiscontrarytothestatedpreIerenceinDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueoIhandlinggaycasesinthe
administrativesystem.
59
Unlikerecoupmentcases,wherethistacticoriginated,theseservicemembershavenotreceivededucational
Iunding,bonusesorspecialpayanddonotoweanyresultingserviceobligationtothemilitary.
LCR 04241
LCR Appendix Page 2210
43
asdescribedintheDontHarasssection,militaryleadershavetakennostepstostoptheanti-
gayharassmentthatIorcedtheseservicememberstocomeoutintheIirstplace,norhavethey
givenassurancesthattheseservicememberswillnotbekickedoutlater,astheyapproach
retirement.
InquiriesThatShouldHaveNeverBeenStarted
ArmvPursuesWomenDespiteFalseAccusation
AtanArmytrainingbaseintheSoutheastlastsummer,acommanderlaunchedawide-
ranginginquirythreateningthebuddingcareersoIseveralwomensoldiers.Thiscaseillustrates
commonviolationsoIDontPursueandservicememberslegalrights.
First,thiscommanderrushedtoiudgmentbylaunchinganinquiry,ratherthanevaluating
whethertherewascredibleinIormationtostartone.
60
ThiscommanderstartedaninquiryaIter
onesoldierclaimedshesawtwowomenlyingtogetheronabunkinthebarracks,partlybeneath
ablanket.Therewasaneye-witnesswhodirectlycontradictedher.Furthermore,thecredibility
oItheaccuserwasinseriousdoubt.
61
ItappearstheaccuserhadahistoryoImakingspurious
gayaccusationsagainsthercolleagues,accordingtoaswornstatementbytheeyewitness:
Q. Could it have been possible Ior PVT |A| and PVT |B| to be
underthecoverstogetherwhenPVT|C|walkedin?
A. Absolutelynot.BesidestheIactthatIwassittingonthebedat
thetimethatPVT|C|walkedin.
Q. Did there appear to be any suspicious behavior between PVT
|A|andPVT|B|thatevening?
A. Absolutelynot.
60
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4A.1.: Ia. NO.1332.30,encl.8A.1.Acommandermay
initiateaIact-Iindinginquiryonlywhenheorshehasreceivedcreaibleinformation(emphasisadded)thatthereisa
basisIordischarge.
61
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVE1332.14,encl.4F.1.: Ia.1332.30,encl.8F.1.CredibleinIormationexists,
Iorexample,whenareliableperson(emphasisadded)statesthatheorsheobservedorheardaServicemember
engaginginhomosexualacts,orsayingthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexualoriemarriedtoamemberoIthe
samesex.
LCR 04242
LCR Appendix Page 2211
44
Q. Do you have any opinion as to PVT |Cs| reputation Ior
truthIulness?
A. Any reputation she might have would be that oI an untruthIul
person. PVT |C| would constantly reIer to others as
homos or lesbians and would constantly accuse others oI
beinggay.
Q II you were told that PVT |C| alleged that PVT |A| and PVT
|B| were engaged in sexual activity on 21 March 1998, what
wouldbeyourresponse?
A. PVT|C|islyingonceagain.IwasthereandIknowthat
nothingwasgoingon(Exhibit35).
Thebottomlineisthattheaccusedsoldiershaddonenothing.Yet,thecommandIorced
oneoIthemtogotoadischargeboardtoIightIorhercareerbecausehercommanderimproperly
startedaninquirybasedonaIalseaccusation.Theothersoldierwaivedherboard,andtheArmy
dischargedherIorallegedhomosexualconduct,eventhoughshedeniedthetwowomenwere
lesbiansandshetestiIiedatPrivate|As|dischargeboardthatthetwowomendidnothavea
physicalorsexualrelationship.
Second,eveniItheinquiryhadbeenproper,thecompanycommanderdidnotlimithis
inquirytotheallegationathand.Instead,heexpandedtheinquiryanduseditasaplatIormto
pursueotherwomen.AsnotedbythemilitaryattorneyIorPrivate|A|inalettertothePresident
oIherdischargeboard:thecompanycommanderstrayedintoaskingquestionsaboutthe
sexualactivitybetweendiIIerentindividualsinhiscompany.Suchactivityconstitutestheexact
typeoIwitchhuntthatisspeciIicallyIorbiddenbytheDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue
policy(Exhibit36).
Third,thecommanderactivelypreventedPrivate|A|Iromobtainingadequatelegal
counseltodeIendagainsttheIalseallegations.TheArmydeIenseattorneydescribedthe
commanderseIIortstointerIerewiththissoldierslegalrightsinhislettertothePresidentoIthe
dischargeboard,stating,Private|A|hassuIIeredIromcontinualharassmentIromherchainoI
LCR 04243
LCR Appendix Page 2212
45
commandinnotallowinghertimetotalktome.NeithermyclientnorIhavebeengivenan
opportunitytomeetIacetoIacetoprepareIorthismatter.Ihavebeenunabletointerviewany
oIthewitnessesinthiscase.
AIterattemptstoresolvetheseproblemswithPrivate|As|commanderandthemilitary
prosecutorprovedunsuccessIul,theArmydeIenseattorneyappealedtothebaseCommanding
General,writing,SuchintentionalobstructionoItheAttorney-Clientrelationshipisindirect
violationoIPrivate|As|constitutionalrighttocounsel,aswellasapotentialethicalproblemIor
theattorneyswhoareIacilitatingsaidobstruction(Exhibit37).ThesoldiersIather,anArmy
oIIicer,eventuallywasIorcedtoseekhelpIromhisUnitedStatesSenatorbeIorethe
CommandingGeneralheededthepleasoIthissoldiersattorneyandpermittedthesoldierto
meetwithherattorneyunIettered.
ThissoldierwasIortunate.Ultimately,thedischargeboarddecidedtoretainher,given
theIalseaccusation.Thecommander,however,shouldneverhavesubiectedthissoldiertoan
inquiry.Thecommandershouldneverhaveherharassedbecausesheattemptedtoexerciseher
legalrights.ThecommandershouldhaveneverdischargedtheothersoldierwhowasIalsely
accused.Thecommandershouldnothaveinvestigatedtheotherwomenintheunit.Thereisno
indicationthattheArmyhasheldaccountablethecommanderIorhisactions.
Thissoldierisanonymousbecausesheremainsonactiveduty.Althoughsheis
heterosexual,sheIearsthattheIalseallegationscouldleadtosuspicionandharassmentiI
coworkersathernewunitlearnoIthem.
LCR 04244
LCR Appendix Page 2213
46
NavvProsecutorInterrogatesFamilv.
CircuitCitvEmploveestoFinaOutIfSailorIsGav
InpreparingIoranadministrativeseparationboardlastyear,aNavyprosecutorlaunched
herowninquiryintoasailorspre-serviceliIetodigupadditionalinIormationthatcouldbeused
tobolsteraweakcaseagainsthimIorallegedgayacts.DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,
however,doesnotauthorizeprosecutorstostartinquiries.Underthepolicy,onlyaservice
memberscommandermayinitiateaninquiry.Furthermore,evenwhereinquiriesareproperly
started,inquiryoIIicersmustlimitthescopeoItheirinquirytotheoriginalallegations,contrary
totheprosecutorsactionsinthiscase.
InalettertotheCommandingOIIiceroItheshipdatedSeptember3,1998,themilitary
deIenseattorneydescribestheprosecutorsmisconduct(Exhibit38):
|The prosecutor| went so Iar as to question members oI the
respondentspre-serviceplaceoIemployment.Thisisparticularly
noteworthy in light oI the Iact that respondent enlisted in the
United States Navy nearly four vears prior to the initiation oI this
investigation.Inaddition,andperhapsevenmoreegregious,|she|
contacted members oI the respondents Iamily, threatening to
subpoena such Iamily members iI they reIused to provide
inIormation.
ThataNavyprosecutorwouldbadgerasailorsIamilyandemployeesIromhispre-
serviceplaceoIemploymenttoprovideinIormationagainsthimdemonstratesanutterlackoI
proprietyandcompletedisregardIorthelimitstoinvestigation.ThiscaseshowsiusthowIar
someoIIicerswillgotopursuesuspectedgaypersonnel.Fortunately,shedidnotsucceedinher
crusade,andthesailorservestoday.
AirForceColonelPursuesAnonvmousAllegation
TheAirForcepursuedCaptainRonFalconlastyearbasedonananonymousemail
LCR 04245
LCR Appendix Page 2214
47
message,contrarytoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
62
Anonymousallegationsarenot
suIIicienttobeginaninquiry,becauseacommandercannotassessthecredibilityoItheaccuser.
ApersonknownonlybythescreennameiammeraccusedCaptainFalconoIbeinggay
inanemailtohischainoIcommand.TheRecordoIInvestigationinthiscasestatesAnemail
wassenttoMaiorGovenbyapersonusingthealiasiammer. JammeridentiIieshimselIasa
CaptainintheArmyNationalGuard. Jammersemailallegeshomosexualconductand
manipulationbyamedicaloIIicer. Lt ColClementrequestedviaemailthatiammerprovide
additionaldetails(Exhibit39).
LieutenantColonelClementsownemailoIAugust28,1998conIirmedthathepursued
anonymousallegations.Hewrote(Exhibit40):
Hello, I direct physician assignments Ior the Air Force. I am
interested in what you had to say but it is diIIicult to pursue
(emphasisadded)yourleadswithoutknowingwhoyouaretalking
about.Anyadditionaldetailsyouwishtosharewillbetakeninto
consideration. Thanks Ior contacting our assignments division. I
lookIorwardtohearingIromyousoon.
JammerIulIilledLieutenantColonelClementsrequestandturnedoverCaptain
Falconsname.
CaptainFalconsdischargeispendingbasedoniammersaccusationsaswellasan
independentstatementmadebyFalcontohiscommanderadmittingthatheisindeedgay.
FalconsstatementwasmadeindependentlyoILieutenantColonelClementsactionsinthecase.
AnadministrativeseparationboardrecommendedFalconsseparation,despitehisargumentsto
theBoardthathewantstoserve.
62
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO. 1332.14,encl.4E.2-3.:Ia. NO. 1332.30,encl.8E.2-3.Credible
inIormationdoesnotexist,Iorexample,when:...theonlyinIormationistheopinionsoIothersthatamemberis
homosexualortheinquirywouldbebasedonrumor.suspicion.orcapriciousclaims(emphasisadded)concerninga
memberssexualorientation.
LCR 04246
LCR Appendix Page 2215
48
SergeantSnoopsThroughSolaiersPersonalBelongings
TheArmydischargedSpecialistChristopherAlbrittonbecauseFirstSergeantJoseph
Shinskiesnoopedthroughhispersonalbelongings,inviolationoIDontPursueanddiscovered
privatephotographsinsideAlbrittonsdayplanner.Althoughthephotographsdidnotdepictany
sexualacts,theyledFirstSergeantShinskietobelievethatAlbrittonisgay.
AsFirstSergeantShinskiestatedIortheoIIicialrecord:
WhileintheroomInoticedadayplanner,blackincolorsittingon
a night table. I Ilipped open the planner and noticed several
pictures. Unsure as to the legality oI the viewing oI these
photographs, Iadvised the commander, CPT Dewitt, oI my
Iindings. AIter coordination with the SJA, CPT Bowers, the
commander initiated an inquiry intoAlbritton ana the
unidentiIied male in the photographs (emphasis added) (Exhibit
41).
Sergeantsmayinspecttheirsubordinatesroomstoensuretheirhealth,welIareand
saIety,whichisthetypeoIinspectionFirstSergeantShinskiesaidhewasconductinginthis
case.FirstSergeantShinskiesactions,however,wentbeyondthistypeoIinspection.Inhealth,
welIareandsaIetyinspections,sergeantsareusuallyconcernedaboutitemsdirectlyconnectedto
missionaccomplishment,buildingmaintenance,andindividualwell-being.Theseinclude
ensuringsoldiershavealloItheiruniIormsandgearinproperconditionandthattheirroomsare
clean.Inthiscase,FirstSergeantShinskiehadalreadyconcludedthatSpecialistAlbrittons
roomwasadequateandpresentednosaIetyhazardspriortoopeningAlbrittonsdayplanner.
CuriousaboutAlbrittonsprivateliIe,however,hewentIurther.Atthispoint,FirstSergeant
ShinskiesteppedoverthelineIromaninspectiontoeIIectivelystartinghisowninquiryinto
AlbrittonsprivateliIe.
MoredisturbingisthereactionoIFirstSergeantShinskiescommander,Captain
LCR 04247
LCR Appendix Page 2216
49
ChristopherDewitt.WhenhelearnedoIFirstSergeantShinskiessnooping,hestartedan
oIIicialinquirybasedupontheill-gottenpictures.CaptainDewittsactionturnsthecredible
inIormationstandardonitshead.CommandersmusthavecredibleinIormationbeIorebeginning
aninquiry.CommandersmaynotskirtthisrulebyallowingtheirnoncommissionedoIIicersto
snooponsuspectedgayservicemembers,andthenusingwhatevertheydredgeupasthebasis
IoranoIIicialinquiry.
CaptainDewittsoughttoidentiIytheothermaninthephotograph,accordingtoFirst
Sergeant ShinskiesoIIicialstatement.ThisapparentlyoccurredwiththeblessingoIlegal
advisorsintheStaIIJudgeAdvocatesoIIice.EveniIaninquirycouldbeiustiIiedinthiscase,
bothCaptainDewittandtheStaIIJudgeAdvocateoversteppedtheirboundsbytryingtoidentiIy
thisman,whoturnedouttobeacivilian.
SLDNhashandledmanycaseslikethatoISpecialistAlbritton.Wehavealsohandled,
however,adozencasesoverthepastIiveyearswherecommandersrespondedappropriately,by
notinitiatinginquiriesbasedonpersonalletters,photos,videos,diariesandiournals.Service
membersinthesecasesarereluctanttobepublic,eventoapplaudtheircommanders,IorIear
thatseniorleadersmightdredgeuptheseoldincidentsasgroundsIordischarge.
CommanaerwithNoAuthoritvoverMarineStartsInquirvBaseaonStolenJournal
AcommanderinvestigatedanotherenlistedmarineaIterherIormerroommatestolea
privatepoetryiournalandaccusedheroIbeingadykeinretaliationIorthemarinestestimony
againstherinanoniudicialproceedingIoradultery.Themarine,whowasinadiIIerentunit,had
reluctantlytestiIiedontheorderoIhercommander.Atthehearing,theIormerroommate
allegedthemarinewasalesbianinanattempttodiscredither.TheIormerroommatewastold
thathercommanderwasnotgoingtoaddressthatissueatthehearing,butshewasnot
LCR 04248
LCR Appendix Page 2217
50
dissuadedIromraisingitlater.
AIterthehearing,theIormerroommateturnedovertheiournalandletterstuckedinside
oIittohercommanderandaccusedthemarineoIbeingalesbian.Atthetime,sheremarkedtoa
Iriend,ThatdykeisgoingtoIry,inreIerencetothemarine.
TheIormerroommatescommanderrespondedbyinitiatinganinquiryagainstthe
marine.UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,however,onlyaservicemembersown
commandermayinitiateaninquiry.
63
Theinquirywasalsoimproperbecausetheaccusationwasnotcredible.DontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuerequirescommanderstoassessiIaccusersarereliableandtotakeinto
accountthesurroundingcircumstancesindeterminingwhethertoinitiateaninquiry.
64
The
policychargescommanderstotakeintoaccountthatsexualorientationisapersonalandprivate
matter.TheseruleswereintendedtopreventpeoplewithretaliatorymotivesIrombeingableto
useoIIicialmilitarychannelstoperIormtheirdirtywork.
65
Inthiscase,theaccusersundisputedmotivewasretaliation.Further,itishardto
imagineamorepersonalandprivatecontextthanapersonsiournal.Anappropriateresponse
IortheIormerroommatescommanderwouldhavebeentoreturntheiournaltothemarine
withoutreadingit.TheIormerroommateshouldhavebeenheldaccountableIormakinga
retaliatoryaccusationandIorstealingtheiournal.
ThismarinenowIacespossibledischargeunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,
basedsolelyonherpoetryiournalandtheletters.Bystartinganinquirythathewasnot
63
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4A.1.: Ia. NO.1332.30,encl.8A.1.Onlythemembers
commanderisauthorizedtoinitiateIact-Iindinginquiriesinvolvinghomosexualconduct.
64
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4B.3.: Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.8B.3.Credible
inIormationexistswhentheinIormation,consideringitssourceandthesurroundingcircumstances,supportsa
reasonablebelieIthattheServicememberhasengagedinhomosexualconduct.Itrequiresadeterminationbasedon
articulableIacts,notiustabelieIorsuspicion.
65
Seesupranote50,at32.
LCR 04249
LCR Appendix Page 2218
51
permittedtostartunderthispolicy,theroommatescommandersignalediusthowIarsome
leaderswillgotopursuesuspectedgayservicemembers.Hisactionsgiveagreenlightto
anyonewithanaxtogrindbyencouragingretaliatoryaccusations.
Witch Hunts
AirForceUsesAOLBuaavListtoLaunchWitchHunt
TheAirForcekickedoutatwenty-twoyearoldSeniorAirmanatOIIuttAirForceBase
withthree-and-a-halIyearsoIserviceastheresultoIawide-ranginginquiry.Theinquirystarted
aIteraIriend,ontheadviceoIamilitarychaplain,turnedhiminIorconIidinghissexual
orientationinaprivateconversation.Duringthisconversation,theIriendhadtalkedabouthis
lesbiansister,statingthathelovedher.ThisledtheSeniorAirmantobelievehecouldsaIely
conIideinhisIriend.Hewaswrong.TheIriendwasaturncoat.
AIterthisconversation,theIriendtoldamilitarychaplainabouttheSeniorAirmans
sexualorientation.AccordingtotheReportoIInvestigation(ROI),theIriend:
Ielt his religious convictions could not allow him to support |the
Senior Airmans| liIestyle. |The Iriend| Ieltbyremainingsilentit
wouldsendamessageto|theSeniorAirman|thathesupportedthe
liIechoice.|TheIriend|statedhegavethechaplainpermissionto
divulge the inIormation to whomever could |remove the Senior
AirmanIromtheworkplace|(Exhibit42).
ThechaplainreportedtheSeniorAirmantohiscommander.Thecommandersought
adviceIromhissuperior,whosummonedthebasesecuritypolice.InaIitoIoverkill,the
commanderappointedacriminalinvestigatorIromthesecuritypolicetoinvestigatewhetherthe
airmanhadsaidheisgay.Typically,incomingoutcases,thecommanderassignsanoIIicer
Iromthebasetoconductanadministrativeinquiryasanadditionalduty.
LCR 04250
LCR Appendix Page 2219
52
UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,thecommandershouldneverhave
initiatedaninquiry.ThepolicywasnotdesignedtopoliceprivatestatementstoIriends.
66
The
seniorairmandidnotshoutouthissexualorientationinthemesshall.HedidnotruntoThe
OmahaWorlaHeralatoproclaimthatheisgay.HeconIidedinaIriendwhomhethoughthe
couldtrustbecausetheIriendhadalesbiansister.
TheinvestigatoralsoexpandedtheinquirysscopeinviolationoItheinvestigativelimits.
EveniIthecommanderhadcredibleinIormationtostarttheinquiry,theonlyappropriateinquiry
inthiscasewaswhethertheSeniorAirmanconIidedinhisIriend.Theinvestigatorestablished
thisIactalmostimmediatelyinhisinterviewswiththeIriendandSeniorAirman.Atthatpoint,
heshouldhaveclosedtheinquiryandsubmittedhisIindingstothecommander.
Instead,theinvestigatorsoughtoutadditionalallegationsagainsttheSeniorAirman.He
questionedanotherIriendaboutprivateconversationswiththeSeniorAirman,whichwerenotin
issue.Underquestioning,thisIriendrevealedthattheSeniorAirmanhadconIidedinhimand
anothercoworkeratatimewhenhewasunderalotoIpressureandstresstokeepitasecretand
Ielthecouldtellthem,hopinghewouldntlosetheirIriendship(Exhibit42).ThisIriendstated
that,inIact,thisinIormationneverchangedtheirIriendship.
TheinvestigatoralsoviolatedtheinvestigativelimitsbyaskingthisIriendwide-ranging
questionsabouttheSeniorAirmansoII-dutyactivities,whichwereunrelatedtotheallegationin
thiscase.AccordingtotheROI,theinvestigatoraskedtheIollowingimproperquestions
(Exhibit43):
Q. While attending |an oII base dance club| with |the Senior
Airman and Iriends|, did you notice |the Senior Airman|
dancingwithanyothermalecompanions?
A. No,Ididnot.
66
Ia.
LCR 04251
LCR Appendix Page 2220
53
Q. Did you notice same-sex (male/male or Iemale/Iemale)
relations occurring, i.e. their kissing, hugging or dancing
togetherasacouple?
A. No,Ididnot.
Q. Has|theSeniorAirman|or|acivilianwoman|everconIidedin
|the Senior Airmans| (sic) sexual relationship with another
man?
A. Tome,theyhavenot....
Q. Has |the Senior Airman| ever identiIied any USAF Ilyers
stationed at |another base| which (sic) he has dated as a
homosexualmale?
A. Nohehasnot.
TheinvestigatorshouldneverhavequestionedthisIriend,letalonequestionedhimabout
theSeniorAirmansprivateliIe.UndernocircumstancesshouldhehavequestionedthisIriend
aboutthesexualorientationoIanothermilitarymember.
Theinvestigatordidnotstopthere.HeobtainedawarranttosearchtheSeniorAirmans
computerandseizedanumberoIemailmessages.InanironylostontheinquiryoIIicer,the
messagesheseizedincludedawidelydistributedcallIorhelpIromMasterChieIPettyOIIicer
TimothyR.McVeigh,sentwhentheNavyillegallypursuedhimbasedonananonymous
AmericaOnlineproIile(Exhibit44).
Finally,theinquiryoIIicerexpandedtheinquiryevenIurthertopursueothersuspected
gaymilitarymembers.AccordingtotheROI,theinquiryoIIicerdownloadedtheSenior
AirmansAmericaOnlineBuddyListcontainingtwenty-oneemailscreennames,and
questionedhimabouttheidentitiesoIthoselisted.TheROIcontainsalistoIthescreennames,
withnotationsbyeachnameindicatingthelistedpersonssuspectedsexualorientation.
NotationsalsoindicatewhethertheholderoIeachscreennameisthoughttobeacivilianora
militarymember.ItisunclearwhethertheinquiryoIIiceractuallypursuedalloIthenameshe
dugup,buttherecordhasalltheindiciaoIaclassicwitchhunt.
LCR 04252
LCR Appendix Page 2221
54
BasedontheemailsandBuddyList,theinquiryoIIicerrecommendedthattheSenior
AirmanbechargedIormisuseoIgovernmentcomputersystems,apotentialcriminaloIIense.
GiventhecontextoIthiscase,thiscanIairlybecalledpilingon,anotherexampleoIoverkill
inpursuingthisyoungservicemember.Bythispoint,theinvestigatorhadmorethanenoughto
supportadischargeunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,butinsteadhekeptexpanding
theinquiryinanattempttoturnitintoacriminalcase.
Thecommandviolationsinthiscasearenumerous.Thatacommanderandan
investigatorwouldgotosuchgreatlengths,andexpendsomanyscarceinvestigativeresources,
topursueayoungservicememberbecauseheconIidedhissexualorientationinaIriendreveals
seriouslymisguidedpriorities.
ThiscaseandotherslikeitrebutrecentPentagonclaimsthatgayservicemembers
disclosetheirsexualorientationbecausetheywantaso-calledeasywayoutoIthemilitary.
TheharshconsequencesandhighrisksoIcomingouttoanyoneinthemilitary,includingthe
riskthataninvestigatorwillstopatnothingtoturnthesituationintoacriminalcase,should
causeeventhemostskepticalreadertodisregardthisblanketassertion.
AlthoughtheAirForcehasdischargedtheservicemember,heremainsanonymousoutoI
concernIorthemilitarymemberslistedonhisAmericaOnlineBuddyList.
NCISStartsWitchHunt
AgentsIromtheNavyCriminalInvestigativeService(NCIS)havestartedan
investigationintoasailorssexualorientationontheoIIensivetheorythatheandhiswiIearenot
validlymarried.Despitenumerousrequests,theinvestigatorshavenevertoldthesailorwhy
theystartedtheinvestigationorthespeciIicallegationsagainsthim.
LCR 04253
LCR Appendix Page 2222
55
AsdescribedintheDontAsksection,NCISagentsimproperlyaskedthissailor
questionsabouthissexualorientationandassociations.NCISagentsalsoquestionedother
peopleaboutthissailorssexualorientationandassociationsinviolationoIDontPursue.
Finally,therecordshowsthatNCISistryingtoidentiIyacquaintancesoIthissailoronthe
suspicionthattheymightbegay.CoworkersquestionedbyNCISaboutthissailorsawthis
investigationIorwhatitis:awitchhunt.
AletterIromthissailorsmilitarydeIenseattorneytothecommandingoIIicerstatesthe
casebetterthananyotherdocument(Exhibit28):
|A| wasaskedinexplicablyaboutwhetherheknewaIiremanIrom
Tulare who NCIS has reported going to and Irom his apartment.
HisIormerapartmentmanagerwasapproachedandaskedwhether
he had seen men coming and going Irom his apartment.
Additionally, NCIS questioned |a retired sailor|. AIter the
interview, |the retired sailor| pointed out to |A| that NCIS was
asking liIestyle questions about |A|and thatNCIS repeated
the liIestyle questions several times. |Yet another sailor| was
questioned by NCIS. He stated to me that based on the questions
asked oI him (including the questions above), it was clear that
NCISwasonsomekindoIwitchhuntIorhomosexuals.
Thissailorscareerremainsinieopardy.Inthemeantime,hehasnorecoursetostopthis
clearlyimproperinvestigation.
PlatoonSergeantTellsMarinestoTurninGavs
AnactivedutymarinecorporalreportsthathisplatoonsergeantstoodinIrontoIaunit
Iormationandsaid,RumorsaregoingaroundthatoneoItheMarinesinourplatoonisgay.II
anyonehasanyinIormation,theyshouldcomeIorwardoriIanyoneisquestioningtheirsexual
orientation,theyshouldcomeIorward(Exhibit45).
LCR 04254
LCR Appendix Page 2223
56
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueIorbidssolicitinggayaccusationsagainstservice
membersorinstructinglesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstooutthemselves.
SailorThreateneaUnlessSheAccusesFrienaofBeingGav
AnactivedutysailorreportsthathersupervisoraskedheraboutthesexualorientationoI
anothersailorwhowasaIriend.InaMemorandumIorRecorddatedJanuary15,1999,the
sailorstatesthathersupervisorasked(Exhibit46):
Has|Z|evertoldyouthatheisgay?
Areyousurethathehasnevertoldyouwhileyouwereattachedto
thecommandorsinceyouhavedetached?
|He|didnttellyouhewasgayNewYearsEvenight?
WhenthesailorrepliedNotohersupervisorsquestions,thesupervisorthreatenedher,
stating,|Sailor|,Icanseethatyourelieing(sic)inyourIace.IIyouarecaughtlieing(sic)you
canbeinalotoItrouble.WhenthesailorreaIIirmedheranswers,thesupervisorattemptedto
intimidateher,suggestingthatthesailorwouldhavetotestiIyatacourt-martial.
AIurtherexchangebetweenthesailorandhersupervisorrevealsthesupervisorscynical
viewoIthelimitstoinvestigationunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Whenthesailor
askedhersupervisor,WhydontyouaskhiminsteadoIme?Thesupervisorreplied,Dont
Ask,DontTellNavy,remember?WhiletheNavysupervisorcorrectlynotedthatshecould
notaskthesailordirectlyabouthissexualorientation,thesupervisordeliberatelyattemptedto
skirtthelimitstoinvestigationbypressuringthesailorsIriendtoaccusehim.Thisisnot
allowedunderDontPursue.
ThesupervisorIurtherviolatedDontPursuebylaunchingherownIishingexpedition
toseewhatshecoulddigupagainstthissailor.Thesupervisorhadnotbeenappointedbyher
LCR 04255
LCR Appendix Page 2224
57
commandertoconductaninquiry,asrequired.
67
Thesupervisorscommanderhadnotmadea
determinationthatcredibleinIormationexistedtoconductaninquiry.InIact,thereisno
evidencethatanyallegationwaslodgedagainstthesailoratall.Instead,thesupervisor
attemptedtodigoneup,contrarytoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
Gayornot,thesailorinquestionisluckythathisIrienddidnotcaveintoher
supervisorspressure.Asshownintheexamplesabove,evenIalseaccusationsareenoughto
potentiallyruinaservicememberscareer.Thissailor,andtheIriendwhowrotethe
MemorandumIorRecordonhisbehalI,remainanonymousinthisreportIorIearoIretaliationby
thesupervisor.
ArmvTriestoCriminallvProsecuteSolaierWhoComesOut
AnArmySpecialistalmostIoundhimselIinprisonaItercomingouttohiscommanderin
Korea.Specialist|F|scaseisanotherexampleoIhowdangerousitisIorlesbians,gaysand
bisexualstocomeoutunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.
Specialist|F|toldhiscompanycommander,CaptainMarthaGranger,thatheisgayin
April1998.Hehadbecomedeeplydepressedwhilecopingwithstressandservinginahostile
anti-gayenvironment.
68
Eventually,hedecidedthathismentalandphysicalhealthrequiredhim
toinIormhiscommanderthatheisgay.
CaptainGrangeraskedSpecialist|F|aseriesoIintrusivequestionsabouthisprivateliIe,
inviolationoItheDontPursuemandatenottoexpandthescopeoIaninquiry.Captain
67
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.2.:Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.8A.2.AIactIinding
inquirymaybeconductedbythecommanderpersonallyorbyapersonheorsheappoints.
68
MilitaryserviceinSouthKoreaisparticularlydemandingoIservicemembers.NorthKoreaandSouthKorea
remaininatechnicalstateoIwar,separatedbyaheavilydeIendedDemilitarizedZone(DMZ).TheDeIense
DepartmentgenerallylimitsthelengthoIassignmentstooneyearanddoesnotallowservicememberstobringtheir
IamilieswiththembecauseoIthehazardousnatureoItheduty.CulturaldiIIerencesbetweenSouthKoreaandthe
LCR 04256
LCR Appendix Page 2225
58
GrangeraskedSpecialist|F|
Whenwasthelasttimeyouhadsex?
Withwhomdidyouhavesex?
Howmanytimesperweekdidyouhavesex?
Specialist|F|answeredthequestionsbelievinghiscommanderwasactinginhisbestinterest,
eventhoughthequestionssubiectedhimtopotentialcriminalcharges.
CaptainGrangerdeclinedtotakeIurtheractionagainstSpecialist|F|,whichcouldbe
construedasagenerousapplicationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueinthiscase.But
Specialist|F|wasseverelydepressedaboutbeinginthecloset,amongotherthings.Specialist
|F|sdepressiondeepeneduntiloneday,inJuly1998,heattemptedsuicidebyingestingalarge
quantityoImotrin.
RatherthanhelpSpecialist|F|,thecommandermademattersworse.CaptainGranger
requiredSpecialist|F|tohavehisboyIriendwritealetterdetailingthenatureoItheirintimate
relationship.ShealsoaskedadditionalquestionsabouthisprivateliIe,whichheanswered.The
resultwasnotanadministrativeseparation,butacriminalinvestigation.
TheArmyCriminalInvestigationCommand(CID)tookthecase.CIDinvestigated
Specialist|F|IorsodomyandIraudulentmarriage(hewasmarriedtoaIemalesoldier).CID
askedhiswiIequestionsabouttheintimatedetailsoItheirrelationship,subiectingbothhimand
hiswiIetoUCMJliability.
TheCIDinvestigationIoundthatSpecialist|F|andhiswiIehadnotdeIraudedthe
government.Specialist|F|IacedcontinuedinvestigationandpossiblecriminalchargesoI
consensualsodomybasedonthequestionshiscommanderaskedhim.Thesodomyinvestigation
UnitedStatesarestark.YoungsoldiersandairmenassignedtoSouthKoreaoItenhavegreatdiIIicultyadiustingto
thesestresses.
LCR 04257
LCR Appendix Page 2226
59
wasdroppedonlyaIterSLDNwrotetotheCommandingGeneraloItheSecondInIantry
DivisionlastSeptember.
TheArmyhasprovidedtworesponsestoinquiriesregardinghowithandledSpecialist
|F|ssituation.AnOctober1998lettertoSLDNIromtheCommandingGeneralsStaIIJudge
Advocate(SJA)makesnomentionoItheIraudchargesandtriestoducktheIactthatCID
initiatedacriminalinvestigation.TheletterpurportsthatCIDintervenedbecausetheunit
requestedthatthelocal|CIDoIIice|assistinvalidatingSpecialist|F|sclaimedorientation.
TheSJAIurthermaintainedthatCIDseIIortswereagood-IaithattempttoassisttheunitsIact-
Iindinginquiryconcerninghomosexualconduct(Exhibit47).EveniIthisweretrue,itwould
becontrarytoDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,whichprohibitsCIDIrominvestigating
servicememberssexualorientation.
69
AIterIurtherSLDNinquiries,theArmyadmitted,inaJanuary29,1999lettertoSenator
Feinstein(D-CA)thatCIDinitiatedacriminalinvestigationsubsequenttoSpecialist|F|s
statementthatheisgay.TheArmyadmitsCIDexpandedthescopeoItheinvestigationto
encompasswhetherhedeIraudedthegovernmentoIhousingandsubsistenceallowancesby
enteringintoashammarriage(Exhibit48).ItmaycomeasasurprisetoArmyoIIicialsthat
lesbians,gaymenandbisexualsenterintovalid,legallyrecognizedmarriageswithmembersoI
theoppositegenderIoravarietyoIreasons,includinglove,companionshipandmutualsupport.
I