2:04-cv-08425 #157

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 -

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

First Set of Requests for Admission ........................................................ 0114-0158

First Set of Interrogatories ....................................................................... 0159-0170

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

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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

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

October 11, 2009 remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner

March 24, 1995 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming:
The First Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass

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 -

1996 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual
Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
1997 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Third
Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass

1998 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fourth
Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass

1999 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual

2000 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Sixth Annual

2001 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Seventh Annual

2002 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Eighth Annual

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 -

2003 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual

2004 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual

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 -

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
Navy 058930
Navy 058931
ARI 060755
ARI 060756
ARI 060757
ARI 060758
ARI 060759
ARI 060760
ARI 060761
ARI 060762
ARI 060763
ARI 060764
ARI 060765
ARI 060766
ARI 060767
ARI 060768
ARI 060769
ARI 060770
ARI 060771
ARI 060772
ARI 060773
ARI 060774
ARI 060775
ARI 060776
ARI 060777
ARI 060778
ARI 060779
ARI 062124
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

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

Navy 058969
Navy 058970
Navy 058971
Navy 058972
Navy 058973
Navy 058974
OSD P&R 007428
OSD P&R 007429
OSD P&R 007430
OSD P&R 007431
OSD P&R 007432
OSD P&R 007433
OSD P&R 007434
OSD P&R 007435
OSD P&R 007436
OSD P&R 007437
OSD P&R 007438
OSD P&R 007439
OSD P&R 007440
OSD P&R 007441
OSD P&R 007442
OSD P&R 007443
OSD P&R 007444
OSD P&R 007445
OSD P&R 007446
OSD P&R 007447
OSD P&R 007448
OSD P&R 007449
OSD P&R 007450
OSD P&R 007451
OSD P&R 007452
OSD P&R 007453
OSD P&R 007454
LCR Appendix Page 1790(A)
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
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.
LCR 03453

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
LCR 03454
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
LCR 03455
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.
LCR 03456

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
LCR 03457
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.


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
LCR 03458
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
LCR 03459
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. 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
LCR 03460
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.

LCR 03461

(Part 18 of 19)
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.
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
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.
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
LCR 03463
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.
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?
LCR 03464
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.
LCR 03465
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
LCR 03466
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.
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.
LCR 03467
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
49
LCR 04754
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
SOURCE Total number Number involving
homosexuality
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
90 JFQ / issue 55, 4
th
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
PRAKASH
th
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
th
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
PRAKASH
th
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
th
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
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
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
48
Baram.
49
Ibid.
50
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 WI 01013
LCR WI 01014
LCR WI 01015
LCR WI 01016
LCR WI 01017
LCR WI 01018
LCR WI 01019
LCR WI 01020
LCR WI 01021
LCR WI 01022
LCR WI 01023
LCR WI 01024
LCR WI 01025
LCR WI 01026
LCR WI 01027
LCR WI 01028
LCR WI 01029
LCR WI 01030
LCR WI 01031
LCR WI 01032
LCR WI 01033
LCR WI 01034
LCR WI 01035
LCR WI 01036
LCR WI 01037
LCR WI 01038
LCR WI 01039
LCR WI 01040
LCR WI 01041
LCR WI 01042
LCR WI 01043
LCR WI 01044
LCR WI 01045
LCR WI 01046
LCR WI 01047
LCR WI 01048
LCR WI 01049
LCR WI 01050
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
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.)
LCR 04000
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
LCR 04001
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
LCR 04002
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
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.)
LCR 03996
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
LCR 03997
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
LCR 03998
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
28
CONCLUSION
Twoyearsintothecurrentpolicyongaysinthemilitary,itisclearthatmilitaryandcivilian
leadershavesettledIorbusinessasusual.Ratherthanputtinganendtoasking,witchhuntsor
harassmentasoriginallypromised,leadershavesentastrongmessagethattheywillturnablindeyeto
suchviolations.Gay,lesbian,bisexualandstraightservicemembersarecaughtinthetrap.DODhas
twochoices:itmusteitherbeIullyIorthcomingandhonesttotheAmericanpublicthatithasno
intentionoIstoppingasking,witchhuntsorharassment,oritmustactingoodIaithtoenIorcethe
originalspiritandintentoIthecurrentpolicy.Implementingtherecommendationsoutlinedinthis
reportwouldbeagoodIirststepinbringingDODintocompliancewithcurrentlawandregulations.
LCR 04080
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
3. Doyouhaveapropensitytoengageinhomosexual/bisexualacts?
IIso,when?
IIso,withwhom?
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
7
IIso,withwhom?
5. Areyouengagedinahomosexual/bisexualmarriage?
IIso,whendidyou?
IIso,withwhom?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
22
inIormation concerns possessing or reading
homosexualpublications.
29
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
thisindividual?
47
InquiryGuidelines,E(3).
48
InquiryGuidelines,A(3).
LCR 04146
27
thisindividual?
thisindividual?
thisindividual?
thisindividual?
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
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
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
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
LCR 04150
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
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
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
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
LCR 04153
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
57
C.DIXON OSBURN ET. AL.,SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK,CONDUCT UNBECOMING:THE
THIRD ANNUAL REPORTONDONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE(1997).
LCR 04154
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv,(March24,1997)
LCR 04165
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
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
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
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
67
InquiryGuidelines,C(2).
68
ServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv.(March24,1997)
69
Ia.
70
Ia.
LCR 04169
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(July20,1993).
86
WorlaNewsTonight.(ABCnewsbroadcast,Transcriptnumber97022604-J04,Feb.26,1997).
LCR 04182
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
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
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
89
MemorandumIorallStaIIJudgeAdvocates,CommanaerInquiriesonmembersstatingthevare
homosexual.HarlanG.Wilder,ChieI,GeneralLawDivision,OIIiceoItheStaIIJudgeAdvocate,
DepartmentoItheAirForce,November17,1995.
90
Ia.
91
92
AirForcememorandum,note89.
LCR 04185
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
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
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
(July20,1993).
LCR 04188
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
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
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
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
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
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
75
GeneralnevercontactedSeniorAirmanHardennorSLDNduringthereview.Nordid
theAirForceInspectorGeneraladdressanyoIthespeciIicallegationsbySeniorAirman
HardenthathercommandIailedtoIollowthelimitsoninvestigationsunderDontAsk,
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
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
77
restssquarelyonthechain-oI-command.TheenergyspentbymilitaryleaderstoiustiIy
commandabuseswhentheyoccurwouldbebetterspenttrainingtheirsubordinatesto
Iollowthelimitsoninvestigations.
Thevigorwithwhichcommandshavepursuedsuspectedgaypersonnelstandsin
starkcontrasttothelackadaisicalattitudeoItopuniIormedleadersregardingtraining,
accountabilityandotherissuesnecessarytostopviolations.ThelackoIinterestatthe
topoIthechain-oI-commandregardingthelimitsongayinvestigationssignalstolocal
commandsthatthehuntisstillon.
LCR 04197
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
79
eIIicacyoIthepolicy(Exhibit17).WhilewedonotagreewithProIessorMoskos
abouttheeIIicacyoIthepolicy,wedoagreethatthemilitarymustobeyitsownrules.
ContinuedcommandviolationsoIthebasiclimitsoninvestigationsunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursuewillnotonlyerodeconIidencewithinthemilitary,itwillerode
theconIidenceoItheAmericanpeople.AmericanscannotviewmilitaryoIIicialsas
actingingoodIaithinlightoIreportsthatcommandersareinterrogatingparentsand
psychologistsandconductingintrusiveIishingexpeditionsintheirendlesspursuitoI
suspectedgaysintheranks.
LCR 04199
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
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
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,
LCR 04202
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
14
ThereisnowaywithinthemilitaryIoraservicemembertostopharassmentorrunaway
investigations.Instead,servicemembershavebeenIorcedtoseekoutsidehelpIromSLDN,our
privatecooperatingattorneysandtheirCongressionalMembers,evenincasesinvolvingthemost
obviousoIcommandviolations.AIew,likeMasterChieIPettyOIIicerTimothyMcVeigh,have
successIullygoneintoIederalcourtasalastresorttomakethePentagonIollowitsownrules.
Servicemembersshouldnothavetoseekoutsidehelp,however,tohavetheirleadersthe
peoplechargedwiththeirwelIareenIorcethemilitarysownrulesagainstasking,pursuitsand
harassment.UnIortunately,theyhavenootheroptionatpresent.
LCR 04213
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
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
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
18
needIromtheirparents,closeIriendsandhealthcareproIessionalsindealingwiththeirsexual
orientation.
ServicememberstellSLDNtheywanttoserveourcountry,buttheyseenorecoursein
theIaceoIdailyharassmentandtheuntenableethicaldilemmamilitaryleadershaveimposed
uponthem.
Militaryleadershavedonelittletostopanti-gayharassmentandenIorcetheinvestigative
limitsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Militaryleadersshouldtakeresponsibility
IorthecurrenthostileclimateandIorcontinuedcommandviolations,ratherthanscapegoating
lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersIorincreaseddischarges,whichonlyservesto
inIlameIurtherhostilityagainstthem.
LCR 04217
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
LCR 04218
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
33
Conclusion
Thecurrentmilitaryclimatesendsadirectmessagetocommandersandservicemembers
thatitispermissibletoaskquestionsaboutapersonssexualorientation.Withoutameansto
punishthosewhoviolatetherules,askingwillcontinueuncheckedandincidentsoIaskingwill
increase.Furthermore,untiltherealintentoIthepolicyisenIorced,thoseIriends,Iamily
membersandhealthcareproviderswhoaskoutoIconcernorsupportIorservicememberswill
beplacedinanuntenablepositionwhereinvestigatorscouldelicitinIormationthathurtstheones
theycareabout.ThisclimateonlyIostersIearinservicememberswhethertheyaregay,
straightorbisexualanditperpetuatesalackoItrustandunityamongourtroops.Service
membersshouldbeprotectedIromillegalandintrusivequestionsabouttheirsexualorientation
andshouldhaveadequaterecoursetostopaskingwithoutIearoIreprisal.
LCR 04232
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
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
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
52
DEPTOFTHENAVY,NAVMEDP-5134,GENERALMEDICALOFFICER(GMO)MANUAL(May1996).
53
Ia.
54
Seesupranote12,at5.
LCR 04235
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
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
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
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
41
Conclusion
ServicemembershavenosaIespaceorprivacy,contrarytotheintentoIDontTell.
Psychotherapistshavebeenorderedtoturninlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers.Some
chaplainsareIorcingservicememberstooutthemselves,andencouragingtheirIriendsto
becometurncoats.InvestigatorsarepursuingcloseIriendsandIamilymembersinaneIIortto
digupallegationsagainstsuspectedgayservicemembers.TocleanuptheDontTell
violations,militaryleadersneedtomakeitclearthatprivateconversationstoIamily,health
careprovidersandbestIriendsshouldnotbeusedasabasisIorinquiryordischarge.
LCR 04240
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Inmanyothercases,servicemembersdiscovertheyarelesbian,gayorbisexualonlyaIterthey
aremarried.Inthiscase,CIDIloatedtheIalseandoIIensivetheorythatlesbian,gayand
bisexualpeoplearepresumptiveIraudsinordertobootstrapamerecomingoutcaseintothe
criminalsystem.
69
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.5505.8D.1.NoDCIOorotherDoDlawenIorcementorganization
shallconductaninvestigationsolelytodetermineaServicememberssexualorientation.
LCR 04258
60
ThetacticsinthiscasearenotuniquetotheArmy.SLDNhashandledcaseslikethisin
allservices.Thecasessuggestthattheservicesareattemptingtocriminallypunishservice
memberswhoare,orareperceivedtobe,lesbian,gayorbisexual.
SolaierFeareaCriminalProsecutionAfterComingOut
PrivateMelanieGonzalezIearedthatshe,too,wouldIacecriminalprosecutionaItershe
cameout.Shehadtoldhercommander,CaptainPaulPierson,duringreenlistmentcounseling
thatshedidnotwanttoreenlistbecausebeingalesbianintheU.S.ArmyisoneoIthemost
diIIicultobstaclesIhaveeverhadtoovercome.Laterthatdayorthenextday,accordingto
PrivateGonzalez,CaptainPiersonquestionedheraboutthisstatement.UnderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue,itwasappropriatetoquestionPrivateGonzalezonlyabouther
statement.CaptainPierson,however,questionedPrivateGonzalezabouthersexualactivities
andaboutothermilitarymembers,contraveningtheclearrulesagainstwitchhunts.Accordingto
Captain PiersonsMemorandumIorRecorddatedNovember13,1998,heaskedtheIollowing
questions(Exhibit49):
Haveyoueverengagedinhomosexualactivities?
Did those activities take place while in the military or did they occur
previously?
Wheredidtheseactivitiestakeplace?
WereyouonleaveorpresentIordutywhentheseactstookplace?
Withwhomdidtheyoccur,civilianorsoldier?
Didyouintendtoengageinhomosexualactivity?
AnsweringthesequestionscouldhavesubiectedPrivateGonzaleztocriminalcharges.InIact,
Captain Piersonshowedherachargesheetlistingsodomyandindecentacts,criminal
chargesundertheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice.AlthoughCaptainPiersontoldherthat
LCR 04259
61
itwasgenerallynottheArmyspolicytocourt-martialsoldiersIorbeinghomosexual,she
becameconcernedthatshemightbetheexception,basedonthechargesheet.
PrivateGonzalezinvokedherrighttospeakwithanattorney,butCaptainPierson
questionedhernonetheless.Whenaservicememberinvokesherrighttoanattorneyincases
likethisone,questioningissupposedtocease.
Ultimately,theArmyhonorablydischargedPrivateGonzalez.However,hercase,like
Specialist|F|scaseabove,showshowsoldierswhoareunIamiliarwiththelegalpitIallsoI
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuecanpotentiallyIacecriminalchargesIoranswering
questionsabouttheirprivatelives.
NavvTellsOfficertoProveHeIsGav
NavyLieutenant(i.g.)EdwardGallowaycameoutlastyearbecauseoIanti-gay
harassmentonboardtheUSS Janaergrift,asdescribedmoreIullyintheDontHarasssection.
WhenLieutenantGallowaycameout,theshipsExecutiveOIIiceraskedhimtheIollowing
questionsabouthisprivateliIeandassociationsinamisguidedeIIorttoconIirmthatheisgay
(Exhibit50):
Haveyoutoldanyoneelseaboutyoursexualorientation?Who?
Areyoudatinganyone?
Howcanthesepersonsbecontacted?
Didyoubelongtoanyhomosexualstudentorganizationsatschool?
HaveyoutoldyourIamilymembers?Who?Howcantheybecontacted?
WhoareyourcloseIriendsandhowcantheybecontacted?
Lieutenant Gallowaywascaughtbetweenarockinahardplace.Hecouldtellthe
ExecutiveOIIicerwhathewantedtohearatriskoItriggeringawitchhuntoracourt-martial,
70
70
UndertheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice(UCMJ),commandersmaycriminallychargeservicememberswho
engageinawidevarietyoIconsensualactswithsomeoneoIthesamegender,includinghandholding,kissing,and
LCR 04260
62
orhecouldreIusetoanswertheintrusivequestionsandriskhissaIetyaboardtheUSS
Janaergrift.
Lieutenant GallowayreIusedtoanswertheseintrusivequestions,whereuponCommander
KusumotoreIusedtodischargehim.InamemorandumtoLieutenantGallowaydatedOctober8,
1998,CommanderKusumotowrites,IntheabsenceoIinIormationconIirmingLTJG
GallowayshomosexualityandgivenhisstrongperIormanceonboardJanaergrift,perhapshe
wouldbebetterservedtocompletehis18monthtour.CommanderKusumoto,however,
IailedtotakeanystepstostoptheharassmentandensureLieutenantGallowayssaIety.
SLDNisawareoIeightcasesthisyearintheArmy,AirForceandNavywherethe
servicesreIusedtodischargeservicememberswhodisclosedtheirsexualorientationbecausethe
servicemembersdeclinedtoanswerquestionsabouttheirprivatelivesandassociations.
Ultimately,theNavyrecommendedLieutenantGallowaysdischargeonlyaIteroutside
interventioninhiscase.Otherscontinuetoserve.
Conclusion
InthepastIiveyears,commandershavepursuedservicemembersbasedonany
inIormation,howeverobtained,indirectviolationoItheinvestigativelimitsunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue.CommandershavepursuedinIormationthatisdeIinedasnot
credible,includinganonymousallegations,Ialsecharges,rumorandinnuendo.Commanders
andinquiryoIIicershaveexpandedinquiriestolookIorincriminatinginIormationwhentheir
initialleadsrundryorproveuntruesothattheycaniustiIytheirinquiries.Commandersand
inquiryoIIicerspursueotherservicemembersuncoveredintheirinvestigations.Thebottomline
sex.HeterosexualsmayalsobeprosecutedIorconsensualoraloranalsex.UnderDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,servicemembersaresupposedtobetreatedinaneven-handedmannerinthecriminalsystem.However,
gayservicememberscontinuetobeprosecutedincircumstanceswhereheterosexualsarenot.
LCR 04261
63
isthatcommandersstillworkhardtoputservicemembersontotheradarscreencontrarytothe
policysletterandintent.
TherearethreereasonswhyDontPursueviolationscontinuetoincrease:lackoI
guidance,accountabilityandrecourse.First,thePentagonandservicechieIshavereIusedto
distributeguidanceonthepolicysinvestigativelimitsorthepolicysintenttorespectprivacy.
Second,thePentagonoIIiciallyhasnotheldanyoneaccountableIorasking,pursuitsor
harassmentinIiveyearsunderthepolicy,signalingthatthePentagonandServiceswilltolerate
abuses.Third,servicemembershavenorecoursetostopunwarrantedinquiriesatanystageoI
theprocess.
SLDNurgesmilitaryleaderstoimmediatelyissueguidanceregardingthepolicys
investigativelimitsanditsintenttorespectservicemembersprivacy.Militaryleadersshould
conductcomprehensivetrainingIorallservicemembers.Theyshouldholdaccountablethose
who ask,pursueandharassinviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Andthey
shouldprovidesomemeansoIrecourseIorservicememberswhoareimproperlytargeted.
Inaddition,Commandersshouldstateinwriting,attheoutsetoIaninquiry,thecredible
inIormationonwhichtheinquiryisbased.ThePentagonshouldpermitmilitarydeIense
attorneystorepresentservicemembersassoonaninquirycommences,ratherthaninstructing
themtowaituntilaIterthecommandhascompletedaninquiry,Iiledthedischargepaperworkor
preIerredcriminalcharges.
Further,PentagonandserviceoIIicialsshouldreviewtheadministrativedischarge
processtoensurethatIundamentalrightsoIdueprocessareupheld.Attheveryleast,the
Pentagonshouldadoptanexclusionaryrule,allowingservicememberstoexcludeevidencethat
istheIruitoIunlawIulinquiriesIromadministrativeseparationproceedings.
LCR 04262
64
Finally,SLDNwouldwelcomeguidanceIromtheDepartmentoIDeIenseortheservices
regardingtherecenttrendpermittingknownlesbian,gayandbisexualpersonneltoserve,and
whatstepstheywilltaketoensureservicememberssaIetyandtheviabilityoItheircareersin
thesecases.
LCR 04263
65
DONT HARASS
Dont Harassclearlystates,TheArmedForcesdonottolerateharassmentorviolence
againstanyservicememberIoranyreason.
71
Theservices,however,haveIailedtoupholdthis
standard.LastyearsreportsoIanti-gayharassmentsoared120toarecord400violations,
comparedwith182violationsthepreviousyear.Violationsincreasedineveryservice.The
Navyledtheserviceswith158DontHarassviolations,a140increaseIromlastyears
IigureoI66violations.TheArmywassecondwith122violations,anincreaseoI198overthe
previousyear.
ReportsoIharassment,Iromdeaththreatstoverbalgay-bashing,cameIromnearlyevery
maiorbaseandport.ServicemembersreportbeingharassedbyoIIicersandenlistedpersonnel.
MencommitmostoItheharassment,althoughharassmentbywomenisnotunknown.The
harassmentoItenbeginsinbasictrainingandcontinuesthroughoutaservicememberscareer.
ServicememberstellSLDNtheyenduredailyanti-gayepithetsandthreatssuchas:
ShutyourIaggotmouth:Weregoingtokillyou:Carpetmuncher:Ihavearighttobeat
yourass:TheresthatIaggot:Dyke:Queer:Die,Iaggot:Theydeservetodie:Ihate
yourkind:Shutup,youIaggot:andThatdykeisgoingtoIry.Thesestatementsareiusta
IractionoItheepithetsandthreatsreportedtoSLDNinthepastyear.
Lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembershavenorecoursetostopharassment.Service
memberscannotreportitwithoutinvitingIurtherharassmentandpossiblytriggeringan
investigationoItheirsexualorientation.Formany,theonlyrecourseistocomeoutandIace
possibledischarge.
71
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1304.26,ApplicantBriefingItemonSeparationPolicv.
LCR 04264
66
In1997,thePentagonissuedamemoranduminstructingcommanderstoinvestigateanti-
gaythreatsandlesbian-baiting,notservicememberswhoreportit.
72
In1998,however,the
PentagonconcededthattheServiceshadnotdistributedtheDornMemo.UponSLDNsurging,
PentagonoIIicialsrecommendedthatthememobeclariIiedtoexpresslyincludeharassmentand
distributedIully.
73
Thishasnotyetoccurred.
Thisguidancewouldhelp,iIdistributed.Ultimately,however,leadersateverylevel
needtomakeavisiblecommitmenttostoppinganti-gayharassmentintheIield.Failingthat,
harassmentwillcontinuetoIlourish,Iorcinglesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstocome
outtotheircommandsinevenhighernumbers.
TheIollowingexamplesarerepresentativeoISLDNscasesinthepastyear.
Youre DeadYou Faggot
AnEnsignIacedconstantanti-gayharassment,includingdeaththreats,whileaboardthe
USSPlatte.HereportsthathisChieIcalledhimaIuckingIaggotandaSeniorChieIsaid,
Oh,thatsright,youreoneoIthoselight-IootedsailorsIromAnnapolis.Thereis(sic)alotoI
yourtypedownthereisntthere?LeadersIromChieIPettyOIIicerstoLieutenant
Commandersreportedlymaderepeatedderogatoryremarks,including,Allthistable(inEOS)
needsissomestirrups.So,iIanyonewantstotheycancomebyandIuckmelikeaIagand|I
amnotgoodat|bouncingballsoII|my|chin(Exhibit51).TheEnsignreportssailors
threatenedhisliIerepeatedly.Someonereportedlyyelled:Youredead,youdick-sucking
Iaggot.Onanotheroccasion,asailortoldhimYoudbetterwatchyourselIoutthere...
tonight.Itsmightyslippery.Wouldntwanttoslipandgoovertheside.(Exhibit51,52).
72
Seesupranote6,at3.
73
LCR 04265
67
TheEnsigncameouttohiscommanderandresignedbecauseheIearedIorhissaIety.
TheEnsignscommandingoIIicerinitiallyreIusedtoaccepthisresignation,reportedlytelling
himhecouldlivewiththeharassment.AIterheIiledasexualharassmentcomplaint,however,
shereluctantlygrantedtheresignation.ThecommandingoIIicerreportedlystatedshewould
issueanorderthatanti-gayharassmentwasinappropriate.Thereisnoindication,however,that
sheeverissuedtheorderorheldtheharassersaccountable.
Theres NothingWrongwithKillingaFewFags
FormerSpecialistCarolMelnickIacedconstantlesbian-baitingandanti-gayharassment
IromthemomentsheenteredtheArmyin1996untilsheultimatelycameoutasalesbian
becauseoItheharassmentandwasdischargedin1998(Exhibit53).
IntheIirstweekoIbasictraining,anoncommissionedoIIicerharassedMelnickaIter
seeingherplaceherhandonanotherIemaletraineesshoulder.TheSergeantcalledthetwo
womenoverandlecturedtheminIrontoItheentireplatoonstating,Wedontdothatinthe
Army,andthreatenedthatMelnickwouldbeinalotoItroubleiIhesawherdoanything
likethatagain.Assumingsheisalesbian,headded,Peoplelikeherdisgustedhimand
theyshouldntbeallowedintheArmy.Theydontbelonghere.
Thisisaclassiclesbian-baitingscenariowherecommonIriendshipbetweentwowomen
wasperceivedassomethingsexualwhenitwasnot.
74
ThroughthelensoIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,however,ordinaryactionshaveextraordinaryconsequences.Apatonthe
back,ahug,orahandonashouldercanresultinwomenbeinglabeledaslesbians,andleadto
74
SeeMichelleBenecke&KirstenDodge,MilitarvWomeninNontraaitionalJobFielas.CasualtiesoftheArmea
ForcesWaronHomosexuals,13HARV.WOMENSL.J.215(1990).
LCR 04266
68
inquiry,dischargeorcriminalcharges. MelnickwaslabeledalesbianIromdayoneandnever
escapedbeingasked,houndedorharassed.
Laterinbasictraining,aplatoonguideharassedMelnick.Theplatoonguidereportedly
waggedherIingerinMelnicksIaceandbeganyellingthroughoutthebarracksthatMelnickand
anotherIemalesoldierwerelesbians. Melnickandtheothersoldierreportedtheplatoonguides
actionstoSergeantFirstClassMontgomery,theheadDrillSergeant,whomerelysmiledand
thenreIusedtotakeappropriateaction,accordingtoMelnick.
MelnicksIirstassignmentwasatBravoCompany,9thPsychologicalOperations
BattalionatFortBragg,NorthCarolina.Whilethere,MelnicksayssheIacedpervasiveanti-gay
harassment.Once,whileridinginatruckwithseveralnoncommissionedoIIicersand,ironically,
anEqualOpportunityrepresentative,aseniormemberoIherunitreportedlytoldasexually
explicitlesbianioke.Throughouttheioke,thisindividual,SergeantParker,reportedlyturnedto
Melnickseveraltimesandsaid,Now,donttakethispersonally,implyingtoallpresentthat
Melnickwasalesbian.AccordingtoMelnick,alloIthenoncommissionedoIIicerslaughedand
lookedathertocheckherreaction.SergeantParkerandothernoncommissionedoIIicers
reportedlymadedailyiokesandspeculatedaboutMelnickssexualorientationinIrontoIother
soldiers.
MelnickalsoreportsthatstudentsinherFortBragglanguageclassmadedailyanti-gay
iokesandmimickedgayswithlimp-wristedstereotypes.OnestudentreportedlysaidTheres
nothingwrongwithkillingaIewIags.SeveralnoncommissionedoIIicersalsorepeatedly
pretendedtomispronounceaVietnamesewordthatsoundedlikethewordgay.Aclassmate
told Melnickthatiokesweremadeabouthersexualorientationwhenshewasnotpresent.The
instructorignoredtheiokesandneverstoppedthem.
LCR 04267
69
Melnickreportsthatlewdcommentsandiokesaboutgayswereprevalentandappeared
tobeasmuchapartoItheArmycultureastheuniIorm.Shereportstheharassmentshe
experiencedmadeherhesitatetogotopublicplacessuchasthedininghall,gymorclubson
post.TheharassmentcausedMelnicktobecomedepressed,butshedidnotseekcounseling,
Iearingitwouldleadtoaninvestigation.Duetothesecircumstances,aItertwoyearsoIservice,
MelnickIeltthatcomingoutwasheronlyoptiontostoptheharassmentandprotecthermental
andphysicalhealth.AItertwoyearsoIservicemarredbyconstantharassment,Melnickwanted
toworkandliveinahealthy,saIeandproIessionalenvironment.TheArmycouldnotgivethis
toher,soshecameouttoensureherwelIare.
YoudBetterNotBeQueerBecauseintheNavyWeKillOurFags
TwomidshipmeninCornellUniversitysNavyNROTCprogramalsoreportedphysical
threatsandotheranti-gayharassmentlastyear.
75
MidshipmanMarkNavinreportshewasrepeatedlyquestionedabouthissexual
orientationduringasummertrainingcruiseonboardaNavyship.Anenlistedcrewman
reportedlythreatenedhisliIeduringalate-nightwatch,warningNavin,Youdbetternotbe
queerbecauseintheNavywekillourIags(Exhibits19).
DuringNROTCactivities,Navinwasalsorepeatedlyaskedandharassedabouthis
perceivedsexualorientation(Exhibit20).AsaresultoIthispervasiveharassment,Navincame
outtohisNROTCcommand. NavinwasdisenrolledIromtheprogramIordisclosinghissexual
orientationwhenreportingtheharassment.
AIter Navincameout,MidshipmanRobGaigereceiveddirectphysicalthreatsand
commentsbecausehewasaIriendoINavins.Othermidshipmenmadecommentssuchas,Ill
LCR 04268
70
beattheIuckoutoIyouandyourboyIriend,erroneouslyimplyingthatGaigeandNavinwere
boyIriends.MaiorRichardStickel, Gaigesinstructor,alsoreportedlymadederogatory
commentsaboutbothGaigeandNavininIrontoIothermidshipmen.Additionally,Gunnery
SergeantArmstrong,aseniorenlistedleader,statedduringaNavalScienceclass,TheMaior
heardyouransweringmachineyesterday,andhesaysyousoundlikeonebig,Iatcock-smoker.
YoubetterchangethatIaggotyansweringmachinemessage.
GaigealsoreportsbeingharassedandaskediIheweregayduringhissummercruisein
PanamaCity,PanamaandinhisNROTCunit(Exhibits17-18).AsaresultoItheseexperiences,
Gaigecameouttohiscommander,citingharassmentandIearIorhissaIetyasthereasonsIorhis
disclosure.
ICantAskYouIfYoureaFag.ButICanAskYouIfYouSuckCock.
LanceCorporalDavidRaleighexperiencedanti-gayharassmentIromthedayhesigned
up.Raleighsrecruiterreportedlytoldhim,BecauseoIPresidentClintonsnewpolicy,Icant
askyouiIyoureaIag.ButIcanaskyou,doyousuckcock?(Exhibit54).
RaleighwasalsoharassedduringbasictrainingattheMarineCorpsRecruitTraining
DepotinSanDiego, wherehisDrillInstructorreportedlymaderepeatedcommentsregardinghis
perceivedsexualorientationinIrontoIotherrecruits.ThesecommentsincludedIknowwhat
youguysdounderwater,reIerringtoRaleighswaterpoloskills,andYoureaIag,arentyou
Raleigh?Raleighreportsthisquestioningcontinueduntilhisgraduation.Hegutteditout,
hopingthesituationwouldimproveathisnextassignment.
Itdidnot.RumorsabouthissexualorientationspreadthroughouthisunitatFort
LeonardWood,Missouri,whereheattendedadvancedtraining.Raleighreportshisroommate
75
See supra at18-20.
LCR 04269
71
calledhimaIaggotandsaidhewasnotanormalguybecausehedidntlockhimselIinthe
bathroomwithpornography.Raleighwasreportedlyteased,tauntedandshunnedbecauseoIthe
rumors.Asaresult,heIelthecouldnotrespondtotheharassmentwithoutbringingevenmore
unwantedscrutinyonhimselI.BytheendoIhistraining,allsixtymembersoIhisclass
perceivedhimtobegay.
RaleighperseveredandreportedtoWeaponsCompany,2dBattalion,23dMarines,4th
MarineDivision,hisreserveunitinPortHueneme,CaliIornia.UnIortunately,heIacedmore
anti-gaycommentsatthisunitaswell.Atweaponsdrill,Iorexample,heheardIellowmarines
makerepeatedderogatoryremarksaboutgaypeople.
RaleighwasparticularlydisturbedbecausesomeoIthesehomophobiccommentswere
reportedlymadebyMarinepoliceoIIicersstatingthatIaggotsarewrongandexpressing
reservationsaboutupholdingtherightsoIgaypeople.Theseindividuals,whowerealso
membersoItheLosAngelesandSantaBarbaraPoliceDepartments,allegedlydescribedgraphic
homosexualsex.Inaddition,RaleighreportsthechaplainsassistanttoldRaleighthatGod
condemnedgays.
RaleighIelthehadlittlechoicebuttocomeouttohiscommanderandbedischarged
ratherthanIaceconstantanti-gayharassmentwithoutrecourse.LanceCorporalRaleighstated
abouthisleadersandcoworkers,IIIwereincombatwiththem,Iwouldnottrustthem.
ThatFag(MatthewShepard)DeservedtoDie
AMarineCorporaliscurrentlyconsideringwhethertocomeoutinresponsetothe
extremeanti-gayharassmenthehasIacedsincedayone(Exhibit45).TheCorporalreportsthat
oneoIthemostdisturbingmomentsoccurredwhenhisadvancedtrainingclassmadederogatory
commentsaboutMatthewShepard,theyoungmaninWyomingwhowasmurderedlastIall
LCR 04270
72
becausehewasgay.Onestudentreportedlystated,ThatIagdeservedtodie.Noone
disagreedwiththecomment.Worse,themarinereportsthathisinstructorsandIellowstudents
thenmadenumerousanti-gaycommentsrelatedtoShepardsdeathandIuneral.
Duringadvancedtraining,thecorporalreportshearingconstant,anti-gayiokesand
epithets.ThemarinereportshisclassdiscussedtheperceivedsexualorientationoIotherservice
membersstating,Justwaittill|X|getsherehesarealIlamer,andHaveyouseenthenew
guywhoisalwayswatchingXenainthelounge,suggestingthathemightalsobegay.The
CorporalIearedthattheclassspeculatedabouthissexualorientationwhenhewasnotaround.
Themarinealsoreportsthatotherrecruitsrepeatedlyaskedabouthissexualorientation
inbasictraining.HedeIlectedthequestionsasbesthecould,butIearedwhatothersmightdoiI
theyIiguredoutheisgay.HisIearwasbasedonotherrecruitsconstantanti-gayremarksand
theIactthatDrillInstructorsdidnotattempttostopthem.
AtMarineCombatTrainingatCampPendleton,CaliIornia,anothermarinereportedly
commentedthatthisservicememberactsgay.ThiscausedhimgreatconcernwhenaStaII
Sergeant,addressingtheplatoon,saidtherewasscuttlebuttthataplatoonmemberisgay.The
StaIISergeantthenstated,IIanyonehasinIormation,theyshouldcomeIorwardoriIanyoneis
questioningtheirorientationtheyshouldcomeIorward.
TheCorporalhassincemovedtoanewbase.Hehopeshisnewunitwillsalvagehis
IaithintheMarineCorpsandthathewillnotbeIorcedtocomeoutashisonlyrecourseagainst
harassment.
IGuessTheSexualityofEveryoneinThisOfficeIsNotinQuestion
LCR 04271
73
StaIISergeantRonSchumann,anArmyrecruiter,cameoutaItermorethanthirteenyears
oIdedicatedservicebecausehecouldnolongerignoretheanti-gayharassmentorstressIrom
livingunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue.Schumannreportsheenduredanti-gayand
Iaggotcommentsbyhiscoworkers.AlthoughhesuIIeredthecommentsinsilence,inaneIIort
tocomplywithDontTell,speculationabouthissexualorientationsurIacednonetheless.
Oneday,inIrontoIapotentialrecruitsIamily,SergeantFirstClassMichaelMillertold
him,WehavenoteverseenyourgirlIriend,youregayandyouareprobablygoingtohangout
attheGay90s,alocalgaybar(Exhibit55).AIterSchumannreportedMillersactions,the
commandpromotedMillerwithoutreprimandinghim.
SchumannalsoreportshewasoItenpressuredtoengageinsexistcharadestodivert
suspicionsabouthisownsexualorientation.ManyaIternoons,Iorexample,hiscoworkers
gatheredattheoIIicewindowsandmadesexuallyexplicit,derogatorycommentsaboutwomen
runningonatrackacrossthestreet.Ononesuchoccasion,SchumannsCompanyCommander,
CaptainDavis,said,IguessthesexualityoIeveryoneinthisoIIiceisnotinquestion.
SchumannIeltthatiIhedidnotparticipateintheseactivities,hewouldbelabeledasgayand
investigated.
Asarecruiter,SchumannwasoneoItheArmysbest,selectedIorthisprestigious
positionbecauseoIhisstellarperIormanceintheIield.HegaveupahighlysuccessIulcareer
andhisretirementpensionbecausehecouldnolongertoleratethepervasiveanti-gay
environmentinwhichheserved.TheArmylostahighlyskilledleaderasaresult.
Theres NothingToDoinSaseboUnlessYouAreaHomoKiller
LCR 04272
74
LieutenantEdwardGallowaygavetheNavymanyopportunitiestoprovethatitwould
nottoleratetheanti-gayharassmentheIaced,anditIailedhim.WhileonboardtheUSS
Janaegrift, GallowaywitnessedbothoIIicersandenlistedpersonnelengaginginconstantand
pervasiveanti-gayharassment.PettyOIIicerFirstClassMcGeereportedlysaidinGalloways
presence,TherebetterbenoIlamersinmyNavy.PettyOIIicerFirstClassConsidine
allegedlysaid,TheresnothingtodoinSasebo|Japan|unlessyouareahomokiller,achilling
reIerencetothe1992murderinSasebooISeamanAllenSchindler,whowasbrutallybeatento
deathbytwooIhisshipmates(Exhibit56).AndanoIIicerreportedlystated,Gallowayneeds
directionstoIindhiswayoutoIthecloset,inIrontoIGallowaysCommander,NealKusumoto,
andalloItheoIIicersinGallowayssection.Noone,however,reprimandedthisoIIicerIorhis
inappropriateconduct.Instead,everyonereportedlylaughedatGalloway.
AsadirectresultoItheseanti-gayremarks,LieutenantGallowaycameouttohis
commander,hopingIorsupportsimilartothatIromhisIormerUSSBunkerHillcommander,
whohadpromisedtoprotecthim.CommanderKusumoto,however,didnotstoptheharassment,
placing Gallowayinaprecarioussituation.CommanderKusumotosinactionisparticularly
troubling,giventhatheadmittedinalettertoGalloway,IacknowledgethatmanyNavy
personnelandmanyVANDEGRIFTcrewmembersholdantipathytowardshomosexuals.
Commander Kusumotoopined,however,Idisagreethatyouareinanycurrentdanger.I
encourageyoutobecautiousinwhatyousayanddo.(Exhibit57).
Commander KusumotoIinallyassignedGallowaytoshoredutyonlyaIteroutside
assistancebySLDN.HenowIacesdischarge.CommanderKusumotohadstatedhedidnot
wanttoloseGallowaybecausehewasanexcellentoIIicer.Ironically,helostGalloway
preciselybecausehetooknostepstostoptheanti-gayharassmentGallowayIaced.
LCR 04273
75
SergeantGay-BashedbySoldiersandThenInvestigated
Soldiersverballyandphysicallygay-bashedanArmySergeantrecentlywhileondutyin
hisunitsbarracks.Whilemakinghisrounds,hediscoveredtwoenlistedmendrinkingheavily.
TheSergeantreportedthistotheStaIIDutyOIIicerwhoinstructedhimtomonitorthesoldiers
buttakenoIurtheraction.
Uponareturninspection,thesoldiers,whohadbecomeevenmoreintoxicatedand
rambunctious,beganquestioningtheSergeantaboutthesexualorientationoIothersintheunit.
Suddenly,oneoIthesoldierspulledagunontheSergeantandcalledhimaIag.Thesoldiers
hittheSergeantinthehead10-12times.SomeonecalledtheCriminalInvestigativeDivision
(CID)whichadministeredbreathalyzerexamstothetwosoldiersandtheSergeant.Thesoldiers
IalselyclaimedthattheSergeanthadbeendrinkingaswell:hehada0.00bloodalcohollevel.
WhentheSergeantreturnedIromvacationaIewweekslater,hediscoveredhewasunder
criminalinvestigation.CIDreportedlybegananinvestigationaIterthetwosoldiersaccusedthe
SergeantoIbeinggay.
TheSergeantshouldneverhavebeeninvestigated.AccordingtotheDornmemo,reports
oIphysicalharassmentshouldresultintheinvestigationoItheharassment,notthosewhoreport
it.DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueisalsoquiteclearthatcommanderscannotinitiate
inquirieswithoutcredibleinIormation.
76
UnIoundedallegationsbydrunkensoldierswitha
motivetoretaliatedonotmeetthecredibleinIormationstandardthatisrequiredtoinitiatean
inquiryorinvestigation.
76
Seesupranote59,at41.
LCR 04274
76
AlthoughtheSergeantrepeatedlyrequestedanattorneytoassisthim,hiscommand
deniedhimcounselIoralmostamonth.Meanwhile,heIacesthepossiblelossoIhiscareer
becausenooneIollowedtherules.
SoldierAssaultedbutStillServes
AbisexualsoldiercameouttohiscommanderaIterbeingassaultedoutsideoIagaybar
andthreatenedbymilitarypersonnelonotheroccasions.Thesoldier,stationedatFortBragg,
NorthCarolina,wasspeakingwithaciviliannearagaybarwhentwomarinesreportedly
pushed|him|intoaditchTheservicemember,aIormersoldieroItheyear,didnotreportthe
incidentinitiallybecauseheIearedbecomingthesubiectoIagayinvestigation.
Twomonthslater,anotherservicemembercalledthesoldieraIaggot.Thisservice
memberalsowarnedhimthatKoreaisnotlikeBragg,implyingthatperceivedgaysoldiersare
indangerinKorea.Thesoldier,whohadordersIordutyinKorea,cameouttohiscommander
becauseheIeareddangertohissaIetyandpossiblewitchhunts.Theservicemembers
commanderunderstoodhisconcernsanddidnotdischargehimbasedonthedisclosureoIhis
sexualorientation.Thecommanderinsteadencouragedhimtogotohisnextdutyassignment
andreassessthesituation.ThesoldierwentontoserveinKorea.
AreYouGoingtoMarryaWoman?
AMarinePrivateFirstClass,GabrielleButler,reportsthatSergeantDeweyatFort
LeonardWood,MissouriaskedheriIshewasgoingtomarryawomanduringheradvanced
traininginvehiclemaintenanceasreportedintheDontAsksection.Butler,citingSergeant
DeweysquestionandherresultingIearoIbeinginvestigated,cameouttohercommander.
LCR 04275
77
Ratherthantakestepstostoptheaskingandharassment,ButlersCommandingOIIicer,
MaiorR.C.Smith,reportedlytoldherthatsocietywouldntacceptherand|she|hadtoaccept
theconsequencesoI|her|preIerence.AccordingtoButler,MaiorSmithalsotoldher,There
hastobeapenalty(OtherThanHonorabledischarge)becausetheneveryonewillthinktheycan
iustwritealettersayingtheyareahomosexualandtheyllgetout.Imnotsayingyouredoing
thatPFCButler,buttherehastobeapenalty.WhenButleraskediIshewasbeingpunishedIor
beinggay,Smithsaid,Yes.(Exhibit58).WithSLDNsassistance,Butlereventuallyreceived
anHonorabledischarge.
KillAllFags
PettyOIIicerCharlesBuchananreportssailorsontheUSS Poncerepeatedlyhurledslurs
aboutIaggotsandqueerslastyear.Sailorsreportedlysaid,KillallIags,andIhopethey
alldieoIAIDS!(Exhibit59).OutoIIearIorhissaIety,Buchanancameouttohiscommander.
Fortunately,hiscommandertookBuchanansconcernsseriously.BuchanansExecutiveOIIicer
reportedlytoldhimthathewassorrytoseeanA-1sailorgoandthatheunderstood
Buchanansconcerns.AIterdiscussingthesituation,theExecutiveOIIicerdecideditwouldbe
besttoplaceBuchananoIItheship.ItisunIortunate,however,thatBuchanancouldnotsaIely
serve.
SoldierHarassedBecauseHeDidntActStraight
Thomas Theret,anArmySpecialiststationedatFortBragg,saysthathewasharassed
andaccusedoIbeinggayonanumberoIoccasionsbecausehedidnotparticipateinenough
heterosexualactivitiestosatisIyhispeers. Theretstateshissexualitywascalledintoquestion
becausehedidnotgotostripclubsorhaveagirlIriend.Onanotheroccasion,asoldier
LCR 04276
78
reportedlyaskedTheretiIheisgayandthenharassedhimIurther,askinghimtoprovethatheis
notgay(Exhibit60). TheretreIusedtoanswerthesoldierinordertocomplywithDontTell.
Specialist Theretneverdisclosedhissexualorientation,butothersoldiersharassedhimbecause
hedidnotactthewaytheythoughtastraightmanshouldact.
Theretreportedlyheardsoldiersmakeanti-gayremarkssuchas,Homosexualsareless
thanIullyhuman,andstatementsthattheydesiredtophysicallyhurtgaypeople.Fearingitwas
iustamatteroItimeuntilhebecameavictimoIphysicalharassmentorhiscommandheardthe
rumorsandbegananinvestigation,Theretcameouttohiscommanderandwasdischarged.
AdditionalIncidentsofAnti-GayHarassment
OtherincidentsoIanti-gayharassmentrecordedbySLDNin1998include,butarebyno
meanslimitedto,theIollowing:
In Japan, Airman Ken Heeb Ieared Ior his saIety when a sailor
reportedly yelled down a barracks hallway, That guys a Iag: Hes
as gay as two dogs Iucking: I dont like Iriends oI that Iaggot
comingovertomyroom:andDidyouknowthatguysaIag?The
sailor then reportedly threatened, How hard would I have to punch
someonetoknockthemoutwiththeIirstblow?
Joshua Jones, a Iormer Army Private First Class stationed at Fort
Hood,Texas,IearedIorhissaIetywhenadeadIishheadwasnailedto
his barracks door, which in his unit signiIied that the recipient would
bebeatenup.Anoteonthedoorstated,Foryou,Iaggot.
An Airman First Class stationed at Edwards Air Force Base,
CaliIornia, reportsbeingtoldImgoingtokickyourIaggotyassand
Shut up, you Iaggot. When the service member reported the
harassmenttohisFirstSergeant,theFirstSergeanturgedhimtocome
outtoavoidtheharassment,insteadoItryingtostopit.
AsailorontheUSSTrumanIaceddailyharassmentIromotherservice
members because oI his perceived sexual orientation. A vandal
painted a swastika and wrote the word Faggot on the sailors car in
white shoe polish. Harassment Irom other sailors included We cant
LCR 04277
79
wait to get out to sea so that we can throw you overboard. One
servicemember,whoconstantlycalledtheservicememberaIaggot,
sprayed pressurized air in the service members eyes and wrapped a
rope around the sailors neck. Others called him Iaggot and queer
bait.
A sailor at Great Lakes Naval Base, Illinois, reports that he was
threatened with court-martial iI he did not conIess to being gay. The
sailoraskedIorlegalcounselandwasdenied.Hewastolditwouldbe
easier on him iI he iust cooperated. The Sailor reports that other
service members threatened him, stating, You need to be careIul:
TheresstillhazinginNavyshowers:andWeregoingtokillyou.
A Navy oIIicer hears anti-gay comments constantly, even Irom
enlistedsailors.Onereportedlysaid,IIIIindagayguyonthisship,I
w|ill| throw him overboard. The oIIicer Iound Iag written on his
qualiIication book. His Executive OIIicer reportedly told him,
Homosexuality is all about selI-gratiIication. Its not genetic. Its
intheirminds.
A Private First Class at Fort Meade, Maryland, says other soldiers
harassed him stating, I dont want to be Iriends with that cock
sucker,andIwonderhowmuch|he|cantakeuptheass.Another
soldier allegedly wrote The cum that Ilows Irom my mouth on a
notepadattachedtohisbarracksroomdoor.
While at sea, a Petty OIIicer Second Class Ieared being attacked
because oI threats such as Die Iaggot and There goes that queer.
He also heard anti-gay comments, including They deserve to die,
andGood.Nomorequeers.
A bisexual Petty OIIicer First Class reports that an unknown sailor
placed Iour anonymous notes in the ships suggestion box Ialsely
claiming that he was having sex with another male sailor. Other
sailors reportedly told him, Get his Iaggot ass out oI my space, and
I hate your kind. He also Iound a picture oI a dildo with the
descriptionassstuIIerhunginhisberthingarea.
Shipmates warned Duane Pauley, a Petty OIIicer on the USS Carl
Jinson about a Iaggot that was tied, bound and thrown overboard.
The sailors told Pauley that the command registered the rumored
disappearanceasanaccident.
AnArmydoctorreportsthatIellowdoctorsmakedisparagingremarks
aboutlesbians,gaymenandbisexuals.Inoneexample,anotherdoctor
told his students that an HIV patient was a Iaggot and theyre not
goingtolearnIromthis.
LCR 04278
80
WomenFaceLesbian-Baiting
Inadditiontoanti-gayharassment,violationsoIDontHarassincludelesbian-baiting,a
IormoIsexualharassment. Womenstraight,gayandbisexualoItenareaccusedoIbeing
lesbianswhentheyrebuIIsexualadvancesbymenorreportsexualabuse.Inothercases,women
areharassedbecausetheydepartIromgenderstereotypesinotherways.Womenwhoaretop
perIormersinnontraditionalIieldsarealsosubiecttolesbianaccusations,rumorsandspeculation
designedtounderminetheirproIessionalstanding.
ToooIten,commandersrespondbyinvestigatingmilitarywomenundertheguiseoI
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursueratherthandiscipliningtheindividualswhostartrumors
orperpetratesexualharassment.Asaresult,manywomendonotreportsexualassaultor
harassmentbecausetheyrealisticallyIearbeingaccusedaslesbians,investigatedanddischarged.
OthersbacktrackIromtheassertiveleadershipstylesthatmakethemcompetentleadersand
vulnerabletargetsIorlesbianaccusations.SometimeswomenIearassociatingtogetherin
groups,becausetheymayraisemisperceptionsthattheyarelesbians.
TheApril1998DepartmentoIDeIenseReportstates,itiscriticalthatmilitarywomen
IeelIreetoreportsexualharassmentorthreatswithoutIearoIreprisalorinappropriate
governmentalresponse.WerecommendthattheDepartmentreissueguidancetomakeclear
thatwhensexualharassmentisreported,theIocusoItheinvestigationmustbeontheharassment
orthreat.
77
WhileCongress,
78
anArmyReviewPanel
79
andothers
80
haverecognizedthis
problem,thePentagonhasnot,todate,distributedguidancetotheIieldonthisissue.
77
78
S.Rep.NO.105-29at281(1997)SenateArmedServicesCommitteeconcernedbyincreasingnumbersoIreports
thatservicemembersreIusingtoparticipateinsexualactivitiesorwhoreportothersarebeinglabeledasbeing
homosexualinretaliation.
LCR 04279
81
TheIollowingareiustaIewexamplesoIlesbian-baitingIromSLDNscasesinthelast
year.
PartvLeaastoLesbian-BaitinganaWitchHunt
TheCoastGuardinitiatedaninvestigationagainstagroupoIwomensolelybecausethey
socializedtogetherataparty(Exhibit61).TheReportoIInvestigationreportsthatonewoman
claimedthatthegroupoIwomenkepttothemselvesattheparty.Shesayssheassumedthatthey
werelesbiansbasedoncommentstheymade,thoughsheneverspeciIiedwhatthosecomments
were.ThecommandshouldhaveneverinitiatedaninquirybecausethepolicyspeciIicallystates
therumorandspeculationdonotconstitutecredibleinIormation.TheCoastGuardsman,
however,enduredathree-monthlonginvestigation.Ultimately,thecommanddroppedthe
inquiryandshecontinuestoserve.Thelesbian-baitingshesuIIered,however,isnotuncommon.
DivorceaWomanLesbian-Baitea
Anothersoldierwithmorethan19yearsoIserviceIacesconstantlesbian-baitingbecause
shehasnotdatedmensinceherdivorce.Thewoman,whodivorcedherhusbanddueto
documentedphysicalabuse,reportsthataiuniorenlistedsoldieraskedher,Howcomeitsbeen
morethantwoyearssinceyouvesleptwithaman?Anothercrudelysaidtoher,Maleand
IemaleendsoItoolsaresupposedtogotogether.Anotherreportedlyembarrassedthissoldier
inIrontoIaIemaleIriendbysaying,WhatdoyalldoinyourIreetime?Masturbate?Inyet
79
THE SECRETARYOFTHEARMYS SENIOR REVIEWPANEL REPORTONSEXUAL HARASSMENT,VOLUME 1(July1997)
at66(IemalesoldiersreIusingmalesoldierssexualadvancesmaybeaccusedaslesbiansorinvestigatedIor
homosexualconduct).
80
SURVEYRESULTS,DEPTOFTHEARMY91STDIVISION(TRAINING),SexualHarassmentandSexual
Discrimination(October20,1992)at6.
LCR 04280
82
anotherincident,asoldierasked,HaveyoueatenIishtoday?Somecoworkersalso
commentedonherphysicalappearance,callingherbutch, butch, butch.
ThissoldiersgoalistoremainintheArmyandtransIertoanotherunitthatisIreeoI
harassment.HerstoryoIlesbian-baiting,however,showsthepressurewomenIaceto
aIIirmativelyproiectaverynarrowimageoIwhatitmeanstobeaheterosexualwoman.
StereotvpesLeaatoLesbian-Baiting
AiuniorenlistedNavywomanreportssheislesbian-baitedwithconstantcommentsand
epithetsabouthersexualorientation.Othersailorshavesaidthatshemustbealesbianbecause
shehasshorthairandnevertalk|s|aboutaboyIriendwheneveryoneelseistalkingabouttheir
husbandsandwives(Exhibit24).Thesecommentsplacethewomaninaprecariousposition.
IIsheremainssilent,asrequiredbyDontTell,shesetsherselIupIorcontinuedharassment.
DenyingtheaccusationswouldbealieandwouldviolatetheNavyscorevalues,aswellas
herpersonalvalues.
Thissailoralsoreportsbeingcalledadyke-lookingbitch,butchbitch,andlesbian,
andwastold,Whatdoyouknowaboutpanties?Youwearboxers.Whenshedisclosedher
anti-gayexperiencesduringsexualharassmenttraining,theseniorwomanleadingthediscussion
reportedlyinquirediIshewasharassedbecauseshewouldnotsleepwiththemen.Thesailor
said,Yes.Eventhoughtheseniorwomanandtheservicememberssuperiorsknowaboutthe
harassment,theyhaveneverattemptedtostopit.
Conclusion
Lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersmustendureconstantanti-gaythreatsand
epithetsasaconditionoImilitaryservice.Whilenotallservicemembersharasstheir
LCR 04281
83
colleagues,bigotshaveIreereinintodaysmilitary.Thesemilitarybigotsunderminethegood
order,disciplineandmoraleoIourIorces,andadverselyaIIectmilitaryreadiness.Thishurtsthe
militaryaswellasservicemembers,whoascompetent,dedicatedmenandwomenareIorced
outinincreasingnumbersorleaveattheendoItheirobligationduetoharassment.
ThePentagonhaspromisedtoissuenewguidanceonanti-gayharassmentandlesbian-
baiting.WhileSLDNsupportsthePentagonsrecommendation,supportIromuniIormed
militaryleaderswillbekeytoitseIIectiveness.Seniorleadersmustmakeitclearto
commandersintheIieldthatanti-gayharassmentinthemilitarywillnotbetolerated.Military
leadersmustdistributeanynewPentagonguidance,conductcomprehensivetrainingandprovide
servicemembersIacingharassmentandviolencewithadequaterecourse.
LCR 04282
84
CONCLUSION TO FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT
ThePentagonisatacriticaliunctureinimplementingDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue.IntheIaceoIdramaticallyincreasingdischarges,militaryleaderscaneitheraddressthe
harassmentandIorcedsecrecythatarepushingsomanydedicatedlesbians,gaymenand
bisexualsoutoIthearmedIorces,ortheycancontinuewithbusinessasusual.
TheIirstorderoIbusinessshouldbetoimplementrecommendationsagainstanti-gay
harassmentthathavebeensittingontheshelIIormorethantwoyears.Atthesametime,
militaryleadersshouldIinally,aIterIiveyearsoIignoranceandconIusionintheIield,send
guidanceinIormingeveryone,IromprivatestogeneraloIIicers,oIthispolicysinvestigative
limits,anditsintenttorespectservicemembersprivacy.Thisguidanceshouldincludea
speciIicprohibitionondischargingservicemembersbasedonprivateconversationstheyhave
withtheirIamilies,closestIriendsandhealthcareproviders.
AIterinIormingtheirpersonneloIthelimitstoinvestigations,militaryleadersshould
holdtheirsubordinatesaccountableIorIollowingthem.Whenmistakeshappen,orwhere
commandersknowinglydisregardtherules,leadersshouldalsoproviderecourseorsomemeans
oIpracticalaccommodationIorimproperlytargetedservicemembers.
LookingIurtherintotheIuture,SLDNisheartenedbyincreasingpublicsupportIorthe
serviceoIknowngaymen,lesbiansandbisexuals.ThelatestGalluppollin1998showed77
supportIorgaysinthemilitary,
81
andaseparateWhosWhopollregistered75support.
82
A
maiorityoIAmericanshavesupportedgaysinthemilitarysince1977,morethantwodecades
ago(Exhibit62).ApolloIsoldiersconductedbyProIessorCharlesMoskos,thearchitectoI
81
CNN-USATODAY GALLUP POLL,ConductedJune5-7,1998.SurveyresponsestoquestionoIIIadraItwere
tobecomenecessary,shouldgaymenbeincluded,ornot?Yes:77,No:21,NoOpinion:2.
82
WHOS WHO AMONG AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS,PressRelease: NearlvHalfofTeensAamit
PreiuaiceAgainstHomosexuals,Nov.12,1998.DespitetheirIeelings,75percentoIteensbelievehomosexuals
shouldbeallowedtoiointhemilitary....
LCR 04283
85
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,indicatedadramaticdecreaseinstrongoppositionto
gaysinthemilitaryIrom63in1993to36in1998.
83
Thesepollresultsstandinmarked
contrasttothecurrentstateoIthepolicywhichresultsinthedeliberateIiringoIpeopleIorbeing
lesbian,gayorbisexual.
WhileneitherCongressnortheIederalcourtsseempreparedtooverturnDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursueatthistime(Exhibit63),thePentagonsIailuretoaddressrampant
anti-gayharassment,respectservicemembersprivacyrightsandenIorcethepolicys
investigativelimitswillhastenthatday.
84
83
MILLER/MOSKOS NONRANDOMSURVEYSOFARMY PERSONNEL,ProIessorCharlesMoskos,Northwestern
University,Sep.1998.SurveyresponsesbasedonquestionoIHowdoyouIeelabouttheproposalthatgaysand
lesbiansshouldbeallowedtoenterandremaininthemilitary?
84
See McJeighv.Cohen,DECLARATIONBYPROFESSOR CHARLES MOSKOS, Civ.No.1:98CV00116(D.D.C.
1997)at3-4.Inmyopinion,thissortoIheavy-handedenIorcementbytheNavywillinadvertentlyunderminethe
DontAsk,DontTellpolicybyerodingconIidenceamongservicementhattheNavywillnotaskiItheydonot
tell. ItisthesekindsoIactionsbythemilitary,ratherthanlobbyingbyhomosexual-rightsadvocates,thatposethe
greatestthreattotheeIIicacyoIthepolicyinbalancingthemilitarysconcernsaboutreadiness,unitcohesionand
moralewithwhatPresidentClintoncalledadecentregardtothelegitimateprivacyandassociationalrightsoIall
servicemembers.
LCR 04284
Conduct Unbecomi ng
THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
DON T ASK, DON T TELL,
DON T PURSUE, DON T HARASS
by
St acey L. Sobel
Kat hi S. West cot t
Mi chel l e M. Benecke
C. Di xon Osburn
wit h
Jeffery M. Cl eghorn
Servicemembers Legal Defense Net work
Embargoed for Release:
March 9, 2000 | 7:00 AM ET
2000 Servicemembers Legal Defense Net work
LCR 04285
CONDUCT UNBECOMING:
THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
DONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE,DONT HARASS
Table of Contents
VOLUME 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS iii-vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Asking,PursuingandHarassingSurgetoRecordLevels 2
PentagonFiresThreeGayPeopleEveryDay 2
ServiceMembersComeOutBecauseofAnti-GayHarassment 2
MilitaryLeadershipMissinginAction 3
SecretaryCohenOrdersMisguidedInspectorGeneralSurveyof
Anti-GayHarassmentWhileArmyInspectorGeneralPromises
toDischargeGaysHeDiscovers 3
1uryoutonPentagonPromisetoTrainTroopsonInvestigativeLimits 4
1uryoutonPentagonPromisetoEndAnti-GayHarassment 4
PresidentClintonSignsImportantMilitaryHateCrimesLaw 5
PentagonFailstoEnsurePrivacyofCommunicationswith
MentalHealthProviders 5
Anti-GayPolicyElevatedtoHighestLevelofPoliticalDebateSince1993 6
AmericanPublicOpinionSupportsGaysintheMilitary 6
ArmyInvestigatesArizonaStateRepresentativeSteveMay 7
BritainRepealsBanonGaysintheMilitary,IsolatingUnitedStates 7
TheGoodNews 8
Conclusion:MilitaryReadinessSuffersfromAnti-GayBias 8
WHAT IS DONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE,DONT HARASS? 9
DONT ASK 11
DontAskProhibitsQuestioningServiceMembersAboutSexualOrientation 11
AskingasAnti-GayHarassment 11
FortCampbell.AskingasaPreluaetoMuraer 12
USSAbrahamLincolnSailorDirectlvQuestionea 12
NavvPettvOfficerAskeabvMoreThanTenPeople 13
MonterevLeaaersAskFemaleAirman 14
NavvLeaaersAskAboutSexualOrientation 14
ArmvCriminalInvestigativeCommanaAsksAboutSexualOrientation 15
InadvertentQuestioning 16
ArmvCaptainAskeaWhvHeWoulaNotAcceptCommanaPosition 16
LCR 04286
NavvPettvOfficerFirstClassAskeaWhvHeIsNotRe-Enlisting 16
SecurityClearanceQuestionsContinuetoThreatenGays 17
AdditionalExamplesofDontAskViolations 18
DontAskConclusion 19
ServiceMembersAskeaAboutWhetherThevAreGavHave
NowheretoTurnforHelp 19
DONT TELL 21
DontTellProhibitsGaysfromPubliclyStatingTheirSexualOrientation
totheMilitaryWhileAllowingforPersonalandPrivateExpressions 21
HealthCareProvidersTurninGays 22
JirtualNavalHospital.DoingGavPatientsHarm 22
AirForcePsvchologistAssertsDutvtoTurninGavPatients 23
DoctorDirectsLesbianSeamantoOutHerselftoHerCommana 24
MilitaryOfficialsSolicitPrivateInformationfromServiceMembers
FamiliesandFriends 24
InvestigatorQuestionsParrisIslanaMarinesMother 24
AirForceInstructsInvestigatorstoInterrogateFamiliesanaFrienas 24
ChaplainsProvideImproperLegalAdvice 25
USSAbrahamLincolnChaplainConaemnsGavs 26
InspectorsGeneralSayTheyWillTurninGaysWhoReportHarassment 26
ServicesUseRetaliatoryAccusationsbySpouses 26
DontTellConclusion 27
DONT PURSUE 29
DontPursuePlacesLimitsonGayInvestigations 29
AnatomyofaWitchHunt:TheCaseoftheDefenseLanguageInstitute 30
TheWitchHuntBegins.StuaentLeaaersQuestioneaAbout
TheirSexualOrientation 30
WitchHuntLeaastoAnti-GavHarassment 32
WitchHuntForcesAirmentoComeOutInquirvOfficer
ConauctsIntrusiveInvestigation 33
MistakenIaentitvForcesStuaenttoComeOut.InquirvOfficer
PriesintoAirmansPrivateLife 35
UncheckeaAnti-GavHarassmentLeaasStuaentstoPursue
PeersSexualOrientation 36
Anti-GavHarassmentIntensifies.EnsnaringMoreAirmen 37
InstructorHarassesGavSolaier 37
SolaierHarasseaatMonterev 38
SLDNRequestsInvestigationintoDLIJiolations 38
MoreFishingExpeditions 38
PursueaOfficerFightstoServe 38
AirmanCoerceatoProveHeIsGav 40
NavvOutsSailorWhileConauctingFishingExpeaition 42
AdditionalDontPursueIncidents 43
DontPursueConclusion 44
LCR 04287
DONT HARASS 47
DontHarassViolationsSoar 47
AnatomyofaMurder:PervasiveAnti-GayClimateatFortCampbell,Kentucky 48
TheMuraerofPrivateFirstClassBarrvWinchell 48
Faggot.Faggot.DowntheStreet.ShotHim.ShotHim.TillHeRetreats 51
YouAreaFaggot...anaIWillBeatYouwithaBaseballBat 52
GavsDontDeserve...SameRights 53
CompleteFailureofLeaaershipatFortCampbell 53
Anti-GayHarassmentPervasive:FromOfficersandEnlisted 55
MarineLieutenantColonelMocksPrivateFirstClassWinchellsMuraer
anaPentagonOraerAgainstAnti-GavHarassment 55
WeShoulaKillThemAll 56
ImNottheOneYouWanttoTellThatYouAreGav,IWillDischarge
YoufromtheNavvanaSenaYouHomeinaBox 57
WeDontLikeYouQueersArounaHere 57
AreYouGoingtoSuckHisDicktoKeepHimin? 58
[YouDont{ShowEnoughInterestintheDancingGirlsDowntown 59
IntheFleet.SomePeopleWakeupwithBlackEvesforNoReason 59
IfYouThinkYoureHiaingIt.YoureDeaaWrong... 60
PettvOfficerAssaulteaWhileAsleeponShip 60
LetsGotoaGavBarthisWeekenaanaFuckSomeQueersUp 61
LesbianBaitingContinues 61
MarineThreateneawithInvoluntarvOutingAfter
ReportingSexualHarassment 62
Anti-GavHarassmentExacerbateabvSailorsRefusal
ofSexualProposition 62
AreYouMarrieatoaManoraWoman 62
ItMustBeTrue[ThatYouAreGav{BecauseIHaveNever
SeenYouwithaGuv 63
AdditionalIncidentsofAnti-GayHarassmentReportedtoSLDNin1999 63
ThePentagonandAdministrationRespondtoAnti-GayHarassment 65
PentagonReleasesAnti-GavHarassmentana
InvestigationsGuiaelines 65
ServicesIssueStatementsonAnti-GavHarassment 66
ServicesBeginTrainingtoPreventAnti-GavHarassment 67
DefenseDepartmentInspectorGeneralDirecteato
AssessAnti-GavHarassment 67
PresiaentSignsExecutiveOraeronMilitarvHateCrimes 69
DontHarassConclusion 69
CONCLUSIONTOSIXTH ANNUAL REPORT 71
APPENDICES:
ANNUAL GAY DISCHARGES UNDER DONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE,DONT
HARASS
LCR 04288
DONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE,DONT HARASSCOMMAND VIOLATIONS,
19941999
COSTSOFTRAINING REPLACEMENTSFORSERVICE MEMBERS DISCHARGED UNDER GAY
POLICY
DONT HARASSVIOLATIONSBYSERVICE,19941999
LESBIAN BAITING:THE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTOFTHEGAY POLICIESONWOMEN
VOLUME 2
ExhibitstoConauctUnbecoming.
TheSixthAnnualReportonDontAsk.DontTell.DontPursue.DontHarass
areinaseparatevolumeandmaybeobtainedbycontactingSLDN.
LCR 04289
- i-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to grateIully acknowledge the assistance oI the
entire SLDN staII in producing and distributing the Sixth Annual Report.
We especially thank Ken Kilgour, Steve Ralls, Mike Beaty and Danny
ReedIortheirexceptionaldedicationandhardwork.
LCR 04290
LCR 04291
- iii-
SLDNFINDINGSFROMSIXTH ANNUAL REPORTON
# Anti-Gay Harassment More than Doubles. SLDN documented 968 incidents oI anti-gay
harassment,includingamurder,assaults,deaththreatsandverbalgaybashingIromFebruary
15, 1999, to February 15, 2000, up 142 Irom a record 400 violations the preceding year.
SLDNdocumented495reportsoIanti-gayharassmentaIterthePentagonstateditwouldnot
tolerate anti-gay harassment in August 1999. This marks the second consecutive year that
anti-gayharassmenthasmorethandoubled.
# Reports of Asking and Pursuing Increase 30. SLDN documented 665 incidents in
whichservicememberswereaskedandpursued,upIrom511violationstheyearbeIore.
# Military Fails to Hold Anyone Accountable for Asking, Pursuing or Harassing. In six
years,themilitaryhasnotoIIiciallyheldanyoneaccountableIorviolatingthecurrentpolicy.
# Service Members Come Out to Escape Anti-Gay Harassment. Service members
overwhelmingly come out because oI unchecked harassment, contrary to the Pentagons
claimthatgaysareleavingthemilitaryvoluntarilybecausetheywantedaneasywayout.
Themilitarydoesnotgivemembersachoicetostay,eveniItheycomeoutsolelybecauseoI
IearIortheirsaIety.
# DoctorsandPsychologistsToldtoOutGayServiceMembers. Psychologistsreportthey
have been instructed to turn in lesbian, gay and bisexual military members who seek their
help. Military oIIicials have knowingly permitted erroneous instructions to circulate in the
Iieldthattellpsychologistsanddoctorstooutgayservicemembers.OIIicialshaveIailedto
inIormhealthcareprovidersnottoturningaymembers,butinsteadtorespecttheirprivacy.
# Service Members Reporting Anti-Gay Harassment Risk Being Outed and Discharged.
InspectorsGeneralbelievetheyarerequiredtoturninservicememberswhoareIoundtobe
gay in the course oI investigating anti-gay harassment complaints. Some Chaplains have
berated gay members who have reported harassment, while others have advised service
memberstoturnthemselvesinandIacedischarge.ArmyEqualOpportunityrepresentatives
havebeentoldnottohelp.ThePentagonhasIailedtomakeclearthatprivatestatementsoI
sexualorientationinthesecontextsdonotconstitutegroundsIordischarge.
# Air Force Interrogates Family and Friends. The services, especially the Air Force,
continue seeking out parents, siblings and close Iriends in an eIIort to dig up dirt on gay,
lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.
# Women Discharged at Highest Rate in Two Decades. Women comprised 31 oI gay
discharges in 1999, although women represent only 14 oI the Iorce. This is the highest
percentage oI women discharged since at least 1980. The Air Force had the worst record,
with 37 oI its gay discharges being women, Iollowed by the Army with 35, the Navy
22andtheMarineCorps16.WomenareoItenaccusedoIbeinglesbiansIorretaliatory
reasons,regardlessoItheiractualsexualorientation.
LCR 04292
- iv-
# Pentagon Fires Three People Every Day for Being Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual. The
Pentagon discharged 1,034 service members in Iiscal year 1999, compared to 1,149
discharges in Iiscal year 1998. Discharges still are 73 higher than when the policy went
into eIIect. The Air Force discharged 352 service members, a drop Irom 414 the previous
year,duemainlytorevampedproceduresatLacklandAirForceBase.TheNavydischarged
315servicemembers,comparedto345theyearbeIore.TheArmydischarged271soldiers,
down Irom 312 the year beIore. Marine Corps discharges increased to 97, compared to 77
lastyear.
# Pentagon Adopts SLDN Recommendation for Training on Investigative Limits; Some
Services Fail to Comply. In August 1999, Secretary Cohen instructed the services to
prepareandimplementtrainingprogramsontheinvestigativelimitsunderDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,DontHarass.OnlytheArmyandNavyhavecompliedinpart,withthe
Army doing a better iob. The Marine Corps emphasizes how to discharge gays rather than
howtocomplywiththepolicysinvestigativelimits.TheAirForcehasIailedtomakeany
trainingprogrampublic.
# After Years of Delay, Pentagon Adopts SLDN Recommendations on Anti-Gay
Harassment. In August 1999, Secretary Cohen instructed the Secretary and ChieI oI each
service to distribute a leadership message against anti-gay harassment. The Navy did so in
October 1999. Finally, in January 2000, the other services Iollowed. AIter a three-year
delay, the services sent instructions to commanders that a service members report oI anti-
gay harassment does not constitute credible inIormation to begin an investigation. In
February 2000 the Army, Navy and Marine Corps began training against anti-gay
harassment. All services could use improvement, especially the Marine Corps. The Air
Forcehasnotreleaseditstrainingprogram.
# Pentagon Conducts Misguided Survey of Anti-Gay Harassment. In December 1999,
SecretaryCohenorderedanInspectorGeneralsurveytoassessanti-gayharassment.Among
other problems, some commands have prevented service members known to have
experienced anti-gay harassment Irom participating in the survey. As long as Dont Tell
exists, Iorcing gay service members to hide, there will be no way to accurately assess anti-
gayharassmentortocomparetheexperienceoIgayandnon-gaymembers.
# More Commanders Attempt to Retain Openly Gay Service Members. Increasing
numbers oI commanders, especially in the Navy, are attempting to keep openly gay service
members in the military. The problem is that commanders oIten will not address the
harassment that leads gay service members to come out in the Iirst place, nor can they
guaranteethatmemberswillnotbekickedoutlater,aIterinvestingyearsinthemilitary.
# Investigators Inexperienced in Investigating Anti-Gay Hate Crimes. Criminal
investigatorsandlawenIorcementpersonnel,likethoseinvolvedinPrivateFirstClassBarry
Winchellsmurderinvestigation,havenoexperienceinvestigatinganti-gayhatecrimes.
# CommandsUseHeavy-HandedTacticstoPursueGays.SLDNdocumentedIrequentuse
oIthreatstoextractconIessionsaboutservicememberssexualactivities,includingthreatsoI
criminalcharges,conIinementandnon-iudicialpunishment.
LCR 04293
- v-
SLDNRECOMMENDATIONSFROMSIXTH ANNUAL REPORTON
# PermitServiceMemberstoReportAnti-GayHarassmentandCrimesWithoutFearof
Being Outed and Discharged. Inspectors General, law enIorcement personnel, Equal
Opportunity representatives, Chaplains, health care providers, commanders and other
personnel who deal with harassment-related issues should be given clear instructions not to
out service members who seek their help. These individuals should be trained on how to
handlereportsoIanti-gayharassmentandcrimesappropriately.Servicemembersstraight,
gayandbisexualgotothesesourcesIorhelp,nottomakeapublicstatementoItheirsexual
orientation.Theseareprivatecontexts,andwouldremainsoiIoIIicialsdidnotoutservice
memberswhoseektheirhelp.
# Adopt Rule of Privacy for Conversations with Health Care Providers. The Pentagon
should inIorm health care providers there is no requirement to turn in lesbian, gay and
bisexualpatients,andshouldIurtherclariIythatconversationswithhealthcareprovidersare
notabasisIorinvestigationordischargeunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harass. The Executive Order signed by President Clinton, providing Ior a limited
psychotherapist privilege, prevents use oI conversations with psychotherapists as
incriminating evidence in criminal trials. The rule, however, does not address SLDNs
concern that some psychotherapists continue to turn in gay service members who are then
administrativelydischargedunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
# HoldAccountableThoseWhoAsk,PursueorHarass.Insixyears,militaryleadershave
not publicly held anyone accountable Ior asking, pursuing or harassing. With the new
guidelines on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass, the Pentagon should
remindcommanderstherearespeciIicconsequencesIorviolations,IromlettersoIcounseling
to courts-martial, depending on the oIIense. Senior leaders should set the example by
holdingthosewhoviolatethepolicyaccountable,startingwith:
SeniorleadersatFortCampbellwhoIailedtotraintheirpersonnelon
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass, and who
permittedanti-gayharassmenttoIlourishbeIoreand,shockingly,aIter
Private First Class Winchells murder: the anti-gay harassment
continuestothepresentday:
MarineLieutenantColonelEdwardMeltonatTwenty-NinePalmsIor
calling gays homos, queers and backside rangers, and Ior
mockingthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellwhendistributing
ane-mailIromtheChieIoINavalOperationsthatorderedstepstoend
anti-gayharassment:and
Air Force investigators and others at Montereys DeIense Language
Institute, who have conducted a witch hunt oI Iemale student leaders
andignorednumerousreportsoIanti-gayharassment.
LCR 04294
- vi-
# Require Leaders to Demonstrate Commitment to Stopping Anti-Gay Harassment.
Leaders must show through their own actions they take anti-gay harassment seriously, and
they should speciIically inIorm service members that epithets such as Iaggot, dyke and
queerwillnolongerbetolerated.
# Ensure Full Distribution and Training on Guidance Against Anti-Gay Harassment.
The services should ensure every service member Irom recruit to Ilag oIIicer receives and
understandsguidelinesandleadershipmessagesIromtheSecretaryandChieIoIeachservice
againstanti-gayharassment.
# Ensure Full and Appropriate Training on Investigative Limits. The Pentagon should
ensuretheservicestrainallpersonnelonthepolicysinvestigativelimitsandintenttorespect
service members privacy, not on how to detect and discharge gay service members, as
Marine Corps training currently suggests. Leaders must be involved in the training and set
thepropertoneIorit.
# ProvideRecoursetoServiceMemberstoStopImproperInvestigations. Insixyears,the
Pentagon has Iailed to provide service members with recourse to stop improper
investigations, taking an ends iustiIies the means approach. While recent guidelines
requiring Service Secretary approval Ior substantial investigations and greater legal
guidance Irom higher headquarters may help, they still deprive members oI the opportunity
toshowwhyaninquiryshouldnotgoIorwardintheIirstplace.Membersshouldbeableto
obtain a military deIense attorney beIore an inquiry is initiated, and have an opportunity to
showthatnocredibleevidenceexists.
# Require Commanders to State in Writing Reasons for Investigations. This would be a
Iurthersteptopreventimproperinvestigations.
# CeaseUseofIntrusiveQuestioninginGayInvestigations.Militaryleadersinallservices
should train inquiry oIIicers and criminal agents in proper investigative tactics, to include
instructing personnel not to question parents, siblings and other conIidants such as close
Iriends about a service members sexual orientation or private liIe. The Air Force should
rescinditswritteninstructionstothecontrary.
# Train Investigators on How to Handle Possible Anti-Gay Hate Crimes. Criminal
investigators and law enIorcement personnel need training to recognize and appropriately
investigatepossibleanti-gayhatecrimes.
# AdoptExclusionaryRule.ThePentagonshouldadoptanexclusionaryrulesothatevidence
obtainedillegally,asinawitchhunt,canbeexcludedatadministrativedischargeboards.
LCR 04295
- 1-
CONDUCT UNBECOMING:
THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORTON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE, DONT HARASS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I am satisfied that the policy generally is being
implemented fairly.
WilliamCohen,January28,2000
[T]he data show that the climate remains as hostile to gay
military personnel as ever . . . .
NewYorkTimesEditorial,August20,1999
ArmyPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellsmurdergivesthecountryaheartbreaking
insightintotheIailureoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.OnJuly5,1999,
PrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellwasbrutallybeatentodeathwithabaseballbat,whilehe
sleptonacotoutsidehisbarracksroomatFortCampbell,Kentucky.PrivateCalvinGlover
attacked WinchellaIteranotherunitmember,SpecialistJustinFisher,goadedhimusinganti-gay
epithets.SoldierslatertestiIiedthatPrivateFirstClassWinchellIaceddailyanti-gayharassment
IormorethanIourmonthspriortohismurder,basedonrumorsstartedbyFisher. Winchell
conIidedintwocloseIriendsthathewasproIoundlytroubledbytheharassment,buthecoulddo
nothingIorIearhewouldbekickedoutoItheArmyheloved.
ThemilitaryIailedWinchell.Hisleadersasked.Theypursued.Theyharassed.The
militaryallowednosaIehavenIorWinchelltoseekhelp.Psychologists,InspectorsGeneral,law
enIorcementpersonnelandcommandershavebeengiventhemisguidedmessagetoturningay
peoplewhoseektheirhelp.Ultimately,themilitarysindiIIerencetoWinchellswell-beingand
itshostilitytothepresenceoIpeoplewhoareperceivedtobegaysetthestageIorhismurder.
Congressshouldrepealthebanonopenlygayservicemembersbecausethepolicyhurts
militaryreadiness,anditkills.Givenourcurrentpoliticalenvironment,however,itisunlikely
CongresshasthewilltooverturnDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.Until
thatday,ourmilitaryleaders,bothciviliananduniIormed,muststepuptotheplateinwaysthey
havenot,thusIar.Theymuststoptherampantasking,pursuingandharassingoIservice
memberswhoare,orareperceivedtobe,lesbian,gayorbisexual.Whiletherearemany
heterosexualservicememberswhodonotengageinanti-gayharassment,theincentivesin
todaysmilitaryclimatesupportthosewhodo.Militaryleadersmuststopteachingyoungpeople
enteringthemilitarytohateanddiscriminateagainstaparticulargroupoIpeopleinoursociety.
InthewakeoIBarryWinchellsmurder,onethingisclearDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue,DontHarasshasreacheditshighestleveloIpublicdebatesinceitwasIirst
LCR 04296
- 2-
implementedin1993.ThePentagonandPresidentBillClintonhavescrambledtorespondtothe
policysIailedimplementation.PoliticalcandidatesandthepublichavecalledIorthepolicys
repeal.WhatIollowsareiustaIewoIthedevelopmentsIromthepastyearcoveredindetailin
ConauctUnbecoming.The SixthAnnualReportonDontAsk.DontTell.DontPursue.Dont
Harass.
Asking,PursuingandHarassingSurgetoRecordLevels
InstancesoIasking,pursuingandharassingindirectviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue,DontHarasshavesurgedtorecordlevelssinceCongressenacteditintolawsix
yearsago.ReportsoIanti-gayharassmentinthepastyearmorethandoubled,Iorthesecond
consecutiveyear.ReportsoIaskingincreased20.ReportsoIpursuingincreased34.
Asking,pursuingandharassingcontinuedevenaIterthePentagonannouncednewtraining
programsandguidelinesonanti-gayharassmentsixmonthsago.
AmongdozensoIexamples,thisreportdetailsthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassBarry
WinchellandtheanatomyoIawitchhuntattheDeIenseLanguageInstituteinMonterey,
CaliIornia,which,duringthecourseoIthepastyear,ensnaredmorethanIourteenairmen,mostly
women.Thisreportalsodescribestheepithets,threatsandeverydayindignitiesthatservice
membersmustsilentlysuIIerasaconditionoIservingourcountryunderDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue,DontHarass.
WhileDepartmentoIDeIenseoIIicialshaverepeatedlymaintainedthatproper
implementationoIthepolicyhasbeenapriorityandthepolicyhas,Iorthemostpart,been
properlyappliedandenIorced,
1
eventsoIthispastyearonceagainshowthatassertiontobe
littlemorethanwhitewash.
PentagonFiresThreeGayPeopleEveryDay
DischargesunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassremain
alarminglyhigh.ThePentagonisIiring,onaverage,threepeopleeverydayIorbeinggay,
lesbianorbisexualatotaloI1,034lastyearalone(Exhibit1).Gaydischargeslastyear
increased73sinceDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasswasIirst
implemented.SixyearsoIpinkslipshavecostAmericantaxpayersover$160million
2
(Exhibit
2).Manymorededicated,competentservicemembershaveleItattheendoItheirterms,Iedup
withconstantIear,dissemblingandanti-gayharassment.
ServiceMembersComeOutBecauseofAnti-GayHarassment
ThePentagonclaimsmostgaydischargesresultIromgaysvoluntarilycomingIorwardto
bedischarged.EvenMaiorGeneralRobertClarkatFortCampbell,Kentucky,hadthetemerity
1
OFFICEOFTHEUNDER SECRETARYOFDEFENSE (PERSONNELANDREADINESS), ReporttotheSecretarvofDefense.
ReviewoftheEffectivenessoftheApplicationanaEnforcementoftheDepartmentsPolicvonHomosexualConauct
intheMilitarv,Apr.1998.
2
GAO1993dollars.ThisIigurerepresentscostsoIretrainingreplacementsaloneanddoesnotincludethe
signiIicantexpenseoIinvestigationsandseparations.
LCR 04297
- 3-
tosuggestthatthetriplingingaydischargesatFortCampbellinthewakeoIPrivateFirstClass
Barry WinchellsmurderwastheresultoIgaysvoluntarilyleavingbecausetheywantedaso-
calledeasywayoutoIthemilitary.
3
TherealityisgaymembersoItencomeoutunderduressas
alastresorttoprotectthemselvesagainstconstantanti-gayharassment,includingverbalgay-
bashing,deaththreatsandassaults.ServicememberscontactServicemembersLegalDeIense
Network(SLDN)
4
everydayaIraidtheymaybethenextBarryWinchell.Inaddition,some
servicemembersconcludethat,IorreasonsoIintegrity,theycannolongerserveunderapolicy
that,asimplemented,requiresthemtolietotheirparents,bestIriendsandhealthcareproviders
asaconditionoImilitaryservice.Theywanttoserve,butUncleSamsays,Idontwantyou.
ContrarytowhatthePentagonsuggests,allgaydischargesareinvoluntarybecausenoservice
memberensnaredbyDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassisgiventhechoiceto
stay.
MilitaryLeadershipMissinginAction
Thecontinuedasking,pursuingandharassingareduetoIailedleadership.Military
leadersmustholdthosewhoask,pursueandharassaccountable,andproviderecoursetoservice
memberswhoareimproperlytargeted.SLDNhasrepeatedlywarnedoIthedangersoIlax
leadershipinapplyingthispolicy.InSLDNsConauctUnbecomingContinues.TheFirstYear
UnaerDontAsk.DontTell.DontPursue.SLDNwarnedthatiItheDepartmentoI
DeIensedoesnottakecorrectiveactionsnow,deathsoIactualandperceivedhomosexualservice
members,likeslainsailorAllenSchindler,willoccur.
5
ItisshameIulthatittookPrivateFirst
Class WinchellsmurderbeIoremilitaryleaderswouldbegintotakestepstoaddressthe
problem.
SecretaryCohenOrdersMisguidedInspectorGeneralSurveyofAnti-GayHarassment
WhileArmyInspectorGeneralPromisestoDischargeGaysHeDiscovers
FivemonthsaIterWinchellsmurder,SecretaryCohenorderedaDepartmentoIDeIense
InspectorGeneralinvestigationintoanti-gayharassment.
6
TheInspectorGeneralissurveying
75,000troops,withsurveyresultsduebacktoSecretaryCohenonMarch13,2000.When
announcedinDecember1999,SLDNquestionedtheeIIicacyoIthesurvey,becausethereisno
waytocomparetheexperienceoIgayservicememberswithnon-gayservicemembers.Gay
servicemembersarenotpermittedtobehonestwiththeInspectorGeneralunderthecurrent
regime.Indeed,aslongasalawexiststhatbansknowngayservicemembers,IewgayswillIeel
comIortablereportinganything,nomatterwhatstepstheInspectorGeneraltakestoassuretheir
conIidences.
TheirIearsoIbeingoutedandkickedoutoIthemilitaryarewell-Iounded.AnoIIicer
withtheDepartmentoIArmyInspectorGeneraltoldSLDNhebelievedhewasrequiredtoturn
3
ElizabethBecker,PolicvonGavsPartoftheDrillAtArmvBase,N.Y.Times,Feb.14,2000,atA1.
4
ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetworkisanindependentlegalaidandwatchdogorganization.
5
C.DixonOsburnandMichelleM.Benecke,ConductUnbecomingContinues:TheFirstYearUnderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue,(ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork,Feb.28,1995).
6
OIIiceoIAssistantSecretaryoIDeIense(PublicAIIairs),SecretarvofDefenseDirectsAssessmentofExtentof
Harassment,Dec.13,1999.
LCR 04298
- 4-
inanyservicememberwhoinadvertentlycameoutorwasIoundtobegayduringthecourseoI
investigatinganti-gayharassmentatFortCampbell.SLDNhasreceivedreportsthatsome
commandshavepreventedservicemembersknowntohaveexperiencedanti-gayharassment
IromparticipatingintheInspectorGeneralsurvey,evenwhenallotherunitmemberswere
orderedtoparticipate.Otherservicemembersreportthat,becauseoIthewaythesurveyis
designed,thosewhoreportanti-gayharassmentdrawundueandunwantedattentionto
themselves.ThosewhodonotreportharassmentmayskipquicklytotheendoIthesurveyand
leavethesurveyroom.Thus,everyonetakingthesurveyknowswhoisreportingharassment.
Thisarrangementleavesservicemembersvulnerabletospeculationabouttheirownsexual
orientation.
Inshort,theInspectorGeneralprocesses,despitethebestintentionsoIthoseactually
reviewinganti-gayharassment,arelikelytoproduceawhitewash.InspectorGeneral
representativeswillhearIromcommanders,andtheywillhearIromsomeservicemembers,but
theywillnothearIromtheservicememberswhoaremostaIIected,becauselesbian,gayand
bisexualmilitarymembersmusthide.
1uryoutonPentagonPromisetoTrainTroopsonInvestigativeLimits
SpurredbyPrivateWinchellsmurder,SecretaryoIDeIenseWilliamS.Cohenordered
IortheIirsttimemandatorytrainingIorallservicemembersontheinvestigativelimitsoI
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
7
Theorderpartiallyadoptsasix-year
SLDNrecommendation.Todate,however,onlytheArmyhasinitiatedtrainingonthepolicys
investigativelimits,andthereviewsoIthetrainingaremixed.Somesoldiersreportthetraining
hasbeenconductedproIessionallyandintelligently.Others,however,reportthetrainingis
conIusing.Disturbingly,somesaytheirleadershavemockedthetraining,callingitaIag
brieIingandotheranti-gayepithets.Thissendstheimmediateandunmistakablesignaltothose
undertheircommandthattheydonothavetotakethetrainingseriously.IIthistrainingisto
haveanygoodeIIect,leadersmustmakeacommitmenttotreatitseriously.
1uryoutonPentagonPromisetoEndAnti-GayHarassment
IntheaItermathoIWinchellsmurder,thePentagonalsoimplementedstronger
guidelinesonanti-gayharassment,includingmoreexplicitlanguagesanctioninganti-gay
epithetssuchasIaggot,Iag,queeranddyke.InresponsetoalongstandingSLDN
request,theSecretaryandChieIoIeachservicehaveissuedstatementsdenouncinganti-gay
harassment.TheDepartmentoIDeIenseaddedDontHarasstoitsdescriptionoIthecurrent
policy,DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
8
IntheArmy,soldiersreportthe
trainingislimitedtotwoslidesattheendoItrainingontheoverallanti-gaypolicy.AirForce
personnelreportnoknowledgeoItheanti-gayharassmenttraining.TheNavyhasdeliveredthe
messageagainstanti-gayharassmenttosomesailors,withtrainingshowingupinatleastsome
weeklycommanderbrieIingsattheunitlevel.
7
UnderSecretaryoIDeIenseRudydeLeon,MemoranaumtoSecretariesoftheMilitarv.Subiect.Guiaelinesfor
InvestigatingThreatsAgainstorHarassmentofServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv,Aug.12,1999.
8
LindaD.KozarynandJimGaramone,CohenAaasDontHarasstoHomosexualPolicv.SavsitCanWork,
AmericanForcesPressService,Dec.29,1999.
LCR 04299
- 5-
OnedownIalloIthecurrenttraininginallservicesisthatitdoesnotaddresstheproblem
thatpsychologists,InspectorGenerals,lawenIorcementpersonnel,equalopportunity
representatives,commanders,andothersbelievetheyarerequiredtoturningaypeopleseeking
theirhelp.TheArmyistellingservicememberstoseeChaplainsiItheyareharassed,butmany
Chaplainsarebyandlargenotpreparedtoaddressthesesituations.Indeed,asdiscussedIurther
intheDontTellsectionoIthisreport,someChaplainshaveberatedservicememberswho
havesoughttheirhelpindealingwithanti-gayharassment.OtherChaplainshavetoldservice
memberstoturnthemselvesintotheircommandsresultingintheirdischarge.TheArmyisalso
directingservicememberswhoareharassedtoseemilitarydeIenseattorneys,withoutliIting
policiesatsomebasesthatprecludemilitarydeIenseattorneysIromrepresentingaservice
memberuntiladischargeactionorcriminalchargeshavebeenIiled.TheArmyhasstateditis
IorbiddingitsEqualOpportunityrepresentativesIromhelpingservicememberswhoaretargeted
byanti-gayharassment.
OIgreatconcern,thecurrenttraininginallservicesIailstospeciIyanyconsequencesIor
servicememberswhodisobeytherulesandharass,askorpursuetheircolleagues.
PresidentClintonSignsImportantMilitaryHateCrimesLaw
AsCommander-in-ChieI,PresidentClintonsignedanExecutiveOrderthreemonthsaIter
Winchellsmurder,amendingtheManualforCourts-MartialtoprovideIorsentence
enhancementinhatecrimesbasedonrace,gender,sexualorientation,anddisability.TheJoint
ServiceCommitteeinthePentagonrecommendedthechangetomakemilitarylawconIormwith
similarstatestatutes.WhiletheExecutiveOrderhadbeenonthePresidentsdeskIormorethan
oneyear,anditdidnotIactorintotheprosecutionoIsoldiersatFortCampbellIorthemurderoI
PrivateFirstClassBarryWinchell,theExecutiveOrderwillaidlawenIorcementpersonnel,
prosecutorsandcommandersinaddressinghate-motivatedviolence.
PentagonFailstoEnsurePrivacyofCommunicationswithMentalHealthProviders
ThesameExecutiveOrderalsoprovided,IortheIirsttime,alimitedpsychotherapist
privilegethatpreventsuseoIconversationswithpsychotherapistsasincriminatingevidencein
criminaltrials.TheExecutiveOrderhasonlylimitedvalueIorgayservicemembers,however,
who,Iorthemostpart,Iaceadministrativedischargeproceedings,ratherthancriminal
prosecutions,underDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.Mentalhealth
providerscontinuetoturningaysIordischarge.AlthoughPentagonoIIicialshavepublicly
represented
9
thathealthcareprovidersarenotrequiredtoturningaypeoplewhoseektheirhelp,
healthcareproviderstellSLDNotherwise.InIact,SLDNdiscoveredthattheNavyhadsent
writteninstructionstoitshealthcareproviderstoturningaypeopleviaitswebsite.Despite
SLDNsproteststotopDepartmentoIDeIenseoIIicials,thewebsitewasleItincommissionuntil
July1999.Servicemembershavebeendischargedasaresult,withthewebsitelanguage
showingupverbatiminSLDNscases.ThePentagonhasIailedtotakeanystepsinsixyearsto
9
OFFICEOFTHEUNDER SECRETARYOFDEFENSE (PERSONNELANDREADINESS), ReporttotheSecretarvofDefense.
ReviewoftheEffectivenessoftheApplicationanaEnforcementoftheDepartmentsPolicvonHomosexualConauct
intheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at10.
LCR 04300
- 6-
makeclearthatsuchconversationsareconsideredpersonalandprivateundercurrent
regulationsanddonotIormthebasisIordischarge.
Anti-GayPolicyElevatedtoHighestLevelofPoliticalDebateSince1993
InthewakeoIPFC Winchellsmurder,DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harasshaseruptedonthecampaigntrail.FirstLadyHillaryRodhamClinton,
10
VicePresident
AlbertGore
11
andSenatorBillBradley
12
allcalledIorrepealoIDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarass,makingnationalheadlines.GovernorGeorgeW.Bush
13
andSenator
John McCain
14
calledIorbetterimplementationoIthecurrentpolicy,ashiIttowardthecenter
IrompriorGOPpoliticalstandscallingIorwitchhunts.PresidentClintonalsoweighedinIor
theIirsttimeinsixyears,describingDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassas
outoIwhackinaCBSRaaioNewsinterview.
15
AmericanPublicOpinionSupportsGaysintheMilitary
Atthesametime,publicopinionpollsandeditorialboardsexpressedoverwhelming
supportIorendingdiscriminationagainstlesbians,gaysandbisexualsinthemilitary.
IndependentpublicopinionpollsreleasedthispastyearbyGallup
16
andTheWallStreet
Journal/NBC
17
Ioundthat70ormoreoIAmericanssupportgaysinthemilitary.DozensoI
maiornationalandregionalnewspapershavecalledIorrepealoIDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarass.
18
10
ReiectingDontAsk.DontTell.N.Y.Times,Dec.10,1999,atA34:HillaryRodhamClintonwasexactly
rightwhenshetoldagayaudienceataIund-raiserinSoHothisweekthathomosexualsoughttobeabletoserve
openlyintheUnitedStatesmilitary.
11
CeciConnollyandBradleyGraham,GoreJowsNewPolicvOnGavsInMilitarv,Wash.Post,Dec.14,1999,at
A1.
12
SandraSobierai,BraalevSupportsGavsinMilitarv,Assoc.Press,Sept.16,1999.
13
ExcerptsFromtheDebateAmongG.O.P.Canaiaates,N.Y.Times,Jan.7,2000,atA15.
14
JamesWarren,McCainSavsGoreWrongonMilitarvGavsPolicv,Chi.Tribune,Dec.15,1999,
http://chicagotribune.com~~.
15
Transcript.RaaioInterviewofPresiaentClintonbvCBSNews,DistributedbyOIIiceoIInternationalInIormation
Programs,U.S.DepartmentoIState,Dec.11,1999.
16
SeeAlanS.Yang,FromWrongstoRights.PublicOpiniononGavanaLesbainAmericansMovesTowara
Equalitv12,13(NationalGayandLesbianTaskForcePolicyInstitute,1999).
17
RonaldG.ShaIer,TheWallStreetJournal/NBCNewsPoll,TheWallStreetJournal,atA1:DONTCARE:The
public,by74to22,Iavorsallowinggaystoserveinthemilitary.
18
Theyinclude:DontAsk,DontHarass:ThemilitaryisIinallyIacingtheIlawsinthepolicyonhomosexuals,
AlbanyTimesUnion,Feb.7,2000,atA6:Dontask,donttellPolicydoesntwork,TheArizonaRepublic,Dec.
15,1999,atB8:EnIorcingDontHarass,BostonGlobe,Feb.7,2000,atA14:RevivingDontAsk,DontTell,
ChicagoTribune,Feb.4,2000,at20:Dontlie:ClintonadmitsdontaskdonttellisapolicyIailure:theansweris
toliItthebanonhomosexualsinthemilitary,ClevelandPlainDealer,Dec.21,1999,at8B:Militarysgaypolicy:
Timetogetreal,DaytonDailyNews,Dec.15,1999,at14A:Gaysinmilitary:Clintonadmitsdontask,donttell
isaIailure,HoustonChronicle,Dec.20,1999,at34:VerdictIsInForDontAsk,L.A.Times,Feb.4,2000,at
B10:DavidP.Sheldon,DontExpectaChangeinDontAsk...,Newsday,Dec.16,1999,atA65:Bigotryinthe
Military,N.Y.Times,Aug.30,1999,atA22:TheyHadtoTell:PresidentialCandidatesConsiderMilitaryPolicy
onGays,PittsburghPost-Gazette,Jan.24,2000,atA12:Rethinkdontask,donttell,ProvidenceJournal,Dec.15,
1999,atB6:DeborahMathis,Anti-homosexualPolicyAvoidsReality,SeattlePost-Intelligencer,Aug.19,1999,at
A11:GaysinmilitaryaIterdontask,donttell,SeattleTimes,Dec.14,1999,atB4:Dontask,donttell:Anotso
LCR 04301
- 7-
ArmyInvestigatesArizonaStateRepresentativeSteveMay
TheArmysattempteddischargeoIopenlygayArizonaStateRepresentativeSteveMay
burstontothesceneatthesametimeastheAmericanpubliclearnedoIthehorriIyingtragedyoI
PrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellsmurder,underscoringtheabsurdityoIDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,DontHarass,butinadiIIerentway.
ShortlyaItercallingFirstLieutenantSteveMaybacktotheactivereserves,theArmy
inIormedhimitwasinitiatingaDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassinquiry
baseduponstatementsreportedinanewspaperarticle.ThearticleIocusedoncommentsMay
madeduringacommitteehearingagainstanti-gaylegislation,whilehewasstillamemberoIthe
InactiveReadyReserve.FirstLieutenantMaywasoutedbyopponentsduringhisunsuccessIul
runIoroIIicein1996.Whenheranagain,hewashonestwithvotersaboutbeinggayandhe
won.ThegreatironyoIMayscaseisthathisconstituentsvotedhimintooIIiceIorhishonesty
andcandor,whiletheArmyseekstopunishhimIorit.
InspiteoIthepolicy,MaysIellowoIIicerssupporthisservice.Maysdirectcommander
saidthatMaysperIormancehasbeennothinglessthanoutstanding....|T|hevastmaiorityoI
personnelintheunithaveknowledgeoIthearticle:however,suchknowledgehasinnoway
aIIectedmoraleinhisPLTorotherPLTs.InIact,theHQsectionisIunction|ing|betterthanit
hasIor(sic)mypasttenureascommander(Exhibit3).AIellowoIIicerscommentsmirrored
MayscommanderandIurtherstated,IIirmlybelievethatwhetherLTMayssexualorientation
isassuspectedbytheinvestigatingparties,theIactisandshouldbeconsideredirrelevantbyall
concernedparties.IthasinnowayaIIectedhisperIormanceorthatoIanyonewithwhomhehas
hadcontactinamilitarymatter(Exhibit4).Thus,contrarytothestatedrationaleIorthis
discriminatorypolicy,thepresenceoIanopenlygaymanisenhancingmilitaryreadiness,and
theArmysattemptstodischargehimisunderminingunitcohesion.Mayscasecontinuesto
proceedintheArmysadministrativesystem.
BritainRepealsBanonGaysintheMilitary,IsolatingUnitedStates
OnSeptember27,1999,theEuropeanCourtoIHumanRightsruledthatGreatBritain
violatedthehumanrightsoIIourservicemembersdismissedIromthemilitaryIorbeinggay.In
rulingagainstBritainsanti-gaypolicy,thecourtsaid,Thosenegativeattitudescouldnot,oI
themselves,iustiIytheinterIerencesinquestionanymorethansimilarnegativeattitudestowards
thoseoIadiIIerentrace,originorcolour.
19
ThecourtsdecisionleavestheUnitedStatesand
TurkeyastheonlyNATO
20
countriesbanningservicebyopenlygaymilitarymembers.
benignsuppressionoIreality,St.PaulPioneer,Dec.12,1999,at12A:Gaysinmilitary:Apolicysabotaged,Tacoma
MorningNewsTribune,Dec.19,1999,atB16:DontAsk,Wash.Post,Dec.15,1999,atA46.
19
JudgementsintheCasesoILustig-PreananaBeckettv.TheUniteaKingaomandSmith anaGraavv.TheUnitea
Kingaom,EuropeanCourtoIHumanRights,(1999)http://www.echr.com~~
20
NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization.
LCR 04302
- 8-
TheGoodNews
Somegoodtrendsdocumentedinprioryearscontinue.Physicalabusebyinvestigators
hasdeclined.
21
Massinvestigations,thoughnotobsolete,havewaned.CriminalprosecutionsoI
lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembershavedecreased,ascommandersadministratively
dischargegays.Aproblemremains,though,inthatmanyinquiryoIIicerscontinuetothreaten
criminalprosecution.Finally,notalloIIicersandenlistedleadersengageinverbalgay-bashing
orsnoopontheirservicemembers.Thecurrentclimate,however,supportsthosewhodo.The
positivestepsIorwardreIlectthelowbaselineusedtomeasuresuccess.
Conclusion:MilitaryReadinessSuffersfromAnti-GayBias
SLDNs ConauctUnbecoming: TheSixthAnnualReportonDontAsk.DontTell.
DontPursue.DontHarassexaminesthemilitarysIailuretoimplementthecorepartsoI
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassandhowithasimpactedmilitaryreadiness
inthepastyear.
22
Thereportconcludesthatasmilitaryleaderscontinuetostrugglewithcritical
retentionandrecruitingshortIalls,
23
theycanillaIIordtocontinueviolatingtheletterandintent
oIthepolicy.Lesbian,gayandbisexualAmericanscontributionstoourarmedIorcesare
valuable.ThemilitarysindiIIerencetothewell-beingoIandhostilitytowardlesbian,gayand
bisexualservicemembersmustcease.TheIailureoImilitaryleaderstoIairlyimplementthe
policysprovisionsonprivacy,investigativelimits,accountabilityandrecoursetakesitstollon
readinessbyundercuttingrespectIorruleandorder.Forcinglesbian,gayandbisexualservice
memberstohide,lie,evadeanddeceivetheirIamilies,Iriendsandcolleaguesbreaksthebonds
oItrustamongservicemembersessentialtounitcohesion.
24
Commandclimatespoisonedby
anti-gayabuseshurtreadiness.AsSpecialistEdgarRosatestiIiedatFortCampbell,themurder
oIPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellhasdestroyedanyillusionthathewaspartoIabandoI
brothers.
25
21
SeeRandyShilts,ConauctUnbecoming, 231-232(citingIormerArmyLieutenantJayHathewaystestimonythat
hewasIorcedtoundergoneurologicaltestingthatincludedapsychiatristspuncturinghisscalpwithpinstoattach
sensors):570(citingSteveWardstestimonythathewasplacedintoabroomclosetwithoutpersonalbreaksuntilhe
conIessedtobeinggay),(St.MartinsPress,1993).
22
SLDNhasassistedmorethan2,100servicemembersinthepastsixyearswhohavebeenharmedbythepolicy.
23
AndreaStone,Armvopensmoretoschoolaropouts,USAToday,Feb.4,2000,at13A.
24
10U.S.C654(a)(7),OneoIthemostcriticalelementsincombatcapabilityisunitcohesion,thatis,thebonds
oItrustamongindividualservicemembersthatmakethecombateIIectivenessoIamilitaryunit....
25
SpecialistEdgarRosa,DeltaCo.,2nd/502nd,SpecialistJustinFisherArt.32Hearing,Sept.1,1999.
LCR 04303
- 9-
WHAT IS DONT ASK,DONT TELL,DONT PURSUE,DONT HARASS?
The American public remembers the 1993 revisions to military
anti-gay policy wrong. [P]eople think that the new policy is more
lenient toward gay men and lesbians in uniform, less anti-gay
and less homophobic than the policy in place when President
Clinton took office . . . . Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
26
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasscontainsexactlythesame
prohibitionsonservicebylesbians,gaysandbisexualsthathavebeeninplaceIorIiItyyears.
27
ThePentagondischargesgays,lesbiansandbisexualsIorstatements,actsandmarriage.Inother
words,thePentagonIiresservicememberswhoacknowledgetheyarelesbian,gayorbisexual,
engageinsexualoraIIectionateconduct(suchashandholding)withsomeoneoIthesame
gender,orhavearelationshipwithsomeoneoIthesamegender.
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassistheonlylawinthelandthat
authorizestheIiringoIanAmericanIorbeinggay.ThereisnootherIederal,stateorlocallaw
likeit.Indeed,DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassistheonlylawthatmakes
itillegaltocomeout.ManyAmericansviewDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harassasabenigngentlemensagreementwithdiscretionasthekeytoiobsecurity.Thatis
simplynotthecase.AnhoneststatementoIonessexualorientationtoanyone,anywhere,
anytimemayleadtobeingIired.
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassis,however,signiIicantlydiIIerent
Irompriorlawsinthreerespects.First,Congressionalandmilitaryleadersacknowledged,Ior
theIirsttimein1993,thatlesbians,gaymenandbisexualsserveournationanddoso
honorably.
28
Second,thepolicyalsostatessexualorientationisnolongerabartomilitary
service.
29
Third,PresidentClinton,Congressandmilitaryleadersagreedtoendintrusive
questionsaboutservicememberssexualorientationandtostopthemilitarysinIamous
investigationstoIerretoutsuspectedlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers.
30
Theyagreed
26
JanetE.Halley,DONT.AReaaersGuiaetotheMilitarvsAnti-GavPolicv,1(DukeUniversityPress,1999).
27
C.DixonOsburn,APolicvinDesperateSearchofaRationale.TheMilitarvsPolicvonLesbians.Gavsana
Bisexuals,64UMKCL.Rev.199(1995).
28
Services,S.Hrg.103-845,103rdCong.,2ndSess.(1993)at707.|H|omosexualshaveprivatelyservedwellinthe
pastandarecontinuingtoservewelltoday.(statementoIGeneralColinPowell).
29
DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO. 1332.14,encl.3H.1.a(1994),EnlisteaAaministrativeSeparation: Ia.NO.
1332.30,encl.2.C(1994)SeparationofRegularCommissioneaOfficers:Sexualorientationisconsidereda
personalandprivatematter,andhomosexualorientationisnotabartocontinuedserviceunlessmaniIestedby
homosexualconduct.
30
103rdCong.,2dSess.(1993)at709(statementoIGeneralColinPowell).Wewillnotwitchhunt.Wewillnot
chase.Wewillnotseektolearnorientation.TheseincludetheinvestigationoIwomenonboardtheUSSNorton
Sounain1980,whichresultedinthedischargeoIeightwomensailors:investigationsonthehospitalshipSanctuarv
andontheUSSDixon:theArmysousteroIeightmilitarypoliceoIIicersatWestPointin1986:the1988
investigationoIthirtywomen,includingeveryAIricanAmericanwoman,onboardthedestroyer-tenderUSS
LCR 04304
- 10-
totakestepstopreventanti-gayharassment.
31
Theyagreedtotreatlesbian,gayandbisexual
servicememberseven-handedlyinthecriminaliusticesystem,insteadoIcriminallyprosecuting
themincircumstanceswheretheywouldnotprosecuteheterosexualservicemembers.
32
They
agreedtoimplementthelawwithdueregardIortheprivacyandassociationsoIservice
members.
33
Thelawbecameknownin1993asDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuetosigniIy
thenewlimitstoinvestigationsandtheintenttorespectservicemembersprivacy.InFebruary
2000,inthewakeoIthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellatFortCampbell,
Kentucky,PentagonoIIicialsaddedDontHarasstothetitleoIthepolicy.
Yellowstone,whichresultedinthedischargeoIeightwomen:the1988investigationoIIiveoIthethirteenIemale
crewmembersonboardtheUSSGrapple:andthe1986-1988investigationattheMarineCorpsRecruitTraining
DepotatParrisIsland,SouthCarolina,where246womenwerequestioned,atleast27womenweredischarged,and
threewereiailed.
31
ApplicantBriefingItemonSeparationPolicv.AddendumtoDEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO.1304.26
(1993), QualificationStanaarasforEnlistment.Appointment.anaInauction:TheArmedForcesdonottolerate
harassmentorviolenceagainstanyservicemember,Ioranyreason.
32
SecretaryoIDeIenseLesAspen,MemoranaumforSecretariesoftheMilitarvDepartments.Subiect.
ImplementationoftheDoDPolicvonHomosexualConauctintheArmeaForces,Dec.21,1983:|Thenewpolicy|
providesthatinvestigationsintosexualmisconductwillbeconductedinanevenhandedmanner,withoutregardto
whethertheallegedmisconductinvolveshomosexualorheterosexualconduct.
33
PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNewPolicv,Wash.Post,July20,1993,atA12:
associationalrightsoIallservicemembers.ThenSenator,nowSecretaryoIDeIense,WilliamCohenunderstood
thatthesmallamountoIprivacyunderthecurrentpolicywasintendedtopreventthemilitaryIrompryinginto
peoplesprivatelives.PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.
OnArmeaServices.103rdCong.,2ndSess.at788.
LCR 04305
- 11-
DONT ASK
DontAskProhibitsQuestioningServiceMembersAboutSexualOrientation
Despiteaclearprohibitiononasking,SLDNcontinuestodocumentincreased
questioningoIservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientation.
DontAskstatescommandersorappointedinquiryoIIicialsshallnotask,and
membersshallnotberequiredtorevealtheirsexualorientation.
34
In1997,SecretaryoI
DeIenseWilliamCohenreaIIirmedtherule,statingonLarryKingLivethataskingisaclear
violationoIlaw.
35
ThePentagonreaIIirmedaskingiswronginitsApril1998reportonthe
eIIectivenessoItheimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
36
DontAskviolationsareupIorthesixthconsecutiveyear.SLDNdocumented194
DontAskviolationsIromFebruary15,1999,toFebruary15,2000,up20Irom161such
violationsintheprecedingyear.TheAirForceledallServiceswith68DontAskviolations:
theNavyIollowedcloselywith65violations:theArmytallied44violations:andtheMarine
Corpsclosedoutwith17violations.
Supervisors,coworkersandinvestigatorscontinuetoquestionservicemembersabout
theirsexualorientation.ServicememberssilenceintheIaceoIquestioning,inaneIIortto
complywithDontTell,onlyIuelsspeculationabouttheirsexualorientationandinvitesanti-
gayharassmentinthecurrentmilitaryenvironment.
ThissectiondiscussescommonproblemswithDontAskimplementation:(1)
questionsaskedbysupervisorsandcoworkersasameansoIanti-gayharassmentorintimidation:
(2)inadvertentquestions:and(3)questionsbysecurityclearanceinvestigators.PastSLDN
reportshavedocumentedeachoItheseproblems,andtheycontinuetoposegreatconcern.
AskingasAnti-GayHarassment
ThemostdisturbingtrenddocumentedbySLDNisthecontinuedlinkbetweenasking
andanti-gayharassment.Hostilecommanders,supervisors,colleaguesandinvestigatorspepper
servicememberswithconstantquestionsabouttheirsexualorientation.Thequestioningis
experiencednotonlyasasking,butasharassmentandintimidation.Howshouldaservice
memberrespondwhenaskeddayaIterday,sometimeshourly,Areyoualesbian?Yourea
Iag,arentyou?!Isittrueyoureahomo?!
34
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.D.3(1994),Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.8.D.3(1994):See
also, PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmea
Services,S.Hrg.108-845,103rdCong.,2dSess.(1993),at789.|W|edonotaskaboutorientationnotonlyat
accessionbutatanytime.(statementbyIormerDoDGeneralCounselJamieGorelick).
35
LarrvKingLive,CNNtelevisionbroadcast,Transcript#97012700V22,Jan.27,1997.
36
OFFICEOFTHEUNDER SECRETARYOFDEFENSE (PERSONNELANDREADINESS), ReporttotheSecretarvof
Defense.ReviewoftheEffectivenessoftheApplicationanaEnforcementoftheDepartmentsPolicvon
HomosexualConauctintheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at2.
LCR 04306
- 12-
InsixyearsunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,thePentagon
hasheldnoonepubliclyaccountableIoraskingorharassingaservicememberinviolationoIthe
policy.Instead,militaryleadershaveallowedpersonneltoaskandharasswithimpunity.Atthe
sametime,militaryleadershavetoldmentalhealthcareproviders,InspectorsGeneralandothers
toturningay,lesbianandbisexualservicememberswhoareIoundtobegaywhilereporting
anti-gayharassment,eIIectivelyclosingdownanysaIespaceIorservicemembers,contraryto
theintentoIthepolicy.
OIten,targetedservicemembershavenorecoursetoprotectthemselvesbuttodisclose
theirsexualorientationinresponsetotheaskingandanti-gayharassment,resultingintheir
discharge.ThistrendwilllikelycontinueintheabsenceoImilitaryleadershiptoensure
accountabilityandproviderecourseIorservicememberswhoarequestionedorharassed.
FortCampbell.AskingasaPreluaetoMuraer
SoldierstestiIiedPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellIacedquestionsabouthissexual
orientationandanti-gayharassmentdailyIormorethanIourmonthspriortohismurderinJuly
1999(Exhibits5&6).WhileWinchelldeniedhewasgayinaneIIorttodeIlectthequestions,
rumorsandharassment,theycontinuedunchecked.Accordingtosworntestimony:
StaII Sergeants KleiIgen and Dubielak, Private Winchells
supervisors, testiIied they asked Winchell directly iI he was
gaywhenrumorsabouthimsurIaced:
Private JohansontestiIiedheaskedWinchelliIhewasgay
during|aIieldtrainingexercise|:
Specialist NovaktestiIiedthatheoverheardsomeoneask
WinchelliIhewasgoingintoagayclub.
TheseIrankadmissionswereapparentlyonlyadropinthebucketoIwhatWinchell
experiencedonadailybasis.Anotherunitmember,SpecialistPhilipRuiz,andhiswiIe,
Melanie,testiIiedthatWinchellconIidedinthemhewasgayandwasdeeplyconcernedthatthe
rumorswouldderailhiscareer. Winchelldidhisbesttoignorethedailyaskingandharassment
untilonenight,goadedbyanti-gaytaunting,PrivateCalvinGlovertookabaseballbatandkilled
Winchellwhileheslept.
USSAbrahamLincolnSailorDirectlvQuestionea
SeamanLuisSierrascaseIurtherillustratesthedangeroIleadersIailingtoenIorce
DontAsk.OnboardtheaircraItcarrierUSSAbrahamLincoln,SeamanSierrareportedly
Iaceddirectquestionsaboutwhetherheisgay.Theharassmentreportedlybeganwhenone
sailorrepeatedlyaskedhimabouthissexualorientation.FearIuloIbeingouted,Sierrasaidhe
wasnotgay.SeamanSierrareportsthataIterrepeateddenials,IIinallytold|theshipmate
asking|thatIamgayinthehopesthathewoulddiscontinuehisconstantharassmentandprying
intomysexualorientation(Exhibit7).Thishonestresponse,however,onlyresultedin
LCR 04307
- 13-
increasedharassment.ThesailorreportedlybegancallingSeamanSierraIaggotandmaking
otheranti-gayremarks.
Thequestions,Iueledbyrampantrumorsconcerninghissexualorientation,continued.
Sierrareportsthatapproximatelytwelveshipmatesrepeatedlyaskedhimquestionsabouthis
sexualorientation.
SeamanSierraIearedIorhissaIetybecauseoItheconstanthoundingheIacedabouthis
perceivedsexualorientationandtheanti-gayharassmentitspawned.Sierrareportsthat,oneday
duringmuster,herequestedpermissiontospeakwithhisSeniorChieIPettyOIIicerabouta
personalmatter.ThePettyOIIicerreIusedSeamanSierrasrequest.
HethenturnedtoaNavyChaplain.SeamanSierrareports:
I tried seeking counsel Irom the base chaplain. I told him I was
being harassed because I am gay and he told me to talk to the
Chaplain on board the ship. The ships Chaplain condemned my
liIestyle and told me I was on a one way path to contracting
HIV.Iwasthenadvisedtoignoretheharassmentanddealwith
it or get out. He then told me to go to the ships legal
37
and tell
themeverything(Exhibit7).
SeamanSierrareportsheheardaboutthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellthat
weekendand,IearingIorhissaIetyandnotknowingwheretoturn,hewentonunauthorized
absence.Whenhereturned,Sierracameouttohiscommand,reportingtheanti-gayharassment
heIaced.Thecommandtriedtoretainhim,buthewaseventuallydischargedathisrepeated
request.Thereisnoindication,however,thattheNavyhasheldaccountableanyoneIorthe
askingandharassmentheIaced,orIortheIailedleadershipthatpermittedittooccur.
NavvPettvOfficerAskeabvMoreThanTenPeople
NavyPettyOIIicerThirdClassPatriciaEstyservedatFortMeade,Maryland,where
othersrepeatedlyaskedherabouthersexualorientationandprivateliIe.InaMay1999letter,
PettyOIIicerEstyrecountedherexperiencetohercommander:
|O|thersailorsbegandirectlyaskingmequestionsaboutmysexual
orientationandmakingdirectstatementstomethattheythoughtI
amgay...Ihavebeendirectlyaskedaboutmysexualorientation
by more than 10 people on base. Some have outright asked me
Are you gay? and Do you like girls? Others have made
statements like, I know about you. When asked what they
meant,thesailorsaidIheardyouregay.Othershavesaidthat
37
ShipslegalreIerstothecommandslegaladvisor,notamilitarydeIenseattorney.Aservicememberhasno
rightoIconIidentialitywiththelegaladvisor.TheChaplaingavebadlegaladvicethatcouldhaveresultedin
seriouslegalharmtothesailor.Theadvicewasalsoaninappropriateresponsetoanti-gayharassment.
UnIortunately,itisnotuncommonIorChaplainstoprovidebadlegaladvice.SeeDontTellsection.
LCR 04308
- 14-
there are rumors that I am gay and wanted to know iI it is true
(Exhibit8).
ThesequestionscausedPettyOIIicerEstygreatanguishbecauseDontTellprevented
herIromansweringthequestionstruthIullyanddeIendingherselIagainsttheanti-gay
harassment.DontTellrequiredhertoremainsilent,whichonlyeggedonhertormentorsand
madehervulnerabletobeingouted.Ultimately,shedecidedshehadnochoicebuttoconIront
therumorsdirectly.SheIurtherwrotetohercommandingoIIicer:
I have been questioned about my sexual orientation repeatedly in
the last 7 months . . . I have been living under the very real Iear
that someone would turn me in because oI the rumors about my
sexualorientation...Iwillnolongerallowotherstoholdmyiob,
my Iuture, and my liIe hostage. I am inIorming you that I am a
lesbian(Exhibit8).
PettyOIIicerEstyscommandwasreluctanttodischargeherandloseagoodsailor.The
commandwas,however,alsoreluctanttoinvestigatehercomplaintsaboutaskingand
harassment.Havingcomeout,PettyOIIicerEstywasinaparticularlyvulnerableposition,
concernedaboutherphysicalsaIetyandcareer.AIterSLDNsintervention,Estyscommand
Iinallyinitiatedaninvestigationintotheanti-gayharassmentanddischargedherIorhersaIety.
MonterevLeaaersAskFemaleAirman
AirmanFirstClassDeannaGrossiwasstudyingSerbianattheDeIenseLanguage
Institute(DLI)atMonterey,CaliIornia.OnoneweekendoII,AirmanGrossitraveledtoSan
FranciscotovisitIriends.Followingtheweekendbreak,acivilianclassinstructor,Mr.
Abdolvic,reportedlyaskedAirmanGrossiwhethershehadspenttheweekendwithher
girlIriend.
AnAirForceNoncommissionedOIIicer,MasterSergeantHamlett,alsoreportedly
questionedAirmanGrossidirectlyastowhetherherIriendshipswithotherIemaleairmenwere
morethansimpleIriendships.(Exhibit9). DLIleaderscreatedanenvironmentinwhichiunior
enlistedpersonnelcouldquestionAirmanGrossiabouthersexualorientationIreeIromreprisal.
Airman GrossiisoneoIanumberoIservicememberswhohavebeenasked,pursuedand
harassedwhilestudyingatDLI.ThesecasesarediscussedIurtherinthisreportsDont
Pursuesection.
NavvLeaaersAskAboutSexualOrientation
ANavynoncommissionedoIIicerandinstructorrepeatedlyaskedandharassedaPetty
OIIicerwhowashisstudent.ThenoncommissionedoIIicertauntedhimwithcommentssuchas:
Youhaveadatewith|anothermalesailor|tonight,dontyou|PettyOIIicer|?andHey|Petty
OIIicer|,howsyourgirlIriend|anothermalesailor|doing?
LCR 04309
- 15-
Oneday,aIterweeksoIsuchabuse,thestudentreportsthenoncommissionedoIIicer
askedtheothermalesailor,Whatareyoulaughingat...?WeallknowyoureaIaggot.
ThePettyOIIicerspokeupandcorrectlypointedouttothenoncommissionedoIIicerthatsucha
commentwasimproper.Inresponse,thenoncommissionedoIIicerreportedlyrepliedina
mockingtone:Whatswrong?Ididntaskhimandhedidnttellme!Isntthatthepolicy?
(Exhibit10).
TheharassmentcontinuedonadailybasisIoraIewmoreweeks.Finally,thePetty
OIIicercouldnttakeitanymore.ThePettyOIIicerdisclosedhissexualorientationtohis
commandasalastresorttoprotecthimselIagainstIurtherharassment.Silenceordenialinthe
IaceoIsuchquestionswouldonlyencouragehisharasser.Corroborationthatheisgaywould
makehimaconIirmedtargetoIanti-gayharassment,IurtherieopardizinghissaIety.The
commandinvestigatedthePettyOIIicerscomplaint,butitisunclearwhat,iIany,actionswere
takenagainstthenoncommissionedoIIicer.
Despitestatingheisbisexual,thecommandsentthePettyOIIicertohisnextduty
assignmentwithoutdischarginghim.ThePettyOIIicerandmanyoIhisclassmatesweresentto
thesameship.FearingthatwordoIhisabuseathisIormerbasewouldspreadonboard,causing
rumorsabouthisperceivedsexualorientationandanti-gayharassment,thePettyOIIicer
disclosedhisIearsandhissexualorientationtohisnewcommand.ThePettyOIIicerwas
honorablydischarged.
ArmvCriminalInvestigativeCommanaAsksAboutSexualOrientation
ArmyCriminalInvestigationDivision(CID)agentsviolatedDontAskbyquestioning
ArmySergeantMatthewPeckintheparkinglotoIagay-ownedestablishmentnearFortBragg,
NorthCarolina.UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,goingtoaknown
gayestablishmentispermitted.Despitethis,SergeantPeckreportshewaspulledoverbythe
CIDagentsashewasdrivingthroughtheparkinglot.Theagentsquestioned|me|aboutwhyI
wasthere,hadIbeentherebeIore,anddidIknowwhattypeoIplaceitwas.Beingquestioned
by CIDthatnightchilledmetothebone(Exhibit11).
SergeantPeckconcludedheandhiscareerwerenotsaIeintheArmysolongas
wrongdoers,suchastheerrantCIDagents,couldignorethepolicysinvestigativelimitsandout
himattheirdiscretion.SergeantPeckcameouttohiscommandtoendtheasking,pursuitand
harassmentthatshouldnothavebeentakingplace.Inthelettertohiscommand,Peckwrites:
IhavebeendirectlyaskedbysoldiersundermycommandiIIam
gay. I have been Iorced to deny my sexual orientation. I cannot
expectthesoldiersthatIleadtoliveuptotheArmycorevaluesoI
honestyandintegritywhenIlietothemonadailybasis(Exhibit
11).
LCR 04310
- 16-
InadvertentQuestioning
DontAskviolationscontinuetoresultIrominadvertentquestionsIromcommanders
andothersthat,ontheirIace,arenotdesignedtoaskaboutsexualorientation,but,inIact,do.
TheproblemisthatsomecommandsareactingontheinIormationinadvertentlydiscoveredand
dischargingservicemembers,ratherthantreatingtheinIormationaspersonalandprivateand
takingnoaction.
ArmvCaptainAskeaWhvHeWoulaNotAcceptCommanaPosition
ThecaseoIanArmyCaptainservesasaclassicexampleoIaninadvertentDontAsk
violation.
TheCaptain,whoremainsonactiveduty,recentlydeclinedtoaccepttheplum
assignmentoIcompanycommander.TheCaptaininIormedhiscommand,totheirgreat
consternation,thathedidnotintendtoremainintheArmypasthisIiveyearcommitment.
TheCaptainscommandlobbiedhardtoretainhim.TheCaptainisaWestPoint
graduate.OnhismostrecentoIIicerevaluationreport,hisraterwrote,IIIgotowar,Iwant
|thisCaptain|withme.
TheCaptainsBrigadeCommander,aColonel,calledtheCaptaintohisoIIiceto
persuadetheoIIicertoacceptthecommandopportunity.TheColonelpressedtheCaptainto
reconsider,tellinghimthattheArmyneedsqualiIiedleaderslikehim.TheColonelasked
repeatedlywhytheCaptainwasresigning.InresponsetotheColonelsgood-Iaithquestion,the
CaptainreportsthathetruthIullyalludedtotheColonelthatheisgay.
InasubsequentlettertotheColonel,theCaptainwrites:
IamhonoredbyyourconIidenceinmeandIamequallyhonored
to serve in your command. My military experience has proven
invaluable and I love the Army, as well as our country. Im
saddened that I cannot serve beyond my Iive year commitment.
Were it not Ior the Armys anti-gay policy, I believe that I would
remain in the military well beyond my Iive year commitment
(Exhibit12).
TheCaptainsservicecommitmentendsinJune,2000.Ratherthanlettinghimserve
threemoremonthstoIulIillhisservicecommitment,however,theArmyisdischargingthe
CaptainbasedonhistruthIulresponsetotheColonelsinadvertentquestions.
NavvPettvOfficerFirstClassAskeaWhvHeIsNotRe-Enlisting
PettyOIIicerFirstClassLarryGloverinIormedhiscommandinSanDiego,CaliIornia,
thathedecidednottore-enlistaItermorethan14outstandingyearsoIservice.Itishighly
unusualIoraservicememberwithsomanyyearsinvestedinservingourcountrynottoIinisha
LCR 04311
- 17-
twenty-yearcareer.Withhisdeparture,GlovergaveuptheretirementandpensionbeneIitshe
hasworkedsohardtoearn.PettyOIIicerGloverssuperiorsnaturallyaskedhimwhyhewasnot
goingtoIinishtheIiveyearsneededtocompletehisNavycareer.Hisdecisiontoleavethe
ServicepuzzledhischainoIcommand,andtheypressuredhimtoexplainwhy.
Inresponsetotheirrepeatedattemptstopersuadehimtore-enlist,PettyOIIicerGlover
wrotetohiscommandingoIIicer:
I have been continually pressured to explain why I am choosing
nottore-enlist.Ihave,repeatedly,declinedtodiscussmyreasons
Ior not re-enlisting, but the pressure Ior me to explain myselI
continuesunabated....I...amnotre-enlistingbecauseoIthe
Navys unIair and discriminatory Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont
Pursuepolicy(Exhibit13).
PettyOIIicerGloversletterdescribestheanguishthispolicycausesservicemembers
everyday:
Each day I Iace an inner struggle oI keeping my private liIe and
military career separate. I am not allowed to speak oI my
Iriendships and relationships, discuss my weekend activities, or
placepicturesoIimportantpersonsinmyliIeonmyoIIicedeskall
because oI the great risk posed by the Navys anti-gay policy. I
have had to live my liIe in Iear Ior these past 14 plus years,
constantly looking over my shoulder and wondering whether Id
become the target oI an anti-gay investigation or whether my
career would be harmed or whether Id suIIer some disciplinary
actionbecauseoImysexualorientation.ThisisnowayIormeto
livemyliIe(Exhibit13).
PettyOIIicerGloverisbeingdischargedbasedonhisresponsetotheNavysinadvertent
questioning.
SecurityClearanceQuestionsContinuetoThreatenGays
AlthoughSLDNscasesindicatethatsecurityclearanceinvestigatorsaregenerally
adheringtoPresidentClintons1995ExecutiveOrder
38
endingdiscriminationintheissuanceoI
securityclearances,investigatorsareusingmiscellaneouspsychologicalproIilesand
questionnairesthatimpermissiblyaskservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientationandprivate
lives.
UndertheExecutiveOrderandresultingpolicychanges,investigatorsmaynotask
questionsaboutsexualorientationorconductunlessrelevanttoresolvinglegitimatenational
securityissues.Sexualorientationandconductarenotapersesecurityissue.
38
ExecutiveOrderNo.12,968,60C.F.R.151,at40250(1995).
LCR 04312
- 18-
Inonecasethisyear,ArmyinvestigatorsaskedanArmyreservistquestionsabouthis
sexualorientationandconductinapsychologicalproIileandquestionnairetobecompletedin
advanceoItakingapolygraphexamination.TheArmyreservistwasconsideringanopportunity
thatrequiredhimtohaveahigherleveloIsecurityaccess.
TheMinnesotaMultiphasicPersonalityInventory(MMPI),usedbytheArmy,asks
whether:|Aservicememberis|verystronglyattractedbymembersoI|his/her|ownsex.
39
(Exhibit14).ThisisaIlagrantDontAskviolation.
Theaccompanyingquestionnaire,whichisamilitarysurvey,alsoaskedquestionsabout
sexualconductinviolationoIthe1995ExecutiveOrderandDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarass:
Have you ever engaged in any criminal activity that has gone
undetected?
Engaged in sexual behavior that might be considered to be
abnormal,deviant,orperverted?(Exhibit15).
ThesoldiertoldSLDNthatheIearedhisresponsestothequestionsmightcreateariskoI
criminalprosecutionoradministrativeseparation.ThesoldierIearedcriminalprosecution
becausetheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice(UCMJ) criminalizescertainsexualactsIorboth
straightandgaypersons,suchasoralsex.Althoughthecriminalprovisionsaresupposedtobe
appliedinanevenhandedmannerwithrespecttoheterosexualsandgays,theyarenot.Without
knowingthelaworhowtheIactsoIhissituationmightapply,hedidnotknowhowtoanswer
thequestion.
Thesoldieralsoreportedthathedidnotknowhowtorespondtothequestionabout
sexualconductthatothersmightconsiderperverted.Subiectivequestionsbasedonwhat
othersmightconsiderabnormal,giventhatsomeAmericansholdanti-gayviews,
40
leavethe
soldierguessingastotheintentoIthequestion.QuestionssuchastheseIunctionaspossible
surrogatequestionstoidentiIygayswithoutdirectlyaskingcandidatesabouttheirsexual
orientation.WhetherintendedIorthatpurposeornot,theireIIectistoplacegaysinapositionoI
havingtoriskoutingthemselvesshouldtheyanswer.
AIterconsideringthecontextoIthesecurityclearancequestions,thesoldierdecidednot
topursuetheopportunity.TheArmy,withoutknowingit,depriveditselIoIthecapabilitiesoI
thishighlyrespectedsoldier.
AdditionalExamplesofDontAskViolations
TheIollowingareiustaIewoIthemanyDontAskviolationsreportedtoSLDNinthe
pastyear:
39
WhiletheArmydoesnotdraItthequestionsintheMMPI,itsuseoIthisinstrumentviolatingDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,DontHarassisunacceptable.
40
PublicopinionpollsregularlyindicatestrongsupportIorgaysinthemilitary.
LCR 04313
- 19-
The Air Force convicted an Airman at General Court-Martial
and sentenced him to seven months in prison Ior Ileeing his
base out oI Iear Ior his saIety aIter other airmen asked him
repeatedly iI he is gay. The Airman believed Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass prevented him Irom
reporting anti-gay harassment, so he ruled out that option and
he Ieared criminal prosecution iI he told his command he is
gay, so he remained silent. SLDNs experience in the Army,
Navy and Marine Corps is that commands administratively
dischargeAWOLservicemembersinsimilarcircumstancesor,
at worst, prosecute them at Special Court-Martial, where a
convictionistheroughequivalentoIamisdemeanor.
AnoncommissionedoIIiceraskedaIemaleAirmanFirstClass
at WhitemanAirForceBase,Missouri,Ihearyouredatinga
girl?...IsthereanythingIneedtoknow?
Army Specialist Stacy Lane, stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas,
reports he was asked, Are you and |another male soldier|
together?
Air Force Senior Airman Jose de Leon, stationed at Andrews
AFB, Maryland, reports he was asked whether he is gay by
severalairmen.
A Marine Lance Corporal at Cherry Point, North Carolina,
reports she was asked whether she was marrying a man or a
woman.
ANavyPettyOIIiceronboardtheUSSCarlJinsonreportsshe
wasaskediIsheisgaymoretimesthanshecanremember.
AnArmyPrivateatFortSamHouston,TexasreportshisDrill
Sergeantaskedhim,Areyouahomosexual?
A Fort Campbell, Kentucky StaII Sergeant reportedly
questionedasoldierssexualorientationbyaskingwhetherthe
soldierwasthatway.
DontAskConclusion
ServiceMembersAskeaAboutWhetherThevAreGavHaveNowheretoTurnforHelp
TheDontAskrulesarenotbeingenIorced.Asthecasesdiscussedinthissection
illustrate,superiors,subordinatesandpeersaskservicemembersabouttheirsexualorientation
withimpunityandhoundservicemembersoutoIthemilitary.
LCR 04314
- 20-
PrivateFirstClassWinchell,priortohisbeingmurdered,suIIeredinsilenceashis
leadersandpeersaskedandharassedhimabouthisperceivedsexualorientation.SeamanSierra
alsohadnowheretoturntostoptheanti-gayaskingorharassment.HeIearedhiscommandand
ChaplainswereindiIIerentorhostiletohisconcerns.
MilitaryleadersespeciallyshouldbeheldaccountableIorasking.Asuperiorwhoasksa
servicememberabouthisorhersexualorientationsendsthesignalthatanyonemayask,and
eIIectivelyputsabulls-eyeonthebackoIthetargetedservicemember.Forthelesbian,gay,or
bisexualservicememberwhoisasked,theirphysicalsaIetyandcareerhangsinthebalance.
SilenceanddissemblinginaneIIorttocomplywithDontTellonlyinvitesmoreabuse.
IntheabsenceoIstrictenIorcementoIDontAsk,thePentagoneIIectivelyhasadopted
aruleoIonehundredpercenttoleranceIoraskingandonehundredpercentintoleranceIor
telling,evenwhenservicememberstellinthecourseoIreportinganti-gayharassment,
askingandotherviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
TheIailureoImilitaryleaderstoenIorceDontAskhurtsmilitaryreadinessby
destroyingtrust.LeadersarechargedtotakecareoItheirservicemembers.Lesbian,gayand
bisexualservicemembersareatthetotalmercyoItheirleaderstopreventanti-gayharassment
andasking,sincetheyarenotpermittedunderDontTelltodeIendthemselves.Whenleaders
houndsoldiersabouttheirsexualorientation,demonstratingtheirwillingnesstobreaktherules
inordertoabusesomeoneintheircharge,itsendsamessagetoheterosexualaswellasgay
servicemembersthattheycannottrusttheirleaderstolookoutIortheirwelIare.
ThepolicyitselIensurestheperpetuationoIIalsestereotypesaboutagroupoIpeople
whoserveourcountrybydenyingheterosexualstheopportunitytoknowthatthey,inIact,know
gaypeople.DontAskalsoinstillsanartiIicialbarriertoIriendship,andpreventsservice
membersIromIormingthebondsnecessarytohaveatrulycohesiveunit.Thepolicymistakes
homogeneityIorcohesion,apremisereiectedbyeventhemilitarysownexpertsonunit
cohesion.Finally,unitcohesionandmilitaryreadinessarehurtnotonlybecausegayservice
membersmustlie,hide,evadeanddeceive,butbecausethepolicygiveseveryincentivetothose
whowanttosnoop,snitch,askandharass.Thesearenotincentivesourgovernmentshould
support.
LCR 04315
- 21-
DONTTELL
DontTellProhibitsGaysfromPubliclyStatingTheirSexualOrientation
totheMilitaryWhileAllowingforPersonalandPrivateExpressions
DontTell,whileprohibitingpublicstatementsoIsexualorientationtothemilitary,
allowsIorpersonalandprivatecommunicationsbetweengayservicemembersandtheir
Iamilies,Iriendsandothers.ItprotectsservicemembersIreedomoIassociationwithIriends
andextracurricularorganizations.
41
ThepolicyIurtherallowsIordisclosureoIsexualorientation
bygayservicememberstodeIenseattorneys,
42
chaplains,
43
securityclearancepersonnel
44
and,
inlimitedcircumstances,doctorswhoaretreatingpatientsIorHIV.
45
Thepolicywasintended
tocreatesomeprivate,saIespaceIorlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembers.
Despitethepolicysintenttorespectservicemembersprivacy,SLDNdocumented52
DontTellviolationsinthepastyear,a126increaseoverthepreviousyears23violations.
Forthesixthconsecutiveyear,theAirForceledtheotherserviceswith16violationsinthepast
year.Theseviolationsareincidentsinwhichcommandsinvestigatedordischargedservice
membersbasedonprivateconversationsthatwereintendedtobeoII-limitsunderDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.ForpurposesoIthisreport,SLDNcountscommand
violationsoIDontTell,ratherthaninstanceswhereservicemembersIacepossibledischarge
IorstatementsoIsexualorientation.
46
ThissectiondiscussescommonproblemswithDontTellimplementation:(1)health
careproviderscontinuetoreceiveinstructionstotelltoturningays:(2)militaryleaders
andinvestigatorscontinueintrudingintotheprivatelivesoIgays,askingIamilymembersand
Iriendstotell:(3)chaplainsprovideinappropriatelegaladvicetogayservicemembersseeking
theirguidance:(4)InspectorsGeneralreporttheywillturninservicememberswhoareIoundto
begaywheninvestigatinganti-gayharassment:and(5)spousesandex-spousestellinaneIIort
toharmgayservicemembers.PastSLDNreportshavedocumentedtheseproblemareas,and
theycontinuetocauseconcern.
41
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.E.4.:Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.8.E.4.|Credible
inIormationdoesnotexistwhen|theonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar,
possessingorreadinghomosexualpublications,associatingwithknownhomosexuals....
42
MILITARYR.EVID.502.
43
MILITARYR.EVID.503.
44
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.5200.2encl.3.7(1999),DoDPersonnelSecuritvProgram. Seealso,
DEFENSEINVESTIGATIVESERVICEMANUAL,DIS-20-1-M,encl.18.C(1993).
45
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.6485.1,encl.3.2.1.9(1991),HumanImmunoaeficiencvJirus-1(HIJ-1).
InIormationobtainedIromaServicememberduring,orasaresultoI,anepidemiologicalassessmentinterview
maynotbeusedagainsttheServicemember(inadversecriminaloradministrativeactions).
46
ServicemembersaresometimescompelledtodisclosetheirsexualorientationtothemilitaryIoroneoItwo
primaryreasons:(1)protectionIromanti-gayharassment:and(2)wantingtolivetheirliveshonestly.
LCR 04316
- 22-
HealthCareProvidersTurninGays
HealthcareproviderscontinuetoreporttoSLDNtheyhavebeeninstructedtoturnin
lesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberswhoseektheirhelp.Indeed,servicemembershave
beendischargedbasedonprivatecounselingsessionswithmilitarypsychologists.Inother
cases,commandersandinquiryoIIicershavepulledservicemembersmedicalrecords
speciIicallytolookIorinIormationthataservicememberisgay.Inthepastyear,SLDN
documentedcontinuedinstancesinwhichhealthcareprovidersreportedlyturnedingayservice
memberswhosoughttheirhelpindealingwithanti-gayharassmentorthestressesimposedby
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
DontTellhamstringsconscientioushealthcareproviders.Issuesinvolvingsexual
orientationarecentraltotheprovisionoIadequatehealthcare,buthealthcareprovidersareoIten
reluctanttoaskoutoIwell-placedconcernnottooutgayservicemembers.Servicemembers
arereluctanttotellIorIearoIbeingouted.
SLDNappreciatesPresidentClintonsExecutiveOrderprovidingthatcommunications
withmentalhealthproIessionalscannotbeusedasevidenceincriminalproceedings(Exhibit
16).ThisExecutiveOrder,however,hasonlylimitedvalueIorgayservicememberswho,Ior
themostpart,Iaceadministrativedischargeproceedings,ratherthancriminalprosecutions,under
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.WhiletheDepartmentoIDeIensecould
Iollowestablishedpracticebyextendingthisprivilegetotheadministrativecontext,asitdoes
withtheattorney-clientandchaplain-penitentprivileges,ithasIailedtodosotodate.The
DepartmentoIDeIensecouldalsoaddressconcernsabouttheprivacyoIconversationswith
mentalhealthproIessionalswithinthecontextoIDon'tAsk,Don'tTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harass,bymakingitclearthatprivatestatementstohealthcareprovidersarenotthekindoI
statementsthatIormabasisIordischarge,butithasIailedtodoso.
SLDNalsoappreciatestheUnderSecretaryoIDeIensesclariIicationintheApril1998
reporttoSecretaryoIDeIenseCohenthathealthcareprovidersarenot,inIact,requiredtoturn
ingayservicemembers.ThisclariIicationhasnotmadeittotheIield.Norisitadequateto
addresstheproblem,asitallowsindividualtherapiststoturninmilitarymembers,whether
requiredtoornot,anddeprivesservicemembersoItheabilitytotrusttherapists.
JirtualNavalHospital.DoingGavPatientsHarm
LastyearSLDNreportedthat,contrarytoPentagonassertionsthattheservicesdonot
requirehealthproviderstoturnintheirpatients,
47
theNavysGeneralMeaicalOfficerManual
speciIicallyinstructedhealthcareproviderstoturningay,lesbianandbisexualservice
members.
48
PentagonoIIicialsremovedthesectiononhomosexualityIromtheonlineversion
47
HomosexualConauctintheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at10.WeIoundthatnoneoItheServicesrequirehealthcare
proIessionalstoreportinIormationprovidedbytheirpatients...|T|helackoIaprivilegedoesnotmeanthat
doctorsmustreportinIormationprovidedbytheirpatients....
48
DEPTOFTHENAVY,NAVMEDP-5134,GENERALMEDICALOFFICER(GMO)MANUAL(May1996).
LCR 04317
- 23-
oItheGeneralMeaicalOfficerManualinFebruary1999,aIterSLDNbroughttheManualto
theirattention.ThePentagon,however,letstandadditionalguidanceontheJirtualNaval
HospitalinstructinghealthcareproviderstoturningaysuntilJuly1999.
ThewebsiteschapteronConIidentiality,Iorexample,stated:
Your patients basically have none with you. II the Captain wants
toknowanythingthatapatienttoldyou,youmustrevealit.Also,
iI your patient tells you something illegal or dangerous, e.g., . . .
homosexuality, . . . you are required to report it to the |executive
oIIicer|and|commandingoIIicer|
49
(Exhibit17).
ThissectioniswrongIortworeasons.First,underDon'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,
DontHarass,statementsoIsexualorientationareconsideredpersonalandprivate,notthe
basisIordisclosuretothecommandIorpurposesoIdischarge.Second,itisinappropriateand
medicallyunIoundedtoequatehomosexualitywithsomethingillegalordangerous.Itis
Iurtherdisingenuoustoequatecertainacts,suchasoralsex,solelywithhomosexuality,whenthe
UniIormCodeoIMilitaryJusticeprohibitsexactlythesameactsbetweenheterosexuals,
includinghusbandsandwives.
50
SLDNisunawareoIanyguidanceinstructinghealthcare
providerstoturninheterosexualservicememberswhodiscusstheirconsenting,adultsexual
conduct.
InpiecemealIashion,thePentagonhascorrectedsitesthatcontainerroneousinIormation,
butonlyaIterSLDNhasbroughtthematerialstotheirattention.Thatinstructionstoturningay
peopleexistintheIirstplace,andthePentagonsIailuretotakeproactivestepstocorrectthis
erroneousandharmIulinIormation,underminesDepartmentoIDeIenseassertionsoIsincerityin
attemptingtobetterimplementDon'tAsk,Don'tTell,Don'tPursue,DontHarasscorrectly.
ThiscontinuationoIimproperguidancetomedicalpersonnelappearstobecontributing
totheincreasingDontTellviolationsSLDNdocumentedin1999.
AirForcePsvchologistAssertsDutvtoTurninGavPatients
DuringSLDNsvisittoLacklandAirForceBase,Texas,inMarch1999,thebase
psychologisttoldSLDNhehadadutytoreportanyservicememberwhocameouttohimduring
aprivatetreatmentsession(Exhibit18).Thisstanceiscontrarytocurrentpolicyasreiteratedby
thePentagonsApril1998reviewoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
51
ThisplacesbasictraineesinharmswaybecausetheservicesspeciIicallyinstructtraineestosee
mentalhealthproIessionalstodealwithadiustmentissuesinbasictrainingWeaskedthe
psychologisttoprovidethespeciIicguidanceorderinghimtoturningays,butheprovidednone.
49
Ia.
50
10USCA654(WestSupp.1995).
51
HomosexualConauctintheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at10.
LCR 04318
- 24-
DoctorDirectsLesbianSeamantoOutHerselftoHerCommana
WhileNavySeamanLesah PickardwasservingontheUSSBriageinBremerton,
Washington,aNavydoctordirectedhertoturnherselIintotheshipsMaster-at-Arms.Seaman
PickardreportsthatsheaskedthedoctorIoramentalhealthreIerralbecauseshewanted
guidanceonhowtomanagethestressoIlivingadoubleliIeasalesbianintheNavy. Pickard
revealedhersexualorientationbecauseshewasseekingamentalhealthreIerral.Instead,the
doctortoldPickardthat|she|didntneedtogotomentalhealth(sic)thatitwasnotamedical
problemthat|could|becured,butdidtell|her|togotothemaster-arms(sic)oIIiceandmakea
statement(Exhibit19).Believingshehadnootheroptions,SeamanPickardtoldhercommand
sheisalesbianandtheNavydischargedher.
MilitaryOfficialsSolicitPrivateInformation
fromServiceMembersFamiliesandFriends
SLDNremainshighlyconcernedthatinquiryoIIicersandinvestigatorsareseekingout
IamilymembersandcloseIriendstosolicitinIormationthatcanbeusedagainsttheirlovedones.
SLDNcontinuestodocumentcaseswhereoverzealousmilitarycommandersandinvestigators
improperlypryintogayservicemembersrelationshipswiththeirIamiliesandclosepersonal
Iriends.MilitaryLeadersshouldbeashamedoIthemselvesIorapplyingDontTellevento
conversationswithmomsanddads.Communicationsbetweengayservicemembersandtheir
parents,siblingsandIriendsshouldbeoII-limitsinmilitaryinquiriesrelatingtoDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
InvestigatorQuestionsParrisIslanaMarinesMother
AMarinePrivatescommandatParrisIsland,SouthCarolina,contactedhisparents
seekinginIormationabouttheirsonssexualorientation.UponlearningthePrivateisgay,the
PrivatescommandtelephonedthePrivatesmother,askingwhethersheandhersonhadever
discussedhissexualorientation.Additionally,thePrivatesmotherwasaskediIsheknewoIher
sonssexualactivitiesandiIheengagedinhomosexualactivities.Themothermadeitclearto
hersonscommandthatsheconsideredhissexualorientationtobeapersonalmatter.Shealso
madeitclearthatsheandtheMarineCorpsshouldputhersonssaIetyIirst(Exhibit20).
AskingayoungMarinesmothertodivulgethecontentsoIprivatecommunicationswithherson
concerninghissexualorientationisbeyondtheboundariesoIthepolicyandcommondecency.
AirForceInstructsInvestigatorstoInterrogateFamiliesanaFrienas
AsreportedinpastSLDNreports,seniorAirForcelawyershaveinstructedinquiry
oIIicers,inwriting,toseekoutservicemembersparents,siblingsandcloseIriendsIor
questioning(Exhibit21).In1999,SLDNdocumentedthecontinuationoIthisintrusivetactic.
WhilemanyexamplesaredetailedintheDontPursuesection,oneexampleillustratesthe
point.
AIterSeniorAirmanTommyJonesreportedlytoldhiscommandheisgay,hiscommand
initiatedaninquirythatincludedattemptedquestioningoIhisIriends.TheinquiryoIIicer,ChieI
LCR 04319
- 25-
MasterSergeantMichaelWade,askedAirmanJonestoidentiIyIriendsnearAndrewsAFB
whocouldprovideinIormationconcerningJonessexualorientation.TheinquiryoIIicerIurther
requestedthatJonesprovidethenamesandcontactinIormationoIIriendsatlocalgay
establishmentswhocouldprovideinIormationabouthissexualorientationandprivateliIe
(Exhibit22).
TheAirForcesattempttoseekoutagayservicemembersIriendsinaneIIorttopry
intothemembersprivateliIeviolatesDontTell.Itisalsounnecessary,asthepolicyisclear
thatastatementaloneissuIIicienttodischargeaservicemember.
52
TheintentbehindDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasswastoallowservicememberstohave
relationshipswiththeirIamilyandIriendsintowhichthemilitarywouldnotintrude.These
typesoIinquiriesunderminethatgoal.
TheAirForceremainstheworstoIIenderininstigatingintrusiveinquiries,asdetailedin
DontPursue.Inthepast,theAirForcehasclaimedsuchinquiriesareonlyinitiatedincases
involving recoupmentoImoniesreceivedIoreducationalIunding,specialpayorbonuses.In
reality,theAirForceinitiatessuchinquiriesinalmostallcases.NewguidanceIromthe
PentagonnowrequiresSecretarialauthoritypriortoinitiatinginquiriesoIthisscope.Timewill
tellwhethertheAirForceIallsintoline.
ChaplainsProvideImproperLegalAdvice
WhilemostchaplainskeeptheconIidencesoIgayservicemembers,somedonot.Others
continuetogiveservicemembersbadlegaladvice,suchastellingservicememberstoturn
themselvesin,ratherthansendingservicememberstoamilitarydeIenseattorneyIorquestions
aboutthepolicy.Additionally,SLDNdocumentedanumberoIcasesinthepastyearwhere
Chaplainshaveberatedgayservicemembers,tellingthemtheyaresick,goingtohell,andso
Iorth.NomatteronesreligiousbelieIs,thisisaninappropriateresponsetoaservicemembers
reportoIanti-gayharassmentthatonlyservestoIurthervictimizetheservicemember.
ChaplainsneedtrainingonthispolicyandhowtorespondtoreportsoIanti-gay
harassment.UnderthenewtrainingregimenannouncedbythePentagononFebruary1,2000,
theArmyisdirectingservicememberstoseeChaplainsiItheyareharassedoriItheyhave
questionsaboutthepolicy,butChaplainshavenotreceivedtrainingtodateonhowtohandle
suchsituations.ChaplainsshouldreceivespeciIicinstructionsnottoturningayservice
memberswhoseektheirhelpandtoconsidertheseconversationsasconIidential,perthe
chaplain-penitentprivilege.UnderthenewtrainingregimenannouncedbythePentagonon
February1,2000,theArmyisdirectingservicememberstoseechaplainsiItheyareharassedor
iItheyhavequestionsaboutthepolicy,butChaplainshavenotreceivedtrainingtodateonhow
tohandlesuchsituations.ProposedguidelinesIromSLDNarecontainedinExhibit23.
52
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.3.H.1.a. Ia.NO.1332.30encl.2.C.1:Homosexual
conductisgroundsIorseparationIromtheMilitaryServices.Homosexualconductincludes...astatementbya
memberthatdemonstratesapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualacts....
LCR 04320
- 26-
USSAbrahamLincolnChaplainConaemnsGavs
InacasediscussedmoreIullyintheDontAsksection,theChaplainatEverettNaval
Station,WashingtonandthechaplainonboardtheUSSAbrahamLincolnreportedlyIailedto
assistSeamanLuisSierrawithreportsoIanti-gayharassment.SeamanSierrasoughtthe
assistanceoIthebaseChaplainatEverettNavalStation,Washington,whoreportedlyreIusedto
assisthimandreIerredhimtotheshipChaplain.TheshipsChaplainreportedlylecturedSierra,
condemningthegayliIestyle,andtoldSierrahewasonaonewaypathtocontractingHIV.
TheChaplainthenreportedlyadvisedSierratoignoretheharassmentanddealwithit,orget
out(Exhibit7).
SeamanSierra,whowenttotheChaplainoutoIIearIorhissaIety,didnotknowwhereto
turnIorhelp.SeamanSierraconcludedthat,iItheshipChaplainIailedtoprovideasaIespace
Iorservicemembers,thennonemustexist.AsalastresortoutoIIearIorhissaIety,SierraIled,
goingonUnauthorizedAbsence(UA).
WithSLDNsassistance,SeamanSierrasaIelyreturnedtotheNavy,cameoutand
reportedtheanti-gayharassment.TheNavydischargedSierraIorbeinggay.Thereisno
evidencetheNavyhasheldanyoneaccountableIortheanti-gayharassmentorcounseledthe
ChaplainsIortheirlackoIassistance.
InspectorsGeneralSayTheyWillTurninGaysWhoReportHarassment
AnArmyInspectorGeneralrepresentativewhoisreviewinganti-gayharassmentatFort
CampbelltoldSLDNhewouldturninanysoldierswho,inthecourseoIreportinganti-gay
harassmentorparticipatingintheArmyreview,revealedinIormationabouttheirsexual
orientation.Lastyear,atLacklandAirForceBase,anAirForceInspectorGeneraltookthe
samemisguidedstance.Asapracticalmatter,thismakesitimpossibleIorgayservicemembers
toreportharassmenttoorseekhelpIromtheInspectorGeneraliItheyarebeingthreatened.Any
claimbytheDepartmentoIDeIensethatitisaddressinganti-gayharassmentbyconducting
InspectorGeneralsurveysandreviewswillnotholdupiItheservicememberswhoaremost
aIIectedcannotspeakcandidlyIorIearoIbeingoutedtotheirunitsanddischarged.
ServicesUseRetaliatoryAccusationsbySpouses
SLDNdocumentedincreasedincidentswherethearmedIorcesrewardedretaliatory
spouseswhooutedservicemembersbydischargingtheservicemembers.Thesecasesusually
arisewhenacoupledecidestogetdivorcedaIteroneoIthespousesbeginstorealizethatheor
sheisgay.ThearmedIorcesaretakingsidesinIamilydisputesthataremoreproperlyresolved
throughotherchannelsandshouldnotbeplayedoutunderDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarass.HereareaIewexamples:
An Army Maiors husband reportedly threatened to out her to
her command during a custody battle Ior their children. As a
result oI this threat, the Maior was Iorced to Iorgo a custody
LCR 04321
- 27-
battleIorIearoIlosingherlivelihood.TheMaiorkeptheriob,
butnolongerhascustodyoIherchildren.
ThewiIeoIAirForceStaIISergeantPatrickWillisreportedly
threatened to out him to his command iI he contested child
custody during their divorce. Despite having served almost
IiIteen years, StaII Sergeant Willis voluntarily told his
command he is gay so he could maintain his relationship with
his children and teach them how to be honest and tolerant
people(Exhibit24).
A Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant with 16 years oI service
was recently outed to his command by his wiIe during the
course oI a bitter divorce and custody battle. Although still
serving, the Gunnery Sergeants command has initiated an
inquiryintohiswiIesallegations,andhiscareerisinieopardy.
Militaryleadersshouldbeconcernedthatcommandsareallowingpeoplewithvendettas
totakedowntheirbestandbrightest,usingDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass
astheweaponoIchoice.TheservicesshouldalsobegreatlyconcernedthattheireIIortsto
policeservicememberspersonalrelationshipsinterIerewithotherlegitimatelegalproceedings.
PersonalandprivatecommunicationsbetweenservicemembersandtheirIamiliesare
iustthat,personalandprivate.TheseservicemembersarenotmakingpublicproclamationsoI
theirsexualorientationandsuchconIidencesshouldnotIormabasisIordischarge.Further,
retaliatoryoutingsbydisgruntledspousesshouldnotbeconsideredcredible.Withoutcredible
inIormation,noinquiryintoaservicememberssexualityshouldcommence.
53
DontTellConclusion
ServicemembershavenosaIespaceorprivacy,contrarytotheintentoIDontTell.
Psychotherapistshavebeenorderedtoturningay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.
InvestigatorsarepursuingcloseIriendsandIamilymembersinaneIIorttodigupallegations
againstsuspectedgayservicemembers.SomeChaplainsaretellingservicememberstocome
outtotheircommands.AndduringatimeinwhichtheservicesareseekinginIormationabout
anti-gayharassment,InspectorsGeneralhavestatedthattheywillturninservicememberswho
inadvertentlyrevealtheirsexualorientationinthecourseoIreportingharassment.Military
leadersneedtomakeclearthatprivateconversationstoIamilymembers,healthcareproviders
andbestIriendsshouldnotbeusedasthebasisIorinquiryordischarge.Servicemembers
mustbeallowedtoreportanti-gayharassmentwithouttheIearthattheywillbepunishedIor
theireIIortstodeIendthemselves.AsIormerSecretaryoIDeIenseLes Aspinexplainedin1993,
53
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.1.:Ia.NO.1332.30,encl.8.A.1.Acommander
mayinitiateaIact-Iindinginquiryonlywhenheorshehasreceivedcreaibleinformation(emphasisadded)that
thereisabasisIordischarge.
LCR 04322
- 28-
IIIcametothecommanderandsaidthatyoutoldmethatyouweregay,iIthatwastheonly
thinggoing,myexpectationwouldbethatcommanderwouldnotdoanything.
54
54
PolicvConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmeaServices,
103rdCong.2ndSess.(1993)at721(testimonyoIthenSecretaryoIDeIenseLesAspin).
LCR 04323
- 29-
DONT PURSUE
DontPursuePlacesLimitsonGayInvestigations
DontPursueisintendedtogetcommandersandinvestigatorstobackoIIandto
respectservicemembersprivacy.MorethanadozenspeciIicinvestigativelimitscomprise
DontPursue(Exhibit25).Theselimitsestablishaminimumthresholdtostartaninquiryand
restrictthescopeoIaninquiryevenwhereoneisproperlyinitiated.Whiletheinvestigative
limitswouldhelp,theyarenotbeingIollowed.Commandersandinvestigatorscontinuetopry,
searchanddiginviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.On
February1,2000,thePentagonorderedtrainingonthepolicysinvestigativelimits.Theiuryis
stilloutonwhetherthetrainingwillbeeIIective.EarlyreviewsoIthetrainingaremixed.
SLDNdocumented470DontPursueviolationsinthepastyear,comparedto350the
yearbeIore,a34increase.AlmosthalIoIthepastyearsDontPursueviolationsoccurred
intheAirForce.AirForceDontPursueviolationsnearlydoubled,with222violations
comparedto116theyearbeIore.Armyviolationsincreased16inthepastyear,with117
violationscomparedto101theyearbeIore.IntheNavy,violationsincreased8to92
violations,comparedto85violationsintheprecedingyear.TheMarineCorpssawa16
decrease,with38violationsinthepastyearcomparedto45violationstheyearbeIore.
ThemostcommonDontPursueviolationsarewitchhuntsandIishingexpeditions.
WitchhuntsoccurwhencommandsorpeersseekoutthesexualorientationoIagroupoIservice
members.WhilemassinvestigationsoIservicemembershavewanedinrecentyearsunder
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,theyarenotobsolete.Thisyear,awitch
huntattheDeIenseLanguageInstitute(DLI)atthePresidiooIMonterey,CaliIornia,described
indetailbelow,ensnaredatleastIourteenairmen,mostlywomen.
Fishingexpeditionsarecaseswhereaninquiryisexpandedbeyondtheoriginalallegation
toseekoutadditionalgroundsIordischargeandotherpotentiallyharmIulinIormationagainst
theservicemember.
55
SometimesIishingexpeditionsstartoutwithIalseallegationsandturn
intoattemptstoIindanydamaginginIormationagainstaservicemember.
Othertimes,commandsattempttodigupdirtonaservicememberwhohasalreadycome
outasgay.TheseinvestigationsseektopunishgayservicemembersbyIorcingthemtoprovide
inIormationthatcouldleadtocriminalprosecutionorotheradverselegalactionbeyondbeing
IiredandlosingtheirbeneIits.
TheAirForceaccountsIoralmosthalIoIallIishingexpeditionviolations.Whilethere
appearstobenopatterntoIishingexpeditionsintheotherservices,AirForceinquiryoIIicers
55
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.3(1994),EnlisteaAaministrativeSeparations: Ia.
NO.1332.30encl.8.A.3(1994),SeparationofRegularCommissioneaOfficers:Inquiriesshallbelimitedtothe
IactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.
LCR 04324
- 30-
arebeingdirectedtoaskwide-rangingquestionsintoservicemembersprivatelives.
56
AirForce
inquiryoIIicersoItenpreparescriptedquestionsexpandingthescopeoIinvestigationsbyasking
servicemembersandco-workersimpermissiblybroadquestionsabouttheservicemembers
privatelives.
Anotherproblemareaconcernsproveitcases,especiallyintheNavy.Inthesecases,
servicemembersmakestatementsthattheyaregay,usuallyinresponsetoanti-gayharassment.
Currently,astatementaloneisasuIIicientbasisIordischarge.Ratherthanbeingkickedout,
however,theseservicemembersaretoldtheywillnotbedischargediItheydonotprovide
inIormationabouttheirsexualhistories.ThisisanincorrectinterpretationoIthepolicy
57
andin
manyinstancesthedelaythiscreatesplacesservicemembersinpotentialdangerIromanti-gay
harassment.ThosewhorespondtruthIullyalsoIacethedangeroIIurtherlegalharm.
58
Ironically,asaresult,theNavyandotherServicesattemptedtoretainarecordnumberoIgay
personnelduringthepastyearwhoadmittedtobeinggay,butwhoreIusedtoprovideadditional
inIormation.Theproblemisthat,whileallowinggaypeopletoserve,theNavyandother
Servicestooknostepstostoptheanti-gayharassmentthatpromptedtheservicemembers
statementsintheIirstplace.
AnatomyofaWitchHunt:TheCaseoftheDefenseLanguageInstitute
Duringthepastyear,IourteenservicemembersstationedattheDeIenseLanguage
Institute(DLI)atthePresidiooIMontereyinCaliIorniareportedseriousDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue,DontHarassviolations.Reportedviolationsincludedawitchhunt,numerous
Iishingexpeditions,askingandharassment.TheprimaryculpritswereAirForceenlisted
leaders,inquiryoIIicersandcivilianlanguageinstructors.Followingtheexamplesetbytheir
leaders,AirForcestudentspiledonbyhoundingtheirpeerswithanti-gayepithets,threatsand
questions.TheresultwasaIlourishingandpotentiallydangerousanti-gayclimate.
TheWitchHuntBegins.StuaentLeaaersQuestioneaAboutTheirSexualOrientation
InMarchandApril1999,AirForceMasterSergeantRodneyHamletandSeniorAirman
DavidVigillaunchedawitchhunttodeterminethesexualorientationoIA-FlightIemalestudent
leadersundertheircharge.Bytheirownadmission,thewitchhuntwasbasedonnothingmore
thanrumors.ThewitchhunthassetoIIachainoIeventsconsumingDLIIorthepastyearand
56
TheAirForcehasclaimeditconductswide-ranginginquiriesonlyincasesinvolvingrecoupmentoIeducational
Iunds.However,theAirForceconductswide-ranginginquiriesinmostoIitscases.TheDeIenseDepartment
attemptedtoreinintheAirForceinanApril1998reportcallingIoranendtosuchtacticsandmisconduct.The
PentagonIinallyreleasednewguidelinesonFebruary1,2000requiringServiceSecretaryapprovalpriortoinitiating
substantialinvestigations.ItistooearlytotellwhethertheAirForcewillIinallyheedtheoriginalletterandintent
oIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
57
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.3.H.1.a.: Ia.NO.1332.30encl.2.C.1.Homosexual
conductisgroundsIorseparationIromtheMilitaryServices.Homosexualconductincludes...astatementbya
memberthatdemonstratesapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualacts....
58
First,theUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJusticecriminallypunishesheterosexualsandgaysIorcertainsexualconduct,
suchasoralsex.Second,somecommandersdowngradeaservicemembersdischargecharacterizationandthreaten
beneIitstowhichaservicememberisentitledbyrackingupthenumberoIbasesIorpossibledischarge.These
proveitcasesarethuspunitiveinnature.
LCR 04325
- 31-
ruiningthepromisingcareersoIsomeoItheAirForcesbestandbrightestyoungenlisted
members.
OnMarch26,1999,SeniorAirmanVigilcalledtwoIemaleAirmenFirstClass,whowill
becalled|X|and|Y|inthisreport,intohisoIIice.HereportedlyreadthemtheirArticle31
rightsandtoldthemtheywerebeingchargedwithconductunbecoming,acriminaloIIense.
Vigilasked|X|,doyouand|Y|haveapersonalrelationship?Iamnotsayingitshomosexual.
Didtherelationshipgosouranddidyouuseyour|studentleader|positiontohaveherremoved
IromtheIlight?BothAirmenFirstClasssaidNo,and|Y|wasexcused.Vigilthenasked|X|
Iorherrope,asymbolwornbystudentleaders,andremovedherIromherleadershipposition
(Exhibit26).
Threedayslater,MasterSergeantHamletreportedlyaskedAirmanFirstClass|X|,Are
youawareoItheIamily?Shesaid,No,sir.Icanthelpyou.Hamletreportedlytoldher
therewereallegationsshehadbecomealittletooIriendlyonherIlight,andsaid,Rightnow,
youarenotintrouble.IamiusttryingtogettothebottomoIthis.
Thesameweek,VigilandHamletquestionedotherstudentleadersabouttheirIellow
studentleaderssexualorientations.OneoIthemwasAirmanFirstClassDeannaGrossi.
MasterSergeantHamletreportedlyquestionedGrossiaboutarumorconcerningtheIamilyon
herIlightandaskediIsheknewaboutthepropensityoIherIellowstudentleaders. Grossitold
Hamletshedidnotunderstand.Hamletreplied,therearecertainkindsoIpeople,wholikethe
samekindoIpeople,andaskedGrossiiIsheknewoIotherairmenspropensitytolikethesame
kindoIpeople.ItwascleartoAirmanFirstClassGrossithatMasterSergeantHamletwas
askingaboutthesexualorientationoIotherA-Flightstudentleaders(Exhibit27).
MasterSergeantHamletreportedlyproceededtodirectlyquestionAirmanFirstClass
GrossiaboutAirmanFirstClass|X|srelationshipwithAirmanFirstClass|Y|.Hamlettold
GrossihecalledherinbecausenastyrumorswereIlyingaroundDLI.Then,hesaidthather
namewasmentionedamongtherumorsandheaskedheriIshewasinvolvedintherumors.
AirmanFirstClassGrossitoldhim,No(Exhibit27).
EnlistedleadersapparentlyIeltIreetopursueandcommentonthesexualorientationoI
thestudents.AirmanFirstClass|X|Iorexample,reportsthatamalestudentleadertoldherthat
SeniorAirmanVigilaskedhimtokeepaneyeonamalestudentbecauseVigildidnotwantany
IagsinhisAirForce.AnotherDLIstudent,whilewalkingdownCommandersHallway,
reportssheoverheardaMilitaryTrainingLeaderremarktoanotherMilitaryTrainingLeader,
YoucantellthestudentleadersondykeIlightbecauseoItheirshorthair.
MasterSergeantHamletsandSeniorAirmanVigilsactionsviolatedDontPursuein
manyways:
First, only a commander may authorize an inquiry regarding a
service members sexual orientation, not enlisted leaders. No
commander authorized a Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont
LCR 04326
- 32-
Pursue, Dont Harass inquiry against the student leaders or
AirmanFirstClassGrossi.
59
Second,therewasnocredibleevidenceuponwhichtobeginan
inquiry.
60
CurrentregulationsspeciIicallyIorbidinvestigations
basedonrumorandinnuendo.
61
Third, the preIerred method oI handling allegations oI
consensual homosexual conduct is through administrative
channels.
62
Even though there were never any speciIic,
credible allegations against Airmen First Class |X| and |Y|,
VigilsaidtheyweresuspectedoIhavingcommittedacriminal
oIIense, and he tried to coerce them to reveal their sexual
orientationunderthreatoIcriminalprosecution.
Fourth,eveniItherehadbeencredibleevidenceandcommand
authorization, Vigil and Hamlet expanded the scope oI their
inquirybyquestioningotherstudentleadersabouttheirsexual
orientation.
63
Hamlet and Vigil, Ior example, should never
have questioned Airman First Class Grossi, let alone
implicatedherbasedonrumorsandinnuendo.
TheIacttheseleadersaskedandpursuedwithimpunitywasnotlostontheirstudents.
Whileananti-gayclimateexistedatDLIbeIorethewitchhunt,reportsoIanti-gayharassment
andIearsoIinvestigationincreaseddramaticallyaIterward.
WitchHuntLeaastoAnti-GavHarassment
AIewweeksaIterbeingtargetedbyMasterSergeantHamletandSeniorAirmanVigil,
AirmanFirstClassGrossireportsthatherclassmatesbeganquestioninghersexualorientation.
Theanti-gayharassmentbeganaIteroneclassmatereportedlyreIerredtoAirmanFirstClass|X|
asqueendyke. GrossitoldhimthecommentwasinappropriateandtheAirmanreplied,Oh
no,notyoutoo(Exhibit27).
59
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.1.:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.4.A.1.Onlythemembers
60
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.1.:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.4.1.Acommandermay
initiateaIact-Iindinginquiryonlywhenheorshehasreceivedcreaibleinformation(emphasisadded)thatthereisa
basisIordischarge.
61
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.C.:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.8.C.Acommanderwill
initiateaninquiryonlyiIheorshehascredibleinIormationthatabasisIordischargeexists.CredibleinIormation
doesnotexistwhen|t|heinquirywouldbebasedonrumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaimsconcerningamembers
sexualorientation....
62
DEPTOFDEFENSEINSTRUCTIONNO.5505.86.1(1994),InvestigationsofSexualMisconauctbvthe
DefenseCriminalInvestigativeOrganizationsanaOtherDoDLawEnforcementOrganizations.AllegationsoI
adultprivateconsensualsexualmisconductreceivedbyaDCIOorotherDoDlawenIorcementorganizationshallbe
reIerredtothecommander(s)oItheServicemember(s)concerned....
63
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4A.3.Ia.NO.1332.30encl.8A.3.Inquiriesshallbe
limitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.
LCR 04327
- 33-
Fromthatdayon,Grossistatesherclassmatesharassedher.Forexample,whensomeone
wantedtoknowhowtosaythewordrainbow,asymboloIgaypride,inSerbian,aclassmate
said,OhGrossishouldknow.Aclassmate,AirmanFirstClassReyes,reportedlymade
repeatedsexuallyexplicitgesturesandcommentstoher.Whilesittinginclass,Reyeswould
holdhisIingerstohisnoseasiIhewassmellingthemuntilAirmanFirstClassGrossiwould
notice.Then,Reyeswouldsay,letmesmellyourhandsoIcanseeiIyoudidthesamethingI
didlastnight.ManyoItheseharassingcommentswerereportedlymadeintheIullhearingoI
Grossiscivilianinstructor,Mr.Abdolvic.Mr.Abdolvicneverattemptedtostoptheharassment.
Hedid,however,commentonherperceivedsexualorientation.OnoneoccasionIorexample,
Grossistates,Mr.AbdolvicaskedheriIshehadIun...withhergirlIriend.Oh,Imean
boyIriend.AirmanFirstClassGrossireportssheIeltpowerlesstodoanythingabouttheanti-
gayharassmentwithoutdrawingmoreattentiontotherumorsabouthersexualorientation
(Exhibit27).
AirmanFirstClassGrossiwasnotaloneinherexperienceswithanti-gayharassmentand
theIearoIacareer-endinginvestigation,astheIollowingcasesillustrate.DLIstudentsIrom
outsidetheIlightknewaboutthewitchhunt.SomeoIthestudentswereIriendsoIservice
memberswhowerequestioned.OthersheardrumorsaboutthepursuitoIA-Flightstudent
leaders.MasterSergeantHamletandSeniorAirmanVigilsetthetoneIorahostilecommand
climateinwhichrule-breaking,inaneIIorttoroutoutwomenandsuspectedgaymen,wasthe
orderoItheday.
WitchHuntForcesAirmentoComeOutInquirvOfficerConauctsIntrusiveInvestigation
InApril1999,AirmanFirstClassKatrinaBandle,whoseIriendswerequestionedinthe
witchhunt,decidedshecouldnotsilentlyendureanti-gayharassmentandwaitIorsomeoneto
accuseheroIbeinggay.BandleIearedherIriendshipwithpursuedstudentleaderswouldtrigger
aninvestigationor,attheveryleast,speculationthatshemightbegay.InMay,AirmanFirst
ClassBandlewrotealettertohercommanddisclosinghersexualorientation.Theletter
describedherIearoIinvestigationandtheconstantanti-gaycommentsandiokesmadeinher
class.Thesecommentswerereportedlymadebyherclassmatesandsometimesbytheclass
leader,anoIIicer,andhercivilianlanguageinstructor(Exhibit28).
AirmanFirstClassBandlesdisclosure,however,didnotprotectherIromembarrassing
andpersonalquestionsthatviolatedDontAskandDontPursue.AIterhandinginthe
letter,Bandlessuperior,SergeantThrasher,reportedlyaskedheriIsheactedonhersexual
orientation.Shetoldhimshecouldnotanswerthequestion.TheSergeantproceededtoread
BandleherArticle31rightsandquestionedheragain.LeItwithlittlechoice,AirmanFirstClass
Bandletoldhim,No.
ThecommandappointedaninquiryoIIicer,CaptainNicolleSchippers,whointerrogated
IourDLIairmenaboutBandlespersonalliIe.CaptainSchippersaskedthemwhentheyIound
outAirmanFirstClassBandlewasgayandiIshehadagirlIriend.AllIourwitnessestestiIied
abouttheservicememberssexualorientation,herciviliangirlIriendandthenegativeeIIect
DLIsanti-gayclimatewashavingonAirmanFirstClassBandle(Exhibit29).
LCR 04328
- 34-
TheinquiryoIIiceroversteppedtheboundariesoIDontPursuebyquestioning
BandlesIriendsabouthersexualorientationandprivateliIe.CaptainSchippersinterrogation
oIIriendswasablatanteIIorttodigupdirtontheAirman.Thesequestionsalsopotentially
placedthewitnessesandotherairmenatriskoIinvestigationintotheirpersonallives.
Additionally,herintrusiveinvestigationviolatedtheirIreedomoIassociation,whichispermitted
underDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
64
InMay,anotherDLIstudent,AirmanFirstClassBillJohnson,cameoutindirect
responsetoDLIsanti-gayclimateandhisknowledgeoItheearlierwitchhunt.Inaletterto
MasterSergeantHamlet,hewrote,|t|heonlymeansbywhichIcanavoidbecomingthetarget
oIharassmentorawitchhuntintheIutureisby|disclosingmysexualorientation|toyou
(Exhibit30).
Johnson,whohadpreviouslyexperiencedanimpropersecurityclearanceinvestigationat
DLI,Iearedwhatmighthappentohim.
65
ThecommandappointedthesameinquiryoIIicer,
CaptainSchippers,toinvestigatehiscase.CaptainSchippersreportedlyaskedhimintrusiveand
improperquestions,including,Didyouhaveany|homosexual|relationsbeIoreyoucameinto
themilitary,andWhoaretheairmenonpostwhoknowyouaregay?AIterJohnsonreIused
torespondtothequestions,CaptainSchippersaskedhimquestionsaboutIormerloversand
repeatedlyaskedIortelephonenumbersoIpeoplewhocouldveriIyhissexualorientation.The
inquiryoIIiceralsoreportedlyinterrogatedJohnsonsDLIIriendsandaskedthem:
DoyouknowAmnJohnsontohavehadanysexwhileinthe
military?
IsAmnJohnsoncurrentlyinvolvedinanyrelationships?
DoesAmnJohnsonsparentsknowheisgay?
Whoelseonpostknowsheisgay?
(Exhibit31)
TheinquiryoIIicerreportedlyhoundedoneIriendaboutwhetherJohnsonwasseeing
someone,untiltheIriendIinallycavedinandgaveaname.CaptainSchippersshouldneverhave
askedtheAirmansIriendssuchwide-rangingquestionsabouthispersonalliIe.Sheshould
neverhaveaskedIornamesoIotherpeople.
CaptainSchippersquestionsshowsheeitherdidnotknowDontPursuesinvestiga-
tivelimitsorshepurposeIullyignoredthem.Theonlyappropriateissuetoascertainina
statementcaseiswhethertheservicemembermadeastatementoIsexualorientation.Despite
this,CaptainSchipperspursuedtheintimatedetailsoIBandleandJohnsonslives.Captain
Schipperstooknostepstoaddresstheanti-gayharassmentBandleandJohnsonreported.Nor
didDLIand9thWingcommanders,despitetheIactthatthewitchhuntandanti-gayharassment
werereportedinthedischargepacketstheyreviewedandsigned.
64
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.E.4.:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.8.E.4.CredibleinIormation
doesnotexistwhen|t|heonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchas...associatingwithknown
homosexuals....
65
In1998,whileundergoingasecurityclearancecheckatMonterey,Johnsonwasaskedpersonalquestions
regardinghissexualorientation,andwhetherheeverhadrelationswithgaysordragqueens.
LCR 04329
- 35-
MistakenIaentitvForcesStuaenttoComeOut.
InquirvOfficerPriesintoAirmansPrivateLife
AirmanFirstClassJohnPetrozinoalsoIacedrumorsabouthissexualorientationand
Ialseallegationsabouthisconduct.OnJune18,1999,aDLIAirmanreportedlyapproached
Petrozinoandclaimedthatanotherstudent,AirmanFirstClassAntonioMilani,hadsaidhesaw
PetrozinomakingoutwithaguyintheparkinglotthenightbeIore.Petrozinoexplainedtothe
AirmanthiswasnottrueaIemaleIriendwithshorthair,wearingabaseballcap,huggedand
kissedhimgoodnightinhercar(Exhibit32).
Later,PetrozinoreportsoverhearingAirmanFirstClassShell,hisroommateandasenior
squadleader,discussingMilanisallegationwithotherairmen.Petrozino,Iearingotherswould
believetheIalserumor,askedhisIemaleIriendtoexplaintotheairmenthatshewasinthecar
withhim.AItershedidso,Milaniapologized.Shell,however,reportedlyindicatedhebelieved
hehadtoreporttheincident,abelieIthatwasmistaken(Exhibit32).
AIewweekspassedanditappearedtheIalseallegationwasIorgotten.WhileAirman
FirstClassPetrozinocontinuedhearingthegeneralanti-gaycommentsandiokesthatpermeated
DLI,hewasnotsingledout.Then,onJuly7,Iornoapparentreason,AirmanFirstClassShell
reportedlyshoutedinthebarrackshallway,loudenoughIoreveryonetohear,Westillhavea
IaggotonIlight.Fearinghecouldnotescapetheanti-gayclimateandrumorsabouthim,
PetrozinoinIormedMasterSergeantHamletoItheharassmentandthatheisgay.
ThecommandappointedaninquiryoIIicer,MaiorTerryOBrien,toinvestigate
Petrozinosreport.AIterconcludingherinvestigation,MaiorOBrienIound:
The evidence also suggests that a hostile and intolerant
environmentexistedin|Petrozinos|Ilightandthesquadron.Both
A1C Milani and A1C Shell admit to spreading rumors that the
subiect was gay, and making derogatory comments about
homosexuals in general. It is clear that absent the subiects
admissiontherewouldbeinsuIIicientcredibleevidencetosupport
a Iinding that he has the propensity to engage in homosexual
conduct. The Iact that a hostile environment exists, provides the
motiveIorhisdisclosure(Exhibit33).
DespitethespeciIicguidanceoIDontPursuetolimitinquiriestotheIactual
circumstancesoItheservicemembersstatement,MaiorOBrienaskedAirmanFirstClass
PetrozinoinvasivepersonalquestionsthatwentwellbeyondtheproperscopeoItheinquiry.
EventhoughMaiorOBrienandMasterSergeantHamletIoundPetrozinosstatementcredible,
MaiorOBriennonethelesspursueddetailsoIhisprivateliIe.Herquestionsincluded:
Howdoyouknowyouhaveahomosexualorientationand/or
propensity?
When did you realize you had a homosexual orientation
and/orpropensity?
LCR 04330
- 36-
Have you told anyone else that you are homosexual? Who?
What did you tell them? When? Why? What was their
response?Howcanthesepeoplebecontacted?
Have you been dating anyone (opposite or same sex)? How
Irequently? How recently? How can these people be
contacted?
HaveyoutoldanyIamilymembers?Whom?Howcantheybe
contacted?
Who are your close Iriends and how can they be contacted?
(Exhibit34)
Theviolationsinthiscasearenumerous.ThataninquiryoIIicerwouldgotosuchgreat
lengthstogetinIormationaboutaservicememberspersonalliIe,aItertheservicemember
disclosedhissexualorientationoutoIIearIorhissaIety,isoutrageous.
StudentscomingoutinIearthroughtheSpringandSummerreportedviolationsoI
DontAsk,DontPursueandDontHarass.SLDNisnotawareoIanycommandattempts
atthetimetoinvestigateorholdaccountablethosewhoasked,pursuedandharassed.Despite
thenumerousreportsoIanti-gayharassmenttotheleadersoIDLIsAirForcecontingent,
nothingchanged.ThisisparticularlydisturbinginlightoIMaiorOBriensspeciIiccomments
concerningDLIshostileandintolerantenvironment.
Notsurprisingly,anti-gayharassmentonlygotworse.Bynotactingtostopthe
harassmentbyleaders,instructorsandstudents,topleaderssentthemessagethattheycondoned
theabuse.DLIstudents,particularlywomen,reportedextensivepursuitoIgaysandarampant
anti-gayclimateintheAirForcecontingentandclassesIollowingtheSummerreportsoI
harassment.
UncheckeaAnti-GavHarassmentLeaasStuaentstoPursuePeersSexualOrientation
Duringthesummer,rumorsaboutanotherIemaleAirmanFirstClasssperceivedsexual
orientationbeganspreadingatDLI.Theservicememberreportsmanyairmendirectly
commentedonhersexualorientation,including,Iheardyouarealesbian,andDoyoulike
girlsorwhat?(Exhibit35).
Additionally,aIriendreportedlytoldherthatagroupoImaleairmenweretalkingabout
herperceivedsexualorientationanddiscussingotherAirForcestudentstheysuspectedwere
lesbiansinoneoItheIlightdayrooms.ThesequestionsandcommentspersistedthroughOctober
1999,whenanewrumorthatshehadsexwithamalestudentcirculatedaroundDLI.Numerous
peoplethenaskedheriIthisnewrumorwastrueorwhethershewasalesbian.Hersexual
orientationwasreportedlydiscussedinallDLIAirForceIlights(Exhibit35).
TheAirmanFirstClass,awareoItheearlierwitchhunt,wrotehersupervisor,Sergeant
Schowl,thatsheIearedthatthecommandwouldinvestigatehersexualorientationbasedonthe
rumorsIlyingaroundthebase.Feelingsheneededtobehonestwithhercommand,theAirman
FirstClassdisclosedhersexualorientation.Shereceivedanhonorabledischarge.
LCR 04331
- 37-
Anti-GavHarassmentIntensifies.EnsnaringMoreAirmen
Anotherstudentleader,AirmanFirstClass|Z|,heardanti-gaycommentsassoonasshe
arrivedatDLIinFebruary1999.WheneversomeDLIstudentsnameswerementioned,
includingmanyoItheIemalestudentsdiscussedinthissection,otherstudentswouldtellthis
AirmanFirstClass,donthangoutwiththembecausetheyredykes(Exhibit36).
IntheIall,AirForcestudentsbeganhoundingAirmanFirstClass|Z|andaIemale
Iriend,AirmanErinHollenshead.OverthecourseoIthenextIewmonths,atleasttwentymale
DLIstudentsreportedlyaskedtheAirmeniItheyweresexuallyinvolvedwitheachotherand
commentedontheirperceivedsexualorientation,includingbyrepeatedlycallingthemlipstick
lesbians.AirmanFirstClass|Z|trieddatingmalestudentstohalttheanti-gayharassment,but
itonlygotworse.Rumorsabout|Z|andHollensheadsallegedrelationshipspreadtoother
Ilights(Exhibits36&37).
TheAirmenalsoreportthatclassmatesroutinelymadehostileanti-gaycommentsand
threatsincluding:IIIeverIoundoutsomeoneisaIaggot,IwouldkillhimbecauseIaggotsdo
notbelonginthemilitary,gaypeopleshouldnthaveioinedintheIirstplace.Theydont
deservetoserveourcountry,andcallingotherDLIstudentsIuckingIaggots.
AirmanFirstClass|Z|andAirmanHollensheadeventuallyreportedtheanti-gay
harassmenttoColonelSmith,theAirForcecommandingoIIiceratDLI,aIteramalestudent
madeanoIIensivegesture,calledthempussysuckersandaskedthemwhywouldyouwant
that,whenyoucanhavethis,reIerringtohimselI.Whilereportingtheharassment,Airman
Hollensheadsaid,Icannotservemycountryingoodconscienceknowingthatmyclassmates
dontwantmehereandcouldpossiblyphysicallyharmmeiItheysuspectedorlearnedthatIam
inIactgay(Exhibits37).
AirmanFirstClass|Z|stated:
There is absolutely no way that I can escape Irom the constant
questions and anti-gay behavior oI my Iellow students and it will
only continue when most oI us go on to GoodIellow AFB Ior our
advancedtraining....IamcomingIorwardandtellingyouthis
inIormation now because I reIuse to spend my entire military
careerbeinghoundedbymyIellowservicemembers(Exhibit36).
Bothservicemembersareawaitingdischarge.
InstructorHarassesGavSolaier
WhilethecasesaboveallinvolveAirForcestudents,twoArmysoldiersatDLIalso
reportedviolationsoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.Onesoldierreports
thathiscivilianlanguageinstructoraskedhimiIheisgayinIrontoIhisentireclass,leadingto
laughterandcommentsaboutthesoldiersperceivedsexualorientationbyhisclassmates.On
otheroccasions,theinstructoraskedhimwhenhewasgoingtogetagirlIriendandiIhehada
LCR 04332
- 38-
girlIriendyet.Aclassmatealsoreportsthattheinstructormakesandtoleratesconstantanti-gay
commentsinclass.
SolaierHarasseaatMonterev
Anothersoldier,PrivateTimothyDilley,switchedclassesatDLItoavoidstudentswho
constantlybroughtuptopicsabouthomosexualsinclassandhowtheydontbelonginthe
military.PrivateDilleybelievesthatanti-gaycommentsweresometimesmadebecauseoIthe
rumorsthatheisgayandstudentswantedtoseehowhewouldreacttothederogatorycomments
andiokes.DilleytoldhisteacherhewantedtoswitchclassesbecausehedidnotknowoIany
otherwaytohandlethesituation(Exhibit38).
PrivateDilleyalsoreportedanti-gayharassmentoutoIclass.Ononeoccasion,another
DLIstudentreportedlyaskedhimCantyoumoveanyIaster,youIaggot.Dilleyalsostateshe
IoundIbetyoucantwaitIorSantaClausetocum,writtenonhisdoorshortlybeIore
Christmas.PrivateDilleydisclosedhissexualorientationtohiscommandbecauseoItheanti-
gayharassmentandclimateatDLI.HeisintheprocessoIbeingdischarged.
SLDNRequestsInvestigationintoDLIJiolations
InaneIIorttohaltthewitchhuntoIDLIstudents,SLDNcontacted:DLIsAirForce
CommandingOIIicer:theStaIIJudgeAdvocateatGoodIellowAirForce,whoisalsotheStaII
JudgeAdvocateIorDLI:andtheSecretaryoItheAirForcesoIIicetoraiseconcernsaboutthe
base.TheAirForcehasorderedaninvestigationintothewitchhuntandanti-gayharassment.
TheinvestigationsresultswerenotknownatthetimeoIthisreportsrelease.DLIs
commander,ColonelPatrickSmith,investigatedthereportedaskingandanti-gayharassmentoI
thelastthreeIemaleairmenwhocameout,butonlyaIterSLDNsinvolvementinthecases.Itis
unknowniIanyoItheservicememberswhoviolatedthepolicyhavebeenheldaccountable.
Thecommandinvestigation,however,doesnothelptheservicemembersabove.Despite
theprohibitionsagainstasking,pursingandharassing,DLIleaders,instructorsandstudentsIelt
Ireetoengageinallthreeactivities.AlmostalloItheDLIservicemembersmentionedabove
havebeen,orareintheprocessoIbeing,discharged.
MoreFishingExpeditions
PursueaOfficerFightstoServe
AnactivedutyoIIicer,whomustremainunnamed,waspursuedbasedonunsubstantiated
allegationsthatdidnotconstitutecredibleinIormationundercurrentregulations.
66
Hersuperior,
66
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4F.1.:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.8.F.1.CredibleinIormation
exists,Iorexample,whenareliableperson(emphasisadded)statesthatheorsheobservedorheardaService
memberengaginginhomosexualacts,orsayingthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexualorismarriedtoa
memberoIthesamesex.DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,.encl.4.E.3.:Ia.NO1332.30encl.
8.E.3.CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhen|t|heinquirywouldbebasedonrumor,suspicion,orcapricious
claimsconcerningamemberssexualorientation....
LCR 04333
- 39-
aMaior,accusedtheoIIiceroItellinghershewasinalesbianrelationship.TheMaiorIurther
allegedshesawtheoIIicerandhersupposedgirlIriendreceiveablessingatachapelserviceand
thattheoIIicerhaddisclosedherlesbianrelationshiptotwoprevioussuperiors(Exhibit39).
BasedontheMaiorsunsubstantiatedallegations,theoIIicerscommanderappointedan
inquiryoIIicertoinvestigatetheallegedincidents.TheinquiryoIIicerquestionedninepeople.
InsteadoIlimitinghisquestionstothespeciIicallegations,asrequired,
67
theinquiryoIIicer
askedbroadquestionsthatwerewellbeyondthescopeoItheMaiorsallegations.These
questionsincluded:
Have you witnessed any act or statement by the identiIied
person under investigation . . . that could indicate that this
person was involved in homosexual conduct? II so, please
describethesituationinwhichtheactorstatementtookplace.
Doyouknowotherperson(s)involvedinhomosexualconduct
withtheidentiIiedpersonunderinvestigation?
Do you know oI anyone else who has witnessed any act or
statement oI homosexual conduct by the identiIied person
under investigation, and/or knows other person(s) involved in
homosexual conduct with this person under investigation?
(Exhibits40).
TheinquiryoIIicerconductedawitchhuntcontrarytoDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarass
68
byaskingIorthenamesoIotherpeople.TheinquiryoIIiceralsoasked
questionsdiggingIoradditionalbasesIoradministrativeseparationorcriminalprosecution
expandingthescopeoItheinquiryinviolationoIcurrentregulations.
69
TheinquiryoIIicerinterviewedtwopeoplewhowerepresentatthechapel,neitheroI
whomsawtheservicememberreceivetheallegedblessing.TheinquiryoIIiceralsointerviewed
aIormersuperior.HeandtheothersinterviewedstatedtheydidnotknowoIanyhomosexual
statementsorconductbytheoIIicer.Despitehiswide-ranginginquiry,theonlyso-called
evidencetheinquiryoIIicercouldturnupwasonewitnesswhoreportedtheoIIicerpossessed
acompactdisclabeledormarkedashavingmusiccontaininghomosexualorlesbiancontent
(Exhibit41).InIact,thecompactdiscwasproducedtoraisemoneyIorbreastcancerresearch.
Evenhadthecompactdisccontainedgaycontent,thiswouldnotbeasuIIicientgroundIor
investigationordischargeunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.
70
67
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.3.(1994)Id.NO.1332.30encl.8.A.3.Inquiries
shallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.
68
S.Hrg.103-845,103rdCong.,2dSess.(1993)at709(statementoIGeneralColinPowell).Wewillnotwitchhunt.
Wewillnotchase.Wewillnotseektolearnorientation.
69
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.A.3.(1994)Id.NO.1332.30encl.8.A.3.Inquiries
shallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.
70
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.E.4:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.8.E.4.Credible
inIormationdoesnotexistwhen|t|heonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasagoingtoagay
LCR 04334
- 40-
DespitetheinquiryoIIicersinabilitytosubstantiateanyoItheallegations,aColonelin
theoIIicerschain-oI-commandadvisedtheinquiryoIIicertochecktheoIIicerspriorservice
recordsIoranyadverseadministrativeactionsrelatingtohomosexualconductaspartoIthisIact-
Iindinginvestigation.Therewas,however,noderogatoryinIormationcontainedintheoIIicers
Iile(Exhibit42).TheorderonceagainimpermissiblyexpandedtheinquiryinviolationoI
DontPursuebecauseitwasnotrelatedtotheMaiorsallegations.
Additionally,theColoneladvisedtheinquiryoIIicertosearchtheinternetIilesonthe
oIIicerscomputerbasedonherpossessingtheallegedlesbiancompactdisc(Exhibit43).The
orderagainimpermissiblyexpandedtheinquiryinviolationoIDontPursuebecauseitwas
notrelatedtothespeciIicallegationsagainsttheoIIicer.Theorderwasmadeevenmoreabsurd
byitssuggestionthatamusicalcompactdiscwouldinsomewaybeconnectedtoIilesore-mail
storedontheoIIicerscomputer.TheorderissimplyIurtherevidencethattheoIIicerschain-oI-
commandwasonaIishingexpedition.Onceagain,nogayinIormationwasIound.
IntheReportoIInvestigation(Exhibit39),theinquiryoIIicerconcededtheMaiors
uncorroboratedallegationsweretheonlyinIormationagainsttheoIIicer.Yet,despitethelackoI
anycorroboratingevidence,herecommendedthecommandbeginadministrativeseparation
proceedingsagainsther.TheoIIicersmilitarydeIensecounsel,withSLDNsassistance,
successIullyIoughttherecommendation.TheoIIicershigherheadquartersultimatelyreversed
thecommandsdecision,IindingthatsuIIicientevidenceIoranadministrativeseparationdidnot
exist(Exhibit44).TheoIIicerremainsonactiveduty,butIearsthatknowledgeoIthe
investigationcouldleadtosuspicionandanti-gayharassmentiIcoworkerslearnoIit.
AirmanCoerceatoProveHeIsGav
AIterAirmanFirstClassJeremyCruzinIormedhiscommandheisgay,enlistedleaders
atHollomanAirForceBaseviolatedDontPursuebyconductinganunauthorizedinquiryand
byaskinghimtoproveheisgay.TheIirstDontPursueviolationoccurredwhenthe
AirmansFirstSergeant,SeniorMasterSergeantBarbaraL.Townsend,gatheredthreeother
noncommissionedoIIicersandproceededtointerrogateAirmanFirstClassCruzinIrontoI
them.SheaskedCruzabouthisprivateliIe,withoutcommandauthorization.
71
FirstSergeantTownsendreadCruzhisArticle31rightsIorsuspicionoIviolatingthe
militaryssodomyprovision.TownsendthenaskedCruzquestionsabouthissexliIe,including,
Didyouhavesexwithamaleperson,andDidyouhavesexwithamalebeIoreyoucameinto
theAirForce?EveniItheinvestigationwereproperlyinitiated,theFirstSergeantsquestions
werenotproper,becausetheywerenotlimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesinhisstatement.
Instead,theFirstSergeanttriedtosolicitnamesoIsexualpartnerswhomighthavebeeninthe
military.TheinquiryshouldhavebeenlimitedtolittlemorethanwhetherCruzmadethe
statement.
bar,possessingorreadinghomosexualpublications,associatingwithknownhomosexuals....Suchactivity,inand
oIitselI,doesnotprovideevidenceoIhomosexualconduct.
71
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4A.1:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.4.A.1.Onlythemembers
LCR 04335
- 41-
TheFirstSergeantandtheotherthreenoncommissionedoIIicersconcludedthatAmn
Cruzisverybelievable....wealsoagreedthatheadmittedtohavinggayIeelingsandwanting
toactonthem.AccordingtoDontPursue,theinquiryshouldhavestoppedthere,andCruz
shouldhavebeenadministrativelyseparated.SinceAirmanFirstClassCruzhadnotprovided
theanswersshewaslookingIor,however,TownsendquestionediIhewasiustconIused,
insteadoIgay(Exhibit45).
InthedaysIollowingFirstSergeantTownsendsunauthorizedinterrogation,the
command-appointedinquiryoIIicer,ChieIMasterSergeantJoyceGobrecht,questionedeight
peopleaboutAirmanCruzssexualconduct,outinghimtosomeoIhiscoworkersintheprocess.
TheinquiryoIIicersquestionsincluded:
Have you ever heard him talk about desires to engage in
homosexualacts...?
Haveyoueverwitnessedanyhomosexualactsbyhim?
Doyouknowanyonewhohaswitnessedanyhomosexualacts
byhim?
DoyouknowiIhehasaboyIriend?and
II youve seen or heard oI any homosexual acts, what were
they,withwhom,when,where,etc.(Exhibit46).
ThesequestionsviolatedDontPursuebywrongIullyIocusingonwhetherCruzhad
sexinsteadoIwhetherhemadeacoming-outstatement,andbysolicitingallegationsagainst
others.AsevidenceoIhowwidelytheinquiryoIIicercasthernet,onequestionedservice
memberstatedthathehadonlyhungoutwith|Cruz|once.
Thequestions,however,didnotstopthere.FirstSergeantTownsendrenewedAirman
FirstClassCruzsinterrogation.Withnobasiswhatsoever,sheagainreadhimhisArticle31
rightsIorviolatingArticle125(sodomy).Townsendwroteintheinterrogationsummarythat
sheaskedCruz:
howheknewhewantedthatliIestyleiIhesneverengagedin
homosexualactivity:
howdoyouknowyouaregayiIyouveneverhadsexwitha
man:
iIhedhadsexwithaman:and
totellmeaboutit...thenumberoImenorhowmanytimes.
AirmanFirstClassCruzstatesheIinallycrackedundertherepeatedquestioningand
revealedintimatedetailsoIhisprivatesexualconduct.Townsendreported,Istartedtowrite
downtheinIormation...anexamplewastheIirstman,theyengagedeveryweekend:thenext
manwasabouteverythreedays,etc.(Exhibit47).
FirstSergeantTownsendreportedlystoppedwritingandcoercedawrittenstatementIrom
AirmanFirstClassCruzidentiIyingalloIhissexualpartners.Townsendsaggressiveand
intrusiveinvestigationgoesagainstcommondecencyaswellasthelaw.
LCR 04336
- 42-
TheAirForceconductedthisinvestigationimproperly.Initially,therewasnoclear
commanderauthorization.TherewasnobasistoinvestigateCruzIorsodomy.Therewasno
iustiIicationIorquestioningunitpersonnelconcerningCruzssexualconduct.Finally,therewas
nobasisIorrequiringCruztolistthenamesoIpastsexualpartners.Thiswasawitchhunt.Ina
simplecomingoutcasesuchasthis,theDepartmentoIDeIensehasclearlystatedthatlittleor
noinvestigationshouldbeconducted.
72
NavvOutsSailorWhileConauctingFishingExpeaition
ANavymeteorologist,PettyOIIicerSecondClassNicoleBarbe,stationedinKingsville,
Texas,IacedanintrusiveinvestigationaItercomingouttohercommandduetoanti-gay
harassmentandthestressoIlivinginthecloset(Exhibits48).Asinothercasesdiscussedin
DontPursue,thecommand-appointedinquiryoIIicerdidnotlimitthescopeoIhis
investigationtowhetherPettyOIIicerSecondClassBarbemadeastatementconcerningher
sexualorientationanditscredibility.Instead,theinquiryoIIicer,LieutenantCommanderMilot,
impermissiblyexpandedtheinvestigationsscopebyaskingPettyOIIicerSecondClassBarbe
questionsabouthersexualconduct(Exhibit49).
LieutenantCommanderMilotaskedothersailorsimpermissiblequestions,includingiI
theyhadeverobservedorheardBarbesaysheengagedinhomosexualacts.Additionally,Milot
reportedlyoutedBarbetodozensoIservicemembers,attwobases,whenheaskedsailorswho
barelyknewheriItheyknewsheisgay.AItertheinvestigation,anumberoIservicemembers
reportedlytoldBarbetheyhadonlybecameawareoIhersexualorientationbecausetheyhad
beenIaxeddocumentsreIerringtotheHomosexualConductPolicyandtoPettyOIIicerSecond
ClassBarbebyname.
Currentregulationsstatethataservicememberssexualorientationisapersonaland
privatematter,buttheinquiryoIIicerIailedtorespectthisbasictenet.TheinquiryoIIiceralso
IailedtoIollowtherulethatlittleornoinvestigationshouldbeconductedwhenaservice
membercomesoutasgay,lesbianorbisexual.
Remarkably,LieutenantCommanderMilotstatedinhisReportoIInvestigation,
Althoughnowanopenlyhomosexualindividual...|h|ercontinuedpresenceintheNavyis
consistentwiththeNavysinterestingoodorderanddisciplineandmorale(Exhibit49).Petty
OIIicerSecondClassBarbescommander,CommanderDanielSoper,thensentheraletter
statingherretentionwasinthebestinterestoItheNavy.However,CommanderSopersletter
Iurtheradmonished,Istronglyrecommendthatyoucontinuetokeepyoursexualorientationa
personalandprivatematter.Thatwasimpossible.TheinquiryoIIicerhadreportedlyoutedher
andBarbenolongerhadanycontroloverwhomwithintheNavyknewsheisgay.EveniIshe
hadwantedtocomply,shecouldnot(Exhibit50)
72
Defense.ReviewoftheEffectivenessoftheApplicationanaenforcementoftheDepartmentsPolicvonHomosexual
ConauctintheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at11.Thedecisionwhethertoinitiateaninvestigationwhenaservicemember
acknowledgeshisorherhomosexualityanddoesnotcontestseparationhasgenerallyrestedwiththeindividual
commander.Weconcludedthat,inmostoIthesecases,littleornoinvestigationshouldbeconducted.
LCR 04337
- 43-
Oneexampleillustrateshowuntenablethissuggestionwas.AIterBarbewasretained,
Barbessupervisor,ChieIPettyOIIicerRobertTyo,reportedlythreatenedherbysayinghewas
watchinghersoshewouldnotdoanythinginherpersonalliIethatwouldsubiectherto
discipline.Then,duringawork-relateddinner,ChieIPettyOIIicerTyoreportedlyquestioned
PettyOIIicerSecondClassBarbe,inIrontoIherpeersandtheirspouses,aboutwhyshedidnot
bringadate.SoperandTyoplacedBarbeinadoublebindbyreIusingtodischargeherIorbeing
gay,whilegoadingherandthreateningherwithpossiblepunishmentiIshemadeanymissteps.
Ultimately,theNavydischargedBarbeaIterSLDNintervened.Toourknowledge,the
peoplewhoviolatedDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasswerenotheld
accountableIortheiractions.
SLDNwelcomeswhatseemstobeanincreasinglypublicdesirebycommanderstoretain
openlygayservicemembers.SLDNdocumentedmorethantwentycasesinthepastyearwhere
commandersmovedtoretainopenlygaypersonnel,mostlyintheNavy.Itisnotclearwhatlies
behindcommandmotivesinthesecases.
73
AdditionalDontPursueIncidents
A Senior Airman, Jose de Leon, serving at Andrews Air Force
Base, Maryland, reported that his supervisor threatened all oI his
subordinates with adverse action iI they did not report all
statements oI sexual orientation to their chain-oI-command. The
servicememberinIormedhiscommandthatheisgayaIterrumors
circulatedaroundhisunitandhewasrepeatedlyharassedabouthis
perceivedsexualorientation.Thisharassmentincludedoneairman
reportedly saying this is how de Leon likes it, in his ass, while
makingamotionbetweenhislegswithapole.Duringabasketball
game, the same airman yelled at Airman de Leon, II you ever
touchmeagain,IllkickyourIaggotass(Exhibit51).
AIter being harassed by other USS Abraham Lincoln
crewmembers, Seaman Luis Sierra went on an Unauthorized
Absence(UA)becauseheIearedIorhissaIety.Whenhereturned,
he reported the anti-gay harassment and inIormed his commander
heisgay.Theshipsattorney,LieutenantDow,toldSierrathathis
statement was not suIIicient Ior discharge. In response, Sierra
wrote a letter to Dow stating, I was very shocked that you asked
metoprovethatIamgayconsideringallIhavegonethrough....
IwouldpreIertonotdisclosetheintimatedetailsoImyliIe,butI
73
Somecommandersmaybeconcernedwithretainingqualitypersonnelaseveryservicestrugglestomeettheir
retentiongoals.SomemaybetryingtoIindawaytoassesspersonnelbasedontheirmerit,asitshouldbe.Some
maybesignalingtosuperiorsthatsexualorientationhasnothingtodowithmilitarysuitabilityandthatretaining
goodsoldiers,sailors,airmenandmarineswhoaregayisinthebestinterestoIthemilitary.
LCR 04338
- 44-
Ieel like you have leIt me no choice, but to disclose my most
personalthoughts...(Exhibit52).
AMarinePrivate,stationedatParrisIsland,SouthCarolina,came
out to his command in basic training. The inquiry oIIicer called
the Privates parents and questioned them about his sexual
orientation. The inquiry oIIicer also ordered the marine to write
down every instance in which he had engaged in homosexual
conductandtoprovidethenamesandtelephonenumbersoIpeople
withwhomheengagedinhomosexualconduct(Exhibit20).
ASeniorAirmanswiIetoldhercommandthatherhusbandisgay.
Fearing an investigation, the Senior Airman decided to be honest
with his command by disclosing he is gay. The Senior Airmans
command nevertheless appointed an inquiry oIIicer who
wrongIully expanded the scope oI the investigation by asking the
SeniorAirmanquestionssuchas:
Areyounoworhaveyoueverbeendatinganyone:
Doyoubelongtoanyhomosexualorganizations:
74
Do you have any close Iriends that can be contacted that
haveknowledgeoIthismatter:
Do you subscribe or purchase any gay or lesbian
magazines,videos(sic)orotherpornographicmaterial:
75
and
Do you or have you ever participated in gay parades or
demonstrationsorsupportedanygayorganizations(sic)
76
(Exhibit53).
The inquiry oIIicer also questioned ten people regarding the
AirmanssexualorientationandprivateliIe.
DontPursueConclusion
Inthepastsixyears,commandershavepursuedservicemembersbasedonanyinIorma-
tion,howeverobtained,indirectviolationoItheinvestigativelimitsunderDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,DontHarass.CommandershavepursuedinIormationthatisdeIinedasnot
credible,includinganonymousallegations,Ialsecharges,rumorandinnuendo.Commanders
andinquiryoIIicershaveexpandedinquiries,lookingIorinIormationwhentheirinitialleads
haverundryorprovenuntruesothattheycouldiustiIytheirinquiries.Commandersandinquiry
oIIicershavepursuedotherservicemembersuncoveredintheirinvestigations.Thebottomline
74
DEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1332.14,encl.4.E.4:Ia.NO.1332.30encl.4.E.4.CredibleinIormation
doesnotexistwhenTheonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar,possessing
orreadinghomosexualpublications,associatingwithknownhomosexuals,ormarchinginagayrightsrallyin
civilianclothes.
75
Ia.
76
Ia.
LCR 04339
- 45-
isthatcommandersstillworkhardtoputservicemembersontotheradarscreen,contrarytothe
policysletterandintentthatsexualorientationisapersonalandprivatematter.
TherearethreereasonswhyDontPursueviolationscontinuetoincrease:lackoI
guidance,accountability,andrecourse.First,untilthisyear,thePentagonreIusedtodistribute
guidanceonthepolicysinvestigativelimitsorintenttorespectprivacy,despiterepeatedSLDN
requeststogetthisinIormationtotheIield.InAugust1999,SecretaryCohenIinallyinstructed
theservicestopreparetrainingonthepolicysinvestigativelimitsIorallservicemembers.
TheArmystrainingmaterialsincludeinIormationregardingthepolicysinvestigative
limits,includingwhatisandisnotcredibleinIormationandthegroundsIoraIact-Iinding
inquiry.TheMarineCorpstrainingIocusesonhowtodischargeservicemembers.TheAir
Forcehasnotmadeitstrainingpublic,butshoulddoso.Untilallservicetrainingprograms
includethelimitstoinvestigations,andtheintentoIthepolicytobackoII,itislikelythatDont
Pursueviolationswillcontinuetoincrease.
Second,militaryleadersneedtoholdaccountablethosewhoask,pursueandharass.
ServicemembersneedtoknowwhattheconsequencesareIorviolatingDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue,DontHarass,includingactionsIromlettersoIcounselingtocourt-martial
charges,dependingontheseverityoItheviolation.
Third,servicememberswhoareimproperlytargetedneedrealistic,clearlyidentiIied
recourse.Militaryattorneys,Iorexample,shouldbepermittedtorepresentservicemembers
beIoreaninquiryisstartedandshowwhyaninquiryisnotappropriate.
Inaddition,commandersshouldstateinwriting,attheoutsetoIaninquiry,thecredible
inIormationonwhichtheinquiryisbased.
Finally,SLDNwouldwelcomeguidanceIromtheDepartmentoIDeIenseortheservices
regardingtherecenttrendpermittingknownlesbian,gayandbisexualpersonneltoserve,and
whatstepstheywilltaketoensureservicememberssaIetyandtheviabilityoItheircareersin
thesecases.
LCR 04340
LCR 04341
- 47-
DONT HARASS
What has been alleged is that there is a lot of harassment of
homosexual service members within the military. We have
always said that every time we have clear evidence of
harassment, we will investigate that. . . . We dont believe that
there has been escalating harassment of gays in the military, and
I dont believe that the evidence shows that. . . . [I]ts not an
issue that generally comes up, that this is a problem for
commanders.
77
KennethBacon,DeIenseDepartmentSpokesman
December9,1999
Butt pirate. Faggots. Queers. Dyke ass bitch. Bunch of fla-
mers. Fucking faggot. Backside ranger. Die Faggot. Twisted
freaks. Rump ranger. Lezzies. Pole smoker. Goddamn freaks.
Typicalanti-gaycommentsreported
byservicememberstoSLDN
DontHarassViolationsSoar
DontHarassstates,theArmedForcesdonottolerateharassmentorviolenceagainst
anyservicememberIoranyreason.
78
Despitethisclearstandard,SLDNdocumented968
reportsoIanti-gayharassmentthisyear,up142Irom400lastyear.ReportsoIanti-gay
harassment,includingdeaththreats,assaultsandverbalgay-bashing,morethandoubledIorthe
secondconsecutiveyear.
DespitesixyearsoISLDNwarningsthatatragedylikethe1992murderoIgaysailor
AllenSchindlerwaslikelytorecuriIserviceleadersdidnottakestepstostopanti-gay
harassment,
79
militaryleadersutterlyIailedtobegintotakestepstoaddressthisseriousproblem
untilaIterPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellwasmurderedlastsummer.
In1997,theOIIiceoItheUnderSecretaryoIDeIenseissuedtheDornmemorandum
instructingcommanderstoinvestigateanti-gaythreatsandlesbianbaiting,notservicemembers
whoreportit.
80
SLDNthendocumentedthattheservicesneversenttheguidancetotheIield.In
77
DeIenseDepartmentRegularNewsBrieIingSpeaker:KennethH.Bacon,DeIenseDepartmentSpokesman,trans.
byFederalDocumentClearingHouse,Dec.9,1999.
78
ApplicantBriefingitemonSeparationPolicv,addendumtoDEPTOFDEFENSEDIRECTIVENO.1304.26,
(1993), QualificationStanaarasforEnlistment.Appointment.anaInauction.
79
C.DixonOsburnandMichelleM.Benecke,ConauctUnbecoming.TheFirstYearUnaerDontAsk.DontTell.
DontPursue.Feb.1995,at27:ItisreasonablyIoreseeablethatiItheDepartmentoIDeIensedoesnottake
correctiveactionsnow,deathsoIactualandperceivedhomosexualservicemembers,likeslainsailorAllen
Schindler,willoccur.
80
UnderSecretaryoIDeIenseEdwinDorn,GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainstServiceMembersBaseaon
AllegeaHomosexualitv,Mar.24,1997.
LCR 04342
- 48-
April1998,thePentagonconcededtheserviceshadnotdistributedtheDornmemorandum.The
PentagonnotonlyorderedtheDornmemorandumsreissuance,butalsothatthememobe
clariIiedtoexpresslyincludeanti-gayharassment,notiustthreats.
81
Monthspassedwithoutthe
memobeingsenttotheIield,despiterepeatedrequestsbySLDN.OnlyaIterPrivateFirstClass
BarryWinchellsmurderdidthePentagonIinallydistributethememo.
Thisyear,reportsoIanti-gayharassment,Iromdeaththreatstoverbalgay-bashing,came
Iromnearlyeverymaiorbaseandport.ServicemembersreportbeingharassedbyoIIicersand
enlistedpersonnel.Theanti-gayharassmentoItenbeginsinbasictrainingandcontinues
throughoutaservicememberscareer.Today,anti-gayslurs,comments,andepithetsareas
muchapartoIthemilitarycultureastheuniIorm.
Overall,theNavyistheworstviolatoroIDontHarass,with330incidentsoIanti-gay
harassmentduringthepastyear,a108increaseoverthe158violationsreportedtheyear
beIore.TheArmyhadthesecondhighestnumberoIharassmentviolationswith276,a126
increaseoverthe122violationsIoundduringthepreviousyear.TheAirForcehad217
incidents,analarming302increaseIromlastyears54violations.Therewere134Marine
Corpsviolations,a113increaseoverlastyearsIigureoI63.
EvenaIterSecretaryCohenstatedinAugust1999thathewouldnottolerateanti-gay
harassment,SLDNdocumented495reportsoIanti-gayharassment,morethanhalIthe968total
incidentsoIDontHarassviolationsduringthepastyear.Servicememberswhocontact
SLDNendurethesamedailyanti-gayharassmentthatPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellIaced
andtheyareterriIiedtheymaybethenextservicememberwhoisattacked.
Thissectionexaminesindepththeanti-gayclimateatFortCampbell,Kentuckythat
contributedtothemurderoIPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchell.TheDontHarasssection
thenturnstoadditionalexamplesoIanti-gayharassmentenduredbySLDNclientsIromdeath
threatstoverbalgay-bashing.ThesectioncloseswithanexaminationoIlesbianbaitingas
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasscontinuestodisproportionatelyimpact
womenandderailtheircareers.
AnatomyofaMurder:PervasiveAnti-GayClimateatFortCampbell,Kentucky
TheMuraerofPrivateFirstClassBarrvWinchell
DuringtheearlymorningoIJuly5,1999,iusthoursaIterournationcelebratedthe
anniversaryoIitsindependence,PrivateCalvinGlovertookabaseballbatoIIeredbySpecialist
JustinFisher,beatPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchelltodeath,shatteringhisskulllikean
81
OFFICEOFTHEUNDER SECRETARYOFDEFENSE (PERSONNELANDREADINESS) ReporttotheSecretaryoI
DeIense,OIIiceoItheUndersecretaryoIDeIensePersonnelandReadiness,ReviewoftheEffectivenessofthe
ApplicationanaEnforcementoftheDepartmentsPolicvonHomosexualConauctintheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at14.
...inreissuingthememorandumprovidingguidelinesIorinvestigatingthreatsagainstservicemembersbasedon
homosexuality,theDepartmentshouldincludelanguagetomakeclearthatharassmentoIservicemembersbasedon
theirallegedorpresumedsexualorientationisunacceptableandthatservicememberswhoengageinsuch
harassmentwillbeheldaccountable.
LCR 04343
- 49-
eggshellwhilehesleptinhisbarracks.FiIteentotwentyminutestranspiredbeIoreGlover
returnedthebaseballbattoFisher,whothenwashedWinchellsbloodoIIthebat.
TheArmyinitiallyattemptedtodownplaythemurder,callingWinchellsdeaththeresult
oIaphysicalaltercationinapostbarracks,asthoughitwastheresultoIamutualIight
(Exhibit54).Inresponsetoareportersquestion,theArmyalsoclaimedtherewasnoevidence
thatthemurderwasananti-gayhatecrime,withouthavinginvestigatedthepossibility.Aslate
asAugust,1999,theFortCampbellCriminalInvestigationDivisionIlatoutdeniedtoSLDN
IindinganyevidenceoIahatecrime.SLDNconducteditsownpreliminaryinvestigationand,
contrarytotheArmysinitialposition,Ioundeveryreasontobeconcernedthiswasananti-gay
hatecrime.
Fivemonthslater,inDecember1999,theArmyconvictedPrivateGloveroIpremeditated
murderandsentencedhimtoliIeinprisonwiththepossibilityoIparole.Armyprosecutors
arguedthatGloversprimarymotivewasapredisposedhatredoIgays.Onemonthlater,in
January2000,theArmyconvictedSpecialistJustinFisherIorobstructingthecriminal
investigationintothemurder,lyingtoinvestigators,andprovidingalcoholtoaminor.For
reasonsthatremainunclear,MaiorGeneralRobertT.Clark,CommandingGeneral,101st
AirborneDivision(AirAssault)atFortCampbell,acceptedalenientpleabargainwithFisher,
reportedlyovertheobiectionsoIWinchellsIamily.Thepleaagreementdroppedtheoriginal
chargesoIprincipaltopremeditatedmurderandaccessoryaItertheIact.IIFisherhadbeen
IoundguiltyoIthosecharges,hecouldhavebeensentencedtothemaximumoIliIeinprison.
Instead,pursuanttothepleabargain,SpecialistFisherwassentencedtotwelveandone-halI
yearsinprison,withpossibilityoIparoleinIouryears.
Thecourts-martial
82
oIPrivateGloverandSpecialistFisherprovideawindowintothe
virulentanti-gayclimateatFortCampbellthatsetthestageIorthisterribletragedy.
SoldieraItersoldiertestiIiedduringthepreliminaryhearings
83
thatPrivateFirstClass
WinchellhadIaceddailyanti-gayharassmentIromhispeersandsupervisorsIorIourmonths
priortohismurder.SoldierstestiIieditwascommontousewordssuchasIag,Iaggotand
queer.TheyalsotestiIiedthatWinchellbecamethetargetoIdaily,directanti-gayharassment
aIterFisherstartedrumorsthatWinchellhadgonetoagaybarinNashville,Tennessee.
Winchelltriedtodenyresultingquestionsabouthissexualorientationateveryturn,butthe
tauntingcontinuedunabated.Atthecriminalproceedings,soldierstestiIiedthat:
StaII Sergeants KleiIgen and Dubielak, Private First Class
Winchellssupervisors,askedWinchelldirectlyiIheweregay:
82
Acourt-martialisamilitarycriminalproceedingthatissimilartoaciviliancriminaltrial.Boththemilitarycourt-
martialandciviliancriminaltrialusesimilarrulesoIevidenceandineachIorumanaccusedmaychooseatrialby
iuryoratrialbyiudgealone.
83
AnArticle32hearing,whichtakesplacebeIoreacourt-martial,issomewhatsimilartoaciviliangrandiury
proceeding.However,inamilitaryArticle32hearing,thedeIensecounselmaypresentevidencetoreduceor
dismissthechargesagainsthis/herclient.
LCR 04344
- 50-
StaIISergeantKleiIgentoldhisplatoon,reIerringtoWinchell,
IhaveasoldierIcouldgetoutoItheArmyiIIwantedto.I
haveasoldierthatisgay:
First Sergeant Secrist said, reIerring to Private First Class
Winchell, Im gonna get that little Iaggot, or words to that
eIIect:
SpecialistFisherallegedlytoldPrivateFirstClassWinchell,I
willmakeyoumybitch:
Private Glover told Private Kenneth Buckler, the one thing I
cantstandisIaggotsorniggers:and
Private Johanson allegedly asked Private Winchell, Do you
takeitintheassormouth?
Specialist Fisher repeatedly taunted Private Glover about
having his ass kicked by a Iaggot when Private First Class
Winchell bested Private Glover in an altercation provoked by
PrivateGloveronJuly3,1999.
Multiplythegeneralanti-gaycommentsthatpermeateFortCampbellandthecomments
directedspeciIicallytoWinchell,onlyaIewoIwhichareabove,by120daysandonebeginsto
getasenseoItheenormousstrainplacedonPrivateFirstClassWinchellatFortCampbell.Two
Iriends,SpecialistPhilipRuizandhiswiIe,Melanie,testiIiedthatWinchellwasproIoundly
troubledbytherumorsandwasconcernedhewouldbekickedoutoItheArmyhelovedasa
resultoIthem.TheRuizesIurthertestiIiedthatPrivateFirstClassWinchellwasparticularly
concernedaboutpossibleviolencebySpecialistFisher.SoldierstestiIiedSpecialistFisherhad
previouslyassaultedPrivateWinchellwithametaldustpan,openingacutthatrequiredstitches
toWinchellsIace.AndtheRuizestestiIiedSpecialistFisherhadthreatenedtokillWinchellone
nightwhentheyreturnedIromanightoutinNashville.
StaIISergeantsKleiIgenandDubielak,whilenotblamelessIorasking,pursuingand
harassingWinchellindirectviolationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,
recognizedthatwhatwashappeningtoWinchellwaswrong.WhenFirstSergeantSecrist,the
topenlistedleaderintheunit,begantocallWinchellaIaggotandsinglehimoutIor
punishment,KleiIgenandDublielaktookstepstoaddresstheFirstSergeantsmisconduct.They
reportedtheFirstSergeanttotheircommander,CaptainRouse,andsubsequentlytothebase
InspectorGeneral.Duringthecriminalproceedings,StaIISergeantKleiIgentestiIiedthat
neitherCaptainRouse,northeInspectorGeneral,tookactionagainstFirstSergeantSecrist.
OnJuly3,1999,soldiersincludingPrivateFirstClassWinchell,PrivateGloverand
SpecialistFisher,weredrinkingoutsidetheirbarracks.Accordingtosoldierstestimony,Glover
pickedaIightwithWinchell,whichWinchellhandilywon.AstheIightended,Glover
threatenedWinchell,saying,Itsnotcool.Icouldkillyou.
LCR 04345
- 51-
SoldierstestiIiedthatSpecialistFishertauntedGloverceaselesslyonJuly4,1999about
havinghadhisasskickedbyaIaggot.FisherhimselItestiIiedthatastheJuly4partyended,
heinvitedGloveruptohisandWinchellsroomIormorealcohol.Heplayedthecompactdisc
Irom PsvchoandtauntedGloverIurtheraboutbeingbestedbyWinchell.Fisherstatedathis
ownsentencinghearingthathesuggestedtoGloverthathedosomethingaboutit.Glovertook
Fishersbaseballbat,walkedoutsidetheroom,andbashedWinchelltodeath.
OneoIthemanyquestionsthatarisesoutoIWinchellsmurderiswhoisorare
responsibleIortheanti-gayharassmentandIailedimplementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,
DontPursue,DontHarassthatsetthestageIorWinchellsmurder.SLDNisconcernedthatiI
theArmyholdsanyoneelseaccountable,itwillscapegoatlowerrankingnoncommissioned
oIIicers,ratherthanplacingblameatthetopwithMaiorGeneralClark,whereitbelongs.The
Iollowingcasesillustratehowanti-gayharassmentwasnotisolatedinWinchellsunit,but
continuestopermeatetheentirecultureatFortCampbell.Thecommandclimateisultimately
setbythetopMaiorGeneralClark.
Faggot.Faggot.DowntheStreet.ShotHim.ShotHim.TillHeRetreats
TwomonthsaIterPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder,PrivateJavierCortlandTorres
Iearedhemightbenextinlinetobekilled.Aheterosexualsoldier,IormerSpecialistRichard
Adkins,warnedTorresthathemightbeindangeraIterheoverheardtwomembersoITorres
unitspeculatingaboutTorressexualorientation.WhileonesoldiersupportedTorres,theother
soldiersaidthatsIuckedup.AdkinstoldTorresthatthetoneoItheconversationmadehim
IearIorTorressaIety.
PrivateTorresreportsthatrumorsabouthissexualorientationbecamemoreprevalent
aIterheexpressedconcernaboutPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder,uponlearningoIthe
crime.TorresdidnotknowWinchellanddidnotserveinthesameplatoon,butwashorriIiedto
learnthatonesoldierhadkilledanothersoldier.InresponsetohisexpressionoIconcern,
soldiersderisivelydismissedthemurder,saying,SowhatiIhe(Winchell)waskilled.Hewas
gay.AndWhocares?HewasiustaIag.ThesoldiersthenturnedonPrivateTorresandasked
himiIheweregaytoo(Exhibit55).
WinchellsmurderandtheincreasingspeculationaboutTorressexualorientation
terriIiedTorres.ThisIearwasexacerbatedbyTorresobservationsoIanti-gayharassmentby
hisenlistedleaders.
ShortlyaIterWinchellsmurder,StaIISergeantMatelstreetledPrivateTorresunitona
run,singingtheIollowingcadence:Faggot,Iaggot,downthestreet.Shothim,shothim,tillhe
retreats(Exhibit55).ThechantadvocatedviolenceagainstgaysinthewakeoItheanti-gay
hatecrimemurderoIoneoIFortCampbellsownsoldiers.Torres,IorIearthathis
noncompliancewouldrevealthatheisgay,IeltIorcedtosingthechant.Nooneobiectedtothe
chant.
OnseveraloccasionsbetweenMayandSeptember1999,TorresreportedlyheardFirst
SergeantTeetlyreIertosoldiersasgettingporkeduptheassiItheycouldnotadequately
LCR 04346
- 52-
perIormassignedtasks.Everyoneintheunitunderstoodthistobeadisparagingremarkabout
gaypeople.IItheFirstSergeanthadmadesimilarlydisparagingremarksbasedonrace,Ior
example,orreligion,hewouldnolongerbeservingintheUnitedStatesArmy(Exhibit55).
AttheendoIAugust1999,SergeantBarrybrieIedTorresunitonDontAsk,Dont
Tell,DontPursue,DontHarass.Theclasswasintendedtoremindsoldiersaboutthepolicys
investigativelimitsandprohibitionsonanti-gayharassment.TorresreportsthatSergeantBarry
calledtheclassaIagbrieIingandreIerredtogaysoldiersasIags.SergeantBarrys
commentsagainsenttheunmistakablemessagetothesoldiersthattheydidnotreallyhaveto
observeDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass(Exhibit55).
PrivateTorresdidnotknowwhattodo.HeIearedthatremainingsilentwouldonlyIuel
thespeculationabouthisbeinggayandplacehiminharmsway.Hecouldnotreporttheanti-
gayharassmenttohisleadersbecausetheyweretheonesengaginginit.Hewasreluctantto
comeouttohiscommand,IorIearthattheywouldmishandletheinIormationandhecouldbe
murderedbybigotedsoldiers.Ultimately,PrivateTorresconcludedhehadtocomeoutand
leave,despitehisstrongdesiretoserve,ashisonlywaytoprotecthissaIety.WithSLDNs
assistance,PrivateTorresreportedindetailtheanti-gayharassmenthewasIacing,andIounda
militarydeIenseattorneywhoexpeditedPrivateTorresdischarge.
ThecommandatFortCampbelltooknostepsontheirowninitiativetoinvestigateor
holdpeopleaccountableIortheanti-gayharassmentTorreswitnessedandexperienced.Only
aIterSLDNandCongressionalmembersraisedthiscasetothehighestlevelatthePentagonwas
anyinvestigationstarted.TheresultsoIthatinvestigationhavenotyetbeenmadeavailable,
althoughrecentunoIIicialreportsindicatethatsomestepsmayhavebeentakenagainstStaII
SergeantMatelstreet.
YouAreaFaggot...anaIWillBeatYouwithaBaseballBat
AIterPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder,SpecialistMichaelMcCoyobserved
increasedanti-gayepithets,commentsandgraIIitiatFortCampbell.Theincreasedanti-gay
harassmentindicatesalackoIleadershipinstoppinganti-gayharassmentevenaIterWinchells
murder.Insomecases,SpecialistMcCoyevenobservedsoldiersmockingWinchellsmurder.
Duringonetrainingexercise,Iorexample,SpecialistMcCoyheardaninIantrysoldierstatethat
iIanyoneansweredaquestionwrong,YouareaIaggot.AnothersoldierrepliedwithThats
right,andIwillbeatyouwithabaseballbat(Exhibit56).Thesestatementsweremadeinthe
presenceoInoncommissionedoIIicers,noneoIwhomspokeuporintervened.
Onotheroccasions,SpecialistMcCoyobservedgraIIitiinpublicareasonpost.One
drawingonthewalloItheFamilySupportCenterrestroomportrayedatwotothreeIootlong
baseballbatwiththewordsFAGWHACKERprominentlyinscribedinthemiddleoIthebat
(Exhibit57).Thiswasnotasmalldoodle,butalargeandpurposeIuldrawingmocking
WinchellsmurderandindicatingthedegreeoIanti-gaysentimentallowedtoIlourishatthe
base.Atapostrecreationcenter,graIIitiappearedstating,AllFagets|sic|intheArmywillbe
killed(Exhibit58).BoththeFamilySupportcenterandthepostrecreationcenterareheavily
LCR 04347
- 53-
usedcommonareasatFortCampbellinwhichoIIicersandenlistedleaderscouldnothave
missedseeingthegraIIiti.
SpecialistMcCoydecidedtocomeoutandbedischargedoutoIIearIorhissaIetyaIter
rumorsbegancirculatingabouthissexualorientation.WhileMcCoyreportshehadagood
commandthatactedpromptlyinaddressingtherumors,heIearedthathisleaderscouldnot
protecthimtwentyIourhoursaday,sevendaysaweek.SpecialistMcCoydidnotIearthe
colleaguesinhisunit,butsoldiersoutsideoIhisunitwhomoreIreelyengagedinanti-gay
harassment(Exhibit59).BecausehisiobrequiredhimtotrainandworkwithsoldiersIrom
otherunits,likethosewhomockedPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder,McCoyconcludedhe
hadnochoicetoprotecthissaIetybuttocomeoutandbedischarged.
SpecialistMcCoywasagoodIriendoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellsandwasdevastated
byhisdeath.SpecialistMcCoycouldnotIathomthedisrespectothersoldiersshowedby
mockingWinchellsdeathandtheIailureoIleaderstocorrectitonthespot.
GavsDontDeserve...SameRights
AthirdsoldierarrivedatFortCampbellshortlyaIterWinchellsmurderandreportshe
wasshockedtoIindacommandclimateoIintoleranceandindiIIerence,characterizedby
constantanti-gayepithetsandiokes.ThesoldierreportsthataLieutenantinhisbattaliontold
soldiersintheunitdayroomthatgaysgivenothingtosocietysotheydontdeservethesame
rightsthatheterosexualpeoplehave.Nosoldierobiected.
ThesoldierwasIorcedtocomeoutaIteraSergeantsearchedthroughIilesonthe
soldierspersonalcomputer
84
anddiscoveredsomegay-relatedmaterials.WhiletheSergeant
didnotreporthimtothecommand,theSergeantteasedhimaboutbeinggayandtoldothers
aboutthesoldier.NotwantingtobecomethevictimoIanassaultorotheranti-gayharassment,
thesoldierbelievedhehadnootheroptionbuttocomeouttohiscommandandbedischarged.
CompleteFailureofLeaaershipatFortCampbell
InthewakeoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder,gaydischargesatFortCampbell
havenearlytripled,Irom7to20.Withoutbasis,MaiorGeneralClarkhasblamedtheincreasein
gaydischargesongaysseekinganeasywayoutoItheArmy.
85
MaiorGeneralClarks
commentsuggestsatotaldisregardIortheanti-gayharassmentreportedbyhissoldiers.
ThepreliminaryhearingsintheWinchellmurdercaseshedlightonIurthercommand
indiIIerenceIorthewell-beingoIsoldiersatFortCampbell,including:
pervasivedrinkingbyunderagesoldiersinthebarracks:
lackoIadequatesupervisioninthebarracks:
violenceinthebarracks:
84
SeeIurtherdiscussionoIcaseintheDontAsksectionoIthisreport.
85
ElizabethBeckerandKatharineQ.Steelye,PolicvonGavsPartoftheDrillatArmvBase,N.Y.Times,Feb.14,
2000,atA1.
LCR 04348
- 54-
lackoI911accessIromindividualbarracksroomphones:and
lack oI training on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue,
DontHarass.
MaiorGeneralClarkhasneveronce,toSLDNsknowledgeortheknowledgeoIthe
nearly20soldiersIromFortCampbellSLDNhasassisted,publiclystatedanti-gayharassmentis
wrong.MaiorGeneralClarkalludedtoanti-gayharassmentIortheIirsttimemonthsaIter
WinchellsmurderandapparentlyinresponsetotheDepartmentoItheArmyandthehighlevel
oImediainterestintheWinchellcase.InamemorandumtitledRespectIorOthers,Maior
GeneralClarkstated:RespectIorothersisanArmyValueandacornerstoneoIdisciplineand
espritaecorps. Allsoldierswillbetreatedwithdignityandrespect.ClarksIailuretoaddress
anti-gayharassmentdirectly,giventhemagnitudeoIinIormationaboutanti-gayharassmentthat
wasthenontherecord,isinexplicable.
Morerecently,MaiorGeneralClarkplacedoII-limitsagay-IriendlybarinNashville,
86
makingitacriminaloIIense
87
togotothatbar.UnderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,
DontHarass,soldiersmaygotogaybarswithoutIearoIreprisal.MaiorGeneralClarkstates
hemadethemovetoprotectsoldiersIrompossibledruguseorviolence,butoIIerednoevidence
tobackuphisclaim.SLDNhasrequestedtoknowthebasisoIhisclaim.Withoutsupporting
inIormation,thisclaimraisesthequestionoIwhetherhisorderwasmotivatedbyanti-gay
animus.
MaiorGeneralClarkalsorecentlyreIusedtopermitpublicationoIanadinthebase
paper, TheFortCampbellCourier,alertingsoldierstohowtheycananonymouslyreportanti-
gayharassmenttotheArmyInspectorGeneral.OnhisbehalI,theFortCampbellPublicAIIairs
OIIicestated,WedonotbelievethatrunningthisadvertisementisinthebestinterestoIthe
commandanditssoldiers(Exhibit60).SoldiersareterriIiedtomeetwiththeInspectorGeneral
reviewteamIorIearoIbeingouted,harassedanddischarged.TheirIearsarewell-Iounded.The
oIIicerinchargeoItheInspectorGeneralreviewteamstatedhebelieveshemustturninany
servicemembersIoundtobegayduringthecourseoIinvestigatinganti-gayharassment.Given
thatthepurposeoItheadwastoinIormsoldiersoIwheretheycouldsaIelyturntoaddress
harassment,onewouldthinkthiswouldbeagoalsharedbythechain-oI-command.
MaiorGeneralClarksactionsIromstarttoIinishunderscorehisIailedleadershipin
addressinganti-gayharassmentatFortCampbell.TheArmyshouldtakeappropriateactionto
sendtheunmistakablemessagethatitwillholdaccountablethosewhoIailtoaddressanti-gay
harassment,andwhopermitahostilecommandclimatetoIlourish.
86
Ia.
87
ViolationoIdirectordersmayresultincriminalchargesundertheUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice.
LCR 04349
- 55-
Anti-GayHarassmentPervasive:FromOfficersandEnlisted
MarineLieutenantColonelMocksPrivateFirstClassWinchellsMuraer
anaPentagonOraerAgainstAnti-GavHarassment
InOctober1999,MarineLieutenantColonelEdwardMeltoninIormedhissubordinates
andhisbossatTwenty-NinePalms,CaliIorniaoIhisopinionoIgaypeopleinane-mail.Thee-
mailrelatedtotheneedtoproperlyapplytheHomosexualConductPolicyandtostopanti-gay
harassment.Inhise-mail,LieutenantColonelMeltonwrote:
Due to the hate crime death oI a homo in the Army, we now
have to take extra steps to ensure the saIety oI the queer who has
told(notkepthispartoItheDODdontask,donttellpolicy).
Commanders now bear the responsibility iI someone decides to
assaulttheyoungbacksideranger.BediscreetandcareIulinyour
dealings with these characters. And remember, little ears are
everywhere(Exhibit61).
LieutenantColonelMeltonviolatedtheguidanceagainstanti-gayharassmentonitsIace.
Healsocommunicatedtohissubordinatesthattheydidnotneedtotakeitseriously.He
callouslymockedPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder.
DismayedbythecompletedisregardIortheirsonsmurder,PrivateFirstClass
WinchellsparentswrotetotheCommandantoItheMarineCorps,GeneralJ.L.Jones,andthe
basecommander,MaiorGeneralCliIIordStanley,seekingaccountability.IntheirDecember22,
1999,letter,PatandWallyKutteleswrote:
Wecantputintowordshowappalledandupsetwewerewhenwe
read the text oI an e-mail Irom a Marine Corps oIIicer, Lt. Col.
Edward Melton, mocking the murder oI our son . . . Lt. Col.
Meltons e-mail |also| shows a lack oI concern Ior the men and
womenwhoserveunderhimandmaybeinneedoIhisguidance,
leadership or protection. We request that Lt. Col. Melton is held
accountable Ior his actions and that he is removed Irom his
position(Exhibit62).
Atthistime,theKutteleshavenotreceivedaresponseIromGeneralJonesorMaior
GeneralStanley.Inthemeantime,thee-mailhasbeenwidelypublished.
88
OnJanuary26,
1999,theSanDiegoUnion-Tribunereportedthatacombatcenterspokesmansaid,
AdministrativeactionhasbeentakenagainstCol.Melton,andhehasbeentransIerred.SLDN
hasbeenunabletoveriIyIromtheMarineCorpswhether,inIact,LieutenantColonelMelton
wasdisciplinedand,iIso,exactlywhatactionsweretaken.
88
ElizabethBecker,MilitarvOraersaBroaaSurvevofGavAbuse,N.Y.Times,Dec.14,1999,andMarineOfficer
InvestigateaforAllegealvSlurringGavsinE-mail,CNNHeadlineNews,Dec.16,1999.
LCR 04350
- 56-
WeShoulaKillThemAll
NavyROTCMidshipmanReneeFarsterreportssheIacedrepeatedanti-gayharassment
attheUniversityoIPennsylvaniabyROTCinstructors,othermidshipmenandactivedutyNavy
enlistedmembersandoIIicers.Oneday,GunnerySergeantSauerreportedlyaskedMidshipman
Farsteraboutabraceletshewaswearing.WhensheinIormedtheGunnerySergeantthatitwas
anAIDSawarenessbracelet,hestated,theydeserveit.ItsaIagdisease.Itsawaytocontrol
them(Exhibit63).FollowingtheGunnerySergeantsexample,MidshipmanFarsterspeers
alsomadeconstantanti-gaycommentsincluding,Weshouldkillthemall,andThey
(homosexuals)disgustme.OthermidshipmenoItenreIerredtogaymenascocksuckersand
Iudgepackers.
MidshipmanFarstereventuallybecameatargetIortheirattacks.InpreparationIoraFall
semester1998brieIingonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,another
midshipmane-mailedMidshipmanFarsterstating,Hey,Renee,asyouknowwehavetotalk
aboutIaggotsindrilltomorrow,sowedlikeyoutohelpus.Weknowyouknowalotabout
stuIIlikethis.DuringtheunitbrieIing,manyoIMidshipmanFarstersIellowmidshipmen
whisperedcommentsaboutgoddamnIreaksandlezzies.WhenoneoIthemidshipman
brieIersaskedwhatanoIIicershoulddoiIaIellowservicemembercameouttohim,
MidshipmanFarsterreportshearingonemidshipmansaykillhim.Manymidshipmenlaughed
approvinglyatthiscomment.
MidshipmanFarsterhopedthingswouldbediIIerentintheIleet,buttheywerenot.
DuringhersummertrainingcruiseonboardtheUSSYorktown,shewitnessedIrequentanti-gay
comments.MidshipmanFarsterwasdirectlyaskedbytheshipsoIIicers,thoseresponsibleIor
oversightoIthemidshipmentrainees,whatherviewswereoIIouryearlesbians.Shestates
shewasalsoasked,whatdoyouthinkoIthreesomes?MidshipmanFarsterreportsthese
oIIicersstated,|we|dontcaretoomuchaboutgaygirls.Theyrehot,butguys,|wed|liketo
killthem.
DuringtheIollowingschoolyear,MidshipmanFarsterwasthetargetoIheightenedanti-
gayharassment.OnoneoccasionintheSpringoI1999,themidshipmenwererequiredtogive
impromptuspeechesonatopicselectedbyothermidshipmen.TheIirsttopicgivento
MidshipmanFarsterwaslesbians.Fortunately,Farsterreports,anothermidshipmanspokeup
stating,No.Werenotgoingthere.
Believingitwastheonlywayshecouldendtheanti-gayharassmentandbetruetothe
NavyCoreValuesoIhonestyandintegrity,MidshipmanFarsterultimatelyreportedthe
harassmentandinIormedhercommandthatsheisalesbian.MidshipmanFarsterscommand
commendedhercourageandhonesty,butneverthelessdisenrolledherIromtheNavyROTC
program(Exhibit64).ToSLDNsknowledge,noROTCinstructor,midshipman,activeduty
NavyOIIicerorsailorhasbeenheldaccountableIortheanti-gayharassmentMidshipman
Farsterreported.
LCR 04351
- 57-
ImNottheOneYouWanttoTellThatYouAreGav,
IWillDischargeYoufromtheNavvanaSenaYouHomeinaBox
Seaman ApprenticeJeremyMandersreportedlyexperiencedon-goinganti-gay
harassmentonboardtheaircraItcarrierUSSCarlJinson.OnJanuary28,2000,Seaman
ApprenticeManderswrotetotheshipscommander,CaptainBruceClinan,thatheIeltthat
|his|liIe|was|indanger.(Exhibit65).Inhisletter,Mandersdescribedtheanti-gayclimateon
theship,aswellasthreatsdirectedathimbyhissupervisorChieIPettyOIIicerSmith.Onone
occasion,Iorexample,ChieIPettyOIIicerSmithreportedlyaskedSeamanApprenticeManders
iIitweretruethathewasgay.Mandershadlittlechoicebuttosay,No.ChieIPettyOIIicer
Smithreportedlyresponded,Iamnottheoneyouwanttotellthatyouaregay,Iwilldischarge
youIromtheNavyandsendyouhomeinabox.Onanotheroccasion,SeamanApprentice
MandersreportsoverhearingChieIPettyOIIicerSmithstateinadiscussionwithotherenlisted
leaders,IhateIaggots.TheyhavenorighttobeintheNavy.(Exhibit65).
SeamanApprenticeMandersalsoheardanti-gaycommentsbyhispeers.Asailoronce
statedhehatedtheSanFrancisco49ersIootballteambecausethecityisIilledwithIaggotsand
Iwishthatthecitywouldburntotheground.Juniorsailors,encouragedbySmith,toldanti-gay
iokes.MandersIearedIorhissaIetyduetoChieIPettyOIIicerSmithsdeaththreatandtheUSS
CarlJinsonsanti-gayclimate.Hereportedthethreattohiscommandandrequestedadischarge
becauseoIhissaIetyconcerns.SLDNhasbeenunabletoveriIywhetheranydisciplinaryaction
hasbeentakenagainstChieIPettyOIIicerSmith.
SeamanApprenticeMandersisnottheonlysailorontheUSSCarlJinsonwhohas
reportedapervasivelyanti-gayclimate.TwoPettyOIIicerscontactedSLDNthisyearseeking
helpincombatinganti-gayharassmentontheship.BothPettyOIIicersreporttheyhearanti-gay
epithetsonboardseveraltimeseachdayandthatothersailorsopenlyspeculateabouttheir
perceivedsexualorientation.OneoIthePettyOIIicers,Iorexample,reportsshehasheard
sailorsstate,Weshouldkillthemall,whendiscussinggays.AnothersailorcontactedSLDN
becauseheistiredoIlivinginIearthathisshipmatesmightharmhimiItheyIindoutheisgay.
WeDontLikeYouQueersArounaHere
AirmanFirstClassDennisPotterreportsbeingthetargetoIrepeatedanti-gayharassment
thisyearatGoodIellowAirForceBaseinTexas.InAugust1999,aconcernedstraightIriend
toldPotterthatotherservicememberswerediscussinghisperceivedsexualorientationand
reIerringtohimasaIuckingIaggot(Exhibit66).PottersIriendalsosaidsheheardoneoIthe
airmensayaboutAirmanFirstClassPotter,thatboybetterwatchhimselIorheisgoingtoget
whatscomingtohim.Asaresult,PotterIearedIorhissaIety.PottersIearescalatedaIter
militarypersonnelconIrontedhiminastraightbarnearbaseandtoldhimyouneedtogetoutoI
herebecausewedontlikeyourtype.
OtherservicemembersharassedAirmanFirstClassPotterwithcommentssuchas:
wedontlikeyouqueersaroundhere:
whatthehellareyougaysdoinghere:
LCR 04352
- 58-
lookattheIuckingIaggot:and
Ithoughttheydidntallowgaysinthemilitary
(Exhibit66).
Ultimately,AirmanFirstClassPottercameouttohiscommandandacceptedadischarge
becausehebelievedthatthiscourseoIactionwastheonlywaytoensurehissaIety.
AreYouGoingtoSuckHisDicktoKeepHimin?
MaiorRobertScott,aNewJerseyAirNationalGuardIighterpilot,Iiledadiscrimination
suitintheSuperiorCourtoINewJerseyearlierthisyear.MaiorScottclaimshehasendured
constantanti-gayharassmentIromhisIellowGuardmembersbasedontheperceptionthatheis
gay.Heisheterosexual.Accordingtohiscomplaint,MaiorScottreportsheIacedtheIollowing
incidentsoIanti-gayharassment,amongothers:
MaiorJamesHaycalledhimaIuckingIaggot:
Captain Kirk Miller stated that by the time he was married to
his third wiIe, Maior Scott would be working on his Iourth
boyIriend:
While reIerring to Maior Scotts eIIorts to convince another
Guard member to remain in the unit, Maior James Desanctis
askedMaiorScott,Areyougoingtosuckhisdicktokeephim
in:and
Lieutenant Colonel Robert KnauII, Lieutenant Colonel Robert
Brenner, Lieutenant Colonel Larry Thomas, Maior James
Desanctis and Captain Brian Bunn have all reIerred to Maior
Scottasahomosexual(Exhibit67).
Inhisdiscriminationcomplaint,MaiorScottstatesheattemptedtoaddressthe
harassmentproblemrepeatedlywithhisunitcommandandthensoughtrelieIthroughtheunits
EqualEmploymentOpportunityOIIicerandtheAdiutantGeneraloItheNewJerseyNational
Guard.Notonlydidhiscommandnotstoptheanti-gayharassment,butMaiorScottwas
retaliatedagainstIorreportingtheharassment.MaiorScottallegeshisNationalGuardcommand
groundedhimIromIlyingwithoutiustiIicationandsegregatedhimIromhisIellowoIIicersinthe
FalloI1997.IntheSpringoI1998,hisNationalGuardcommandtoldMaiorScottthathewould
remaingrounded,wouldcontinuetobesegregated,andwasunderinvestigationIorunspeciIied
wrong-doings.ThenintheSpringoI1999,hiscommandissuedhimawrittenreprimandIor
havingaconsensualsexualrelationshipwithanunmarriedIemaleenlistedperson.Whileitis
commonknowledgethatseveralothermembersoItheGuardhavehadsexualrelationshipswith
enlistedpersonnel,MaiorScotthasbeentheonlyGuardmemberdisciplined.
LCR 04353
- 59-
Believingthathehadnootheroption,MaiorScotthasIiledacomplaintinSuperiorCourt
seekingcompensatoryandpunitivedamagesIromTheNewJerseyAirNationalGuard,theState
oINewJersey,andnamedmembersoIhisunit.
[YouDont{ShowEnoughInterestintheDancingGirlsDowntown
AirForceStaIISergeantEricGundbergreportsthatIellowairmenlabeledhimaIag
duringanassignmentatOsanAirForceBaseinSouthKorea.AccordingtoGundberg,the
airmenspreadrumorsthathewasaIagbecausehedidnotshowenoughinterestinthe
dancinggirlsdowntown(Exhibit68).
InJune1997,aIterStaIISergeantGundbergtransIerredtoBealeAirForceBase,
CaliIornia,heattendedanEqualOpportunityClasswheretheinstructorroutinelyreIerredto
gaysasIruits|and|Iairys(sic).InresponsetoaquestionaboutwhethertheAirForcewas
allowedtodiscriminate,theinstructorreportedlyresponded,OIcourse,wedontletdisabled
peoplein,oroverweightindividuals,andoIcourse,Iairiescantcomein,unlesstheykeeptheir
mouthsshutaboutitthatis.
TheIinalstrawcamewhenStaIISergeantGundbergsseniorsupervisor,MasterSergeant
AngelMunier,isreportedtohaveopenlymadeIunoIanotherairmanwhowasperceivedtobe
gay.InaSeptemberlettertohiscommandreportingtheanti-gayharassment,Gundberg
explainedhecouldnotspeakupIortheridiculedairmanbecausehewasaIraidtheother
noncommissionedoIIicerswouldthinkhe,too,wasgay.Gundbergdecidedtoreporttheanti-
gayharassmentbecausehecouldnolongerremainsilentaboutthetreatmentoIthoseperceived
tobegay,includinghimselI.StaIISergeantGundbergalsostatedthat,inthesevenandone-halI
yearsheservedintheAirForce,heheardapproximately300to400anti-gayiokesandlistened
to100tiradesabouthowhomosexualsareruiningtheUSmilitary.
IntheFleet.SomePeopleWakeupwithBlackEvesforNoReason
DuringtrainingattheNavalbaseinPensacola,Florida,MarinePrivateFirstClass
TimothySmalleyreportsthatheIacedcontinuousquestionsabouthisperceivedsexual
orientation.PrivateFirstClassSmalleyssupervisorsandpeersreportedlymadecommentsto
Smalleysuchas,Youstandlikeabitch.YoullgetrapedintheIleetstandinglikethat,and,
Youneedtowatchthewayyouwalk.OnceyougetintotheIleet,peoplewillbegintoquestion
certainthings(Exhibit69).OneoISmalleysnoncommissionedoIIicersevenconIrontedhim,
sayingIIIbeatyouup,wouldyoutellanyone?IntheIleet,somepeoplewakeupwithblack
eyesIornoreason.
PrivateFirstClassSmalleycompletedthistrainingbelievingthatoncehereachedhis
permanentassignmentatCherryPoint,NorthCarolina,hewouldbeabletoservesaIely.
Smalleylearned,however,thatthenoncommissionedoIIicerwhothreatenedhimwasbeing
assignedtoCherryPointaswell.FearthattheharassmentwouldIollowhimtoCherryPoint,
andelsewhereintheMarineCorps,ledSmalleytocomeoutandreporttheharassment.The
MarineCorpsdischargedPrivateFirstClassSmalley.ToSLDNsknowledge,noonehasbeen
heldaccountableIorharassinghim.
LCR 04354
- 60-
IfYouThinkYoureHiaingIt.YoureDeaaWrong...
SeamanApprenticeLoriSmith,assignedtotheUSSEisenhower,Ioundathreatening
noteleItunderthewindshieldwiperoIhercarinMarch1999whileitwasparkedonbasein
NorIolk,Virginia.Thenotestated,amongotherthings:
|I|I you think youre hiding it, youre dead wrong, yeah (sic) you
know what Im talking about, you dyke ass bitch. . . You homos
(sic)aresickening,theNavy,hasnoroomIoryoutwistedIreaks..
. Your (sic) constantly being watched, your every move, every
step...Your(sic)pasrt(sic)overdueIorabeatdown!!!!!!(Exhibit
70).
ThisnotewasthelaststrawIorSeamanApprenticeSmith,whohadenduredcountless
anti-gaycommentsdirectedatherbyshipmatesovertheprecedingmonths.OthersailorsoIten
reportedlyconIrontedSmithwithcommentssuchas:
I dont know why they let them in the Navy iI they know
theyrelikethat:
Youknowshesgay,dontyou:
Stupiddykes:
Gaysarentsupposedtobehere,whydonttheygetout:and
They have to be gay, they look too much like guys.
(Exhibit71)
Additionally,SeamanApprenticeSmithwasonceperIormingoIIicialmaintenanceina
malesleepingareawhenasailorannounced,Iemaleondeck,astheyarerequiredtodo.A
sailorstandingnearbylookedpastSmithandsaid,Female?IdontseeanyIemale.Because
theseincidentscausedSeamanApprenticeSmithtoIearIorhersaIety,sheaskedtoberemoved
IromtheshipanddischargedIromtheNavydespiteherdesiretoserveourcountry.
PettvOfficerAssaulteaWhileAsleeponShip
AnunidentiIiedassailantreportedlykickedtheIaceoIaPettyOIIicerassignedtothe
USSBarrvwhilethePettyOIIicerwassleepingonboardtheship.ShortlybeIoretheincident,
thePettyOIIicerwrotealettertoacivilianIriendconIidinghisbisexuality.Theletter
disappearedIromhissleepingareabeIorehewasabletomailit.ThePettyOIIicerreportsthat,
shortlythereaIter,hebecamethetargetoIanti-gaystatementsandthreats,including,Iheardthe
guywhowaskickedinBerthing1isaIag.IdliketoIindtheguywhokickedhimbecausehe
deservesamedal.
OncewhenthePettyOIIicerwasaloneintheshipsbathroom,someonereportedlyasked
Whosinhere?ThePettyOIIicerrepliedbystatinghisname.Severalmoresailorsthencame
intothebathroomandthreatened,WedontneedIaggotsonshipandSomethingshouldbe
donetogetridoIthem.ThePettyOIIiceraskedIorSLDNsassistanceinrequestinga
dischargeIromtheNavybecausehedidnotIeelsaIeaItertheseincidentsandothers.Despitethe
LCR 04355
- 61-
PettyOIIicersIearsIorhissaIetyandstatementthatheisbisexual,theNavytriedtoconvince
himtocontinueserving.Hiscommanders,however,didnotpromisetoensurehissaIety.
LetsGotoaGavBarthisWeekenaanaFuckSomeQueersUp
AMarineLanceCorporalreportshearingotherMarinesthreatentoharmgaypeople
almosteverydaywhileservingatCampPendelton,CaliIornia.Thesethreatsinclude:
IIIseeaIaggot,Imgonnakillhim:
Illbeatthosegoddamnedhomos(sic)untiltheyredead:
LetsgotoagaybarthisweekendandIucksomequeersup.
(Exhibit72)
ThesecommentsmadetheLanceCorporalIearthatothermarinesmightharmhimiIthey
perceivedhimtobegay.BecauseheIeltunsaIeintheMarineCorps,hereluctantlydecidedhis
onlyoptionwastocomeoutandbedischarged.
LesbianBaitingContinues
WomencontinuetobedisproportionatelyimpactedbyDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarassbecauseoIlesbianbaitingandgenderbias.BasedonDepartmentoI
DeIensestatistics,womencomprised316oIthe1,034gaydischargesduringthepastyear.
Womencomprised31oItotaldischargesunderDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harass,althoughwomencompriseonly14oItheIorce.AccordingtotheDepartmentoI
DeIensesowndischargeIigures,thisisthehighestpercentageoIwomendischargedundergay
policiesinatleasttwentyyears.
89
ThehighestpercentageoIIemaledischargesthisyearwerein
theArmyandAirForce.Thirty-IivepercentoIArmysoldiersdischargedthispastyearunder
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasswerewomen,whilewomenmakeuponly
15oItheIorce.IntheAirForce,37oIlastyearsdischargesunderthepolicywerewomen,
whilewomenmakeuponly18oItheAirForce.ThemoststrikingdisparitywasintheMarine
Corps,where21oIdischargesunderthepolicywerewomen,yetwomencompriseonly6oI
theMarineCorps.
LesbianbaitingisaIormoIanti-gayharassmentaswellasaIormoIsexualharassment.
WomenareoItencalledlesbians,regardlessoItheirsexualorientation,IoravarietyoIretaliatory
reasons.SomemenaccusewomenwhoreIusetheirsexualadvancesoIbeinglesbians.Other
menwhosexuallyharasswomenaccusethemoIbeinglesbianswhenthewomenreportthe
sexualharassment,inanattempttoturntheinvestigationawayIromtheirownmisconduct.
Others,menandwomen,accuseIemalesuperioroIIicersoIbeinglesbiansinretaliationIorpoor
perIormanceevaluationsorunpopularorders.AndyetothersaccusesuccessIulwomenoIbeing
lesbianstoderailtheircareers.ThestereotyperemainsthatwomeninnontraditionaliobIields
89
MichelleM.BeneckeandKirstinS.Dodge,MilitarvWomen.CasualtiesoftheArmeaForcesWaronLesbians
anaGavMen.inGavRights.MilitarvWrongs.PoliticalPerspectivesonLesbiansanaGavsintheMilitarv71-108
(CraigA.Zimmerman,ed.,1996).
LCR 04356
- 62-
areviewed,asmanyhavenoted,asdykesorwhores.Lesbianbaitingthuscontinuesto
disproportionatelyaIIectwomenwhoserveourcountry.
90
AsaresultoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,manywomendonot
reportanti-gayharassment.Otherschoosemoretraditionalcareerpaths,ortonedowntheir
ambition.SomewomenreporttheystoppubliclysocializingwithotherwomenIorIearthatthey
willbelabeledaslesbiansiustbecausetheyareinagroupwithotherwomen.
TheIollowingareaIewexamplesoIlesbianbaiting.
MarineThreateneawithInvoluntarvOuting
AfterReportingSexualHarassment
DuringthealmosttwoyearsthatLanceCorporalKishaFradywasaMarine,shewas
continuallyharassedaboutthewayshelooks.MembersoIherunitcalledherabigdyke,told
herthatshewasamaninwomansIatigues,andreIerredtohermotorcycleashergiant
vibrator.WhileassignedtoCampPendelton,CaliIornia,LanceCorporalFradysroommate
wassexuallyharassedbyamalesupervisor.LanceCorporalFradystoppedthisharassment
whenshetookherroommatetothecommandtoreportthenoncommissionedoIIicersactions.
ShortlyaIterreportingthesexualharassment,LanceCorporalFradyreceivedananonymous
letterinthemailthreateningtoinIormhercommandthatsheisalesbian.Fearingthethreat
wouldleadtoincreasedanti-gayharassment,dischargeandevencriminalprosecution,Lance
CorporalFradyreluctantlytoldhercommandsheisgay.LanceCorporalFradychoseto
preempttheanonymousharasser,despitewantingtomaketheMarineCorpshercareer.
Anti-GavHarassmentExacerbateabvSailorsRefusalofSexualProposition
Asdescribedpreviouslyinthissection,SeamanApprenticeLoriSmithwasverbally
harassedandthreatenedbecauseshewasperceivedtobealesbian.Smithreportsthattheanti-
gayharassmentstartedwhenaPettyOIIicerinthegalleybeganmakingsexualcommentstoher.
ThisPettyOIIicerrepeatedlyaskedSmithiIshewasgayandaskedheroutondatesnumerous
times.ThePettyOIIicerdidthisdespiteSmithsconsistentreIusalsandtheIactthathewas
married(Exhibit71).
Inaddition,SeamanApprenticeSmithrebuIIedamalesailorssexualadvanceswhenshe
wasoIIshipwithIriends.WhilerelaxingatahotelinNorIolkwithsixoIherIriends,amale
sailorrepeatedlytoldSeamanApprenticeSmiththatheknewshewasgayandsexuallyproposi-
tionedher.WhenSmithreIusedhisrepeatedadvances,hesaid,YoureaIuckingdykeinIront
oIothersailors.Theanti-gayharassmentoISeamanApprenticeSmithcontinued,evenaItershe
reportedtohercommandthatathreateningnotehadbeenplacedonhercar(Exhibit73).
AreYouMarrieatoaManoraWoman
AIemaleWarrantOIIicerinahighlyprestigiousposition,whoistheonlywomaninher
unit,wasquestionedabouthermarriagebyhercommand.TheWarrantOIIicerhasservedwith
90
Ia.
LCR 04357
- 63-
distinctionIormorethanIiIteenyearsinthemilitary,andhasbeenmarriedIormostoIthattime.
SheistheonlymemberoIherunitwhosemarriagestatuswasquestioned.Priortothese
developments,therewerenumerousrumorscirculatingthroughoutherunitthatsheisalesbian.
Shebelievestherumorsandquestionsabouthersexualorientationandhermarriagearose
becauseoIhernon-traditionalworkassignment.TheWarrantOIIicerhasrequestedatransIer
outoIherprestigiousassignmentandcontinuestoserveinthemilitary.However,hercareer
remainsinieopardy.
ItMustBeTrue[ThatYouAreGav{BecauseIHaveNeverSeenYouwithaGuv
AirForcewomenwerelesbianbaitedinawitchhuntattheDeIenseLanguageInstitute
(DLI)inMonterey,CaliIorniathisyear,asdescribedindetailintheDontPursuesection.
FemalestudentsatthebasereportedthatAirForceseniorenlistedleadersandotherstudents
askedandpursuedthewomenabouttheirperceivedsexualorientation.Thewomenreportthey
repeatedlyhadtowardoIIsexuallyharassingcommentsdesignedtopaintthemaslesbians.
AirmanFirstClassDeannaGrossireportsthatAirmanFirstClassReyeswouldrubhis
IingersinIrontoIhisnosewhilesayingtoAirmanGrossi,letmesmellyourhandsoIcanseeiI
youdidthesamethingIdidlastnight.(Exhibit27)AirmanHollensheadreportedtoColonel
Smith,theAirForcecommandingoIIiceratDLI,thatamalestudenthadcalledherandanother
airmanpussysuckersandthenaskedthem,Whywouldyouwantthat,whenyoucanhave
this?whilepointingtohimselI.AmaleairmantoldanotherIemaleAirmanFirstClass,Itmust
betrue|thatyouaregay|becauseIhaveneverseenyouwithaguy.SomeoItheseIemale
airmentoldSLDNthattheytrieddatingmeninaneIIorttostoptheanti-gayharassment,butthe
rumors,questioningandanti-gayharassmentpersisted.AlmostalloItheairmenatDLIwho
contactedSLDNhavebeenorareintheprocessoIbeingdischarged.
AdditionalIncidentsofAnti-GayHarassmentReportedtoSLDNin1999
Seaman Neil Salisbury reports he suIIered anti-gay harassment
onboard the USS Blue Riage. Sailors called Seaman Salisbury
butt buster, rump ranger, and queer. On one occasion,
SeamanSalisburywaswalkingonthepierwhenasailoryelled,I
Iucking heard about you, you Faggot. Im gonna kill you iI I ever
catchyoulookingatmyass.
AirForceStaIISergeantPatrickWillisdecidedaIteralmostIiIteen
years oI military service that he could no longer endure constant
anti-gay comments such as: I hope no Iag tried to hit on me
because I would kill them: Im glad that I dont have to work
withqueers:andPeoplelikethatshouldnotbeallowedtowork
with, or have custody oI, children. StaII Sergeant Willis also
wanted to stop living a lie because he wants his children to grow
up to be honest, tolerant, and respectIul adults. As a result, he
inIormedhisnewAirNationalGuardcommandinStarke,Florida
LCR 04358
- 64-
that he is gay. StaII Sergeant Willis was honorably discharged
(Exhibit24).
A Seaman reports being assaulted by other Navy enlisted
personnelatabaseinFlorida.Duringtheassault,theyreportedly
called him Iaggot and queer and told him I dont want any
Iaggots in my Navy. The Seaman told SLDN that his barracks
door was vandalized with threats such as, Watch your ass or its
going to get Iucked or beat. He also reported receiving death
threats late at night by telephone, including Im gonna tag your
ass,andImgonnacapyourass.
A Marine Lance Corporal assigned to Cherry Point, North
Carolina,reportsbeingsoaIraidIorhersaIetythatsheleItthebase
oneweekendanddidnotreturntheIollowingMonday.TheLance
Corporal went UAunauthorized absencebecause she
reportedlyoverheardacorporalinherunitsay,IIIknewoIagay
marine within my unit and we went to war together, I would kill
thatgaymarinebeIoreIkilledanyoItheenemy.
ANavyPettyOIIicerreportedlywasthesubiectoIrepeateddeath
threats.ThePettyOIIicerreportsthatheIoundanoteonhisrack
that read DIE! FUCKING FAGGOT. The Petty OIIicer also
reports hearing: All Iaggots need to be killed: I dont know a
Iag,andiIIdid,IdontknowwhatthehellIwoulddotohim:II
IknewoIaIaggotonboardthisshipIwouldtakehimtothegym
andshowhimwhatbeingarealmanislike:andJerry(reIerring
to Jerry Springer) needs to hang those queer guests he has on his
show (Exhibit 74). With SLDNs assistance, this Petty OIIicer
continuestoserve.
AnAirForceStaIISergeantreportsIindinganoteonhisdoorthat
readDieFaggot!Weknowwhoyouare!Despitethethreat,the
StaIISergeantremainsonactiveduty(Exhibit75).
An Army Private was in basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia,
whenanothersoldierinhisbarracksdiscoveredthatthePrivateis
gaybyreadingaletterthePrivatewaswritinghome.ThePrivate
reportsthataIterthisoccurredheexperiencedconstantverbaland
physicalabuse.Hereportshewaspunchedandkickedbysoldiers,
and once tripped in a barracks stairwell and thrown down a Ilight
oI stairs. AIter being continually asked iI he is gay, the Private
conIirmed the speculation. His Drill Sergeant then exclaimed to
other soldiers, Now you know where to get a blow iob, and
pointedtothePrivate(Exhibit76).
LCR 04359
- 65-
CaptainPhilipHowlandreportedtohiscommandthatheobserved
anti-gay harassment at three separate Army posts during his
military career. The anti-gay harassment included denigration oI
Iormer soldiers who were gay and questioning about his own
sexual orientation. No longer able to tolerate the anti-gay
harassment and unwilling to spend the rest oI his career looking
over his shoulder in Iear oI investigation, Captain Howland
inIormedhiscommandheisgay(Exhibit77).Despitediscussing
his sexual orientation, his administrative separation board wanted
toknowiIorhowtheycouldkeephim.
ThePentagonandAdministrationRespondtoAnti-GayHarassment
PentagonReleasesAnti-GavHarassmentanaInvestigationsGuiaelines
OnAugust13,1999,iustdaysaIterthehighlychargedtestimonyinPrivateGlovers
preliminaryhearing,SecretaryCohenreleasedanti-gayharassmentandinvestigationsguidelines
thathadbeenbottledupatthePentagonIormorethanIiIteenmonths(Exhibit78).Accordingto
The NewYorkTimes.aClintonAdministrationoIIicialsaid,|T|hePentagonIelttheneedto
announcethenewguidelinesasquicklyaspossible,giventheuproaroverthedeathlastmonth
oIagaysoldier.
91
Mostnotably,theguidelinesstatethatreportsoIanti-gayharassmentor
threatsmustbeinvestigatedpromptlyandservicemembersreportinganti-gayharassmentshould
notbeinvestigatedorretaliatedagainstbecausetheyreporttheanti-gayharassment.Whilethe
newguidelinesarewelcomestepsIorward,theyIallshortinseveralrespects.
First,theguidelinesdroppedprovisionsaboutlesbianbaitingthatappearedintheoriginal
DornMemo.Asthecasesinthissectionillustrate,womencontinuetoIaceallegationsthatthey
arelesbian,regardlessoItheirsexualorientation,Iorretaliatoryreasons.SLDNhopesthe
omissionoIlesbianbaitingIromthenewguidelinesisnotaPentagonretreatIromaddressing
thisIormoIanti-gayharassmentandsexualharassmentseriously.
Second,theguidelinesIailtoprovideguidancetoservicemembersonhowtheymay
reportanti-gayharassmentwithoutIearoIretaliation.Servicemembersshouldbeabletoreport
anti-gayharassmenttotheircommanders,mentalhealthcounselors,InspectorsGeneral,
Chaplains,andequalopportunityoIIicers,amongothers.ThePentagonhastakennosteps,
however,tomakesurethatthesepersonnelareappropriatelytrainedtohandlesuchcomplaints.
InIact,oneArmyspokespersonhassaidthattheEqualOpportunitychainhasbeenspeciIically
instructednottoaddressissuesoIanti-gayharassment.
92
Third,theguidelinesIailtomakeclear
thatthemilitaryshouldnotdischargeservicememberswho,inthecourseoIreporting
harassment,inadvertentlyrevealtheyaregay,orareIoundtobegay.Ashighlightedinthe
section,DontTell,thePentagonmustmakecleartoallconcernedpersonnelthatprivate
statementsoIsexualorientationduringthecourseoIreportinganti-gayharassmentarenot
91
PhilipShenon,PentagonMovingtoEnaAbusesofDontAsk.DontTellPolicv,N.Y.Times,Aug.13,1999,
atA1.
92
RobertoSuro,MilitarvsDifferingLessonPlansReflectUneaseonGavPolicv,Wash.Post,Mar.4,2000,atA1.
LCR 04360
- 66-
groundsIorinquiry,investigationordischarge.Unlessthisbasicstepistaken,anyassurance
thatservicememberswillnotsuIIerreprisalsIorreportinganti-gayharassmentIallsIlat.
Asmilitaryleadersknow,theimpactoIeventhebestguidancedependsontheleadership
commitmentwithwhichitisapplied.IneachoIthepastsixyears,SLDNhasnoteda
conspicuouslackoIleadership,particularlyIromuniIormedleaders,whenitcomestotheproper
implementationoIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass.Leadersmuststepup
totheplatetostopharassment.ThiswillrequireholdingthosewhoharasstheirIellowservice
membersaccountableIortheiractions.ThePentagonscredibilityrestsonaccountability.
ServicesIssueStatementsonAnti-GavHarassment
InthepastIewmonths,theSecretaryandChieIoIeachservicehasissuedamessage
againstanti-gayharassment,along-standingSLDNrequest.ThepertinentpartoItheguidance
IoreachoItheservicesisasIollows:
Navy:RespectIortheindividualisparamount.Commanding
oIIicers must not condone homosexual iokes, epithets, or
derogatory comments, and must ensure a command climate
thatIostersrespectIorallindividuals(Exhibit79).
Marine Corps: As all Marines learn in their earliest basic
training, mistreatment oI any Marine is incompatible with our
corevaluesandisunacceptableconductthatmustbedealtwith
quicklyandappropriatelybycommanders(Exhibit80).
Air Force: Harassment, threats or ridicule oI individuals or
groups based upon real or perceived diIIerences, including
sexualorientation,havenoplaceintheUnitedStatesAirForce
andwillnotbetolerated....Wewholeheartedlyendorseand
supportthispolicy.EachoIushasanindividualresponsibility
and proIessional obligation to do his or her best to prevent
harassment oI any nature and to immediately correct it iI it
occurs(Exhibit81).
Army: Harassment oI soldiers Ior any reason, to include
perceived sexual orientation, will not be tolerated (Exhibit
82).Commandersateverylevelwilltakeappropriateactionto
prevent harassment oI or threats against any member oI the
Army(Exhibit83).
Thisisanimportantdevelopmentthatwill,Iinally,signaltocommandersintheIieldthat
theyhavethesupportoItheirtopleaderstotakestepstopreventanti-gayharassment.
LCR 04361
- 67-
ServicesBeginTrainingtoPreventAnti-GavHarassment
TheArmyiscurrentlytrainingsoldiersonanti-gayharassmentandthepolicys
investigativelimits,andexpectstocompletethetrainingwithin90days.Theotherservicesare
duetoIollowwithinthenextyear.Becausethetrainingissonew,anin-depthanalysisisnotyet
possible.Oneconcern,however,istobetterinIormcommandersaboutaccountability.While
someoIthetrainingmakesclearthatcommandersshouldholdaccountableanyonewhoengages
inanti-gayharassment,theservicesshouldprovideguidanceonwhatthatmeans.Thosewho
engageinanti-gayharassmentshouldIaceactionsrangingIromcounselingtocourts-martial,
dependingontheoIIense.
ReportstoSLDNregardingtheArmytrainingthusIararemixed.Somesoldiersreport
theirleadershavetakenthetrainingseriouslyandhavepresenteditintelligently.Otherreports
aretothecontrary,including:
An Army Judge Advocate General oIIicer tasked to conduct
thetrainingreports,TheArmyhasdoneadisservicebyusing
the slides they distributed. They need something that will
reach the soldiers. My commanders barely understood. . . .
TheoIIicerIurtherstates,Commandersareveryuneasyabout
having to give this brieIing . . . I think that the only way the
current policy will work is iI the commanders stand up and
walkthewalk(Exhibit84).
An Army Lieutenant tasked to do the training reports he was
concernedwiththecontentoIthebrieIingmaterialsandhedid
notIullycomprehendtheslidesevenaIterreviewingadditional
materials. Prior to the brieIing, a superior oIIicer asked the
trainer iI he was gay because the Lieutenant stressed the
trainings importance. When the brieIing was completed, a
senior enlisted member stood up and told the entire unit an
anti-gayioke.
DespitesomeproblemswiththeconductoIthetraining,SLDNappreciatesthattheArmy
has commenced it. Given the delays that have characterized past Pentagon promises regarding
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass, SLDN is concerned to see the other
services expeditiously Iollow suit and IulIill their commitment to train all personnel. The
ultimate test oI the trainings success is whether service members understand the policys
investigative limits, its intent to respect peoples privacy and the consequences oI Iailing to
Iollowtherules.
DefenseDepartmentInspectorGeneralDirecteatoAssessAnti-GavHarassment
InDecember1999,SecretaryoIDeIenseWilliamS.CohenorderedtheDepartmentoI
DeIenseInspectorGeneral(DoDIG)toreviewtheapplicationoItheHomosexualConduct
Policy,includingtheextentoIanti-gayharassmentatrepresentativeinstallationsineach
LCR 04362
- 68-
Service.
93
TheInspectorGeneralissurveying75,000servicemembers,withareportduebackto
SecretaryCohenonMarch13,2000.Whenannounced,SLDNquestionedtheeIIicacyoIthe
surveybecausethereisnowaytocomparetheexperienceoIgayservicememberswithnon-gay
servicemembers,andbecausegayservicemembersriskbeingoutediItheyrespondcandidly.
Indeed,aslongasalawexistsbanningopenlygayservicemembers,IewgayswillIeel
comIortablereportinganything,nomatterwhatstepstheInspectorGeneraltakestoassuretheir
conIidences.
SLDN hasreceivedreportsthatsomecommandshavepreventedservicemembersknown
tohaveexperiencedanti-gayharassmentIromparticipatinginthesurvey,evenwhenallother
unitmemberswereorderedtoparticipate.Otherservicemembersreportthat,becauseoIthe
waythesurveyisdesigned,thosewhodonotreportanti-gayharassmentmayskipquicklytothe
endoIthesurveyandleavethesurveyroom.ThosewhoreportharassmentareleItbehind,
whichdrawsunwantedattentiontothem.
SomeoIthesurveysquestionsareIlawedandmeaningless(Exhibit85).Question#6,
Iorexample,asksservicemembers:TowhatextentdoyouunderstandDontAsk,Dont
Tell?Aservicemembercouldthinkheorsheunderstandsthepolicy,butinrealityheorshe
maybeuninIormedormisinIormed.IItheintentwastotestactualknowledgeoIthepolicy,this
questionwillnotreachthatgoal.
Question#11islikewisemeaningless.Itasks:HastheDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
PursuepolicybeeneIIectiveinpreventing/reducinganti-gayharassmentbasedonperceived
sexuality?First,thereisnowaytocomparetheexperienceoIgayservicemembers,whowould
havethemostrelevantinIormationIorthequestion,withnon-gayservicemembersbecause
DontTellpreventsgayservicemembersIromselI-identiIication.Second,thequestion
assumestheservicememberhasabaselinebywhichtoassesstheeIIectivenessoIDontAsk,
DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,whichmostdonot.
Questions#12and#13alsoIailtounderstandtheverynatureoItheproblemthe
InspectorGeneralisattemptingtoassess.Question#12asks:HowoItenhaveyouheard
oIIensivespeech,derogatorynames,iokesorremarksabouthomosexualsinthelasttwelve
monthsonyourship/atyourinstallation?Question#13asks:TowhatextentareoIIensive
speech,derogatorycommentsandiokestoleratedonyourship/installations?Asthecasesin
DontHarasspointout,manynon-gayservicemembersviewtermssuchasIag,Iaggot,
queeranddykeasanormalpartoImilitaryliIe.Toagayservicememberwhoisthetarget
oIsuchcommentsorhearstheminthegeneralcommandclimate,thesecommentscanbehighly
oIIensive.Thus,thesequestionsIailtoappreciatetheextenttowhichthemilitaryissocializing
servicememberstoviewuseoIanti-gayepithetsasanormalpartoIthebanterinaunit.They
IailtoprovidespeciIicityastowhatconstitutesoIIensivespeechandderogatorycomments.
TheInspectorGeneralsurveycouldbeIurtherdissected,butthebottomlineisthis:the
InspectorGeneralsurveyhassigniIicantproblemsthatwillcomplicatethealreadydiIIiculttask
oIobtaininganaccurateassessmentoIanti-gayharassmentthroughoIIicialchannels.Tothe
93
SecretarvofDefenseDirectsAssessmentofExtentofHarassment,OIIiceoIAssistantSecretaryoIDeIense
(PublicAIIairs),Dec13,1999.
LCR 04363
- 69-
extenttheInspectorGeneralobtainsanysigniIicantreadingoItheanti-gayharassment,itwillbe
inspiteoIthesurvey,notbecauseoIit.Conversely,theDepartmentoIDeIensewillhaveno
credibilitywhatsoeveriIitattemptstousethesurveytominimizetheseriousproblemoIanti-
gayharassmentintheranks.
PresiaentSignsExecutiveOraeronMilitarvHateCrimes
IntheaItermathoIPrivateWinchellsmurder,PresidentClinton,inOctober1999,signed
anExecutiveOrderamendingtheManualforCourts-MartialtoprovideIorsentence
enhancementinhatecrimecases,includinganti-gayhatecrimes.TheExecutiveOrdershate
crimesprovisionstatesinpart,Evidenceinaggravationmayincludeevidencethattheaccused
intentionallyselectedanyvictimoranypropertyastheobiectoItheoIIensebecauseoIthe
actualorperceivedrace,color,religion,nationalorigin,ethnicity,gender,disabilityorsexual
orientationoIanyperson.
94
TheJointServiceCommitteeinthePentagonrecommendedthe
changepriortoWinchellsmurdertomakemilitarylawconIormwithsimilarstatestatutes.
95
DontHarassConclusion
Lesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersmustendureconstantanti-gaythreatsand
epithetsasaconditionoImilitaryservice.Whilenotallservicemembersharasstheir
colleagues,thecurrentclimatesupportsthosewhodo.Thisclimateisinimicaltogoodorder,
disciplineandthemoraleoIourIorces,andadverselyaIIectsmilitaryreadiness.
96
Anti-gay
harassmentnotonlyhurtsthemilitary,butitisanuniustreturntothemenandwomenwhoput
theirlivesonthelineIorourcountry,onlytobeIorcedout,whetherbybeingdischargedor
leavingattheendoItheirserviceobligation.
ItisshameIulthatittookthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchelltomovethe
PentagonandClintonAdministrationtoactaItersixyearsoIwarningsbySLDN.Finally,the
Pentagonhasissuedguidelinesandtrainingonanti-gayharassment.SecretaryoIDeIense
WilliamCohenhasorderedtheInspectorGeneraltosurvey75,000troopstoassesstheleveloI
anti-gayharassmentinthearmedIorces,amongothers.PresidentClintonsignedanExecutive
Orderonhatecrimesinthemilitary.AlloItheactionstakenbythePentagon,the
Administrationandtheindividualservicestoaddressanti-gayharassmentsincePrivateFirst
ClassWinchellsmurderarestepsintherightdirection.Realchange,however,willnotoccur
unlessthereisstrongleadershipandaccountability.
94
ExecutiveOrderNo.13,140(1999).
95
WhiletheExecutiveOrderhadbeenonthePresidentsdeskIormorethanoneyear,anditdidnotIactorintothe
prosecutionoIsoldiersatFortCampbellIorthemurderoIPFCBarryWinchell,theExecutiveOrderwillaidlaw
enIorcement,prosecutorsandcommandersindeterringhatemotivatedviolence.OneoIthegreatchallengesin
pressingtheArmytoconductaIullandIairinvestigationandprosecutionintothemurderoIPrivateFirstClass
WinchellwasthatthecriminalinvestigatorsandArmyprosecutorshadnopriorguidanceabouthowtoinvestigate
orprosecutehatecrimes.TheservicesshouldavailthemselvesoIthehatecrimesunitwithintheDepartmentoI
Justicetoobtainappropriatetraining.
96
AsGeneralClarkstatedrecently,thecornerstoneoIdisciplineisrespectIorothers.ScholarsalsoaIIirmthat
AbuseoIhomosexualservicemembershurtsmilitaryreadiness.SeeElizabethKier,HomosexualsintheU.S.
Militarv23InternationalSecurity5,37(1998).
LCR 04364
- 70-
Some mayarguethateveniIDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarasswere
overturned,therewouldstillbePrivateGloverswhowouldkillbecauseoIhatred.Theymaybe
correct,butDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassreinIorcesthemessagethat
gaysaresecondclasscitizenswhoarenotworthyoItherightsandresponsibilitiesoIcitizenship.
TheIactthatleadershaveallowedservicememberstoharasstheircounterpartswithimpunity
reinIorcesthismessage,andgivesagreenlighttothosewhowoulddoviolence.Whetherornot
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarassremainsthelawoItheland,military
leadershaveadutytotakecareoIourservicemembers.Todate,manymilitaryleadershave
Iailedtodoso.
LCR 04365
- 71-
CONCLUSIONTOSIXTH ANNUAL REPORT
ThePentagonisatacriticaliunctureinimplementingDontAsk,DontTell,Dont
Pursue,DontHarass.Militaryleaderscaneitheraddress,withcommitment,theharassment
andIorcedsecrecythatpushsomanydedicatedlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersoutoI
thearmedIorces,ortheycancontinuewithbusinessasusual,atahighpricetothemilitary
generally,aswellastoindividualservicemembers.
AsMilitaryleaderscontinuetostrugglewithcriticalretentionandrecruitingshortIalls,
97
theycanillaIIordtocontinueviolatingtheletterandintentoIthepolicy.Lesbian,gayand
bisexualAmericanscontributionstoourarmedIorcesarevaluable.ThemilitarysindiIIerence
tothewell-beingoIandhostilitytowardlesbian,gayandbisexualservicemembersmustcease.
TheIailureoImilitaryleaderstoIairlyimplementthepolicysprovisionsonprivacy,investiga-
tivelimits,accountabilityandrecoursetakesitstollonreadinessbyundercuttingrespectIorrule
andorder.Forcinglesbian,gayandbisexualservicememberstohide,lie,evadeanddeceive
theirIamilies,IriendsandcolleaguesbreaksthebondsoItrustamongservicemembersessential
tounitcohesion.
98
Commandclimatespoisonedbyanti-gayabuseshurtreadiness.AsSpecialist
EdgarRosatestiIiedatFortCampbell,themurderoIPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellhas
destroyedanyillusionthathewaspartoIabandoIbrothers.
99
97
AndreaStone,Armvopensmoretoschoolaropouts,USAToday,Feb.4,2000,at13A.
98
10U.S.C654(a)(7),OneoIthemostcriticalelementsincombatcapabilityisunitcohesion,thatis,thebonds
oItrustamongindividualservicemembersthatmakethecombateIIectivenessoIamilitaryunit....
99
SpecialistEdgarRosa,DeltaCo.,2nd/502nd,SpecialistJustinFisherArt.32Hearing,Sept.1,1999.
LCR 04366
A
n
n
u
a
l

G
a
y

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s

U
n
d
e
r
D
o
n
t

A
s
k
,

D
o
n
t

T
e
l
l
,

D
o
n
t

P
u
r
s
u
e
,

D
o
n
t

H
a
r
a
s
s
S
O
U
R
C
E
:

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
M
E
M
B
E
R
S

L
E
G
A
L

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

N
E
T
W
O
R
K
,

B
A
S
E
D

O
N
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

F
I
G
U
R
E
S
1
8
7
1
3
6
2
5
8
3
6
2
3
5
1
8
4
2
6
9
6
9
1
5
2
8
4
1
9
9
3
1
5
6
0
1
2
3
0
9
1
9
7
4
1
3
7
8
1
0
4
1
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
7
7
1
4
3
5
2
2
7
1
3
1
4
9
7
1
2
C
o
a
s
t

G
u
a
r
d
M
a
r
i
n
e
s
N
a
v
y
A
r
m
y
A
i
r

F
o
r
c
e

6
1
7
7
7
2
8
7
0
1
0
0
7
1
1
6
3
1
0
4
6
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9 L
C
R

0
4
3
6
7
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
3
3
6
3
7
6
5
6
2
1
8
7
7
1
4
1
1
2
7
1
8
8
9
1
9
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
4
2
3
5
1
8
2
2
2
1
6
1
3
5
0
4
0
0
2
3
1
9
4
4
7
1
9
6
8
5
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
"
D
o
n
'
t

A
s
k
,

D
o
n
'
t

T
e
l
l
,

D
o
n
'
t

P
u
r
s
u
e
,

D
o
n
'
t

H
a
r
a
s
s
"

C
o
m
m
a
n
d

V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
9
9
4

1
9
9
9
D
o
n
'
t

T
e
l
l
D
o
n
'
t

H
a
r
a
s
s
D
o
n
'
t

P
u
r
s
u
e
D
o
n
'
t

A
s
k
S
O
U
R
C
E
:

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
M
E
M
B
E
R
S

L
E
G
A
L

D
E
F
E
N
S
E
1
8
2
3
6
3
4
4
5
6
3
9
3
4
1
7
8
0
L
C
R

0
4
3
6
8
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
3
3
7
$
1
8
,
1
8
1
,
2
5
0
$
2
2
,
7
4
8
,
6
6
3
$
2
5
,
6
3
6
,
4
4
7
$
2
9
,
6
7
3
,
4
5
0
$
3
4
,
2
7
0
,
3
3
0
$
3
0
,
8
4
0
,
3
1
4
$
1
6
1
,
3
5
0
,
4
5
5
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
T
o
t
a
l
B
A
S
E
D

O
N

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

A
C
C
O
U
N
T
I
N
G

O
F
F
I
C
E

F
I
G
U
R
E
S

(
I
N

1
9
9
3

D
O
L
L
A
R
S
)
S
O
U
R
C
E
:

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
M
E
M
B
E
R
S

L
E
G
A
L

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

N
E
T
W
O
R
K
,
C
o
s
t
s

o
f

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s

f
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

M
e
m
b
e
r
s

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

U
n
d
e
r

G
a
y

P
o
l
i
c
y
L
C
R

0
4
3
6
9
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
3
3
8
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
C
o
a
s
t

G
u
a
r
d
M
a
r
i
n
e
s
N
a
v
y
A
r
m
y
A
i
r

F
o
r
c
e
1
6
2
3
1
7
1
5
6
2

T
o
t
a
l
S
O
U
R
C
E
:

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
M
E
M
B
E
R
S

L
E
G
A
L

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

N
E
T
W
O
R
K
D
o
n
t

H
a
r
a
s
s

V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

b
y

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1
9
9
4

1
9
9
9
0
1
3
5
9
3
6
1
9
9
5

T
o
t
a
l
9
4
4
6
4
8
2
5
1
3
2

T
o
t
a
l
1
3
3
6
6
4
1
4
1
1
8
2

T
o
t
a
l
3
6
3
1
5
8
1
2
2
5
4
4
0
0

T
o
t
a
l
1
1
1
3
4
3
3
0
2
7
6
2
1
7
9
6
0

T
o
t
a
l
L
C
R

0
4
3
7
0
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
3
3
9
1
2
%
2
6
%
1
3
%
2
1
%
1
3
%
2
9
%
1
4
%
2
2
%
1
4
%
2
8
%
1
4
%
3
1
%
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
%

A
r
m
e
d

F
o
r
c
e
s
W
h
o

A
r
e

W
o
m
e
n
%

G
a
y

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
W
h
o

A
r
e

W
o
m
e
n
S
O
U
R
C
E
:

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
M
E
M
B
E
R
S

L
E
G
A
L

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

N
E
T
W
O
R
K
,
B
A
S
E
D

O
N

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

F
I
G
U
R
E
S
L
e
s
b
i
a
n

B
a
i
t
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

D
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

o
f

t
h
e

G
a
y

P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

o
n

W
o
m
e
n
1
9
9
4

1
9
9
9
L
C
R

0
4
3
7
1
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
3
4
0
ondu t Unbecomi ng Conduct Unbecomi ng
THE SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
DON T ASK, DON T TELL,
DON T PURSUE, DON T HARASS
by
Stacey L. Sobel
Jeffery M. Cl eghorn
C. Di xon Osburn
Servicemembers Legal Defense Net work
2001 Servicemembers Legal Defense Net work
LCR 04372
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to grateIully acknowledge the assistance oI the
entire SLDN staII in producing and distributing Conauct Unbecoming.
The Seventh Annual Report on Dont Ask. Dont Tell. Dont Pursue.
Dont Harass. We especially thank Patrick D. Moloughney, Paula M.
Neira, SharraE. Greer, Larry Rowe, Steve Ralls, and Layton Mitchell Ior
their exceptional dedication and hard work. We would also like to
acknowledge Kathi S. Westcott and Michelle M. Benecke Ior their
contributionstothisreport.
DEDICATION
TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE FAITHFULLY SERVING IN ENFORCED
SILENCETOSECUREFORAMERICATHEFREEDOMTHATISDENIEDTOTHEM.
LCR 04373
ii
C COND CT ONDUCT UNBEC MI NG NBECOMI NG: :
THE SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
Table of Contents
Volume1
S D I NDI NG SLDN FI NDI NGS ....................................................................................................................................................................i
SLD RE OMM DAT ON SLDN RECOMMENDATI ONS ...................................................................................................................................i v
EX UTI VE SUMMA Y EXECUTI VE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................1
Pe tagon Fails To Is ue Anti aras m n Ru es Pentagon Fails To Issue Anti-Harassment Rules
As Anti-Gay ostili y n inu s U at d As Anti-Gay Hostility Continues Unabated................................................................... 2
W ile k ng n Pu suits De rease r r e P rsu t While Asking and Pursuits Decrease, Air Force Pursuits
In rea e In ecou me s s, and Navy Pursu t Increase In Recoupment Cases, and Navy Pursuits
Decr ase It Att m ts to Ret n O enl G y Sai ors Decrease as It Attempts to Retain Openly Gay Sailors ................................................ 4
W a is Dont Ask, o t Tel , D ur ue Dont Harass? What is Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass? ......................................... 6
D T ASK DON T ASK...............................................................................................................................................................................8
Army Dont Ask Vi latio s D cre s Due to oo Tr ning Army Dont Ask Violations Decrease Due to Good Training ........................................ 10
FortKnoxCommanaingGeneralSetsLeaaershipExample................................................ 10
ExamplesofArmvDontAskJiolations .......................................................................... 10
Army ont Ask Sum a y Army Dont Ask Summary................................................................................................ 11
Ai Force Dont Ask iolat ons Incre s Sharpl ; Air Force Dont Ask Violations Increase Sharply;
Wea raining Lik ly Responsibl Weak Training Likely Responsible............................................................................... 11
OngoingDontAskJiolationsattheDefenseLanguage
Institute.Monterev............................................................................................................ 12
AaaitionalExamplesofAirForceDontAskJiolations ................................................. 13
Air Fo e Don umma y Air Force Dont Ask Summary.......................................................................................... 13
Navy o s olat ons ecrease S ly De te Navy Dont Ask Violations Decrease Sharply Despite
W ak Trai ing Weak Training ................................................................................................................ 14
ExamplesofNavvDontAskJiolations........................................................................... 14
Navy Do t Ask Summary Navy Dont Ask Summary................................................................................................. 16
M r ne Corps D n t Ask Vi atio s D c ease, but Marine Corps Dont Ask Violations Decrease, but
Policy Train n e Policy Training Weak ..................................................................................................... 16
ExamplesofMarineCorpsDontAskJiolations ............................................................ 16
Marine Corp Do t Ask Summa Marine Corps Dont Ask Summary.................................................................................. 17
LCR 04374
iii
Coast Guard D n t Ask Vio atio s Coast Guard Dont Ask Violations ................................................................................... 17
Don t Ask Conc us on Dont Ask Conclusion......................................................................................................... 17
DO TELL DON T TELL......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Mili ary Hea th Ca e rov d rs C n inu o Out Gay Pat en s Military Health Care Providers Continue to Out Gay Patients .................................... 21
ArmvDoctorsDirecteatoOutGavPatients.................................................................... 22
GooafellowAirForceBase(AFB)DoctorOutsPatient ...................................................... 22
KeeslerAFBPsvchotherapistOutsBisexualPatient ....................................................... 23
Some Mi ita y Chap ain T l and Harass Some Military Chaplains Tell and Harass ....................................................................... 24
USSDubuque NavvChaplainTells.................................................................................. 25
ArmvChaplaininGermanvHarassesLesbianSergeant ..................................................... 25
FortBenningChaplainBeratesGavSolaier ........................................................................ 27
The Sto y Beh nd e ling: G ys e l to Escape The Story Behind Telling: Gays Tell to Escape
Ha a ment n i e th Integ Harassment and Live with Integri t ri t y............................................................................. 28
ComingOuttoEscapeHarassment ...................................................................................... 28
ComingOutforReasonsofIntegritv.................................................................................... 29
ManvGavsHaveNotFullvAccepteaTheirSexualitvUpon
EnteringMilitarvService.................................................................................................. 29
Core Military Valu s f Hone ty and I teg ity r Harm d by Dont Tell Core Military Values of Honesty and Integrity are Harmed by Dont Tell ................. 30
D n Te l clusion Dont Tell Conclusion......................................................................................................... 33
DON T PURSUE DON T PURSUE .................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Dont Pursu olat ons De rea e Dont Pursue Violations Decrease .................................................................................... 34
Fi hi g Expeditio s, W t h u ts a d P o e It Re or s on i ue Fishing Expeditions, Witch Hunts and Prove It Reports Continue .............................. 34
Arm o ursu io ati ns D crea e Army Dont Pursue Violations Decrease ......................................................................... 36
ArmvDropsDischargeActionAgainstFirstLieutenantSteveMav.................................... 37
ArmvFirstSergeantConauctsImproperInvestigationofNewRecruit ............................... 38
ArmvExpanasScopeofInvestigationintoOfficersSexualOrientation............................. 39
InquirvOfficerConauctsSubstantialInvestigationWithoutSecretarial
Approval............................................................................................................................ 40
Army Don Pursue Sum a Army Dont Pursue Summary........................................................................................... 41
The Ai Force Cont nu s to ead t e Way i D ur ue Vi lations The Air Force Continues to Lead the Way in Dont Pursue Violations ....................... 41
TheAirForceWronglvPursuesanaSeeksRecoupment
fromKeeslerAFBOfficer ................................................................................................. 42
LCR 04375
iv
CommanaCriminallvProsecutesThreateneaAirmanat
ShawAirForceBase......................................................................................................... 44
TheAirForceAsksMorethan100Wiae-RangingQuestions
inUnauthorizeaSubstantialInvestigation........................................................................ 45
LieutenantPursueawithoutCreaibleEviaence ................................................................... 46
Ai Force Dont P rsue Summary Air Force Dont Pursue Summary.................................................................................... 47
Navy on ur e olat ons rop Sig ifi ant y Navy Dont Pursue Violations Drop Significantly.......................................................... 48
USSDubuqueCaptainEngagesinWitchHuntforGavSailors .......................................... 49
OfficerWrongfullvPursueaanaAccuseaofSoaomv........................................................... 50
NavalCriminalInvestigativeServicePursuesService
MembersatGavFrienalvEstablishments........................................................................ 51
NavvUsesBoarasofInquirvtoDigupDirtonOfficers...................................................... 52
LegalOfficePreventsInvestigationBaseaonPhotographin
GavNewspaper................................................................................................................. 53
Nav D nt P e umma Navy Dont Pursue Summary............................................................................................ 54
M rine Co Dont urs N be Incre se Marine Corps Dont Pursue Numbers Increase.............................................................. 54
CommanaRetainsMarineImproperlvPursueabvCIDAgents........................................... 55
CommanaHaltsImproperPursuitofMarineJisitingGavFrienalvBusiness .................... 56
CommanaingOfficerAsksMarinestoProveItanaExpanasScopeofInquirv................... 57
NewRiverPersonnelJiolateDontPursuebvExpanaingInvestigation........................ 58
CommanaingOfficerWitchHuntsMarineCorpsWoman................................................... 59
Mari e rps n t P rsue Summary Marine Corps Dont Pursue Summary............................................................................. 60
N Co t uard ont Pu sue Vi lations No Coast Guard Dont Pursue Violations ........................................................................ 60
Don t P rsue Co c us on Dont Pursue Conclusion ................................................................................................... 60
D T HARA DON T HARASS ................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Penta n Final y A knowled s An i-Gay H r s e t roblem Pentagon Finally Acknowledges Anti-Gay Harassment Problem..................................... 62
InspectorGeneralFinasPervasiveAnti-GavHarassment................................................... 62
WorkingGroupIssuesAnti-HarassmentActionPlan .......................................................... 63
Army Dont Harass Viol tions Drop Leader Be n rai in th roops Army Dont Harass Violations Drop as Leaders Begin Training the Troops .............. 64
Reports of Army Leaders o ng W Right o t e se Reports of Army Leaders Doing Whats Right on the Rise........................................... 65
New101
st
AirborneDivisionsCommanaingGeneralDresses-
DownAnti-GavCaptain ................................................................................................... 65
OtherGooaExamplesofArmvLeaaersEffortstoDoWhatsRight.............................. 66
Som rmy Le ers Continue to ole te, and metim s artici at Some Army Leaders Continue to Tolerate, and Sometimes Participate
in, Harass ent in, Harassment ................................................................................................................ 67
FortJackson.SouthCarolina.SolaierPhvsicallvAssaultea ............................................... 67
FortTotten.NewYork.ReserveCommanaerHarassea....................................................... 68
LCR 04376
v
OtherExamplesofHarassmentanaThreatsofJiolenceTowaras
GavSolaiers ...................................................................................................................... 69
L sbian B ti g Rema ns a Arm roble Lesbian Baiting Remains an Army Problem........................................................................ 70
ArmvROTCCaaetCalleaNotFeminineEnough............................................................ 70
Army Don ara Sum a Army Dont Harass Summary........................................................................................... 71
Ai Force Dont Ha ass ol tion Remain larmin y H gh, Air Force Dont Harass Violations Remain Alarmingly High,
L a e p a k Leadership Lacking ng........................................................................................................ 71
Po itive Indi at of r F ce D n t Harass Ad er nce Positive Indicators of Air Force Dont Harass Adherence............................................. 72
LanglevAirForceBaseHarassmentReportTakenSeriouslv,
ReportingofAnti-GavThreatsanaHarassmentRemains
DifficultChallenge............................................................................................................ 72
OtherGooaReportsontheAirForceDontHarassFront ............................................. 74
Air For e Don aras Vi at ons Contin e Air Force Dont Harass Violations Continue................................................................... 74
ShawAirForceBaseAirmanReceivesDeathThreats......................................................... 74
D fen e Langu ge In titute H r s ment P o e n i ue Defense Language Institute Harassment Problem Continues ........................................... 75
AirmanFirstClassFirpoReportealvHarasseabvDLIChaplain
anaCivilianLanguageInstructors ................................................................................... 76
AirmanFirstClassHarasseabvDLIDoctor ....................................................................... 76
HarassmentatKellvAirForceBaseanaTexasA&MUniversitv........................................ 77
Ai Force Dont H r s Summary Air Force Dont Harass Summary.................................................................................... 78
N vy Dont Harass ol tion In r ase Again Navy is Most Host l er i e Navy Dont Harass Violations Increase, Again Navy is Most Hostile Service ............. 78
Despite Se ous Navy D n t Hara s Proble s, There are Despite Serious Navy Dont Harass Problems, There are ome Some
Hop ful Si n of rogress Hopeful Signs of Progress .............................................................................................. 79
SanDiegoBaseaSailorSafelvReportsHarassment............................................................ 79
High Rat Nav ont Ha ass ol i s s Alar i g High Rate of Navy Dont Harass Violations is Alarming ............................................... 80
USSDubuqueCommanaingOfficerIgnoresSailorsReportofHarassment,
SailorthenPhvsicallvAssaulteaanaThreatenea............................................................. 80
OtherNavvDontHarassJiolations................................................................................ 81
Nav D nt H rass umma Navy Dont Harass Summary............................................................................................ 83
M n Corps Dont H a s Vio at ons Decr ase Despi e L k of Trai in Marine Corps Dont Harass Violations Decrease Despite Lack of Training ............... 83
Al hough Infre nt, Som epo ts o Mari e Although Infrequent, Some Reports of Marine Corps
Dont Ha Dont Harass mp iance R c ived rass Compliance Received.......................................................................... 84
MarineCorpsHolasAnti-GavLieutenantColonelMeltonAccountable............................. 84
CampLeieune.NorthCarolina.CommanaingOfficerTakesSwift
ActionAfterSLDNReportofAnti-GavHarassment ........................................................ 84
OtherGooaReportsofMarineCorpsDontHarassApplication ................................... 85
M n Ma ine Corps e ders Continu o Ignore Dont H r s P licy Many Marine Corps Leaders Continue to Ignore Dont Harass Policy....................... 86
LanceCorporalLesbian-BaiteaatTwentv-NinePalms.California .................................... 86
OtherMarineCorpsDontHarassJiolations ................................................................. 86
Mari e rps n t H r ss Summary Marine Corps Dont Harass Summary............................................................................. 88
Coast uard Dont H r ss V olat ons ise Sharply Coast Guard Dont Harass Violations Rise Sharply....................................................... 88
LCR 04377
vi
GavSailorAssaulteaOnboaraCGCNorthlana .................................................................. 89
CoastGuaraDontHarassJiolations ............................................................................. 89
Coa a o t Ha ss Sum ary Coast Guard Dont Harass Summary............................................................................... 90
D n Har s nclusion Dont Harass Conclusion ................................................................................................... 90
Volume2
ExhibitstoConauctUnbecoming
TheSeventhAnnualReportonDontAsk.DontTell.DontPursue.DontHarass
areinaseparatevolumeandmaybeobtainedbycontactingSLDN.
LCR 04378
vii
SLDNFINDINGS
SeventhAnnualReportonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harass
1. Pentagon Fails To Issue Directive And Instruction on Anti-Gay Harassment. The
Pentagon Iailed to issue promised orders to the services to revise service regulations and
training to prevent anti-gay harassment implementing the Pentagons thirteen-point Anti-
HarassmentActionPlanpublishedinJuly2000.
2. PentagonSurveyFindsAnti-GayCommentsCommonplace-ThreatToUnitCohesion.
A Department oI DeIense Inspector General survey oI 75,000 service members worldwide
Iound80oIrespondentshadheardderogatory,anti-gayremarksduringthepastyear:37
said they had witnessed or experienced targeted incidents oI anti-gay harassment, 9 oI
whom reported anti-gay threats and 5 oI whom reported witnessing or experiencing anti-
gayphysicalassaults.ThePentagoncalledanti-gayharassmentathreattounitcohesion.
3. Pentagon Survey Finds Majority Not Trained on Policy; Those Who Claim Good
Understanding of Policy Fail Three Basic Questions. Thesame DoD Inspector General
survey Iound that 57 percent oI service members surveyed reported receiving no policy
training. OI the 54 who stated they understood the policy to a large or very large
extent,only26couldanswerallthreebasicquestionsaboutthepolicycorrectly.
4. SLDN Cases Show Anti-Gay Harassment Remains At High Levels. SLDN documented
871incidentsoIanti-gayharassment,includingassaults,deaththreatsandverbalgaybashing
IromFebruary16,2000toFebruary15,2001.IncidentsoIanti-gayharassmentdecreasedin
theArmyandMarineCorps,butremainedthesameintheNavyandAirForce.TheNavy,
despite being smaller in size than the Army, led all services in anti-gay harassment incidents
IortheIourthyearinarowwith332DontHarassviolations.
5. Pentagon Fails To Protect Those Reporting Harassment From Being Discharged.
Despite the Pentagons many good eIIorts to improve anti-harassment training and
protections, it Iailed to make clear that service members should be able to report harassment
to Inspectors General, law-enIorcement oIIicers, equal-opportunity representatives, health-
careprovidersandotherswithoutIearoIreprisal.
6. DoctorsandPsychologistsToldtoOutGayServiceMembers. Psychologistsreport they
continue to be instructed to turn in gay, lesbian, and bisexual military members who seek
their help, despite promises by the Pentagon since 1998 to correct that practice. OIIicials
have knowingly permitted erroneous instructions to circulate in the Iield that tell
psychologistsanddoctorstooutgayservicemembers,includinginnewArmytrainingonthe
policy.
LCR 04379
viii
7. Army Inspector General Finds Anti-Gay Banter Common At Fort Campbell. Despite
Army spokespersons claims there was no evidence oI homophobia at Fort Campbell in
July 2000, the Army Inspector General conIirmed signiIicant incidents oI harassment,
including anti-gay graIIiti, cadences and routine anti-gay banter. The Army IG conducted
thereviewinthewakeoIthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassBarry Winchell.
8. ArmySecretaryFailsToActonWrongfulDeathClaiminMurderof Winchell. Private
FirstClassBarryWinchellsparentsIiledawrongIul-deathclaimagainsttheArmyunderthe
Military Claims Act Ior the murder oI their son at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Two soldiers
brutallymurdered Winchell with a baseball bat while he slept. Testimony at the Article 32
hearingsoItwosoldierschargedinconnectionwiththemurderrevealedthat Winchell Iaced
daily anti-gay harassment Ior Iour months prior to his murder and his leaders did not stop it.
TheArmySecretaryhasyettoactontheclaim.
9. Pentagon And Services Hold Few Leaders Accountable. In the Iirst six years, military
leaders did not oIIicially hold anyone accountable Ior asking, pursuing, or harassing. This
past year, SLDN documented increased accountability, including actions taken against
General Clark who was denied his third star Ior his conduct in addressing the anti-gay
harassmentscandalatFortCampbell,Kentucky:CaptainBradyatFortCampbell,Kentucky
who was disciplined by the new commanding general at the base Ior calling a gay soldier a
pole smoker in Iront oI his subordinate leaders: and Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel
MeltonatTwenty-NinePalmswhohaddisseminatedananti-gayemailtohissubordinates.
10. Army Training Reduces Asking, Pursuit and Harassment. The Army, better than any
other service, trained soldiers on preventing anti-gay harassment and on upholding the
policysinvestigativelimitsinthepastyear.
11. Pursuits Decrease As Navy Retains Openly Gay Personnel. SLDN documented 412
incidentsinwhichservicememberswerepursued,downIrom471violationstheyearbeIore.
The decrease in Dont Pursue violations is mostly attributable to a Navy aberration where
leaders are retaining openly gay, lesbian and bisexual sailors unless they (1) provide selI-
incriminating inIormation about sexual conduct which could carry criminal penalties, or (2)
identiIy Iriends, including other sailors, who will conIirm their sexual orientation, thereby
openingthedoortoapotentialwitchhunt.
12. ServiceMembersComeOuttoEscapeAnti-GayHarassment. Gay, lesbian and bisexual
service members overwhelmingly continue to come out because oI unchecked harassment,
contrarytothePentagonsclaimthatgaysareleavingthemilitaryvoluntarilybecausethey
wantedaneasywayout.Themilitarydoesnotgivemembersachoicetostay,eveniIthey
comeoutsolelybecauseoIIearIortheirsaIety.ServicemembersalsocomeoutIorreasons
oI integrity as the gay bans requirement oI lying contradicts the services core values oI
integrity,honorandcandor.
LCR 04380
ix
13. ArmyDesignatesChaplainsAsConfidentialResource,ButSomeBerateGaysSoldiers.
Despite identiIying chaplains as a conIidential resource, the Army has Iailed to train
chaplainsonhowtohandlecomplaintsoIanti-gayharassment.Somechaplainshaveberated
gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers who have reported harassment. II chaplains are
uncomIortable in providing support Ior gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers oI Iaith, they
shouldattheveryleastdirectthesoldiertoanotherchaplainwhowouldbewillingtohelp.
14. AirForceIllegallyDemandsGaysToRepayScholarships.IncontrasttotheArmy,Navy
and Marine Corps, and in direct violation oI Pentagon rules, the Air Force has aggressively
pursuedAirForcememberstoillegallyIorcerepayment oI scholarship Iunds and enlistment
bonusesaIterinvoluntarilydischargingthemIorbeinggay.
15. U.K.ReportsDefenseStrong After Lifting Gay Ban. Even critics oI gays in the military
inGreatBritainhaveconcededthatthedatashowthattheU.K.militaryremainsasstrongas
ever, and that there have been no measurable consequences oI liIting the gay ban. Recent
studiesoItheimpactoIopenlygaypersonnelintheIsraeli,Australian,Canadian,andtheU.
K.militariesunanimouslyconcludedthattherehasbeennonegativeimpact.
16. Young Adults, Aged 18-25, Disproportionately Affected By Gay Ban. While young
adults comprise only 43 oI the armed Iorces, they comprise 92 oI the gay discharges in
theAirForceandNavyin1999.The DoD Inspector General Iound the maiority oI anti-gay
harassment is inIlicted by iunior enlisted men on other iunior enlisted men, the maiority oI
whomareyoungadults,aged18-25.
17. Women Disproportionately Affected By Gay Ban. Women continue to be accused oI
being lesbians Ior retaliatory reasons, regardless oI their actual sexual orientation. Women
represent 24 oI SLDNs cases, though women comprise only 14 oI the active Iorces.
WomenhavehistoricallybeendischargedattwicetherateoItheirnumbersinthemilitary.
18. Commands Use Heavy-Handed Tactics to Pursue Gays. SLDN documented continued
use oI threats to extract conIessions about service members sexual activities, including
threatsoIcriminalcharges,conIinementandnon-iudicialpunishment.
LCR 04381
x
SLDNRECOMMENDATIONS
SeventhAnnualReportonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,Dont
Harass
1. Implement Pentagon Directive and Instruction, and Service Regulations on Anti-Gay
Harassment Immediately. Begin Training Immediately. It is irresponsible Ior the
PentagontodragitsIeetonimplementingitsanti-harassmentprogramsthatcouldsavelives.
The services should ensure every service member Irom recruit to Ilag oIIicer receives
appropriate training to prevent anti-gay harassment. The Pentagon should make clear to all
services that anti-gay harassment includes, but is not limited to, inappropriate comments and
gestures,mistreatment,threats,andassaults.
2. PermitServiceMemberstoReportAnti-GayHarassmentandCrimesWithoutFearof
Being Outed and Discharged. Inspectors General, law-enIorcement personnel, equal-
opportunity representatives, chaplains, health-care providers, commanders and other
personnel who deal with harassment should be given clear instructions not to out service
members who seek their help. Service membersstraight, gay and bisexualgo to these
sourcesIorhelp,nottomakeapublicstatementoItheirsexualorientation.Theseareprivate
contextsandwouldremainsoiIoIIicialsdidnotoutservicememberswhoseektheirhelp.
3. Adopt Rule of Privacy for Conversations with Health Care Providers. The Pentagon
should inIorm health-care providers there is no requirement to turn in gay, lesbian, and
bisexualpatients,andshouldIurtherclariIythatconversationswithhealth-careprovidersare
notabasisIorinvestigationordischargeundercurrentpolicy.
4. Hold Accountable Those Who Ask, Pursue or Harass. Military leaders should
aggressively hold accountable those who ask, pursue or harass, starting with the many
examplescitedinthisreport.CommandersmustunderstandtherearespeciIicconsequences
Iorviolations,IromlettersoIcounselingtocourts-martial,dependingontheoIIense.
5. EnsureFulland Appropriate Training on Investigative Limits. The Pentagon should
ensuretheservicestrainallpersonnelonthepolicysinvestigativelimitsandintenttorespect
service members privacy. Leaders must be involved in the training and set the proper tone
Iorit.TrainingshouldalsoincludespecializedtrainingIorattorneys,chaplainsandallthose
chargedwiththewelIareoItheirtroops.
6. Stop Illegal Air Force Recoupment Actions. The Pentagon should order the Air Force to
Iollow Pentagon rules prohibiting recoupment when service members are involuntarily
discharged Ior being gay, lesbian, orbisexual,bringingtheAirForceintolinewithallother
services.TheAirForceshouldchangeitsguidanceoninvestigativelimitstomakeclearthat
noorlittleinvestigationisneededinmoststatementscases.
LCR 04382
xi
7. Train Navy Leaders To Take Appropriate Actions When Service Members Come Out
ToReportHarassment. Navy leaders should not require sailors who come out to produce
evidence oI sexual conduct or identiIy Iriends, including Iellow sailors, who could conIirm
their sexual orientation, as a prerequisite Ior transIer, addressing anti-gay harassment or
initiatingdischargeproceedings.
8. Provide Recourse to Service Members to Stop Improper Investigations. While recent
orders requiring service secretary approval Ior substantial investigations and greater legal
guidanceIromhigherheadquartersarehelping,theystilldeprivemembersoItheopportunity
toshowwhyaninquiryshouldnotgoIorwardintheIirstplace.Membersshouldbeableto
obtain a military deIense attorney beIore an inquiry is initiated, and have an opportunity to
showthatnocredibleevidenceexists.
9. RequireCommanderstoStateinWritingReasonsforInvestigations. This would be a
Iurthersteptopreventimproperinvestigations.
10. Train Investigators on How to Handle Possible Anti-Gay Hate Crimes. Criminal
investigators and law-enIorcement personnel need training to recognize and appropriately
investigatepossibleanti-gayhatecrimes.
11. AdoptExclusionaryRule.ThePentagonshouldadoptanexclusionaryrulesothatevidence
obtained illegally, as in a witch hunt, can be excluded at administrative discharge boards.
LCR 04383
12
C CON U T ONDUCT UNBEC NG NBECOMI NG: :
THE S E NT H E VE NT H ANNUAL REPORTON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE, DONT HARASS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Im a Dont Ask, Dont Tell man.
--PresidentGeorgeBush,January7,2000
1
There have been some setbacks in terms of [the policys] full implementation.
--SecretaryoIDeIenseWilliamCohen,March12,2000
2
Treatmentofallinaiviaualswithaignitvanarespect
is essential to good order and discipline.
--DoDAnti-HarassmentActionPlan,July21,2000
3
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass(DADTDPDH)underminesour
nationalsecurity.Forcinggay,lesbian,andbisexualservicememberstohide,lie,evadeand
deceivetheircommanders,subordinates,peers,Iamilies,andIriendsbreaksthebondsoItrust
amongservicemembersessentialtounitcohesion.
4
Forcingcommanderstodischargemission-
tested,valuedmembersoItheirteambecauseoIwhotheyareimpairsmissionreadiness.
EnIorcingalawthattreatsanentiregroupoIAmericansassecond-classcitizensundercutsthe
verylibertiesandIreedomsourmilitarymembersIighttoprotect,andtherebyundercutsmilitary
integrity.
5
ThecontinuedIailureoImilitaryleaderstoIairlyimplementthepolicysprovisionson
privacy,investigativelimits,accountability,andrecoursealsoundercutsreadinessby
diminishingrespectIorruleandorder.Commandclimatespoisonedbyanti-gay
6
abusesand
harassmentdestroygoodorder,discipline,andmorale.
SLDNbelievesthedaysoIDADTDPDHarenumbered.
7
Nevertheless,DADTDPDHis
thecurrentlawandmilitaryleadersmustrisetotheoccasiontoensurethatitisproperly
1
ExcerptsfromtheDebateAmong G.O.P.Canaiaates, N.Y.TIMES,Jan.7,2000,atA15.
2
RichardWhittle,Interview,SecretarvofDefenseWilliamCohen, DALLAS MORNING NEWS,Mar.12,2000,at1J.
3
DepartmentoIDeIenseWorkingGroup,Anti-HarassmentActionPlan(July21,2000).
4
See 10U.S.C654(a)(7),OneoIthemostcriticalelementsincombatcapabilityisunitcohesion,thatis,the
bondsoItrustamongindividualservicemembersthatmakethecombateIIectivenessoIamilitaryunit.... Ia.
5
ThePentagonhasdischarged2-4peopleeverydayIorbeinggaysinceDADTDPDHwasIirstimplemented.At
thetimethisreportwenttopublication,thePentagonhadnotyetreleasedthegaydischargeIiguresIorFY2000
whichendedonSeptember30,2000.
6
Whenevergayisusedthroughoutthisreport,itisusedasanall-inclusivetermIorgay,lesbian,andbisexual.
7
ArecentstudybyBritainsMinistryoIDeIenseconcludedtheU.K.sarmedIorcesremainasstrongnow,oneyear
aIterliItingitsgayban,asbeIoreliItingtheban.Fourreportsconductedbyanindependentthinktankthispastyear
concludedthattherehasbeennomeasurableeIIectoIliItingthegaybansinIsrael,Canada,AustraliaortheUnited
LCR 04384
13
administeredandenIorced. ConauctUnbecoming.The SeventhAnnualReportonDontAsk.
DontTell.DontPursue.DontHarass examinesthemilitarysIailuretoimplementcoreparts
oIDADTDPDHandhowthishasimpactedmilitaryreadinessinthepastyear.
8
PentagonFailsToIssueAnti-HarassmentRules
AsAnti-GayHostilityContinuesUnabated
OurgravestconcernthisyearisthatthereportsoIdeaththreats,assaultsandverbal gay-
bashingcontinuealmostunabated,especiallyintheNavy.
9
WhileDontHarassviolations
decreasedby10,Irom968reportedviolationsinlastyearsreportto871thisyear,
10
one
wouldhaveexpectedamoresubstantialdropinincidentsoIanti-gayharassmentgiventhe
Pentagonsattentioninthepastyeartothisissue.
ThewordsoIPrivateFirstClassRonaldChapman,inalettertohisIamily,are
particularlymoving,disturbing, heart-wrenchingandtelling:
I GOT BEAT UP LAST NIGHT. SOMEONE CAME TO MY BED A GROUP OF
SOMEONES ANDTHEYWEREHITTINGMEWITHBLANKETSANDSOAP.I AM
ACHINGALLOVERMYBODY.MYWHOLEBODYHURTS.ICANTBELIEVE
THISHAPPENED.WHODIDI HURT?
11
Itmaybethatmilitaryleaderscommitmenttopreventharassmenthasbeenmorewords
thanaction.ThePentagonhassatonadraItDepartmentoIDeIenseDirectiveandInstructionto
theservicesIorsixmonthsdirectingtheservicestoimplementregulationsadheringtothebasic
principlethattreatmentoIallindividualswithdignityandrespectisessentialtogoodorderand
discipline.
12
Theserviceregulationswould:clariIythatanti-gayharassmentincludes
mistreatment,harassmentandinappropriatecommentsorgestures:ordertrainingIorevery
enlistedmemberandoIIicerwiththetrainingtailoredtothegradeandleveloIresponsibilityoI
everyservicemember:orderaccountabilityIorthosewhoharassaswellasthosewhocondone
Kingdom. See,AaronBelkinetal. (unpublishedmanuscriptsonIilewiththeCenterIortheStudyoISexual
MinoritiesintheMilitary,UniversityoICaliIorniaatSantaBarbara,andwww.gaymilitary.ucsb. edu).
AlloItheoriginalNATOcountries,exceptTurkeyandtheUnitedStates,haveliItedtheirgaybans.TheUnited
StatesistheonlyindustrializedwesternnationthatstillhasagaybaninitsarmedIorces.
8
SLDNhasassistedmorethan2,600servicemembersinthepastsevenyearswhohavebeenharmedbythepolicy.
9
FortheIourthyearinarow,theNavyledallservicesinincidentsoIanti-gayharassmentwith332reported
incidentsIromFebruary16,2000toFebruary15,2001.
10
ThereportingperiodIorthisyearsreportisFebruary16,2000toFebruary15,2001.SLDNsreportingperiods
tracktheanniversaryoIDADTDPDHwhichwasimplementedinFebruary1994.
11
LetterIromPrivateFirstClassChapmantohisIamily(Sept.2000).ChapmansexperienceisdiscussedIullyin
theDontHarasssection.
12
DepartmentoIDeIenseWorkingGroup,Anti-HarassmentActionPlan(July21,2000). SeeMemorandumIrom
UnderSecretaryoIDeIense(Personnel&Readiness)BernardRostkertotheSecretaryoItheArmy,SecretaryoIthe
Navy,SecretaryoItheAirForce,ChieIoIStaIIoItheArmy,ChieIoINavalOperations,ChieIoIStaIIoItheAir
Force,andCommandantoItheMarineCorps,ApprovalanaImplementationoftheActionPlanSubmitteain
responsetotheDoDInspectorGeneralsreportontheMilitarvEnvironmentWithRespecttotheHomosexual
ConauctPolicv(July21,2000)(directingthattheproposedactionplanbeIorwardedtotheServicesIor
implementation).
LCR 04385
14
harassment:anddirectInspectorsGeneraltomeasuretheeIIectivenessoIanti-gayharassment
eIIortseachyear.
TheproposedDepartmentoIDeIenseDirectiveandInstructiondonotgoIarenoughin
ouropinion,andservicememberswillcontinuetobeatrisk.TheproposedrulesIailtomake
clearthatservicemembersshouldbeabletoreportharassmenttoInspectorsGeneral,law-
enIorcementoIIicers,equal-opportunityrepresentatives,health-careprovidersandotherswithout
IearoIreprisal.ByIailingtoexpresslypermitgayservicememberstosaIelyusethesame
channelstoreportharassmentavailabletoheterosexualservicemembers,thePentagonhas
inappropriatelyprioritizedpunishinggays,lesbians,andbisexualsovercurbinganti-gaythreats,
assaultsandotherharassment.TheproposedPentagonguidance,however,wouldbean
improvementovercurrentrules.
ThePentagonsIailuretoenactthenewanti-harassmentprogramsisirresponsiblegiven
themurderoItwoservicemembersSeamanAllen Schindlerin1992andPrivateFirstClass
Barry Winchellin1999
13
byIellowservicememberswhoweredriventokillbyanti-gay
animus.
ThePentagonsIailuretoactisinexcusablegiventheInspectorGeneralssurveyIindings
thatanti-gayharassmentisrampantamongtheranks.
14
InMarch2000,the DoDInspector
GeneralreleasedareportonitssurveyoI75,000servicemembers.
15
ThereportIoundthat80
oIrespondentsheardderogatory,anti-gayremarksduringthepastyear:37saidtheywitnessed
orexperiencedtargetedincidentsoIanti-gayharassment,9oIwhomreportedanti-gaythreats
and5oIwhomreportedwitnessingorexperiencinganti-gayphysicalassaults.ThemaiorityoI
respondentsreportedtheirleaderstooknostepstostoptheharassment.
ThePentagonsIailuretorespondquicklyandIorceIullywiththenewanti-harassment
measuresisalsoirresponsiblegiventhePentagonsownconclusionthatanti-gayharassment
directlyunderminesgoodorder,disciplineandmorale.
16
InJuly2000,aDepartmentoIDeIense
workinggrouppublishedanAnti-HarassmentActionPlanandmadethirteenrecommendations
toimprovethePentagonsanti-harassmenteIIorts.ThePentagonadoptedthose
recommendationsandwastoincludetheminaDepartmentoIDeIenseDirectiveandInstruction.
DespiteIormerSecretaryoIDeIenseWilliamCohenseIIortstoaddressharassmentin
theranksthroughleadershipmessages,IGsurveysandworkinggroupplans,thebottomline
remainsthatthePentagonhasIailedtoissuetheDirectiveandInstructionimplementingthe
recommendationsIromtheAnti-HarassmentActionplan.
13
WinchellsparentshaveIiledawrongIuldeathclaimagainsttheArmyundertheMilitaryClaimsActIorthe
murderoItheirson.TwosoldiersbrutallymurderedWinchellwithabaseballbatwhileheslept.Testimonyatthe
courts-martialrevealedthatWinchellIaceddailyanti-gayharassmentIorIourmonthspriortohismurderandhis
leadersdidnotstopit.TheArmySecretaryhasyettoactontheclaim.
14
TheArmyInspectorGeneralalsoIoundthatanti-gaybanterwascommonatFortCampbellinareviewoIthe
installationscommandclimateinthewakeoIWinchellsmurder.Armyspokespersonsclaimedtherewasno
evidenceoIhomophobiaatthebasedespitetheIGsIindings.
15
SeeDepartmentoIDeIenseWorkingGroup,Anti-HarassmentActionPlan(July21,2000).
16
Seeia.
LCR 04386
15
Gay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersoverwhelminglycontinuetocomeouttotheir
commandersandriskdischargebecauseitistheonlywaytoprotectthemselvesIromunchecked
harassment.ServicemembersalsocomeoutIorreasonsoIintegrityasthegaybans
requirementoIlyingcontradictstheservicescorevaluesoIintegrity,honorandcandor.
ContrarytothePentagonsclaimthatgaysareleavingthemilitaryvoluntarilybecausethey
wantedaneasywayout,thestoriesoIourclientsdemonstratetheirenormouscourage,honor,
selIlessnessanddedicationtoourcountryevenintheIaceoIunIriendlyIireandIailed
leadership.Themilitarydoesnotgivegays,lesbiansandbisexualsachoicetostay,eveniIthey
comeoutsolelybecauseoIIearIortheirsaIety.
GiventhatthePentagoncandeploy10,000troopshalIwayaroundtheworldinlessthan
twenty-Iourhourstorespondtoacrisis,itshouldbeabletoimplementnewanti-harassment
rules.Allittakesisleadership.
SLDNstronglyrecommendsthatthenewAdministrationmoveswiItlytoimplementthe
proposedanti-harassmentprograms.SLDNalsostronglyrecommendsthattheserviceshold
accountable,notonlythosewhoengageinharassment,butthosewhocondoneit.SLDNIurther
recommendsthatthePentagonmakeclearthatservicemembersshouldnotIacereprisalsIor
reportingharassmenttoInspectorsGeneral,law-enIorcementoIIicers,equal-opportunity
representatives,health-careprovidersandotherschargedwiththeircare.
WhileAskingandPursuitsDecrease,
AirForcePursuitsIncreaseInRecoupmentCases,and
NavyPursuitsDecreaseasItAttemptstoRetainOpenlyGaySailors
Thereissomegoodnewstoreportthisyear.FortheIirsttimeinsevenyearsunder
DontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass,thereisevidencethatsomemilitary
leadersarebeginningtoIollowsomeoItherules.ReportedinstancesoIaskingandpursuitare
downIromlastyear.DontAskviolationsdecreasedby18,Irom194reportedviolationsin
lastyearsreportto159thisyear.DontPursueviolationsdecreasedby13,Irom471
reportedviolationsinlastyearsreportto412thisyear.
Thedevilisinthedetails.DontAskviolationsdecreasedintheArmy,Navyand
MarineCorps,butincreasedintheAirForce.ThedecreaseinArmyDont Askviolations
appearsdirectlyattributabletoimprovementsinArmytrainingtoupholdthepolicys
investigativelimits.Basedonourexperience,SLDNconcludesthatNavyandMarineCorps
training isnotresponsibleIorthedecreaseinaskingintheirservices.TheAirForcesawan
increaseinitsaskingviolations,becauseitstrainingappearstobelimitedtoonline,selI-directed
trainingwhichservicemembersreporthasnotbeensuccessIul.Whatisclear,however,isthat
Navy,MarineCorps,andAirForcetrainingprogramsarelaggingbehindtheArmys.
OnenotableresultIromSLDNscasesacrossallservicesisthataskingbycommanders
andsupervisorsislessIrequent.Askingbypeers,however,isconstant.Thisreportdoesnot
IullyreIlectthesheervolumeoIquestionsgay,lesbian,andbisexualservicemembersIaceevery
dayaboutdating,relationships,andsocialactivitieswhichrequirethemtolie,evade,dissemble,
andcensorthemselves.Butitisstaggering.DontAskisamyth.IImilitaryleadersare
LCR 04387
16
committedtostoppingquestionsaboutsexualorientation,theymustdiscourageenlisted
membersIromharassingeachotherabouttheirpersonallives.
AswiththedecreaseinDontAskviolations,thedecreaseinDontPursueviolations
tellsadiIIerentstoryineachserviceaswell.TheslightdecreaseinArmyDontPursue
violationsagainappearsdirectlyattributabletoitseIIortstotrainonthepolicysinvestigative
limits. ThedecreaseinoverallDontPursueviolationsismostlyattributabletoanaberration
intheNavywhereleadersareretainingopenlygay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers
17
unlessthey(1)provideselI-incriminatinginIormationaboutsexualconductwhichcouldcarry
criminalpenalties,or(2)identiIyIriends,includingothersailors,whowillconIirmtheirsexual
orientation,therebyopeningthedoortoapotentialwitchhunt.Thus,whiletheNavyisnot
conductingwide-rangingIishingexpeditionsorcallinginIriendsandIamilytointerrogatethem
aboutasailorasinthepast,theNavyissimplydoingnothing. Giventhatmostsailorsare
comingouttotheircommandersduetouncheckedanti-gayharassment,andtheNavyIorthe
IourthyearinarowleadsallservicesinincidentsoIanti-gayharassment,theNavysIailureto
doanythingtransIerthesailor,stoptheharassment,ordischargethesailorisplacinggay,
lesbian,andbisexualsailorsatgraverisk.
TheAirForce,ontheotherhand,continuestopursueinrecordnumbers.AirForce
Dont Pursueviolationsincreased13,Irom222violationsreportedinlastyearsreportto
251thisyear.TheAirForcesDontPursueviolationsonceagainleadsallotherservicesin
itspursuitoIgay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.AsigniIicantportionoItheAirForces
DontPursueviolationsoccurregularlyinthecontextoI recoupmentcaseswheretheservice
demandsthatAirForcemembersrepayscholarshipIundsandenlistmentbonusesaIter
involuntarilydischargingthemIorbeinggay. TheAirForce,insharpcontrasttotheArmy,Navy
andMarineCorps,andindirectviolationoIPentagonguidance,hasconsistentlyignored
PentagonandAirForcerulesprohibitingrecoupmentinmostcasesandisnowevenbucking
PentagonandAirForcerulesrequiringsecretarialapprovalpriortotheinitiationoIsubstantial
inquiries.
18
SLDNrecommendsthatthePentagonrecommittoensuringIullandadequatetrainingon
thepolicysinvestigativelimitsandprivacyprotections. TheDepartmentoIDeIenseInspector
GeneralinitsMarch2000surveyoI75,000servicemembersworldwideIoundthat57hadnot
receivedanypolicytraining,andthatoIthosewhosaidtheyunderstoodthepolicytoalargeor
verylargeextent,only26couldanswercorrectlythreebasicquestionsabouthowthepolicy
works.
19
SLDNrecommendsthattheNavystrainingprograminstructcommandingoIIicersto
respondappropriatelytosailorscomplaintsoIharassmentaswellastheiradmissionsoIgay,
17
TheretentionoIopenlygayservicemembersdirectlycontradictsthepurportedrationaleIorthegayban,and
providesIurtherevidencethatthegaybanitselIispreventingmilitaryleadersIromstaIIingtheirmissionswithhigh
qualitypersonnel.
18
In1999,inaneIIorttocurbimproperpursuits,thePentagonissuednewguidancerequiringcommanderstoobtain
servicesecretaryapprovalpriortotheinitiationoIasubstantialinquiry.SeeMemorandumIromUnderSecretary
oIDeIenseRudydeLeontotheSecretariesoItheMilitaryDepartments,ImplementationofRecommenaations
ConcerningHomosexualConauctPolicv(Aug.12,1999)|hereinaIterUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R)Rudyde
Leon1999ImplementationMemo|.
19
SeeOIIiceoItheInspectorGeneral,DeptoIDeIense, EvaluationReport.MilitarvEnvironmentWithRespectto
theHomosexualConauctPolicv4,16 (2000)|hereinaIter DoDInspectorGeneral2000Report|.
LCR 04388
17
lesbianorbisexualsexualorientation.SLDNrecommendsthatthePentagonreinintheAir
Forcesillegalrecoupmentactions.
WhatisDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass?
WhilesomeoIthenewsthisyearisanimprovementoverthatin ConauctUnbecoming.
The SixthAnnualReport,itremainsworsethanourIirstthroughIiIthreports.Muchmust
continuetobedonetoliveuptotheminimalpromisesmadein1993.Withanew
AdministrationinpowerandhavingtoimplementalawnotoIitsmaking,itisworthreviewing
exactlywhatDADTDPDHis.
DADTDPDHcontainsexactlythesameprohibitionsonservicebygays,lesbians,and
bisexualsthathavebeeninplaceIorIiItyyears.
20
ThePentagondischargesgays,lesbians,and
bisexualsIorstatements,acts,andmarriage.Inotherwords,thePentagon Iiresservicemembers
whoacknowledgetheyaregay,lesbian,orbisexual,engageinsexualoraIIectionateconduct
(suchashandholding)withsomeoneoIthesamegender,orhavearelationshipwithsomeoneoI
thesamegender.
DADTDPDHistheonlylawinthelandthatauthorizestheIiringoIanAmericanIor
beinggay.ThereisnootherIederal,state,orlocallawlikeit.Indeed,DADTDPDHistheonly
lawthatpunishesgays,lesbians,andbisexualsIorcomingout.ManyAmericansview
DADTDPDHasabenigngentlemensagreementwithdiscretionasthekeytoiobsecurity.That
issimplynotthecase.AnhoneststatementoIonessexualorientationtoanyone,anywhere,
anytimemayleadtobeingIired.
DADTDPDHis,however,signiIicantlydiIIerentIrompriorprohibitionsonservicein
threerespects.First,Congressionalandmilitaryleadersacknowledged,IortheIirsttimein
1993,thatgays,lesbians,andbisexualsserveournationanddosohonorably.
21
Second,the
policyalsostatessexualorientationisnolongerabartomilitaryservice.
22
Third,President
Clinton,Congressandmilitaryleadersagreedtoendintrusivequestionsaboutservicemembers
sexualorientationandtostopthemilitarysinIamousinvestigationstoIerretoutsuspectedgay,
lesbian,andbisexualservicemembers.
23
Theyagreedtotakestepstopreventanti-gay
20
C.DixonOsburn, APolicvinDesperateSearchofaRationale.TheMilitarvsPolicvonLesbians.Gavsana
Bisexuals,64UMKCL.Rev.199(1995).
21
Services,103dCong.,707(1993)(statementoIGeneralColinPowell)|hereinaIterPowellstatement|.
|H|omosexualshaveprivatelyservedwellinthepastandarecontinuingtoservewelltoday. Ia.
22
DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVENO.1332.14,EnlisteaAaministrativeSeparations E3.A1.1.8.1.1(1994)|hereinaIter
DODD1332.14|: DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO.1332.40,SeparationProceauresforRegularanaReserve
CommissioneaOfficersE2.3(1997)|hereinaIterDODD1332.40|.Amemberssexualorientationisconsidereda
personalandprivatematter,andisnotabartocontinuedservice...unlessmaniIestedbyhomosexualconduct...
. Ia.
23
See Powellstatement, supranote21,at709.Wewillnotwitchhunt.Wewillnotchase.Wewillnotseekto
learnorientation. Ia.
LCR 04389
18
harassment.
24
Theyagreedtotreatgay,lesbian,andbisexualservicememberseven-handedlyin
thecriminaliusticesystem,insteadoIcriminallyprosecutingthemincircumstanceswherethey
wouldnotprosecuteheterosexualservicemembers.
25
Theyagreedtoimplementthelawwith
dueregardIortheprivacyandassociationsoIservicemembers.
26
Thelawbecameknownin
1993asDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursuetosigniIythenewlimitstoinvestigationsandthe
intenttorespectservicemembersprivacy.InFebruary2000,inthewakeoIPrivateFirstClass
Barry WinchellsmurderbyIellowsoldiersatFortCampbell,Kentucky,PentagonoIIicials
addedDontHarasstothetitleoIthepolicy.
WenowstandatapoliticalcrossroadsandthequestioniswhethertheBush
AdministrationwilldowhattheClintonAdministrationIailedtodoandenIorceDADTDPDH
withIairnessandcompassion.TodayistheIirstdayIorthenewAdministrationtodemonstrate
itsresolve.
24
DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO.1304.26, QualificationStanaarasforEnlistment.Appointment.ana
Inauction: ApplicantBriefingItemonSeparationPolicv.addendum(1993).TheArmedForcesdonottolerate
harassmentorviolenceagainstanyservicemember,Ioranyreason. Ia.
25
MemorandumIromSecretaryoIDeIenseLes Aspintothe SecretariesoItheMilitaryDepartments.
ImplementationoftheDoDPolicvonHomosexualConauctintheArmeaForces(Dec.21,1993).|Thenew
policy|providesthatinvestigationsintosexualmisconductwillbeconductedinanevenhandedmanner,without
regardtowhethertheallegedmisconductinvolveshomosexualorheterosexualconduct. Ia.Despitetherule,
SLDNcontinuestodocumentuseoIthreatsoIcriminalcharges,conIinementandnon-iudicialpunishmentagainst
gayservicemembers,aswellascriminalprosecutionIorconsensual,sexualconduct.
26
PresidentWilliamJ.Clinton,TextofRemarksAnnouncingtheNewPolicv, WASH.POST,July20,1993,atA12.
associationalrightsoIallservicemembers. Ia.ThenSenatorWilliamCohenunderstoodthatthesmallamountoI
privacyunderthecurrentpolicywasintendedtopreventthemilitaryIrompryingintopeoplesprivatelives.Policv
ConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OnArmeaServices.103d
Cong.788(statementoISenatorWilliamCohen).
LCR 04390
19
DONT ASK
Commanders or appointed inquiry officials shall not ask,
and members shall not be required to reveal [their sexual orientation.]
--DepartmentoIDeIenseDirective
27
IhavesolaiersquestionmvsexualorientationanaIfinaithvpocriticalthat
Iamrequirea.unaertheDontAsk.DontTellpolicv, tolieinoraertokeepmv
iob.
--SpecialistJanaJohnson,UnitedStatesArmy
28
Duringthisreportingperiod,SLDNdocumentedasigniIicantdeclineinthenumberoI
Dont Askviolations.SLDNdocumented159violationsIromFebruary16,2000toFebruary
15,2001.Thisdeclinerepresentsan18decreaseIromlastyearstotaloI194violations.This
yearstotalisthelowestnumberoIviolationssince1997.Thedecreaseinaskingisgood
news.Thataskingoccursatall,however,remainstroubling.AIterall,Dont Askmeans
dontask.
29
Itisclearandunambiguous.Ithasbeenthelawsince1994.
ThedeclineinDont AskviolationshasnotbeenuniIormacrossallservices.While
violationsdecreasedintheArmy,NavyandMarineCorps,askingviolationsincreasedby21
intheAirForce.
ThedeclineinArmyviolationsappearsattributabletonewpolicytrainingstatingthat
askingisprohibited,stemmingIromPentagonordersinAugust1999.
30
Inourestimation,the
trainingintheNavyandMarineCorpsisnotaseIIectiveastheArmys,butaskingviolations
havealsodippednoticeablyinthoseservices.SLDNwillcontinuetomonitortheNavyand
MarineCorpstoidentiIywhatIactorsmaybecontributingtothedecreaseintheirDontAsk
violations.TheincreaseinAirForceaskingmaybeattributabletotheIactthatitspolicy
traininghasbeenlimitedtoonline,selI-directedtraining,perhapsdemonstratingalackoI
leadershipcommitment.
Past ConauctUnbecomingreportshavecitedtothelackoImilitaryleadershipandlackoI
trainingonthepolicyastheprimaryreasonsIoritspoorimplementation.IImilitaryleaders
27
DODD 1332.14,supranote22,atE3.A4.1.4.3: DODD1332.40, supranote22,atE8.4.3.
28
SpecialistJohnsoncameouttotheArmybecauseoIherstrongsenseoIintegrity.BylivinguptotheArmyscore
valuesoIhonorandintegrity,sheisbeingIorcedtoleavetheservicebecausetheArmyconsidersanhonorable
soldierlikeherathreattounitcohesion,morale,andgoodorderanddiscipline.
29
InitsApril1998reportontheeIIectivenessoItheimplementationoIDADTDPDH,thePentagonreaIIirmedthe
prohibitionagainstasking. SeeOIIiceoItheUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(PersonnelandReadiness), Reporttothe
SecretarvofDefense.ReviewoftheEffectivenessoftheApplicationanaEnforcementoftheDepartmentsPolicvon
HomosexualConauctintheMilitarv,Apr.1998,at2|hereinaIterUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R) 1998Report|.
30
SeeUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R)RudydeLeon1999ImplementationMemo,supranote18.
LCR 04391
20
intensiIytrainingonthepolicy,andbegintoholdthoseviolatingthepolicyaccountable,a
IurtherdeclineinDontAskviolationsshouldIollow.
UniIormedleadershavetwochallengesinIurtherreducingDontAskviolations.First,
serviceleadersmustreducepeer-to-peerasking.Second,leadersmustrecognizethisIormoI
askingasharassmentthatplacesgay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersinanuntenable
positionoIhavingtoeitheranswerthedailyquestionstheyIaceandriskdischarge,orlie,
dissembleandevadetoavoiddetection.
ThegoodnewsIromSLDNscasesisthataskingbymilitaryleadersappearstohave
droppeddramatically.ThemaiorityoISLDNscasesdonotinvolveincidentswhere
commanders,non-commissionedoIIicers,inquiryoIIicers,investigatorsorsecurityclearance
investigators
31
areaskingservicemembersiItheyaregay,lesbianandbisexual.Thebadnewsis
thatotherservicemembersarestillaskingeachotherabouttheirprivate lives,andthose
questionscanposegreatrisktogay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.
Servicemembersreportbeingaskedwhethertheyaremarried,whomtheyaredating,and
toshowphotosoIromanticinterests.Heterosexualservicememberscanrespondtothese
questionswithoutasecondthought.Gay,lesbianandbisexualservicememberscannotanswer
themwithoutriskingdischarge.SilenceintheIaceoIsuchquestioningIuelsspeculation.Lying,
deceptionandevasionrunscountertothevaluesoIourmenandwomeninuniIorm.
AsoneArmyoIIicerputit,|i|magineknowingthatinamatteroIdaysyoucouldbeout
oIaiobbecausethesimplestinvestigationcouldconcludeyouweregayaseasilyasastraight
personcouldbeIoundtobemarried.
32
ProIessorDianeMazuraptlydescribestheproblem:
|Dont Ask| requires service members to continually conceal
everyday inIormation about what they do, where they go, and
whom they see, Iar exceeding the scope oI inIormation more
directly associated with intimate behavior. To keep secret the
latterisdiIIicultenough:tokeepsecrettheIormeristochangethe
catch phrase oI the policy to Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Lie
Consistently.
33
OItentimes,askingisharassment.Howshouldgay,lesbianandbisexualservice
membersrespondwhenaskedwhethertheyareaIag,Iaggot,dyke,queer,orcarpet
muncher?SilenceinvitesIurtherharassment.Inreality,almostanyresponseinvitesIurther
harassment.Theonlythingthatstopssuchharassmentisleadershipcommitmenttohold
accountablethosewhoengageinsuchbehavior.Allservicesmustdobetterinstoppingasking
thatdoublesasharassment.
31
SLDNscasesindicatethatsecurityclearanceinvestigatorsaregenerallyadheringtotherulesallowinggay
servicememberstoobtainaccesstoclassiIiedinIormation. SeeExecutiveOrderNo.12,968,60C.F.R.151,at
40250(1995).
32
MoreoIIormerArmyMaiorNealNaIIsexperienceiscontainedintheDontTellsectionoIthisreport.Maior
NaII,whoisgay,wasaneurosurgeonatWalterReedArmyMedicalCenterinWashington,D.C.
33
DianeMazur, SexanaLies.RulesofEthics.RulesofEviaence.AnaOurConflicteaJiewsontheSignificanceof
Honestv. 14 NOTRE DAME J.L.ETHICS &PUB. POLY679,692(2000).
LCR 04392
21
ThissectionanalyzesDont Askimplementationbyservice.
ArmyDontAskViolationsDecreaseDuetoGoodTraining
WeareaetermineatocontinuetoimplementtheDontAsk.DontTell
policy with fairness to all because that is the right thing to do for our soldiers.
--SecretaryoItheArmyandArmyChieIoIStaII
34
SLDNdocumentedthirty-IiveDontAskviolationsintheArmyduringthispastyear.
Thisrepresentsa21declineIromtheprioryearsreportoIIorty-Iourviolations.
TheArmystrainingeIIortsonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass
(DADTDPDH)appeartobecontributingtothedeclineinDontAskviolations.The
prescriptionIorsuccessIultrainingonthepolicyissimple:topunitleaderspresentingaclearand
directmessagethataskingiswrong.
FortKnoxCommanaingGeneralSetsLeaaershipExample
ThebestexampleoIstrongArmyleadershipinimplementingDont Ask,aswellasthe
policysotherprovisions,comesIromFortKnox,Kentucky.MaiorGeneralB.B.Bell,theFort
Knoxcommandinggeneral,issuedamemorandum(Exhibit1)stating,Iwillconductmandatory
|policy|trainingIorall|FortKnox|Colonel-levelcommandersandprimaryinstallationdirectors
...,therebysettingthepropertone,upIront,Iorhissubordinateleaders.TheGeneralIurther
directedthatunitcommanderspersonallyconducttheHomosexualConductPolicytrainingin
theirunits....MaiorGeneralBellwentontounambiguouslystatethatanti-gay|s|lurs,
demeaningiokes,harassment,andmaltreatmentviolatethetrustplacedinusbytheAmerican
peopleandbythosewhomwelead.
MaiorGeneralBellsleadershipsetsanexampleIorothercommandstoemulate.His
actionsnotiustwordscommunicatetheseriousnessandpurposeoIthetraining.
DespiteArmyeIIorts,therearedocumentedinstancesoIcontinuingDontAsk
violations.Generally,improperaskingcontinuestobeusedagainstsoldiersasaIormoIanti-
gayharassment.AbrieIreviewoIselectedArmycasesillustratestheproblem.
ExamplesofArmvDontAskJiolations
SpecialistJanaJohnson,atWhiteSandsMissileRange,NewMexico,reportsbeingasked,
whatareyou,acarpetmuncher?andwhydontyougooutwiththerestoIus,areyou
somekindoIdyke?Johnson,atwenty-IouryearoldIromPennsylvania,wrote,|t|heArmy
restrictsmeIromdeIendingmyselIagainstcommentsoriokesaboutmysexualitybyIorcing
metokeepquiet(Exhibit2).
34
ElectronicMessageIromHeadquarters,DepartmentoItheArmy,toALARACT,DignitvanaRespectforAll(Jan.
10,2000)(HQDAWASHINGTONDC101800ZJAN00(ALARACT008/00))|hereinaIterALARACT008/00|.
LCR 04393
22
APrivateatFortJackson,SouthCarolina,reportsbeingaskedbyadrillsergeant,|d|idyour
recruiteraskiIyouaregay?IIhehad,wouldyouhavetold?(Exhibit3).
APrivateFirstClassatFortLeonardWood,Missouri,reportsbeingrepeatedlyaskedby
othersoldiers.ThePrivateFirstClasswrote,|m|anyothermaleandIemalesoldiershave
comeuptomeandaskedmeiIIamgayorbisexual.Thisincludessoldierswho|sic|Ihave
nevermetwhoaskedmeaboutmysexualorientationwhileinthechowline.Ieitherdonot
respondtotheirquestionorlieandtellthemthatwhatevertheyheardaboutmeisnottrue
becauseIamscaredthatsomeonelikemyoldplatoonmemberwillhurtmeiItheyIindoutI
ambisexual(Exhibit4).
ASpecialistin Ausbach, Germany,reportsbeingaskedinindirectways.Hereports
receivinginquisitivecommentssuchas:
DidyougrowupwithalotoIIemales?
|Othersoldiers|askmeiIyouaregayornot,butIsaidIdontknow.
YoumustbeaMommasboy.
ASpecialistatFortHood,Texas,reportsbothheandhisroommatewereaskedwhetherthey
aregaybyaLieutenantintheirunit.TheLieutenantalsoaskedtheSpecialist,|d|oesnt
livingwithaIagmakeyousick?
ArmyDontAskSummary
Thedecreasein reportsoIArmyDont AskviolationslikelyreIlectsanenhanced
awarenessoItherulesbysoldierswhohaveIinallybeentrainedbytheirleaders.Thistraining
regimenrepresentsaverysolidIirststepintheArmyscommitmenttoeducateitssoldierson
DADTDPDH.Ultimately,thesuccessoItheArmysDont Askadherencewilldependon
ArmyleaderscontinuedIocusontheissueandwillingnesstoholdthoseviolatingthepolicy
accountable.
AirForceDontAskViolationsIncreaseSharply;WeakTrainingLikelyResponsible
Commanaersanaotherleaaersmustaevelopanamaintainaclimate
that fosters unit cohesion, esprit de corps, and mutual respect for all members
of the command or organization.
--SecretaryoItheAirForceandAirForceChieIoIStaII
35
35
MemorandumIrom GenMichaelE.Ryan,ChieIoIStaII,&F.WhittenPeters,SecretaryoItheAirForce,to
ALMAJCOM-FOA/CC, ImplementationofAnti-HarassmentActionPlan(Oct.2,2000)|hereinaIterAF
ImplementationofAnti-HarassmentActionPlanMemo|.
LCR 04394
23
SLDNdocumentedeighty-sixDontAskviolationsintheAirForceduringthispast
year.Thisrepresentsa21increaseIromtheprioryearsreportoIsixty-eightviolations.The
AirForceistheonlyservicewithan increaseinDontAskviolations.
TheincreaseinAirForceaskingmaybeattributabletotheIactthattheirtraining
eIIortsappeartobelimitedtoonline,selI-directedcomputerbrieIings.Manyairmenreportto
SLDNthattheyhavenotreceivedanybrieIing,onlineorotherwise.TheAirForcesincreased
Dont AskviolationsalsoappeardrivenbycontinuedaskingasaIormoIanti-gay
harassment.
OngoingDontAskJiolationsattheDefenseLanguageInstitute.Monterev
LastyearsConauctUnbecomingreportdiscussedseriousAirForcepolicyviolations,
includingawitchhunt,attheDeIenseLanguageInstitute(DLI)inMonterey,CaliIornia.
36
Since
lastyearsreport,SLDNhasworkedwithAirForceoIIicialstoaddresssomeoItheMonterey
problems.AlthoughthispastyearhasnotseentheegregiouswitchhuntoItheprioryear,some
askingasanti-gayharassmentcontinues.
AIemaleAirmanFirstClassatDLIreportsbeingasked.Shewrote,|a|lmostimmediately
aIterarrivingatDLI,airmenstartedapproachingmyroommateandI|sic|,sayingthemale
airmenwantedtoknowiIwearegay.Weiustcouldntbebotheredwithdatingatthattime.
Thereweretoomanyothermattersthattookpriority...That wasmyreasonIorenteringthe
military.Itwasnottodate(Exhibit5).
AnAirmanFirstClassreportsbeingaskedbyMaiorSmyth,aDLIAirForcedoctor,who
wastreatinghimIorasorethroat,|y|ouhaventbeenswappingspitwithyourroommate,
haveyou?TheAirmanFirstClasssroommatehadbeendiagnosedwithasorethroatthe
priorweek(Exhibit6).
Robert Firpo,atwenty-year-oldAirmanFirstClassassignedtoDLI,reportsotherairmen
askedmorethan100timeswhetherheisgayoraIag.Additionally,Firporeports,while
atbasictrainingat LacklandAFB,Texas,adrillinstructoraskedhimiIheknew who Ru
Paul(amalepopmusicperIormerwhodressesasaIemale)is.When Firporespondedinthe
negative,theinstructorstated,Imsurprisedsomeonelikeyouwouldntknow.Sowhatdo
youthinkaboutgaysinthemilitary(Exhibit7).
AskingIorthepurposeoIharassingperceivedgayairmeniswrong.Given DLIs
recenthistoryoIpolicyviolations,morestepsshouldbetakentotrainairmenassignedtothe
schoolandtoholdthoseIoundviolatingDontAskaccountable.
36
See STACEY L. SOBELETAL.,CONDUCT UNBECOMING:THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORTONDONT ASK,DONT TELL,
DONT PURSUE,DONT HARASS, AnatomvofaWitchHunt.TheCaseoftheDefenseLanguageInstitute,29-38
(2000)|hereinaIter6TH ANNUAL CONDUCT UNBECOMING REPORT |.ThecasescontainedDontAsk,Dont
Pursue,andDontHarassviolations.
LCR 04395
24
AaaitionalExamplesofAirForceDontAskJiolations
StaIISergeantDennisKennedyreportsbeingaskedwhetherheisgaybyanother
noncommissionedoIIicerwhileattendinganAirForcelanguagecourseinArlington,
Virginia.
AirmanFirstClassChadMoritzreportsbeingaskedwhetherheisgaybyanotherairmanat
LittleRockAirForceBase(AFB),Arkansas.HereportsbeingconIrontedwithexpressions
oIanti-gaysentimentconstantlysinceenlistingintheservice. Moritz,atwenty-year-old
IromPennsylvania,statestheaskingwasintendedasharassmentandheightened|his|
anxietyaboutbeingIoundout(Exhibit8).
AIemaleAirmanFirstClassatGoodIellowAFB,Texas,reportsbeingaskedbya
noncommissionedoIIicerhaveyouhadsexualrelationswithotherIemales?
AnAirmanFirstClassatHickamAFB,Hawaii,reportsbeingaskedwhetherhewasdatinga
Iemaleairmaninthesquadron.WhentheAirmanFirstClassrespondedyes,the
questionerstated,peoplethinkyouplaytheotherIield.SoonthereaItertwootherairmen
questionedtheAirmanFirstClass,directlyaskingwhetherheisgay.TheAirmanFirst
Classstatestheaskingwasintendedasanti-gayharassment.
AnAirmanat LangleyAFB,Virginia,reportsbeingaskedbyIiIteendiIIerentpeople.The
Airmanstatesthequestionsincludedyouregay?,areyougay?,weallknowyoure
gay,andyouregay,right?
ASecondLieutenantreportsreceivinginadvertentquestionsabouthersexualitybyother
oIIicersatTravisAFB,CaliIornia,includingareyoumarried?andyouhaveaboyIriend,
dontyou?TheLieutenantreportsbecomingdespondentuponrealizingthatsuchotherwise
innocuousquestionswouldlikelyIollowherthroughoutherAirForcecareer.Shebelievesit
isonlyamatteroItimebeIoreothersbegintospeculateabouthersexualorientation.
AirForceDontAskSummary
TheAirForceistheonlyservicewithDontAskviolation increasesduringthispast
year.AskingIoranyreasonisimpermissibleundercurrentpolicy,butaskingIorthe
purposeoIharassingperceivedgaysisparticularlydisturbing.AirForcetrainersshould
reconIiguretheirtrainingmethodstoprovideeIIectivecommandleadershiptoairmenonthe
mechanicsoIDADTDPDH.Bydoingso,theAirForcewilllikelymoveIurthertowards
GeneralRyansgoaloIprovidingmutualrespectIorallmembersoItheservice.
LCR 04396
25
NavyDontAskViolationsDecreaseSharplyDespiteWeakTraining
Theimportanceofensuringthatevervsailorunaerstanasthe[DontAsk.Dont
Tell{
policy cannot be overemphasized.
- ChieIoINavalOperations
37
SLDNdocumentedtwenty-sixDontAskviolationsintheNavyduringthispastyear.
Thisrepresentsadramatic60decreaseIromtheprioryearsreportoIsixty-Iiveviolations.
ThisdecreaseinNavyviolationsisveryencouraging.ThereasonsIorthedecrease,however,
arenotentirelyclear.
TheNavystrainingonthepolicyappearstobeintermittent,atbest.Manysailorsreport
toSLDNtheyhavereceivednoDADTDPDHtraining.Othersreporttheyhavereceivedsome
trainingaspartoIthebroaderNavypersonnelandmoraletrainingpresentationentitled
DevelopingandBuildingTrust.
38
AbrieImentionoIthisimportantpolicysandwiched
betweenseveralothersubiectsisnotsuIIicienttoadequatelytrainsailors.Navyleadersneedto
implementastrongerDADTDPDHtrainingprogram.
TheDontAskviolationsdocumentedthispastyearmostlyinvolveasking- as-
harassmenttypequestions.Thiscontinuedmisconductsuggestsmanysailorshavenotbeen
suIIicientlytrainedontheDADTDPDHpolicysprohibitiononasking.
ExamplesofNavvDontAskJiolations
Atwenty-one-year-oldSeamanApprenticereportsbeingrepeatedlyquestionedabouthis
sexualorientationduringtrainingattheGreatLakesNavalCenter,Illinois.Thesailorwrote,
IwasalwaysdenyinganyquestionoImysexualorientationbyIellowrecruitsorrecruit
trainingstaII.Thesecommentsincluded:Whyareyousalutinglikethat?,|and|Areyou
intheSanFranciscoGay(sometimesRainbow)Navy?(Exhibit9).
SeamanApprenticeJamesCline,atwenty-year-oldwhowasassignedtotheUSSHarrvS.
Truman,inNorIolk,Virginia,reportsbeingaskedwhetherheisgaybyIourdiIIerentsailors
onboardtheship(Exhibit10).
SeamanThomasGold,atwenty-Iive-year-oldassignedtothe BethesdaNavalMedical
Center,inMaryland,reportsanothersailordirectlyaskingwhetherGoldisgay.Gold,who
wasahospitalcorpsman,Iurtherreportsacommentbyhissupervisor,PettyOIIicer
Demontiac,regardinganHIVpositivesailorwhowastheirpatient. DemontiactoldGold,
oh,Gold,thatsoneoIyourkind,youshouldbeabletohandlethis(Exhibit11).
37
ElectronicMessageIromChieIoINavalOperationstoNAVADMIN,HomosexualConauctPolicvanaTraining
Requirements(Apr.13,2000)(CNOWASHINGTONDC131430ZAPR00(NAVADMIN094/00))|hereinaIter
NAVADMIN094/00|.
38
TheDevelopingandBuildingTrustbrieIingcontainssubiectssuchassexualharassment,inappropriate
behavior,andgrievanceprocedures.
LCR 04397
26
SeamanApprenticeDemarcoBrooks,anineteen-year-oldassignedtothePentagon,in
Washington,D.C.,reportsbeingtoldbyothersailors,youdontlikegirlsanywayandyou
neverlookatgirls,Imworriedaboutyou.Brooksstateshebelievedthesesailorswere
attemptingtodeterminewhetherheisgay(Exhibit12).
SeamanBrandon Talamantez,atwenty-two-year-oldassignedtotheNavalHospitalin
Bremerton,Washington,reportsbeingIrequentlyaskedbyothersailorswhetherheisgay.
Talamantezwrote,|w|henconIrontedbyIellowservicemembersquestioningmysexuality
IhavealwaysbeenhonestwiththemandwithmyselI.|D|uetothewidespreadrumorsand
speculationaboutmysexualorientation,IdonotIeelcomIortableatwork(Exhibit13).
ASeamanassignedtotheUSSBoxerinSanDiego,CaliIornia,reportsreceivingharassing
questionsIromhisshipmatesaboutwhetherheisgay.TheSeamanwrote,IhearIrommy
shipmates|comments|suchasareyousurethereisnotanythingyouneedtospeaktothe
chaplainabout,Iknowthatmyco-workersspeculateaboutmysexualorientation(Exhibit
14).
APettyOIIiceThirdClassassignedtotheUSSRussellinPearlHarbor,Hawaii,reports
beingaskedbyothersailorsisthatyourboyIriendyouareleavingwith?ThePettyOIIicer
reportsreceivingthisquestioninadditiontootheranti-gayharassmentbecauseoIhis
perceivedsexualorientation.
AIemaleSeamanApprenticeattheGreatLakesNavalCenter,inIllinois,reportsbeing
askedbysomemalesailorswhethersheisalesbian.Shewrites,|s|inceenteringtheNavy,
severalsailorshaveaskedwhetherIamalesbian.AtIirst,thequestionsbegansubtly,such
asdoyouhaveaboyIriend?Thequestionshavebecomeincreasinglymorepointed.The
Seamanwaseventuallyaskeddoyoumessaroundwithwomen?TheSeamanreports
IearingIorhersaIetyaIterrealizingthatmanyoIthemalesailorswereparticipatinginthe
harassingquestionsandspeculationaboutherprivateliIe(Exhibit15).
AnotherSeamanattheGreatLakesNavalTrainingCenter,inIllinois,alsoreportsbeing
questionedbyothersailorsabouthissexualorientation.AtleasttwodiIIerentsailorsasked
himiIishegay.
AsailorstationedinCharleston,SouthCarolina,reportsbeingtold,wethoughtyouwere
gaybecauseyouhavealispandIdontcareiIyouare,iustdonthitonme.Thesailor
reportsthesecommentswerebutaIewoImanyanti-gaycommentsmadetowardshim.
AmalePettyOIIicerSecondClassreportsbeingaskedbyanothersailorhowisyour
husband?ThePettyOIIicerreportsthisquestionIollowedhintsandinnuendoesaboutmy
sexualorientation|which|wereIlyingeverywhere(Exhibit16).
LCR 04398
27
NavyDontAskSummary
ThereasonsIorthedropinNavyDont Askviolationsarenotclear.Itisclear,
however,thatthedecreaseisnottheresultoIaneIIectiveDADTDPDHtrainingprogram.The
NavysgaypolicytrainingissuperIicialandsporadicatbest.NavyleadersshouldreinIorce
AdmiralJohnsonsobservationthatitisimportantIoreverysailortounderstandthepolicy.
Dont AskviolationsshouldnotbeoccurringsevenyearsintoDADTDPDH.Withproper
trainingbyNavyleaders,andwithaccountabilityIorthoseviolatingDontAsk,thenumberoI
Navyviolationsshouldcontinuetodecrease.
MarineCorpsDontAskViolationsDecrease,butPolicyTrainingWeak
It is important that all Marines understand the [Dont Ask, Dont Tell] policy.
-CommandantoItheMarineCorps
39
SLDNdocumentedelevenDontAskviolationsintheMarineCorpsduringthispast
year.Thisrepresentsa35decreaseIromtheprioryearsreportoIseventeenviolations.
TheMarineCorpsdoesnotappeartohaveaclear-cuttrainingrequirementonthepolicy.
MarineCorpsleadershave,accordingtomanyMarinesspeakingtoSLDN,Iailedtotrainservice
membersonDontAsk,aswellastheotherprovisionsoIthepolicy.TheMarineCorpsrisks
harmtocombatreadinessbyIailingtouniIormlyenIorcetherules.TheMarineCorps,aswell
aseachoItheservices,cannotpickandchoosewhichrulesitwillenIorce.
ExamplesofMarineCorpsDontAskJiolations
AIemaleCorporalstationedatFortMeade,Maryland,reportsbeingaskedbyanotherservice
memberwhethershewasIuckinganotherIemale.
APrivateFirstClassatCampPendleton, CaliIornia,reportsbeingaskedbyotherMarinesiI
hewasgoingtoseehisboyIriend.
ALanceCorporalatTwenty-NinePalms,CaliIornia,reportsacloseIriendbeingrepeatedly
askedbyotherMarineswhethertheLanceCorporalisalesbian.
ALanceCorporalatCampLeieune,NorthCarolina,reportsbeingaskedbyotherMarinesiI
heisgay.
ALanceCorporalatCampPendletonwasaskedareyouaIaggot?anddoyoutakeitup
theass?
39
ElectronicMessageIromCommandantoItheMarineCorpstoMARADMIN,HomosexualConauctPolicv(Jan.
7,2000)(CMCWASHINGTONDC070800ZJAN00(MARADMIN014/00))(AmendedbyMARADMIN025/00)
|hereinaIterMARADMIN014/00|.
LCR 04399
28
ACorporalatFortMeade,Maryland,reportsbeingaskedbyseveralotherMarineswhether
heisgay.
MarineCorpsDontAskSummary
ItappearsthattheMarineCorpsisIailingtotrainitsMarinesontheDontAsk
prohibition.SLDNbelievestheinstancesoIaskingamongsttheiuniorenlistedmembers
resultsIromalackoIMarineleadershipintrainingtheIorceandensuringenIorcementoIthe
policy.MarineleadersareignoringGeneralJonesdeclarationthatallMarinesshould
understandthepolicy.
CoastGuardDontAskViolations
. SLDNdocumentedonlyoneCoastGuardDontAskviolationduringthisreporting
period.TheviolationconsistedoIaCoastGuardservicememberinNorIolk,Virginia,being
askedwhetherheisgaybyanotheriuniorenlistedmember.AlthoughtheCoastGuardisnot
underthedirectcontroloIthePentagon,itgenerallyIollowsDoDsleadregardingDADTDPTH.
Toourknowledge,theCoastGuard,whichinpeacetimeispartoItheDepartmentoI
Transportation,hasnotimplementedanypolicy-relatedtraining.TheCoastGuardshouldIallin
stepwiththeDoDservicesandinstitutionalizepolicytrainingtoensureallitsmemberspresent
andIutureareeducatedontheDontAskprohibition.
DontAskConclusion
The Defense Department is committed to the fair and even-handed application and
enforcement of its policy on homosexual conduct in the military.
- RudydeLeon,IormerUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(PersonnelandReadiness)
40
TheservicestrainingonDontAskoverthepastyearhasyieldedsomegoodresults,
particularlyintheArmy.TheinstancesoIDontAskviolations,however,remaintoohigh.
Particularlyamongtheiuniorenlistedmembers,askingremainsapartoIthemilitaryculture.
ThePentagonremainstoowillingtotolerateaskingwhiletoowillingtopenalizetelling.
MilitaryleadersmustdomoretoensuretheIairandeven-handedapplicationandenIorcement
oIDADTDPDH.
TheIailureoImilitaryleaderstoenIorceDontAskhurtsunitcombatreadinessby
destroyingtrust.LeadersarechargedtotakecareoItheirSoldiers,Sailors,AirmenandMarines.
Gay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersareatthetotalmercyoItheirleaderstoprevent
harassingasking,sincetheyarenotpermittedunderDontTelltodeIendthemselves.When
leaderstolerateDontAskviolations,demonstratingtheirwillingnesstoignoretherulesinthe
caseoIgayservicemembers,itsendsamessagetoallthattheirleaderscannotbetrusted.
40
UnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R)RudydeLeon1999ImplementationMemo,supranote18.
LCR 04400
29
EveniIleadersuniIormlyenIorceDontAsk,itcreatesbarriersbetweenyoungmen
andwomenwhoaresupposedtobeteambuilding. CohesionisnotIosteredbycompulsory
thoughtorbehaviororsexuality.CohesionisIosteredbytrust.Soldierswhoknowandtrust
eachotherwillsupporteachotherduringtimesoIcrisis.Ourgovernmentshouldnotbeinthe
businessoIsegregatingourIightingmenandwomenintousversusthem.
LCR 04401
30
DONT TELL
We found that the large majority of the discharges for homosexual conduct are based
on the statements of service members who identify themselves as homosexuals . . . the Services
believe that most of these statement cases although not all of them involve
service members who voluntarily elected to disclose their sexual orientation
to their peers, supervisors or commander.
--April1998ReporttotheSecretaryoIDeIense
41
To those who think this policy represents a just compromise, I ask you to imagine the
dissemblance and dodging that would be required to hide from the world the fact that you
were straight; imagine doing this in a workplace where honesty and camaraderie are
otherwise valued; imagine if you can the wasted energy you would have to expend to keep the
existence of your spouse a secret from your closest colleagues; imagine preserving your
pretense at the expense of happiness from personal relationships that would have been richer
had they been more open.
--MaiorNealJ.NaII,M.D.,IormerArmyNeurosurgeon
42
Dont TelliscommonlyviewedastheoppositesideoIthecoinoIDontAsk.While
aservicemembercannotaskanotherservicememberabouthisorhersexualorientation,gay,
lesbianandbisexualservicememberscannottellthemilitaryabouttheirsexualorientation.
Currentpolicy,however,doesnotprohibittellinginallcircumstances.ItallowsIor
gaystotelldeIenseattorneys,
43
chaplains,
44
securityclearancepersonnel
45
and,inlimited
circumstances,doctorswhoaretreatingpatientsIorHIV.
46
TheDontTellprivacyrulesdonotexplicitlystatewhetherstatementsoIsexual
orientationinotherprivatecontextsarepermitted.SLDNbelievesthatthepolicypermitsallbut
publicdisclosuresoIsexualorientation.ThepolicyallowsgaystoassociatewithIriends,
41
UnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R) 1998 Report .supranote29,at2.
42
Maior(Doctor)NaIIdisclosedhissexualorientationaIterreceivingabrieIingontheArmyshomosexual
conductpolicy.MaiorNaIIwrote,thetragicdeathoIagaysoldierandthepervasiveanti-gaysentimentinthe
ranksthatpromptedthisbrieIingdemandedaclearandpowerIuldeclarationoItheworthanddignityoIallsoldiers
regardlessoItheirsexualorientation.Butinstead,thebrieIingonlyvalidatedtheIearsandpreiudicesthatIosterthat
harassmentbecausethemessageunderlyingthebrieIingpointswasthis:gaysarenotwantedinthemilitary:andiI
youdiscoversomeoneisgay,inIormonthemandtheywillbeseparatedIromthemilitary(Exhibit17).
43
See MIL. R. EVID. 502.
44
45
See DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVENO. 5200.2, DoDPersonnelSecuritvProgramencl.3.7(1997). Seealso
DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE MANUAL,DIS-20-1-M,encl.18.C(1993).
46
See DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVENO. 6485.1, Human ImmunoaeficiencvJirus-1(HIJ-1)encl.3.2.1.9(1991).
InIormationobtainedIromaServicememberduring,orasaresultoI,anepidemiologicalassessmentinterview
maynotbeusedagainsttheServicemember(inadversecriminaloradministrativeactions). Ia.
LCR 04402
31
participateingay-Iriendlyorganizationsandreadgaypublications.
47
MilitaryandCongressional
leadershaveacknowledgedthatgaysserveourcountryandservewell.
48
Further,thepolicy
clearlystatesthatsexualorientationisapersonalandprivatematter.
49
SLDNbelievesthatgayservicemembersshouldbeabletotalkopenlyandhonestlywith
psychotherapists,physicians,lawenIorcementoIIicials,IamilyandIriends.Ourviewis
supportedbythosewhohelpedcraItthecurrentpolicy,IormerUnderSecretaryoIDeIense
Edwin Dorn
50
andNorthwesternUniversitymilitarysociologistCharles Moskos
51
(Exhibits18
&19).
52
Whilesomegoodcommandsdonotpunishservicememberswhodisclosetheirsexual
orientationinprivate,PentagonandserviceoIIicialshavepermitteddischargeactionagainst
otherservicememberswhomakedisclosuresinthesesamecontexts.
Thebottomlineisthatservicememberswhocomeouttoanyone,anywhere,anytimerisk
dischargeiIoutedtoacommanderwhowantstopunishgays,lesbiansandbisexuals.Noother
47
See DODD 1332.14, supranote22,atE3.A4.1.3.3.4(stating|credibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhen|theonly
inIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar,possessingorreadinghomosexual
publications,associatingwithknownhomosexuals....):DODD1332.40, supranote22,atE.8.3.3.4.
48
GeneralColinPowellstated,Homosexualsoverhistorywhohavebeenwillingtokeeptheirorientationprivate
havebeensuccessIulmembersoIthoseteams.Powellstatement,supranote21,at708.GeneralH.Norman
SchwarzkopIstated,Donotgetmewrong,please.Iamnotsayinghomosexualshavenotservedhonorablyinour
ArmedForcesinthepast.OIcoursetheyhave,andIamquitesurethattheywillintheIuture....Policv
ConcerningHomosexualitvintheArmeaForces.HearingsBeforetheSenateComm.OntheArmeaServices.103d
Cong.596(1993)(statementoIGeneralH.NormanSchwarzkopI)|hereinaIterSchwarzkopIstatement|.
49
DODD1332.14,supranote22,atE3.A1.1.8.1.1:DODD1332.40,supranote22,atE.2.3.
50
See LetterIromEdwinDorntoTheHonorableCarol DiBattiste,UnderSecretaryoItheAirForce(May1,2000)
(onIilewithServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork).
Recent reports have indicated that physicians, EEO personnel, inspectors
general and law enIorcement personnel believe that they are obliged to turn in
servicememberswhorevealtheirsexualorientationwhentheyreportanti-gay
harassment, or who are discovered to be gay during an investigation into the
reported harassment. II these practices occur, then they have the eIIect oI
punishing the victim. This is not what I anticipated or intended when I was
involvedinthedevelopmentoIDoDs1997anti-harassmentguidance.
Ia.
51
SeeLetterIromCharlesMoskos,ProIessor,NorthwesternUniversity,toTheHonorableWilliamS.Cohen,
SecretaryoIDeIense,(Apr.12,2000)(onIilewithServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork).
In my opinion, military members who reveal their sexual orientation during
privatemedicaltreatmentsessionsorinthecourseoIreportingharassmentand
threats are not telling in a manner contemplated under the policy. It is
appropriate Ior oIIicials to assist these service members, not turn them in.
Indeed,itistheoutingoIservicememberstotheir untisthattriggersconcerns
aboutunitcohesion.
Ia.
52
OurviewisIurthersupportedbyIormerReaganAdministrationdeIenseoIIicialLawrenceKorb(Mr.Korbisnow
withtheCouncilonForeignRelations). See LetterIromLawrenceJ.KorbtoTheHonorableCarolA. DiBattiste,
UndersecretaryoItheAirForce(May8,2000)(Exhibit20).Myprimaryconcernsaretheon-goingharassmentoI
servicemembersbytheirsupervisorsandpeers,andthelackoIsaIeplacesIorservicememberstoturnwithinthe
militaryiItheyareIacingharassment,medicalormentalhealthproblemsorseekingspiritualguidance. Ia.
LCR 04403
32
lawattheIederal,stateorlocallevelinstructsanemployertoIiresomeoneIorcomingoutor
beingdiscoveredasgay.
ThePentagonhassuggestedthatgaysarevoluntarilycomingout.ThePentagonhas
admitted,however,thatithasnoevidencetosupportitstheory.
53
Theblame-the-victimspin
doestwothings.First,itdivertsattentionawayIromthePentagonsIailuretocurbasking,
pursuits,andharassment,aswellasIailuretoenIorcetheprivacyprotectionsoriginallypromised
undercurrentpolicy.Second,theblame-the-victimspindiminishesthereasonswhybrave,
patrioticAmericansrisktheircareers,livelihoodsandmilitaryrelationshipsbycomingoutas
gay,lesbianorbisexual.MostservicememberswhotelldosotoescapeharassmentorIor
reasonsoIpersonalintegrity.Tellinginthesecircumstancesisnotvoluntary,because
comingoutIormanyisanabsolutenecessityIorphysical,mental,emotional,spiritualand
proIessional well-being.Further,thereisnosuchthingasavoluntarydischargeunderDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass(DADTDPDH)asgayservicememberswhoIace
dischargecannotcheckoIIaboxelectingtostayinservice.Theyhavenochoice.
Thissectionexaminestworecurrentproblemswhereservicemembersareoutedbased
onconversationsmadeinprivatecontexts:militaryhealthcareprovidersandchaplains.The
section,incontrasttopastyearsreports,thenexamineswhyharassmentandintegritycompel
someservicememberstotellatrisktotheircareersandlivelihood.
MilitaryHealthCareProvidersContinuetoOutGayPatients
We found that none of the Services require health care professionals
to report information provided by their patients . . .
--April1998ReporttotheSecretaryoIDeIense
54
It is my understanding, from the training I have received in the HPSP program that, as a
physician, I am required to inform a sailors command of his/her homosexual orientation if
they reveal that information to me.
--LieutenantDennis Townsend,M.D.
55
Inthepastyear,SLDNdocumentedcontinuedinstancesinwhichhealthcareproviders
reportedlyturnedingayservicememberswhosoughttheirhelpindealingwithanti-gay
harassmentorthestressesimposedbyDADTDPDH.Healthcareproviderscontinuetoreportto
SLDNtheyhavebeeninstructedtoturningay,lesbianandbisexualservicememberswhoseek
theirhelp.Indeed,servicemembershavebeendischargedbasedonprivatecounselingsessions
withmilitarypsychologists.Inothercases,commandersandinquiryoIIicershaveexamined
servicemembersmedicalrecordsspeciIicallytolookIorinIormationthataservicememberis
gay.
53
UnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R) 1998Report.supranote29,at2,5.
54
Ia.at10.
55
LetterIromLieutenantDennisTownsend,MC,USNRtoCaptainJoelC.Lebow,MC,USN,Director,Medical
CorpsProIessionalPrograms(OM),(Dec.20,1999)(Exhibit21).
LCR 04404
33
Dont Tellhamstringsconscientioushealthcareproviders.Issuesinvolvingsexual
orientationarecentraltotheprovisionoIadequatehealthcare,buthealthcareprovidersareoIten
reluctanttoaskoutoIwell-placedconcernnottooutgayservicemembers.Servicemembers
arereluctanttotellIorIearoIbeingouted.
SLDNappreciatesIormerPresidentClintonsExecutiveOrderprovidingthat
communicationswithmentalhealthproIessionalscannotbeusedasevidenceincriminal
proceedings(Exhibit22).ThisExecutiveOrder,however,hasonlylimitedvalueIorgayservice
memberswho,Iorthemostpart,Iaceadministrativedischargeproceedings,ratherthancriminal
prosecutions,underDADTDPDH.WhiletheDepartmentoIDeIensecouldIollowestablished
practicebyextendingthisprivilegetotheadministrativecontext,asitdoeswiththeattorney-
clientandchaplain-penitentprivileges,ithasIailedtodoso.ThePentagoncouldalsoaddress
concernsabouttheprivacyoIconversationswithmentalhealthproIessionalswithinthecontext
oIDADTDPDH,bymakingitclearthatprivatestatementstohealthcareprovidersarenotthe
kindoIstatementsthatIormabasisIordischarge,butithasIailedtodoso.
SLDNalsoappreciatestheUnderSecretaryoIDeIensesclariIicationintheApril1998
reporttotheSecretaryoIDeIensethathealthcareprovidersarenot,inIact,requiredtoturnin
gayservicemembers.ThisclariIication,however,hasnotmadeittotheIieldtwoyearslater.
Norisitadequatetoaddresstheproblem,asitallowsindividualtherapiststoturninmilitary
members,whetherrequiredtoornot,anddeprivesservicemembersoItheabilitytotrust
therapists.
ArmvDoctorsDirecteatoOutGavPatients
SLDNisawareoIaFebruary2000brieIingatFortMcNair,inWashington,D.C.,during
whichanArmyMaiorstatedthathealthcareprovidersarerequiredtoreportsoldierswhothey
learnaregay.TheMaiorwaspresentingtrainingonDADTDPDH.
TheMaiorsstatementisIlatwrong.ThereisnoArmyrequirementIorhealthcare
providerstoturningays,noristhereanysuchrequirementintheotherservices.Contraryto
whatthePentagonhasasserted,theMaiorsbrieIingclearlyestablishesthathealthcareproviders
continuetobemisinIormedonhowtohandletheirgay,lesbianandbisexualpatients.
GooafellowAirForceBase(AFB)DoctorOutsPatient
CaptainJosephBerger,anAirForcephysicianatGoodIellowAFB,Texas,outeda
patientoIhis,anAirmanFirstClass,aItersurmisingthepatientssexualorientation.The
AirmanFirstClasshadsoughtassistanceIoramedicalconditionresultingIromasexualassault.
Dr.BergerwrotetotheAirmanFirstClassscommand,essentiallytellingthemhe
believedtheAirmanisgay.Dr.Bergerwrote,IamrequiredtonotiIyyou...soIurtheractions
canbetaken(Exhibit23).AsaresultoIDr.BergersviolationoItheAirmansmedical
privacy,hebecamethetargetoIanAirForceinvestigationintohisprivateliIethatresultedinhis
discharge.
LCR 04405
34
Thedischargewasinsulttoiniury.TheAirmanhadsoughtmedicaltreatmentbecausehe
hadbeencriminallyassaulted.Thedoctorre-victimizedthepatient,abandoningtheHippocratic
OathandtheprivacyrulesunderDADTDPDH.SLDNisassistingtheAirmanFirstClassin
preparinganInspectorGeneralcomplaintreportingDr.BergersallegedviolationoIpatient
conIidentiality.
AmilitaryphysiciandescribesthedilemmaasIollows,|t|hemedicalnecessityIor
inquiringaboutsexualityisnotevendebatable.Thatthemilitarycompromisesthephysicaland
mentalhealthoIgayservicemembersbydenyingthemcandorwiththeirmilitaryphysiciansis
reprehensible.
56
KeeslerAFBPsvchotherapistOutsBisexualPatient
Contrarytocurrentguidance,Ms.Lamb,anAirForcecivilianpsychotherapistatKeesler
AFB,Mississippi,toldherclient,CaptainRuthRoss-Powell,thatshewasrequiredtoturnher
intohercommandaIterthecaptaincameoutasbisexual.SoonthereaIter,CaptainRoss-Powell
IoundherselIthetargetoIacommanddirectedinquiryintoherprivateliIeapparentlyresulting
IromMs.Lambsoutingher.TheCaptain,atwenty-nine-year-olddentist,reportsshewas
stunned.ShehadsoughthelpIordealingwithhersexuality.SheneverconceivedthataIellow
memberoIthehealthproIessionswouldeverviolatepatientconIidentiality.
TheinquiryoIIicersIinalreportincludesacopyoICaptainRoss-Powellsmentalhealth
records,includingMs.LambsnotesconcerningRoss-Powellsbisexuality.SLDNisassisting
CaptainRoss-PowellinreportingMs.LambsallegedviolationoIpatientconIidentiality.
AirForcepsychotherapistsanddoctorsarenotrequiredtoturnintheirgaypatients.Gay,
lesbianandbisexualservicemembersarediscouragedIromseekinghealthcareiItheyIear
losingtheircareersastheresult.HealthyservicemembersarethecornerstoneoImilitary
readiness.Denyingmedicalresourcestogayservicemembersunderminesnationalsecurity.
ThemilitarypracticeoIimproperlydirectinghealth-careproviderstoviolatetheirpatients
conIidentialityisunproIessional,unethicalandmedicallyunsound.
Amilitaryphysician,uponreceivingabrieIinginappropriatelydirectingdoctorstoturn-
intheirgaypatients,oIIersthisassessment:|o|Ialltheillconceiveddirectivesgeneratedbythis
dontask,donttellpolicythisabrogationoIpatientphysicianconIidentialityisonethatis
particularlyadversetotheinterestsoIthe|military|.ThepresentpolicyaIIordstheadmissionoI
homosexualitytoaphysicianlessprotectionthantheadmissionoIillicitdrugabuseand,inthis
regard,essentiallyequatesahomosexualadmissionwithhomicidal,Ielonious,ortreasonous
intent.
57
56
Ia.
57
LetterIromArmyMaiorNealJ.NaII,M.D.toAirForceColonelStevenJ. Lepper(May7,2000)(Exhibit24)
|hereinaIter NaIIletter|.
LCR 04406
35
SomeMilitaryChaplainsTellandHarass
A soldier can discuss any topic regarding sexual orientation with a . . . chaplain.
--UnitedStatesArmyDADTDPDHTrainingPamphlet
58
MilitarychaplainscanbeaninvaluableresourceIorservicemembersoIIaithwhoare
gay,lesbianorbisexual.
59
WhilemostchaplainskeeptheconIidencesoIgayservicemembers,
somedonot.
60
Otherscontinuetogivebadlegaladvice,suchasdirectingservicemembersto
turnthemselvesin,ratherthansendingservicememberstoamilitarydeIenseattorneyIoradvice
aboutthepolicy.
61
AsinpastConauctUnbecomingreports,SLDNdocumentedanumberoIcasesthispast
yearwherechaplainshaveberatedgayservicemembers,tellingthemtheyaresick,goingtohell,
anddeviant.NomatteronesreligiousbelieIs,thisisaninappropriateresponsetoaservice
memberreportingharassmentorseekingguidanceindealingwithhisorhersexualorientation.
Inlastyearsreport,SLDNnotedthattheArmy hadadoptedanewtrainingregimen
whichmadecleartoallsoldiersthattherearetwoconIidentialresourcesIorreportinganti-gay
harassment:militarydeIenseattorneysandchaplains.
62
Ineachservice,chaplainsarewidely
viewedasspecialresourcesupon whomservicemembersmaycallIorsupportandhelpon
mattersoIpersonalsensitivity.Lastyear,SLDNwarnedthatgay,lesbianandbisexualservice
memberswouldindeedturntochaplainsIorassistanceandthatthosechaplainsneededtoreceive
appropriatetrainingtorespondtothesesituations.Toourknowledge,ayearaItertheIact,
neitherthePentagonnoranyoItheserviceshasconductedchaplaintraining.Thepredictable
resultisthatsomechaplainsareunpreparedIortheirresponsibilities.
58
DontAsk.DontTell.ArmvHomosexualConauctPolicv.HOT TOPICS:CURRENT ISSUESFORARMY LEADERS8
(Winter2000).
59
SeegenerallvArmyRegulation 165-1, ChaplainActivitiesintheUniteaStatesArmv(1998)|hereinaIterAR165-
1|.AprivilegedcommunicationisdeIinedasanycommunicationtoachaplain|includingthosemadeasa|matter
oIconscience.Ia.at4.4 m(1).
60
Allcommunicationsbetweengay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersandchaplainsshouldbeconIidential.
MilitarychaplainregulationsgenerallyprovidethatchaplainsrespecttheconIidentialityoIsensitiveinIormation.
Mattersrelatingtosexualorientationmustbeconsidered,ataminimum,assensitiveinIormation.Further,
commandsshouldestablishguidelinesIorpunishingchaplainswhoviolateconIidentiality.
61
Chaplainsshouldencouragegayservicememberswhoareconsideringrevealingtheirsexualorientationtotheir
commandtoIirstspeakwithamilitarydeIenseattorneytolearnthemanylegalconsequencesoIcomingout.
Chaplainsshouldneverdirectservicememberstocomeoutagainsttheservicememberswill.Further,chaplains
shouldencouragegayservicememberswhowishtoreportharassmenttoIirstspeakwithamilitarydeIenseattorney
toobtainthelegalinIormationtheyneedbeIoretakingsuchastep.Theexceptioniswhentheservicemembers
saIetyisinimmediateieopardy.Chaplainsshouldinthesecasesassistservicemembers,iIrequested,inreporting
theharassmentwhilemaintainingthemembersconIidences.
62
ItisnotclearwhethertheAirForce,NavyandMarineCorpshavesimilarlydesignatedchaplainsanddeIense
attorneysassaIeresourcesIorgaysreportingharassmentandviolence.Presumably,themilitaryrulesoIevidence
establishingaprivilegeoIcommunicationsbetweenservicemembersanddeIenseattorneys,aswellasbetween
servicemembersandchaplainswouldprovidesomesaIety.EachserviceshouldunambiguouslydesignatedeIense
attorneysandchaplainsassaIespacesIorgay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersdiscussingissuesrelatedto
sexualorientationand/oranti-gayharassment.
LCR 04407
36
USSDubuque NavvChaplainTells
SeamanApprenticeDeriuan TharringtonreportsthathebelievestheUSSDubuques
chaplain outedhimtohissupervisorresultinginhisdischarge.Thechaplainsactions,iItrue,
notonlyviolatethechaplain-penitentprivilege,butDADTDPDH.
Seaman Tharrington,atwenty-one-year-oldIromOklahoma,hadbecomethetargetoI
incessantanti-gayharassment(TharringtonsharassmentstoryisIullydiscussedintheDont
Harasssection).Hewenttothechaplain,LieutenantLee,IormoralsupportandtoaskIorhelp
inendingtheharassment.
DuringhisconversationwithChaplainLee, TharringtonconIidedinthechaplainthathe
isgay. TharringtonreportsheandChaplainLeespeciIicallydiscussedtheneedtokeepthe
matteroIhissexualorientationprivate.
AIterhisconversationwithChaplainLee,LieutenantJoyce, Tharringtonssupervisor,
reportedlyapproachedTharringtonandgrilled Tharringtononwhathehaddiscussedwith
ChaplainLee.Seaman Tharringtonresponded,|i|tisbetweenmeandthechaplain,adhering
toDontTelldespitetheinadvertentasking.LieutenantJoycethenreportedlystated,well,
IlliusthavetoIindoutIormyselI.
TharringtonbelievesChaplainLeetoldLieutenantJoycethatTharringtonisgay.Soon
thereaIter,LieutenantJoycereportedTharringtontotheshipexecutiveoIIicer.
ThePentagonhasinstructedcommandstotakeseriouslyreportsoIanti-gayharassment
andtohelpthosetargetedbytheharassment.ThePentagonharassmentpolicystates,|s|ervice
membersshouldbeabletoreportcrimesandharassmentIreeIromIearoIharm,reprisal,or
63
Seaman TharringtonwenttoChaplainLeeseekingsupportinhiseIIorttoescapeanti-gay
harassment.Instead,TharringtonIoundhimselIthetargetoIanintrusivecommandinquiryinto
hisprivateliIe.
ArmvChaplaininGermanvHarassesLesbianSergeant
Chaplain Leininger,aMaiorstationedinHeidelburg,Germany,beratedSergeant
Gidonny RamosIorbeingalesbian.HereportedlytoldherthatwhilesomeChristianchaplains
acceptedgays,hedidnot. LeiningerthenallegedlythreatenedSergeantRamoswithgoingto
63
SeeMemorandumIromRudydeLeon,UnderSecretaryoIDeIense,totheSecretariesoItheMilitary
Departments, GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainstorHarassmentofServiceMembersBaseaonAllegea
Homosexualitv(Aug.12,1999).|hereinaIterUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R)RudydeLeon1999Investigating
ThreatsGuiaelinesMemo|. Commandersmusttakeappropriateactionsinsuchinstances,withdueconsideration
giventothesaIetyoIpersonswhoreportthreatsorharassment,andseethatpersonsIoundtohavemadethreatsor
engagedinthreateningorharassingconductareheldIullyaccountable...thereportoIathreatorharassment
shouldresultinthepromptinvestigationoIthethreatorharassmentitselI.Investigatorsshouldnotsolicit
allegationsconcerningthesexualorientationorhomosexualconductoIthethreatenedorharassedperson. Ia.
LCR 04408
37
hellandtoldherhomosexualityisacurabledisease.
64
HereportedlyurgedRamostoseek
inIormationIromtheex-gayministrymovement
65
(Exhibit25).
Sergeant Ramossupervisor,SergeantFirstClassLopez,hadorderedhertoseek
guidanceIromthechaplainaIterhercivilianhusbandoutedhertohercommand.Shehad
recentlycomeouttoherhusband.LopezconIronted Ramos,directlyaskingwhethersheisa
lesbian.
66
Chaplain LeiningerorderedRamosintocompulsorymarriagecounseling.Inmid-
August,2000,inherhusbandspresence, LeiningercalledSergeantRamosasexualdeviant,
statingthatpeoplelike|Ramosdid|notbelongintheArmy. LeiningerIurthercalledRamos
anembarrassmenttotheuniIorm.SergeantRamosreportsthechaplainstatedhewould
remainquietaboutRamossexualperversionsconditionedonherparticipationinthe
marriagecounselingsessions.
Sergeant Ramos,realizingshewastrappedinanuntenablesituation,toldhercommand
sheisalesbianandsubsequentlywashonorablydischarged. Ramosshouldnothavehadto
sacriIicehermilitarycareerastheonlymeanstoescape.ChaplainLeiningersmisconductis
particularlytroublingbecausetheArmyhasdesignatedchaplainsassaIeplacesIorgay,lesbian
andbisexualsoldiers.
67
SLDN,onSergeantRamosbehalI,IiledanArmyInspectorGeneral
complaintaskingthatChaplainLeiningerandSergeantFirstClassLopezbeheldaccountableIor
theirallegedmisconduct.
ChaplainsmustnotusetheirstatusasgovernmentoIIicialstoengageinpersonal,anti-
gaycrusades.Suchbehaviorerodesgay,lesbianandbisexualsoldiersconIidenceintheArmys
commitmenttoeradicatinganti-gayhostilitywithintheranks.
68
Misconductlikethatengagedin
64
Science,longago,discardedthemyththatbeinggayisanillness.Homosexualityisanormal,healthysexual
orientation. See ResolutionoftheAmericanPsvchiatricAssociation(Dec.15,1973),reprinteain 131AM.J.
PSYCHIATRY 497(1974)(removinghomosexualityIromAPAslistoImentaldisorders):AmericanPsychological
Association, MinutesoftheAnnualMeetingoftheCouncilofRepresentatives,30AM.PSYCHOLOGIST620,633
(1975):NASW,PolicyStatementoILesbianandGayIssues(1993),reprinteainNASW,SocialWorkSpeaks:
NASWPolicyStatements162,162-65(3ded.1994):JohnC.Gonisorek, TheEmpiricalBasisfortheDemiseofthe
IllnessMoaelofHomosexualitv, in HOMOSEXUALITY:RESEARCH IMPLICATIONSFORPUBLIC POLICY115,155-236
(JohnC.Gonisorek&JamesD.Weinricheds.,1991).
65
Theex-gayministriesclaimthatsexualorientationisamatteroIchoiceandthosewhoaregaycanchoosetobe
heterosexual.TheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationhasconcludedthatreclamationtherapydoesnotwork,and
thatsexualorientationisacoreintegralpartoIanindividualsidentity. SeeAmericanPsychiatricAssociation,
PositionStatement.COPPPositionStatementonTherapiesFocuseaonAttemptstoChangeSexualOrientation
(ReparativeorConversionTherapies).availableat
http://www.psych.org/practoIpsych/copptherapyaddendum83100.cIm(lastvisitedMar.6,2001).
66
SergeantFirstClassLopezproceededtoengageinharassmentoISergeantRamos.Lopezmadesexistand
homophobiccommentstowardsRamosandsentherdegradinge-mails.Lopezreportedlysaid,gaysoldierslack
themoralintegritytoleadsoldiersandwomenshouldnotbeallowedtodorealArmyworklikeIightingin
combat. RamosreportsthepoorexamplesetbyLopez,aseniornoncommissionedoIIicerleader,ledtoother
soldierswithinhersectionioiningintheanti-gayharassment(Exhibit25).
67
DontAsk.DontTell.ArmvHomosexualConauctPolicv.HOT TOPICS:CURRENT ISSUESFORARMY LEADERS8
(Winter2000)(stating|a|soldiercandiscussanytopicregardingsexualorientationwithalegalassistanceattorney
orchaplain.).
68
ALARACT008/00,supranote34.
LCR 04409
38
by LeiningerwilllikelyhaveachillingaIIectonsoldierswillingnesstoseekassistanceIrom
chaplains,therebyloweringconIidenceintheChaplainCorpsandharmingunitreadiness.
Fort BenningChaplainBeratesGavSolaier
UponconIidinginChaplainSmiththatheisgay,PrivateFirstClassMatthewBurgess
statesthatthechaplaintoldhimyouaregoingtohell.ChaplainSmithlikenedbeinggayto
beinganadultererandpedophile.SmithIurthertoldPrivateFirstClassBurgesshecanchange
andattemptedtoprovideBurgesswithmaterialsIromtheex-gayministries(Exhibit26).
PrivateFirstClassBurgess,atwenty-Iour-year-oldIromKentucky,hadbecomethe
targetoIanti-gayharassmentwhileassignedtoFort Benning,Georgia
69
andwasseekinghelp
Iromhischaplain,asarecentbrieIingonDADTDPDHinstructedhimtodo.SLDNassisted
BurgessinreportingChaplainSmithsallegedmisconducttothecommand.Wedonotknow
whetherthecommandheldChaplainSmithaccountable.
Tellinggaysoldierstotrustthechaplainontheonehand,andhavingachaplainviolate
thattrustunderminesconIidenceinArmyleaders.Sadly,suchsituationsharmIaithinthe
ChaplainCorps,harmgay,lesbianandbisexualsoldiers,andmostimportantlyharmmilitary
readiness.
SLDNhaslongrecommendedthat chaplainsreceivespeciIicinstructionsnottoturnin
gayservicememberswhoseektheirhelpandtotreattheseconversationsasconIidential,perthe
chaplain-penitentprivilege.Further,chaplainsmustbewillingtorecommendanotherchaplainiI
theirpersonalbelieIsprecludethemIromadequatelyadvisinggayservicemembers.
70
AsstaII
oIIicers,chaplainsshouldnotengageinbehaviorthatgayservicememberswouldlikelyperceive
asharassment,inviolationoIthepolicysDontHarasscomponent.Chaplainsshouldassist
commandsincombatinganti-gayharassment.ThePentagonshouldinitiatepolicytraining
programstailoredIortheuniquedutiesoIchaplainsinservingtheneedsoIgay,lesbianand
bisexualservicemembers.
69
PrivateFirstClassBurgessreportsthreeothersoldiersthreatenedhimwithviolenceinAugust2000.
70
AMarinePrivateFirstClassinYorktown,Virginia,reportstoSLDNhetooreceivedlukewarmsupportIromhis
unitchaplain.ThePrivateFirstClasswenttothechaplaininJune2000tellingthechaplainhewasstrugglingwith
beinggayandintheMarines.ThechaplaintoldthePrivateFirstClasstoreadBibleversesonresistingtemptation.
WhenthePrivateFirstClasslaterreturnedtothechaplaintellinghimthatBibleverseswerenottheanswertohis
dilemma,thechaplaingavethePrivateFirstClassmaterialstotheexgayministryandurgedthePrivateFirst
ClasstotrytoovercomehisgayIeelings(Exhibit27).
LCR 04410
39
TheStoryBehindTelling:GaysTelltoEscapeHarassmentandLivewithIntegrity
[I]magine being monitored for any revelation into your most private life; imagine returning
every phone message to an unfamiliar number with the fear that the ax may be falling;
imagine concealing your anxiety from your friends at work to protect them from the dilemma
of honoring your confidence or informing on you as Army policy dictates; imagine an Army
investigator being the first to tell your family that you are gay. Imagine all this and you have
only a glimpse of life as a gay service member under Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
- MaiorNealJ.NaII,M.D.,IormerArmyNeurosurgeon
71
Servicemembersaresometimescompelledtodisclosetheirsexualorientationtothe
militaryIoroneoItwoprimaryreasons:(1)protectionIromanti-gayharassment :and(2)
wantingtolivetheirliveshonestly.
ComingOuttoEscapeHarassment
Tellingtoescapeanti-gayharassmentiscommoninSLDNscases.Apoignant
examplecomesIromFortCampbell,Kentucky,inthecaseoIArmydoctor,MaiorPaul Gott.
Maior Gottwrote:
I am writing to inIorm you that I am gay . . . I had the misIortune
tobethesurgeononcallthenightPrivateFirstClassWinchell was
brought to the emergency room at Fort Campbell. The obvious
brutality and hatred that must have motivated his attacker struck
me deeply. In the days that Iollowed, the knowledge that the
attack was an anti-gay hate crime Iilled me with outrage and
disgust. Yet I remained silent. Imagine the stress and anxiety oI
working in an environment where the brutal murder oI a person
simply Ior being gay was the topic oI casual conversation . . . the
response I perceived was that it was a tragic, though not
unexpected,consequenceoIgaysservinginthemilitary.Iamsure
I am not alone among gay servicemembers who sat silently
throughtheseconversationswithasenseoInauseaandIear.
I do not like having to openly declare my sexuality. It is a
proIoundly personal issue. But it is also something that I am not
ashamed oI and I think it is wrong to be Iorced to hide it. I can no
longer, in clear conscience, be silent and bear witness to the
ongoing harassment and violence Iaced by gay service members
(Exhibit28).
TheDontHarasssectionoIthisreportcontainsadetailedanalysis,byservice,oI
manyservicemembersbeingIorcedtotellinordertoprotecttheirsaIetyandindeed
sometimestheirlivesintheIaceoIvirulentanti-gayhostility.TheDont Tellsectionwill,
thereIore,Iocusontheintegritycomponentcompellingsomegaystotell.
71
NaIIletter.supranote57.
LCR 04411
40
ComingOutforReasonsofIntegritv
AlthougheachoItheservicesstressesthevirtueoIintegrity,Dont Tell,inessence,
requiresgayservicememberstolieasaconditionoItheirservice.IIgay,lesbianorbisexual
servicememberstellanyonemilitaryorciviliantheircareersmaybeinieopardy.
ThereIore,toprotectagainstharmtotheirmilitarycareers,gays,lesbiansandbisexualsare
Iorcedtolie.
LyingisharmIultomilitaryreadiness.AsLawProIessorDianeH.Mazurwrites:
II there is one thing that is undisputed and seems selI-evident, it is
that cohesion depends on mutual trust within the unit. The honor
code Ior servicemembers provides that they will not lie or cheat,
and Ior good reason. Honesty is a quality that attracts respect.
Secrecy and deception invite suspicion, which in turn erodes trust,
therockonwhichcohesionisbuilt.
72
ThisinstitutionalizedrequirementtodeceiveunderminesthecredibilityoImilitary
leaderswhostresshonorandintegrity.AsProIessor Mazurwrites,|i|nthecaseoI|Dont
Tell|therearenoalternativesthatcombineservicetocountryandanethicoItruthIulness:
lyingispartandparceloIservice.
73
Forsomegay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers,oncetheycometopersonalterms
withtheirsexualorientation,theyaredeeplytroubledbythemilitaryshypocrisyasillustrated
bytheIrictionbetweenDontTellandthecorevalueoIintegrity.Itisthisdismayatbeing
deniedtheopportunitytolivewithintegritythatdrivessomegaystotell.
ManvGavsHaveNotFullvAccepteaTheirSexualitvUponEnteringMilitarvService
TheissueoIgay,lesbianandbisexualservicememberstellingisIurthercomplicated
bytheverynatureoIhumansexualitydevelopment.
MostmenandwomeniointheArmedForcesataveryyoungage.WithIewexceptions,
gay,lesbianandbisexualyouthhavenotIullyinternalizedandacceptedtheirsexualorientation
atthepointwhentheyenlistorarecommissionedintheservice.SLDNscasesreIlectthis
reality.ManyyounggayservicememberscontactSLDNonlyaItertheyhavereachedacomIort
levelwithwhotheyare.Oncegays,lesbiansandbisexualsreachthisleveloIselI-acceptance,
74
72
Mazur, supranote33,at693.
73
Ia.at723
74
Manygay,lesbianandbisexualsexperienceaperiodoIconIusionanddenialregardingtheirsexualitybeIore
comingout.InanarticleentitledSexualOrientationIdentityFormation:AWesternPhenomenon,Dr.Vivienne
CassidentiIiedseveralstagesoIcognitiveawareness,selI-understanding,andsenseoIidentityinrelationtothe
conceptoIhomosexualsexualorientationandtheimpacttheselevelsoIselI-knowledgehaveonthemanagementoI
socialinterchanges. Accordingtoher,thesestatesare:Stage1IdentityConIusion,Stage2Identity
Comparison,Stage3IdentityTolerance,Stage4IdentityAcceptance,Stage5IdentityPride,Stage6Identity
Synthesis,andeachstagemarksdiIIerentlevelsoIselI-understandingthatindicateanincreasinglyIirstperson
LCR 04412
41
theyIinditmorediIIiculttobalancetherequirementsoIDont Tellwiththeirneedtolead
healthylives.
75
Belowareexamples,byservice,oItheethical,moralanduntenabledilemmaDont
Tellplacesongay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.
CoreMilitaryValuesofHonestyandIntegrityareHarmedbyDontTell
[M]ilitary ledership must evolve from a foundation of trust and confidence. The ethics and
integrity of our military leadership must be much higher than the society at large and even the
elected officials that serve that society. Success in combat, which is our business, depends on
trust and confidence in our leaders and each other. Ethics and integrity are the basic
elements of Trust and Confidence in our military leadership, both from above and more
importantly from below.
-Admiral(Retired)LeonA. Edney
76
ARMY: Integrity: Do Whats Right, Legally and Morally
- UnitedStatesArmyCoreValues
77
NowimaginethatoutoIadesiretoserveyousubmittothatperversesystem,honorthe
immoralbargainoIsilence,andservewithdistinctiononlytobetold|thatgaysare|notIit
toserve.Atthatpoint,IortheIirsttimeperhaps,youroutrageturnsinwardatyourown
complicityandyourownIoolishness.YouknowinyourheartthatyourownservicetestiIies
totheIallacyoIthismostuniustdirective.Youknowitisatestimonythatmustbemade.It
isatthatpointthatIIinallyspeakout.-MaiorNealJ.NaII,M.D.,IormerArmy
Neurosurgeon,WalterReedArmyMedicalCenter,Washington,D.C.(Exhibit17).
|WhilerecentlyvisitingtheJeIIersonMemorial,inWashington,D.C.,Iread|theopeningoI
theDeclarationoIIndependence:Weholathesetruthstobeselfeviaent,thatallmenare
createaequal.thatthevareenaoweabvtheirCreatorwithcertaininalienablerights.among
thesearelife.libertv.anathepursuitofhappiness.... Thesearethemostbasicprinciples
uponwhichourcountrywasIounded.InaIundamentalsensetheDontAsk,Dont Tell
policyviolatesthesemostbasicrights.Ioncetookgreatprideinmilitaryserviceand
accountoIselIaslesbianorgay.Inotherwords,theprocessoIcomingtoidentiIyoneselIasgayproceedsonly
verygradually. See Vivienne Cass,Ph.D.,SexualOrientationIaentitvFormation.AWesternPhenomenon, in
TEXTBOOKOFHOMOSEXUALITYANDMENTAL HEALTH227,231-47(RobertP. Cabai&TerryS.Stein,eds.,1996).
75
Further,younggays,lesbiansandbisexualshaveIarmoreexamplesoIhealthyrolemodelstodaythanever
beIore.Whengay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersseegreateracceptanceoIhomosexualitywithinsocietyat
large,itisunderstandablydiIIicultIorthemtoreconcilethecontradictionsinherentunderDontTell.Theresult
Iorsomeisadecisiontotell.
76
CommitteeontheJudiciary,UnitedStatesHouseoIRepresentatives,StatementSubmitteatotheCommitteeon
Juaiciarv.UniteaStatesHouseofRepresentativesBvLeonA.EanevAamiralUSN(Retirea).Dec.1.1998.
availableathttp://www house.gov/iudiciary/101304.htm(lastvisitedMar.4,2001).Also Mazur,supranote33,at
687n.35.
77
UnitedStatesArmy,ArmvJalues.Integritv.athttp://www.dtic mil/armylink/graphics/integrity.ipg(lastvisited
Mar.4,2001).
LCR 04413
42
deIendingtheseideals:nowIIinditanincreasinglyoppressiveburden.MaiorPaul Gott,
M.D.,FortCampbell,Kentucky(Exhibit28).
ThedecisiontoinIormtheArmy|thatIamgay|isthemostdiIIicultdecisionIhaveever
made...|t|heSevenCoreArmyValues:Loyalty,Duty,Respect,SelI-lessService,Honor,
Integrity,andPersonalCourageexcitedmeaboutservingintheArmy.However,thosesame
sevenvaluesarethereasonIorinIormingyouoImyhomosexualityandthedoubleliIethatI
amIorcedtolivewhileservingintheArmy.DuringthelaterhalIoImytourasaPlatoon
LeaderandnowasExecutiveOIIiceroIaBasicTrainingUnit,ithasbecomeevidentthat
livingthisdoubleliIewhileproudlyleadingsoldiers,compromisesthesevenArmyvaluesI
believeinsodeeply.Atthesametime,InowliveinincreasedIearoI,andisolationIrom,
theorganizationIhavegivenalmosteightyearsoImyliIe.FirstLieutenantStephen
Boeckels,FortKnox,Kentucky(Exhibit29).
AIR FORCE: Integrity First
-UnitedStatesAirForceCoreValues
78
AIteroverthreeyearsoIservingactivedutyintheAirForce,Icannolongeravoidan
ethicaldilemmathathasbeenplaguingme.Theburdenhasbecometoogreatonmymental,
physicalandspiritualhealth.IvelearnedmanylessonsasIstartmyeighthyear
79
oIoverall
service,andthelessonthathasmoststronglyinIluencedme,andthatIvaluethemost,is
integrity.Withthislessoninmind,ImaketheIollowingstatement.Iamalesbian.First
LieutenantMeganKuzmich,AirForceAgencyIorModelingandSimulation,Orlando,
Florida(Exhibit30).
Iamalesbian.Formethishasbeenanongoingstruggle.Amoralstruggle,IorIhavedone
mybesttoembodytheAirForcecorevaluesthroughoutmytwoyearsoIactiveduty.This
hasbeenaninternalbattle,Ioragayservicemembermustliveadouble-liIe.Hisorher
privateliIemustbeacloselyguardedsecret.IhavebeenlivingthisdiIIicultdouble-liIeand
cannolongerdoso.Ihavedecidedtosimplytellthetruth.FirstLieutenantShalanda
Baker,LosAngelesAFB,CaliIornia(Exhibit31).
Iamagaymanwhowantstocontinuetoservehiscountryhonorablyandopenly.Ihave
mademanysacriIicessinceenteringtheserviceandammorethanwillingtocontinue
makingthem,butasanhonestmaninsteadoIasacoward.Icannolongerdealwiththe
addedstressoIhavingtohidewhoIamtothoseIworkIorandwitheachandeveryday.
TheAirForcetakesaveryclearstanceonintegrity,yetmakesitshomosexualmemberslie
inordertokeepservinganationthattheyhaveiustasmuchrighttolovesomeoneinastheir
heterosexualcounterparts.IamnotwillingtolivethatlieanylongerandIbelievethat
78
UnitedStatesAirForce,TheCoreValuesoItheAirForce,available at
http://www.aI.mil/news/speech/current/TheCoreValuesoItheAir.html(reportingaspeechgivenbyThe
HonorableSheilaE.Widnall,thenSecretaryoItheAirForce,toAirForceAcademyCadets,atColoradoSpringson
Apr.18,1996)(lastvisitedMar.4,2001).
79
FirstLieutenantKuzmichisagraduateoItheUnitedStatesAirForceAcademy,inColoradoSprings,Colorado.
LCR 04414
43
nobodyshouldhaveto.SecondLieutenantChristopherPristera, KeeslerAFB,Mississippi
(Exhibit32).
NAVY: Honor: Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other.
-UnitedStatesNavyCoreValues
80
Justlastweek,IhadmyperIormancereviewandthehighestmarksIreceivedwereIor
militarybearing.OneoIthereasonsthisistrueisbecauseItakethemilitaryvaluesoI
honestyandintegrityveryseriously.ItisthissenseoIhonorthatdictatesIinIormmychain
oIcommandthatthroughmuch selIreIlectionIhavecometoacknowledgeIamgay.Ineed
toopenlyacknowledgemywholeidentitytomyselI,myIamily,myIriends,andmy
colleagueswithoutshameorreservationandliveanopenlygayliIe.Lieutenant
CommanderTom DeBlois,M.D.,SanDiego,CaliIornia(Exhibit33).
Iamgay.IwanttoservemytermasanavaloIIicer,butbecauseoItheNavyspolicyon
homosexuals,IhavebeenIorcedtokeepmysexualityasecret.ThisconIlictswithmybelieI
inupholdingtheNavyscorevaluesoIhonor,courageandcommitment.Iwanttoservein
themilitary,butIdonotwanttohavetolieaboutwhoIamanylonger.Denyingmy
homosexualityonlysupportsthebigotryIhaveencounteredbymakingitseemlikeitis
somethingtobeabhorred.WithalloIthisinmind,IrespectIullyrequesttocontinueservice
asanopenlygayoIIicerintheUnitedStatesNavy.IIeelthiswill|allowmeto|livemyliIe
honestlyandasabetteroIIicerEnsignFranciscoFikes,Newport,RhodeIsland(Exhibit
34).
ItseemshypocriticalIormenottoinIormmycommandthatIamgay.Istronglybelievein
theNavyscorevaluesandIdonotwanttocompromisemyintegritybyIailingtobehonest
withmycommand.Mysexualorientationhasnobearingonmyabilitytobeagooddoctor
oragoodoIIicerormyabilitytoservemycountry.LieutenantDennis Townsend,M.D.,
EastTennesseeStateUniversityMedicalCenter(Exhibit21).
80
UnitedStatesNavy,CoreJaluesoftheUniteaStatesNavv.availableat
http://www.chinIo.navy.mil/navpalib/traditions/html/corvalu.html(lastvisitedMar.4,2001).
LCR 04415
44
DontTellConclusion
It is with inexpressable sadness that I make this statement to you, but I can no longer remain
complicit in a system that negates the promise of our Founders and denies me and others our
most fundamental rights as Americans.
-MaiorNealJ.NaII,M.D.,IormerArmyNeurosurgeon
81
Dont TellisharmIultocombatreadinessbecauseitsowstheseedsoIdistrustamongst
servicepersonnel.TheevasionanddeceitnecessarytosurviveunderDont Tellerodesthe
bondsoItrustandcamaraderiesonecessaryIoreIIectivemilitaryunits.
Somegay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersarecompelledtotellastheironly
recoursetoescapeharassment,includingthreatsoIphysicalviolence.Thesolutionliesinthe
handsoImilitaryleaders.TheyshouldstepuptotheplateandputahalttoexpressionsoIanti-
gaybiaswithintheranks.
OtherservicememberstellbecauseoItheenormousethicaldilemmacreatedbythe
policy.CongressandmilitaryleadersshouldstopthehypocrisythatresultsIromitscore
valuesanditsrequiringgay,lesbianandbisexualservicememberstolie.
TheintentoIthepolicy,toprovidesomeprivacyIorgay,lesbianandbisexualservice
members,isthwartedwhenmilitarytherapists,physiciansandchaplainstellorharassgay
servicemembers.CombatreadinessisharmedwhengaysandlesbiansinuniIormaredenied
saIeaccesstohealthcare,spiritualcounseling,andlawenIorcementprotectionIorIearoItheir
careersandsaIety.IntheIaceoIsuchriskand,oItentimes,hostility,itisclearwhysomegays,
lesbiansandbisexualsconcludetellingistheironlyrecourse.
81
NaIIletter,supranote57.
LCR 04416
45
DONT PURSUE
In most of these cases, little or no investigation should be conducted.
8 8 2
- - Under Secret ary of Def ense ( P&R) 1998 Report
Do you know how long [they] have been together; have you ever seen physical contact
between them; have you ever seen any sexual contact; and
can you elaborate on any lovers.
--ExamplesoIQuestionsAskedoISLDNClientThisYear
Dont PursueisintendedtogetcommandersandinvestigatorstobackoIIandrespect
gay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersprivacy.DontPursuecontainsmorethanadozen
speciIicinvestigativelimitsaslaidoutin DoDinstructionsanddirectives(Exhibit35).These
limitsestablishaminimumthresholdtostartaninquiryandrestrictthescopeoIaninquiryeven
whenoneisproperlyinitiated.WhilewritteninvestigativelimitsarehelpIul,theyareoIten
ignored.Commandersandinvestigatorscontinuetopry,searchanddiginviolationoIDont
Ask,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass(DADTDPDH).
DontPursueViolationsDecrease
FishingExpeditions,WitchHuntsandProveItReportsContinue
SLDNdocumented412DontPursueviolationsIromFebruary16,2000toFebruary
15,2001,comparedto471theyearbeIore,a13decrease.Despitethedecreaseoverall,Air
ForceDontPursueviolationsincreased13thisreportyear,with251violationscomparedto
222theyearbeIore.TheMarineCorpssawan11increase,withIorty-twoviolationsinthis
reportyearcomparedtothirty-eightviolationsthepreviousyear.Armyviolationsdecreased
15inthelastyear,with100violationscomparedto117theyearbeIore.IntheNavy,
violationsdramaticallydecreased79thisreportyeartonineteen,comparedtoninety-two
violationsintheprecedingyear.NoviolationswerereportedintheCoastGuardthisreportyear
comparedto1reportedviolationtheyearbeIore.
ThemostcommonDontPursueviolationscontinuetobeIishingexpeditions,witch
huntsandproveitcases.Fishingexpeditionsarecaseswhereaninquiryisexpandedbeyond
theoriginalallegation
83
toseekoutadditionalgroundsIordischargeandotherpotentially
harmIulinIormationagainsttheservicemember.Sometimes,Iishingexpeditionsstartoutwith
IalseallegationsandturnintoattemptstoIindanydamaginginIormationagainstaservice
member.
WitchhuntsoccurwhencommandsorpeersseekoutthesexualorientationoIagroupoI
servicemembers.WhilemassinvestigationsoIservicemembershavewanedinrecentyears
underDADTDPDH,theyarenotobsolete.
82
UnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R) 1998Report,supranote29,at11.
83
See DODD1332.14, supranote22,atE3.A4.1.1.3:DODD1332.40,supranote22,atE8.1.3.Inquirieswillbe
limitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations. Ia.
LCR 04417
46
Inproveitcases,commandsattempttodigupdirtonaservicememberwhohas
alreadycomeoutasgay.TheseinvestigationsseektopunishgayservicemembersbyIorcing
themtoprovideinIormationthatcouldleadtocriminalprosecutionorotheradverselegalaction
beyondbeingIiredandlosingtheirbeneIits.
InApril1998,thePentagonattemptedtoreinintheservicesimproperpursuitsby
stating,whenaservicememberacknowledgeshisorherhomosexualityanddoesnotcontest
separation....littleornoinvestigationshouldbeconducted.
84
TheDepartmentoIDeIense
reiterateditsordersina1999policymemorandum.
85
ThePentagonmemorandumstated,
initiationoIanysubstantialinvestigationintowhetheraservicemembermadeastatement...
IorthepurposeoIseekingseparation|must|beapprovedattheMilitaryDepartmentsecretarial
level.
86
AsubstantialinvestigationisdeIinedasanythingotherthanaskingquestionsoIthe
servicememberorindividualswhomtheservicemembernamesIorthepurposesoI
corroboration.
87
OnFebruary1,2000,thePentagonorderednewtrainingonthepolicysinvestigative
limitsinaIurthereIIorttocurbtheservicesinvestigativeexcesses.
88
Theneedtoconduct
trainingontheinvestigativelimitswasclearlydemonstratedinMarch2000whenaDepartment
oIDeIenseInspectorGeneralsurveyIoundthatmostservicememberssurveyedwereunableto
answerthreeverybasicquestionsaboutthepolicycorrectly. OIthe54oIthosesurveyedwho
statedtheyunderstoodthepolicytoalargeorverylargeextent,only26couldanswerall
threequestionscorrectly.
89
ThePentagonseIIortstocurbpursuitshavehadlimitedsuccess.Thetruestresulthas
beenintheArmywhereDontPursueviolationshavedecreasedslightlyduetoanhonest
eIIorttoreducesubstantialinvestigationsconsistentwiththePentagonsguidance.
TheAirForce,bycontrast,haswitnessedincreasedDontPursueviolations,especially
in recoupmentcases. Recoupmentcasesarethosewheretheservicesdemandthatpersonnel
involuntarilydischargedIorbeinggay,lesbian,orbisexualrepayscholarshipIundsorenlistment
bonuses.Instarkcontrasttotheotherservices,theAirForcehaswillIullyignoredthe DoD
prohibitionsonsubstantialinquiriesandrecoupment,andtherequirementIorsecretarial
approvaltoconductinquiries.TheAirForcesbuckingthePentagonsrulesoninvestigative
limitsdatesbacktoaNovember1994memorandumauthorizingwitchhunts,interrogationoI
IamilyandIriendsoIservicemembersunderinvestigationandotherDontPursueviolations
(Exhibit36).
TheNavyssharpdecreaseinDontPursueviolationshasskewedthedatathisyear,
IalselysuggestingthatthereisatruedownwardtrendinDontPursueviolations.Thedecline
84
85
SeeUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R)RudydeLeon1999ImplementationMemo,supranote18.
86
Ia.
87
88
SeegenerallvNewsRelease,DepartmentoIDeIense,SecretaryCohenApprovesServicesHomosexualConduct
TrainingPlans(Feb.1,2000)(onIilewithServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork).
89
See DoDInspectorGeneral2000Report, supranote19,at4,16.
LCR 04418
47
inNavyviolationsisaIalseecho.TheNavysimprovedperIormanceisnotduetoIollowingthe
DontPursueguidelines,butbydoingnothing,whichisnotwhatthecurrentrulesintend.
TheNavyisattemptingtoretainopenlygay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembersby
reIusingtodischargethemunlessthey(1)provideselI-incriminatingevidenceoIsexualconduct,
or(2)byidentiIyingIriends,includingIellowsailors,whocouldconIirmtheirsexualorientation,
openingthedoortoapossiblewitchhunt.TheNavysinactionisplacinggay,lesbianand
bisexualsailorsindangerbecausemostarecomingouttoescapeanti-gayharassment.Asthe
Dont Harasssectionexamines,
90
theNavyyearaIteryearranksasIarandabovetheworst
servicewhenitcomestoanti-gayharassment.ByIailingtotransIerthreatenedsailorsandstop
theharassment,theNavyrisksanotheranti-gaymurderlikeAllenSchindlers.
91
IItheNavywill
notprotectgay,lesbianorbisexualsailors,thenitshoulddischargethosewhowishtoleavethe
servicetoescapeanti-gayharassment.
ViolationsoIDontPursuehurtunitcohesion,moraleandreadiness.IImilitary
personnelIreelypursuesuspectedgay,lesbianandbisexualpersonnel,theseservicemembers
willliveundertheconstantIearoIinvasiveinvestigationsandpossiblecriminalprosecution.
ThissectiondiscussescommonproblemsinimplementingDontPursueineachoIthe
services.
ArmyDontPursueViolationsDecrease
In most cases of homosexual admission, no investigation is required.
92
--SecretaryoItheArmyandArmyChieIoIStaII
When you say that you have participated in Homosexual/Bisexual acts,
what do you mean?
--QuestionAskedoISLDNArmyClientbyHisFirstSergeant
TheArmysawaslightdecreaseinitsDontPursueviolationsIromFebruary16,2000
toFebruary15,2001,with117violationslastyearcomparedto100violationsthisyear.The
Army'snumbershopeIullyreIlectthatitistakingtherightstepstoprevent"Don'tPursue"
violations,butitistooearlytotelliInewguidanceandtrainingwillhaveapermanenteIIect.
TheArmy,similartotheotherservicesthisyear,reducedthenumberoIreportedcaseswhere
coworkersorIriendsweresoughtoutandimproperlyquestionedaboutasoldierssexual
orientationorpersonalliIeinviolationoIDontPursue.TheArmysmostcommonDont
PursueproblemsarecommandsandinquiryoIIicersexpandingthescopeoIinquiriesand
unauthorizedsubstantialinvestigations.
OnJanuary10,2000,theArmyissuedguidanceimplementingthePentagonsAugust
1999directivetotheservicestoprovideadditionalguidanceonthepolicy.
93
ThenewArmy
90
Seediscussioninfrapp.79-84.
91
In1992,SeamanAllenSchindlerwasbrutallybeatentodeathbyIellowshipmatesIorbeinggay.
92
ElectronicMessageIromHeadquarters,DepartmentoItheArmy,toALARACT,HomosexualConauctPolicv
(Jan.10,2000)(HQDAWASHINGTONDC101700ZJAN00).
93
Seeia.
LCR 04419
48
guidancevariesslightlyIromthePentagons.TheArmyguidancestates,|i|nmostcasesoI
homosexualadmission,noinvestigationisrequired.Thislanguageshouldmakeitclearto
commandsthattheymustnotembarkuponIishingexpeditionstodigupdirtonsoldiersin
violationoIDontPursue.
TheArmyguidelinescontainlanguagesimilartothe DoDguidanceonsubstantial
inquiries.
94
TheArmyinstructs,|t|heinitiationoIanysubstantialinvestigationintowhetheran
admissionoIhomosexualitywasmadeIorthepurposeoIseekingseparationIromtheArmy
and/orwhetherrecoupmentoIIinancialbeneIitsiswarrantedmustbeapprovedattheArmy
secretariatlevel.
95
TheArmyguidanceIurtherdirectscommandstonottakeanyactions,
includingprocessinggay,lesbianorbisexualsoldiersIordischargeuntileithersubstantial
inquirypermissionisdenied,orgrantedandthesubstantialinvestigationisconcluded.
96
SLDN
isnotawareoIanyArmycaseswheresecretarylevelapprovalIorasubstantialinquirywas
requested.Consequently,itisimpossibletoknowiIcommandsarehaltingsubstantial
investigationswhilewaitingIorsecretaryapproval.
WhiletherehavebeensomeimprovementsintheArmysimplementation,thenumberoI
violationscontinuesatalmostthesamerateasinthepast.TheArmymustdomoretoensure
soldiersarenotimproperlypursuedbycommandsorinquiryoIIicers.
ArmvDropsDischargeActionAgainstFirstLieutenantSteveMav
InJanuary2001,theArmyannounceditwasdroppingitsplanneddischargeoIFirst
LieutenantSteveMay,anopenlygayArizonaStateRepresentative. Maywillcontinuetoserve
intheArmyreservesuntilMay11,2001,whenhisobligationiscompleted.
TheArmywrongIullyinitiateddischargeproceedingsagainstMayaIterlearningoI
remarkshemadeabouthissexualorientationduringadebateondomesticpartnerbeneIitsonthe
Iloor oItheArizonastatelegislature.Atthetime,hewasanactivereservist.Maywonhis
legislativeseatasanopenlygaycandidate,makinghissexualorientationamatteroIrecordat
thetimetheArmycalledhimtoactiveduty.
FirstLieutenantMay,whohasservedasExecutiveOIIiceroIhisreserveunit,hasbeen
hailedasanexemplaryoIIicer.Sincetheinvestigation,MayssuperiorshavestatedthatMay
hasbeennothinglessthanoutstandingsinceheioinedtheunit(Exhibit37).Inaddition,
MaysIellowsoldierstestiIiedinSeptember2000,athisadministrativedischargehearingthat
Maysremovalwouldhurthisunitscohesionandmorale.
Bydroppingthedischarge,itappearsthattheArmyhastacitlyrecognizeditnevershould
havepursuedMay.ThecurrentlawdoesnotcontemplatedischargingelectedoIIicialsIor
94
TheArmyguidelinedeIinesasubstantialinquiryasonethatextendsbeyondquestioningthemember,
individualssuggestedbythememberIorinterview,andthemembersimmediatesupervisorychainoIcommand.
Ia.
95
Ia.TheSecretaryhasdesignatedtheAssistantSecretaryoItheArmyIorManpowerandReserveAIIairs(ASA
M&RA)astheapprovalauthorityIorinitiationoIsubstantialinvestigations.RequestsIorapprovalwillbe
IorwardedthroughcommandchannelstotheASA(M&RA). Ia.
96
Ia.
LCR 04420
49
statementstheyhavemadeaselectedoIIicials.NordoesDADTDPDHcontemplatepunishing
soldiersIorstatementsmadeasciviliansorwhileintheinactivereserves.Intheend,theArmy
madetherightdecisiontodropthecase.
ArmvFirstSergeantConauctsImproperInvestigationofNewRecruit
AyoungArmyPrivatestationedatFortLeonardWood,Missouri,reportstoSLDNthat
hisFirstSergeantinitiatedanunauthorizedandinvasiveinvestigationbyaskingwide-ranging
questionsIromapre-printedIorm.AIterthePrivatecameoutasbisexualduetohisIearoI
harassmentandbeingturnedintohiscommandasbisexualbyanothersoldier,hisFirstSergeant
startedanapparentlyunauthorizedinquiryintothesoldier'spersonalliIe.Thisisa"Don't
Pursue"violationbecause:(1)onlyacommandermayinitiateaninquiryregardingasoldiers
sexualorientation,notanenlistedleader,
97
and(2)aninquiryoIIicermaynotIishIoradditional
evidenceagainstasoldier,therebyimpermissiblyexpandingthescopeoItheinquiry.
98
TheFirstSergeantaskedthePrivateanumberoIimproperquestionsIromapre-typed
Iorm(Exhibit38).
99
TheIormsquestionsimproperlyincluded:
HaveyouengagedinHomosexual/Bisexualacts:
DidyouengageinHomosexual/BisexualactsoIyourownIree
will:
DidyouengageinHomosexual/Bisexualactsbecauseyou
wereIorcedordrunk:
DidyouengageinHomosexual/Bisexualactsasan
experiment:
DidyouengageinHomosexual/Bisexualactsbecauseyou
wereinIluencedbyanother:
Whenyousaythatyouhaveparticipatedin
Homosexual/Bisexualacts,whatdoyoumean:and
Haveyouhadsexualrelationshipswithbothmalesand
Iemales.
TheFirstSergeantaskedthePrivateadditionalquestionsnotontheIormincluding:
HowIrequentlydoyouhavesexualrelationswithpeopleoIthe
sameandoppositesex:
Whoareyourpastsexualpartners:
Tellmeaboutyourpastpartners:
Whendidyoustarttobecomebisexual:and
Wereyoupushedtostart.
97
SeeArmyRegulation600-20,ArmvCommanaPolicv4-19(d)(1)(a)(1999)|hereinaIterAR600-20|.
98
Seeia. at4-19d(1)(c).
99
TheattachedIormisnottheactualIormusedinthissoldierscase,butitwasreceivedIromFt.LeonardWood
personnel.ThesoldierreportedtoSLDNthathebelievesitisthesameIormusedinhiscase.
LCR 04421
50
TheArmyguidelines,likethe DoDdirectives,limitaninquirytotheactual
circumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegation.
100
Theonlypermissiblequestionsin
thiscasewereonesIocusedonthePrivatesstatementthatheisbisexual.Thesoldiernever
mentionedactsoranythingabouthispast.TheFirstSergeantsquestionsnotonlyviolated
DontPursue,butalsoplacedthesoldierindangeroIcriminalcharges,giventhattheUniIorm
CodeoIMilitaryJusticeimposescriminalpenaltiesIorsodomyandindecentactsinIormation
IorwhichtheinquiryoIIicerwasdeliberatelyIishing.
ThesoldieransweredthequestionshonestlyandprovidedasigniIicantamountoI
personalinIormationabouthissexliIepriortoioiningtheservice.ApparentlyunsatisIiedwith
thesoldiersintimatedisclosuresabouthisbisexuality,theFirstSergeantembarkedonanother
IishingexpeditionagainstthePrivatebyaskingthePrivatesIiancnumerousinappropriateand
intrusivequestionsaboutthePrivatespersonalliIeincluding:
WhatsexualactshadsheseenthePrivatedo:
HadsheseenthePrivatewithanotherman:
WhatpositionswasthePrivatein:
Didheengageinanalororalacts:
HadshebeeninvolvedinathreesomewiththePrivateand
anothermale:and
WhatarethenamesoIthePrivate'spastmalelovers.
ThatArmypersonnelwouldgotosuchgreatlengthstogetinIormationaboutaservice
memberspersonalliIe,aItertheservicememberdisclosedhissexualorientationoutoIIearIor
hissaIety,iswrongandviolatesDontPursue.Thesoldierwrotetohiscommandregarding
theimproperinvestigation.SLDNisunawareiIdisciplinaryactionwastakenagainsttheFirst
Sergeant.
ArmvExpanasScopeofInvestigationintoOfficersSexualOrientation
TheArmywrongIullypursuedaIemaleoIIiceraIteracivilianwomanreportedanalleged
IighttotheoIIicerspostmilitarypolice.TheArmycriminalinvestigatorsquestionedthetwo
women,aswellasthreewitnesses,includingthecivilianwomansdaughterabouttheincident.
Duringtheinvestigation,thecriminalinvestigatorsimproperlyaskedquestionsaboutthetwo
womensrelationship.ThecriminalinvestigatorsturnedtheinIormationovertotheoIIicers
command whoappointedanadministrativeinquiryoIIicer.
Thecriminalinvestigatoraskedthecivilianwomanimproperquestionsabouther
relationshipwiththeoIIicer,including:
WhatactsdidyouperIormoneachother:
Howlonghaveyoubeensexuallyactivewithher:
DoyouhaveanyprooIoItherelationship:
Has|theoIIicer|beenwithanyoneelsesexuallysince1992:
100
AR600-20,supranote97,at4-19d(1)(c).
LCR 04422
51
Whenwasthelasttimeyoutwoweretogethersexually:
Has|theoIIicer|everbeenwithamansinceyouhaveknow
|sic|her:
Howmanytimeshaveyouhadsexwithher:and
DoyouknowoIanyotherwomenshehadsexwith.
Thesequestionsareimproperbecausetheyareirrelevanttoacriminalinvestigation.
ThesequestionsarealsoimproperbecausecriminalinvestigatorsshouldreIerallegations
involvingonlyadultprivateconsensualsexualconducttothesubiectscommanderIor
appropriateinvestigationordisposition.
101
ThecommandappointedinquiryoIIiceralsoviolated"Don'tPursueinthiscaseby
askingthewitnesseswide-rangingquestionsthatwentbeyondtheallegationthattheoIIicerwas
inalesbianrelationship,impermissiblyexpandingthescopeoItheinquiry.TheinquiryoIIicer
improperlyquestionedthecivilianwomanstwelveyearolddaughterbyaskingher|w|hatcan
youtellmeabouttherelationshipbetweenyourmomand|theoIIicer|.TheinquiryoIIicer
improperlyaskedtheotherwitnesses:
Whenyousaytheyvebeentogetherwhatdoesthatmean:
Does|theoIIicer|haveanyotherromanticrelationships:
Doyouknowhername:
Isshelivinginherhouse:
Doyouknowhowlong|they|havebeentogether:
Haveyoueverseenphysicalcontactbetweenthem:
Haveyoueverseenanysexualcontact:and
Canyouelaborateonanylovers.
ThesequestionswereoutsidetheIactualallegationsandinappropriatelyplacedthe
oIIicerinharmoIcriminalcharges.TheoIIicerisstillservingandIightingtosavehercareer.
InquirvOfficerConauctsSubstantialInvestigationWithoutSecretarialApproval
TheArmyimproperlyconductedanunauthorizedsubstantialinquiryaIterCaptain
Elizabeth RecuperostatedsheneededtobehonestwiththeArmybycomingoutasalesbian.
Captain Recupero,whoisonanapprovededucationaldeIermentpriortoactivedutyservice,has
beenlivingasanopenlygaywomanIormostoIthetimesinceshecompletedherROTC
training.
InJanuary2001,Captain RecuperoreceivedamemorandumIromthecommand
appointedinquiryoIIicer,Mr.JeIIrey Lubin,askinghertwenty-twoquestionstodetermine
whetherCaptain RecouperomadeherstatementIorthepurposeoIseekingseparation.Army
101
See DEPTOFDEFENSE INSTRUCTION 5505.8, InvestigationsofSexualMisconauctbvtheDefenseCriminal
InvestigativeOrganizationsanaOtherDoDLawEnforcementOrganizations1(1994)|hereinaIterD
ODI5505.8|.
LCR 04423
52
policyrequiressecretarialapprovaltoconductaninvestigationtodeterminewhetherasoldieris
tryingtoavoidtheirmilitaryobligation.
102
Itappearsthatnonewasobtainedinthiscase.
ArmyDontPursueSummary
Morethantheotherservices,theArmyappearstobetakingtheIirstgoodstepstocurb
itsimproperandunauthorizedpursuits.Itistooearlytootellwhetherthesestepswillresultin
long-termimprovements.TheArmyshouldconductIurthertrainingtoensurethatallsoldiers
understandthatIishingexpeditionsviolateDADTDPDH,substantialinquirieswithoutsecretarial
approvalareprohibitedandviolatorswillbeheldaccountableIortheiractions.Theseactions
arenecessarytopromoteDADTDPDHcomplianceandthereby,improveunitcohesion,morale
andreadinesswithintheArmy.
TheAirForceContinuestoLeadtheWayinDontPursueViolations
Informal fact-finding inquiriesare the preferred method
of addressing homosexual conduct.
103
--GuiaelinesforFact-FinaingInquiriesintoHomosexualConauct
In the last five years, have you ever hugged an adult female who was not a relative?
If so, how many times?
--QuestionAskedoISLDNAirForceClientbyInquiryOIIicer
Inthepastyear,AirForceDontPursueviolationscontinuedtheirupwardsurge.
SLDNdocumented251AirForceDontPursueviolationsIromFebruary16,2000toFebruary
15,2001,a13increaseoverthe222reportedviolationsthepreviousyear.TheAirForceonce
againledallotherservicesinimproperpursuitsoIservicemembers.
TheprimaryreasonwhyAirForceviolationsincreasedagainthisyearisthecontinued
useoIwide-rangingIishingexpeditionsinthecontextoIrecoupmentcases. Recoupmentcases
arethosewhereAirForcemembersareinvoluntarilydischargedIorbeinggay,lesbianor
bisexualandIorcedtorepayscholarshipIundsorbonuses. DoDpolicyprohibitsrecoupmentin
thesecircumstances.SincetheimplementationoIDADTDPDH,however,theAirForcehas
ignoredtherulesandvigorouslypursuedgay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.
PartoIthereasonIortheAirForcescontinuedintransigencemaylieinitsnew
guidelinesonIact-IindinginquiriesimplementingthePentagonsguidanceoninvestigative
102
ElectronicMessageIromHeadquarters,DepartmentoItheArmy,toALARACT,HomosexualConauctPolicv
(Jan.10,2000)(HQDAWASHINGTONDC101700ZJAN00).TheSecretaryhasdesignatedtheAssistant
SecretaryoItheArmyIorManpower&ReserveAIIairs(ASAM&RA)astheapprovalauthorityIorinitiationoI
substantialinvestigations.RequestsIorapprovalwillbeIorwardedthroughcommandchannelstotheASA
(M&RA). Ia.
103
GuiaelinesforFact-FinaingInquiriesintoHomosexualConauct, inInterimChange2000-1toAirForce
Instruction36-3206,AaministrativeDischargeProceauresForCommissioneaOfficers,A.2.4.1(Mar.10,2000)
|hereinaIterAFI36-3206 Guiaelines|.
LCR 04424
53
limits.
104
Thenewguidelines,unlikethosepromulgatedbythe DoDandtheotherservices,do
notstatethatlittletonoinvestigationshouldoccurincaseswhereAirForcemembersmakea
statementthattheyaregay,lesbianorbisexual.
TheAirForceguidelinesdo,however,instructcommanderstoseeksecretaryapproval
priortoinitiatingasubstantialinquirytodeterminewhetherornotastatementoIhomosexuality
wasmadeIorthepurposeoIseekingseparationIrommilitaryservice.
105
TheAirForcedeIines
asubstantialinquiryasonethatextendsbeyondquestioningthememberwhomadethe
statement,and/orathirdpartywhoreportsthatamembermadeastatement,individuals
suggestedbythememberIorinterview
106
andthemembersimmediatesupervisorychainoI
command.
107
Thus,itappearsthatAirForceleadersaredeliberatelybuckingthePentagonby
pursuingservicemembers,especiallyin recoupmentcases.NotonlydoAirForcecommanders
andinquiryoIIicersroutinelyconductwide-rangingIishingexpeditions,particularlyin
recoupmentcases,buttheyalsorarelyseeksecretarialapprovalbeIorelaunchingasubstantial
inquiry.
Gay,lesbianandbisexualpersonnelloseconIidenceintheirleaderswhentheyIailto
IairlyenIorceDADTDPDH.LackoItrustandconIidenceamongmembersharmsunitcohesion
andmoraleand,consequently,lowerstheAirForcescombatreadinessandabilitytocomplete
itsmission.
TheAirForceWronglvPursuesanaSeeksRecoupmentfromKeeslerAFBOfficer
TheAirForcewrongIullylaunchedanunauthorizedsubstantialinvestigationoItwenty-
Iour-year-oldSecondLieutenantChristopherJ.Pristera.
108
TheAirForce'sapparentaimwasto
Iorce PristeratorepayscholarshipIundsaspunishmentIorhishonesty,anactoIretaliation
expresslyprohibitedbycurrentregulations.
TheactionagainstPristerastartedwhenhewrotetohiscommander:
|t|he Air Force takes a very clear stance on integrity, yet makes
its|sic|homosexualmemberslieinordertokeepservinganation
that they have iust as much right to love someone in as their
104
Seeia.(Exhibit39).
105
AcommandermustsubmitarequestIorapprovalthroughthechainoIcommandandtheViceChieIoIStaIIoI
theAirForce(AF/CV)totheUndersecretaryoItheAirForce(SAF/US).Therequestmustexplainwhythereisa
clearinterestinconductingthesubstantialinquiry,whyitisexpectedthattheexpandedinquirywillresultin
additionalrelevantevidenceandwhytheAirForcebeneIitinexpandingtheinquiryoutweighsanyIoreseeable
disadvantageoIexpandedinquiry. Ia.atA2.1.3.
106
Amemberwhomakesavoluntarily|sic|statementacknowledginghisorherhomosexualitymay,butwillnot
berequiredto,providethenamesoIotherindividualstobeinterviewedrelevanttohisorherstatement. Ia.at
A2.1.5.
107
Ia.atA2.2.6.
108
SecondLieutenantPristeracameouttotheAirForceIorintegrityreasonsaIterattendingtheMilleniumMarch
onWashington.TheMillenniumMarchonWashingtonwasheldonApril30,2000IorthepurposeoIadvancing
gay,lesbian,bisexualandtransgenderequality.
LCR 04425
54
heterosexual counterparts. I am not willing to live that lie any
longerandIbelievethatnobodyshouldhaveto...(Exhibit32).
ThecommandappointedinquiryoIIicerinitiateda"substantialinquiry"inthiscase
withoutsecretaryapproval.UnderDADTDPDHandAirForceinstructions,aninquiryoIIicers
inquirymustbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesrelevanttotheallegation.
109
Theonly
relevantquestionsIorPristera were:(1)didhemakethestatement:and(2)iIso,arethecontents
truthIul.AnyquestioningbeyondthesespeciIic,narrowissuesrepresentaviolationoIDont
Pursue.
110
TheAirForceaskedSecondLieutenantPristera177questions,themaiorityoI
which werenotrelatedtoeitheroItheseissues.ThequestionsrelatedtowhetherPristerawas
seekingseparationwereimproperbecausetherewasnosecretaryapprovaltoaskthem.
AIter PristerachosetoIightthecommand'sdischargeeIIortsataBoardoIInquiry(BOI),
therecorder(thegovernmentsattorney),MaiorBarbaraShestko,improperlyquestionedAir
ForcepersonnelaboutwhetherPristerawasseekingseparationanunauthorizedsubstantial
inquiry.ThequestionswerealsoimproperbecauseMaiorShestkodidnothavePristeras
permissiontoquestiontheseindividuals.AirForceinstructionspermitaninquiryoIIicertoonly
questionindividualstheservicemembersuggestsorotherswithsecretaryapproval.
111
Atthe
BOI,MaiorShestkoproclaimed,|t|hoserulessimplydonotapplytotherecorder.(Exhibit
40).
112
ContrarytoShestkosassertions,however,therearenoexceptionstotheinvestigative
limitsunderDADTDPDH.
Ultimately,theBOIrecommendedPristerarepayhisAirForceROTCscholarship
113
in
violationoI DoDandAirForcerules.TheDeIenseDepartmentpolicycontainedintheDeutch
Memorandumstates,amembersstatementthatheorsheisahomosexual,thoughgroundsIor
separationiIitdemonstratesapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualacts,doesnot
constituteabasisIorrecoupment.|unlessitwas|madeforthepurposeofseeking
separation.
114
Inotherwords,theBOIshouldonlyhaverecommendedrecoupmentiItheclearweight
oItheevidenceprovedthatSecondLieutenantPristeramadehisstatementIorthepurposeoI
avoidingIurthermilitaryservice. PristerarepeatedlystatedhewantedtostayintheAirForce
andnoevidencewaspresentedthathewasseekingseparation.MaiorShestkotwiceconceded
Pristerawantstoserve(Exhibit42).SincetheonlyevidencepresentedattheBOIwasthat
109
InquiriesshallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.AFI36-3206
Guiaelines.supranote103,atA2.1.5.
110
Seeia.
111
Seeia. atA2.1.5,A2.2.6.
112
Additionallydisturbing,istheIactthatMaiorShestkoandanassistantattorneyattemptedtointimidatethese
witnessesintowateringdowntheirstatementsoIsupportIorPristerabystressinghowsenioroIIicersontheboard
mayIrownuponoIIicerswhosupportedagayman(Exhibit41).
113
AtthetimePristerawenttohisboard,hehadservedmorethantwoyearsoIhisIour-yearAirForcecommitment.
114
MemorandumIromTheDeputySecretaryoIDeIensetotheSecretariesoItheMilitaryDepartments,Recoupment
ofEaucationAssistanceFunas.BonusesanaSpecialPavfromPersonsDisenrolleaorSeparateaontheBasisof
HomosexualConauct.(May17,1994)(issuedbythenDeputySecretaryoIDeIenseJohnM.Deutch)(emphasis
added).
LCR 04426
55
Pristerawantedtocontinueserving,theBOIwasprohibitedbyDoDpolicyIromordering
recoupment.
InAugust1999,theAirForceacknowledgedthatthe DeutchMemorandumlimited
recoupmentincasessimilartoPristeras.AstheDepartmentoIAirForceGeneralCounsel's
oIIicestates,|a|lthoughcastintechnicallanguage,thegeneralintentionoftheMemoranaum
appearstobetoavoiarecoupmentinsuchcases...(emphasisadded).
115
TheAirForcehasconsistentlyIailedtoproperlyapply DoDrulesregardingrecoupment.
WhiletheotherservicesrarelyseekrecoupmentIromtheirgay,lesbianandbisexualservice
members,
116
theAirForceappearstoseekrecoupmentinallcaseswhereeducationalIundsor
bonusmoneymaybeaIactor.
117
TheAirForceappearstobeusingan irrebuttablepresumption
thatallservicememberswhomakestatementsabouttheirsexualorientationmustbeseeking
separation,whichIliesintheIaceoIPentagon recoupmentpolicy.
SLDNisawareoImanycaseswheretheAirForceimproperlypursuedservicemembers
whowantedtocontinueservinginitsattempttorecoupagainstthem.SecondLieutenant
PristeracontinuestoIighttopreservehiscareer.
CommanaCriminallvProsecutesThreateneaAirmanatShawAirForceBase
TheAirForcewrongIullypursuedtwenty-twoyearoldSeniorAirmanLaurenBrown,
whowasassignedtoShawAirForceBaseinSouthCarolina,bypressingcriminalcharges
againstheraItershereporteddeaththreats(discussedinmoredetailinDontHarass").
118
TheAirForceassertsthatSeniorAirmanBrownattemptedtocommitinsuranceIraudby
settingherowncaronIire.TheSumterCounty,SouthCarolina,SheriIIsdepartmentand
BrownsinsurancecompanyinvestigatedthecrimeandIoundnoevidenceoI wrong-doingon
herpart.Nevertheless,theAirForcepressedcriminalchargesagainstBrownIorIraud,ignoring
theresultsoIthecivilianinvestigationsandtherealevidenceinthecasethatBrownhad
receivedmultiplethreatsonherliIebecauseothersperceivedherasalesbian(Exhibit43).
ThePentagonhasbeenveryclearthatservicemembersshouldnotIacereprisalIor
reportinganti-gayharassment.OnecannothelpbutconcludethatBrown'scommandretaliated
againstherIorexactlythat.Brown'scommandre-victimizedher,andendangeredherwell-being
115
SeeMemorandumIromtheOIIiceoItheGeneralCounselAirForcetoSAF/OS,RecoupmentinHPSP
HomosexualStatementCases(Aug.9,1999).
116
TheNavyrecentlydroppedarecoupmentactionagainstaIormermidshipman,TommieLeeWatkins,who
resignedIromtheNavalAcademywhenIacedwithaninvestigationintohissexualorientation.
117
InIact,earlierthisyearanAirForcespokesman,MaiorChetCurtis,stated,|a|bout100graduatesoItheAir
ForcesmedicalprogramweredischargedIromJanuary1996to|July1999|Iorbeinggay.Allhavebeenaskedto
repaythemoney.TheNewYorkTimesontheWeb, DischargeaGavDoctorSuesPentagon.OverCostof
Eaucation (June1,2000)availableatwww.nytimes.com.ThiscommentwasmadeinconnectiontoHensalav.
Peters,whereDr.JohnHensalaissuingtheAirForceIorimproperlyseekingrecoupmentagainsthimIorhis
medicalschoolcostseventhoughherepeatedlyIoughttostayintheAirForce.
118
Seediscussioninfrapp.75-76.
LCR 04427
56
becauseBrownreceivedyetanotherdeaththreataIterhercarhadbeenburned.Itappearsthat
theAirForceneverinvestigatedthisthreatortheothers.
Evenwhenacourt-martialIoundBrownnotguiltyoIIraud,
119
Brown'scommandIailed
totakestepstoprotecthersaIety.Ultimately,Browncameoutasalesbianinordertoprotect
herownsaIetyandwashonorablydischargedinJanuary2001.
TheAirForceAsksMorethan100Wiae-RangingQuestions
inUnauthorizeaSubstantialInvestigation
InNovember2000,theAirForceimproperlyinvestigatedaIemaleLieutenantwhocame
out,byaskinghermorethan100intrusivequestionsindirectviolationoIDontPursue.The
AirForcelaunchedasubstantialinvestigationintotheLieutenantsprivateliIeapparently
withouttherequiredAirForceSecretaryapproval.EveniIasubstantialinvestigationhadbeen
approved,theinquiryoIIicersactionsviolatedDontPursuebecauseheengagedinwide-
rangingquestioningthatwasnotrelevanttotheLieutenantsstatement(Exhibit44).The
questionsincluded:
Howdidyoucometorealizeyouarehomosexual?
InthelastIiveyears,haveyouheldhandsinpublicwithan
adultIemalewhowasnotarelative?IIso,howmanytimes?
InthelastIiveyears,haveyoueverkissedanadultIemaleon
thelipswhowasnotarelative?IIso,howmanytimes?
InthelastIiveyears,haveyoueverhuggedanadultIemale
whowasnotarelative?IIso,howmanytimes?
HaveyouevergoneoutonadatewithanadultIemalewho
wasnotarelative?IIso,howmanytimes?
AreyoucurrentlyinvolvedwithanadultIemale?IIso,what is
hername,addressandtelephone?MayIcontactthatperson?
HaveyoudatedsomeoneoItheoppositesex?
WhenwasthelasttimeyoudatedsomeoneoItheopposite
sex?
HowoItendidyoudatethisperson?
HaveyoueverIrequentedahomosexualbar?HowoIten?
Whenwasthelasttime?
AreyouamemberoIanyhomosexualorganizations?IIso,
whichones?
Whataretheaddresses,telephonenumbersoIthese
organizationsandnames,telephonenumbersoIpointsoI
contact?MayIcontacttheseorganizationsandinterviewthe
pointsoIcontact?
119
SeniorAirmanBrownreportsthatthecourt-martialiudgeapproachedheraItertheproceedingswerecompleted
andstatedthatthechargesagainstherwereimproper.HereportedlyaddedthatBrowncouldcometohimdirectlyiI
sheencounteredanyproblemsintheIuture.
LCR 04428
57
ThesequestionsareimpermissibleunderDontPursue.
First,theonlyappropriateissuetoascertaininastatementcase iswhethertheservice
membermadeastatementthatheorsheislesbian,gayorbisexual.DontPursuelimits
inquiriestotheIactualcircumstancesoItheservicemembersstatement.TheLieutenantsletter
didnotcontaininIormationaboutsexualconduct.ThereIore,anyquestionsthatgobeyondthe
statement'saIIirmationoIsexualorientationviolateDontPursue.
Second,eveninservicesecretaryapprovedsubstantialinquiries,aninquiryoIIicermay
onlyaskquestionsregardingwhetheraservicememberisseekingseparation.Secretary
approvaldoesnotmeanthatallotherinquirylimitsundercurrentregulationsaresuspended.
Thus,underanycircumstancesinquiryoIIicerscannotaskaboutassociationalactivitiesthatare
otherwisepermissibleunder DoDandAirForcerules,
120
andirrelevanttoaDADTDPDH
inquiry.ThereIore,theabovequestionsarestillimpropereveninapprovedsubstantialinquiries
becausetheyextendbeyondthepermissiblescopeoItheinquiry.
LieutenantPursueawithoutCreaibleEviaence
FirstLieutenantBenGlenn,
121
whowasstationedatthePentagon,inWashington,DC,
wasimproperlypursuedaIteradisgruntledex-partnertelephonedGlennscommandandtold
themthatGlennisgay.FirstLieutenantGlenn,whohadbeenintheAirForceIortwoyears,
wasshockedwhenhiscommandingoIIicerinIormedhimthatahomosexualconduct
investigationwasbeingopenedonhim.
Thecommandshouldhaveignoredtheoutingbecauseadisgruntledex-partnerisnota
reliablesourcebecauseoItheex-partner'smotivetoIabricate,exaggerate,lieordeceive.
Further,thecommandhasnobasistogaugethehonestyorintegrityoIanunknowncivilian
versusamission-testedoIIicer.ThereIore,theallegationwasnotcredibleandinsuIIicient
groundstostartaninquiryintoGlennssexualorientation.
122
Thecommand,however,moved
IorwardwithanintrusiveinvestigationintoFirstLieutenantGlennsprivateliIeinviolationoI
DontPursue(Exhibit45).TheresultwastheneedlessdestructionoIayoungoIIicersAir
Forcecareer.
120
CredibleinIormationdoesnotexist,Iorexample,when|t |heonlyinIormationknownisanassociational
activitysuchasgoingtoagaybar,possessingorreadinghomosexualpublications,associatingwithknown
homosexuals.Suchactivity,inandoIitselI,doesnotprovideevidenceoIhomosexualconduct.AFI36-3206
Guiaelines, supranote103,atA2.3.3,A2.3.3.3:also DODD1332.14,supranote22,atE3.A4.1.3.3,E3.A4.1.3.3.4:
DODD1332.40,supranote22,atE8.3.3,E8.3.3.4:GuiaelinesforFact-FinaingInquiriesintoHomosexual
Conauct, inIC2000-1toAirForceInstruction36-3208, AaministrativeSeparationofAirmen.A4.4,A4.4.4(Mar.
10,2000)|hereinaIterAFI36-3208Guiaelines|.
121
FirstLieutenantGlenn,atwenty-Iive-year-oldIromFlorida,attendedDukeUniversityonanAirForceROTC
scholarship.
122
NotallaccusationsoIhomosexualconduct,includingstatements,constitutecredibleinIormationasabasisIor
inquiryordischarge.ThepolicystatescredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhenthesourceoItheaccusationis
unreliable.AnanonymousciviliancontactingacommandinaneIIorttoharmagaymembersmilitarycareer
shouldnotbeconsideredcredibleinIormation.Theillintentionsmotivatingthetellershouldgivecommanding
oIIicerspause,particularlywhenaswasthecaseoIFirstLieutenantGlennthegayallegationwasabouta
sterlingoIIicer.
LCR 04429
58
Dont Pursuewasintendedtopreventharmtogaysmilitarycareersiniustsuch
instances.FormerSecretaryoIDeIenseLes Aspinexplainedin1993,|i|IIcametothe
commanderandsaidthatyoutoldmethatyouweregay,iIthatwastheonlythinggoing,my
expectationwouldbethatcommanderwouldnotdoanything.
123
Theseservicemembersknow
thatcommandsoIteninvestigateanyallegationthataservicememberisgay,lesbianorbisexual,
regardlessoItheservicememberssigniIicantcontributionsanddedication.DontPursuewas
intendedtopreventthesetypeoIoutingsandallowtheservicestoretaintheconsiderable
talentsoIgay,lesbianandbisexualmemberssuchasFirstLieutenantGlenn.
AirForceDontPursueSummary
TheAirForceshouldmakeclearthatsubstantialinquiriesareunnecessaryinmost
circumstancesbychangingitsguidancetocomportwiththePentagons,byincludinglanguage
thatlittleornoinvestigationisnecessaryinmostcases.InordertobetterimplementDont
Pursue,theAirForcemustholdoIIicialsaccountableIornotseekingsecretaryapprovalIor
substantialinquiries.TheAirForceshouldcomplywithcurrentrecoupmentpolicyandmake
cleartocommanders,inquiryoIIicersandattorneysthatastatementoIsexualorientationaloneis
notevidencethataservicememberisattemptingtoseekseparation.
TheAirForcesinabilitytoproperlyimplementDontPursuesendsamessagetoits
membersthattheycannottrustcommanderstoIollowtherules.IIcommanderscannotleadby
implementingDontPursueIairly,thenservicememberswillnothaveIaithintheircommands
andunitcohesionandmoralewillsuIIer.UntiltheAirForceIixesitsimplementationproblems,
itsreadinesswillbenegativelyaIIected.
123
Services,103dCong.,721(1993)(testimonyoIthenSecretaryoIDeIenseLes Aspin).
LCR 04430
59
NavyDontPursueViolationsDropSignificantly
In most cases where a servicemember has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual
and does not contest separation, little or no investigation should be necessary.
124
--ChieIoINavalOperations
A statement in which an individual professes to be a homosexual
is not a basis for separation from the Navy.
--ExcerptoIEmailtoSLDNIromShipsLegalOIIicer
Inthepastyear,thenumberoINavyDontPursueviolationsdroppeddramatically
Iromninety-twotonineteen.Thisisamixedblessing.
Ontheonehand,theNavy,morethananyotherservice,hasmadeitcleartocommands
thattherearelimitstoinvestigations,includingtherequirementtoobtainSecretaryoItheNavy
approvalIorsubstantialinquiries.
125
TheNavywastheIirstservicetosendmessagestoits
servicemembersontheinvestigativelimitsandreiteratedthisimportantguidancethreetimesin
aone-yearperiod.
126
Somecommandsseemtobeadheringtotheinvestigativelimits,resulting
inasharpdecreaseinNavy"Don'tPursue"violations.
Ontheotherhand,NavycommandsoItendonotdischargeopenlygaysailorswhoseek
dischargetoescapeanti-gaythreatsandassaults.ForthesixthyearsinceDADTDPDHbecame
thelaw,theNavyledallotherservicesinreportsoIanti-gayharassment.WhencommandsIorce
sailorstocomeouttoescapeharassmentandthenreIusetodischargetheservicememberorstop
theharassment,theyarecreatingarecipeIordisaster.
In1992,SeamanAllenSchindlertoldhiscommandthathewasreceivinganti-gay
threats.ThecommandIailedtoactandtwoshipmatesbrutallymurderedSchindlerwhileon
shoreleaveinJapan.IItheNavydoesnottakeimmediatecorrectiveactions,itisreasonably
Ioreseeablethatanothermurdercouldtakeplace.
OnepossiblereasonNavycommandersareretainingopenlygayservicemembersisthe
guidanceissuedonOctober28,1999,incorrectlyinterpretingcurrentDoDpolicy.TheNavy
guidancestates,|i|IacommandingoIIicerdeterminesthatthememberisnotapersonwho
engagesin,attemptstoengagein,orintendstoengagein,homosexualacts,thennoIurther
processingisrequiredandthemembershouldbeexpectedtoperIormhis/herduties.
127
InIact,
124
ElectronicMessageIromChieIoINavalOperationstoNAVADMIN,ContinuingGuiaanceConcerningProper
ApplicationofDoDHomosexualConauctPolicv(Oct.28,1999)(CNOWASHINGTONDC281833ZOCT99
(NAVADMIN291/99))(Exhibit46)|hereinaIterNAVADMIN291/99|.
125
Seeia.
126
Seeia.: seealsoNAVADMIN094/00, supranote37:MemorandumIromCarolynH.BecraIt,TheAssistant
SecretaryoItheNavy(Manpower&ReserveAIIairs),totheViceChieIoINavalOperationsandtheAssistant
CommandantoItheMarineCorps,FurtherGuiaanceonHomosexualPolicv(Feb.16,2000)(onIilewith
ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork).
127
NAVADMIN094/00,supranote37.
LCR 04431
60
oneshipslegaloIIicersentanemailtoSLDNstating,|a|statementinwhichanindividual
proIessestobeahomosexualisnotabasisIorseparationIromtheNavy.(Exhibit47).
ThislegaloIIicersinterpretationclearlycontradictsNavypolicystatingthatseparationis
mandatorywhenasailormakesastatementthatheorsheisgay,lesbianorbisexualandhasnot
rebuttedthepresumptionthatheorshehasthepropensitytoengageinsamegendersexual
conduct.
128
TheresultisthattheNavy,insharpcontrasttotheotherservices,isretainingopenlygay,
lesbianandbisexualsailorswhohavecomeouttoescapeharassmentorIorreasonsoIintegrity.
WhilewewelcometheNavysIorwardingthinkingonintegratingopenlygaytroops,theNavyis
notadheringtocurrentlawandisplacingopenlygayservicemembersindanger.TheNavys
Dont PursuenumbersthusappeartobesuppressedbyamisreadingoIthelaw,notby
adheringtothepolicysinvestigativelimits.
USSDubuqueCaptainEngagesinWitchHuntforGavSailors
OnecasepainIullyillustrateshowtheNavyisretainingopenlygaysailorswhohave
comeouttoescapeharassment,andthencompoundstheproblembyIailingtoprotectthesailors
orstoptheharassment.Inthiscase,theshipsCaptaineventriedtocompelasailortoidentiIy
othergaysailorsontheship,anapparentattemptatawitchhunt.InJuly2000,atwenty-one
yearoldUSSDubuqueSeamanApprentice,Deriuan Tharrington,verballycameouttohis
supervisor,LieutenantJoyce,duetocontinuousharassmentandrumorsbaseduponhisperceived
sexualorientation(discussedinmoredetailinDontTell).
129
TheshipscommandingoIIicer,Captain Heil,askedtomeetwith Tharringtonandothers
inhischainoIcommand.WhentheCaptainaskediIhewantedtogetoutoItheNavy,
Tharringtonreportedlytoldhim,Imnottryingtogetout.IwouldpreIeratransIer.Seaman
Apprentice TharringtonreportsthatCaptainHeilproceededtoask|w|hohaveyoubeenwithon
thisship,becauseIamnotgoingtotoleratethat.Thisquestioncouldbeviewedasawitchhunt
Iorothergaysailorsonhisship.TheCaptainsquestionswereirrelevanttowhether Tharrington
madeastatementthatheisgay,andputhimandpossiblyothersailorsinieopardyoIdischarge,
orworse,criminalcharges.
130
Whenthesailordeclinedtorevealothergaysailors,theCaptainreportedlyinIormedhim,
IwontdoanythingaboutthisuntilIknowwhoyouhavebeenwithandthatwouldputyouin
legalieopardysoIadviseyouagainstthat.EventhoughCaptain Heilacknowledgedthelegal
ieopardyhewasplacing Tharringtonin,itdidnotstophimIrompursuingtheintimatedetailsoI
TharringtonspersonalliIe.Additionally,theCaptainsinsistencethathecouldnotdoanything
aboutthestatementwithoutmoreinIormationiswrong.Captain Heilshouldhavestoppedthe
anti-gayharassmentinaccordancewiththeNavysanti-gayharassmentpolicy.Instead,Captain
128
SeeMILPERSMAN1910-148,Ch-24,SeparationBvReasonofHomosexualConauct2(2000)|hereinaIter
MILPERSMAN1910-148|.
129
Seediscussionsuprap.26. Seediscussioninfrapp.81-82.
130
TheUniIormCodeoICriminalJusticecriminalizessomeIormsoIconsensual,adult,sexualrelationships.
LCR 04432
61
Heildecidedtoretain Tharringtondespiteknowingheisgayandtooknostepstoprotecthim
Iromharassment.
Captain HeilwasclearlyconcernedthatDADTDPDHwasimpedinghisabilityto
completethemission.Hereportedlytold Tharrington,Ineedpeopletowork.Hadhetaken
careoIhissailorsbystoppingtheharassment,hewouldhaveachievedhisgoal.
TharringtonsmilitarydeIenseattorneyobtainedatemporarytransIeroIItheshipIor
him.Thecommandacknowledgedthat Tharringtonreceivedanti-gayremarksandthreatsand
hadcounseledthesailorswhocommittedtheharassment.SeamanApprentice Tharringtonlater
notiIiedthecommandthatheintendedtoIileacomplaintbecausethecommanddidnotIollow
therules,stoptheharassmentortransIerhimpermanently.Intheend,hereluctantlyaccepted
dischargebecausethecommanddidnotintendtotransIerhimoIItheship.Hewashonorably
dischargedIromtheNavy.
UnIortunately,CaptainHeilsinterpretationoItherulesisnotunusualintheNavywhere
commandsoItentellsailorstoeitherprovethattheyaregayorthatastatementisnotenoughto
dischargethemIromservice.WhiletheNavyandtheotherservicesstruggletomeetretention
andrecruitmentgoals,commandersshouldprioritizetakingcareoItheirpeople,andnotdismiss
legitimateanti-gayharassmentcomplaints.CaptainHeilsIailedleadershipcouldunderminehis
sailorsconIidenceintheirleadersanddiminishmilitaryreadiness.
OfficerWrongfullvPursueaanaAccuseaofSoaomv
TheNavyimproperlypursuedamaleoIIicerbyattemptingtodischargehimIor
misconductdueinparttoallegedsodomyunderArticle125oItheUniIormCodeoIMilitary
Justice.
131
TheallegationwasbasedonanunsubstantiatedlawenIorcementreportthatthe
oIIicerhadaboyIriend.TheNavyshouldhaveneverpursuedtheoIIicerIoranallegedgay
relationshipinwhichtheonlyevidencewassuspicionandinnuendo.
132
InApril2000,theoIIicerscivilianroommatecalledanambulancewhenheIoundthe
oIIicerunconsciousonthebathroomIloor.Localpolicearrivedattheirapartmentandspoketo
theroommateandacivilianmaleIriendoItheoIIicerwhowasalsopresent.TheoIIicer
receivedpropermedicalattention,andthelawenIorcementoIIicialsIileda reportwhichwas
IorwardedtotheoIIicerscommand.
UnbeknownsttotheoIIicer,thepolicereportreIerredtotheoIIicerscivilianIriendashis
boyIriend. NeithertheoIIicer,roommatenorIriendeversaidtothepolicethattheIriendwas
anythingotherthanaIriend.Thepolicesimplymadethatconclusionandincludeditinthe
report.UnIortunately,suspicions,reportedasIacts,carryconsequencesIormilitarymembers
underDADTDPDH.
131
AllegationsoIconsensualhomosexualconductshouldbehandledadministrativelyunderDADTDPDHinsteadoI
Article125sodomycharges. See DODI 5505.8, supranote101,at1.Article125issupposedtoapplyequallyto
gay. lesbian,bisexualandstraightservicemembers,butitisoItenusedinanunevenhandedmanneragainstgay,
lesbianandbisexualpersonnel.
132
SeeNAVADMIN291/99,supranote124.
LCR 04433
62
TheoIIicerscommanderorderedadministrativedischargeproceedingsIormisconduct,
dueinparttoallegedlycommittingsodomy.SinceArticle125isacriminalprovision,the
commandsactionscarriedtheimpliedthreatoIcriminalprosecution.
ThecommandsactionsinthiscaseconstitutedanimproperpursuitoItheoIIicer.First,
thecommandingoIIicerdidnothavecredibleevidencetoconductaninvestigationintothe
oIIicerssexualorientationortoallegeaviolationoIArticle125.Noevidencewaspresented
thattheoIIicerhadinIactengagedinanyhomosexualactsormadeastatementoIsexual
orientation.AnyinquiryoractiontoadministrativelyseparatetheoIIicerbasedonthepolice
oIIicersreportswouldhavebeenimproperbecausethereportswerebasedmerelyonsuspicion
andopinion,andthereIore,didnotconstitutecredibleinIormation,theprerequisiteIoran
inquiry.TheoIIicerdecidedtoresigninsteadoIbeingsubiectedtotheanxietyoIIacingaboard
oIhighrankingoIIicersonchargesoIsodomyandotherviolations.
NavalCriminalInvestigativeServicePursuesService
MembersatGavFrienalvEstablishments
StartinginApril2000,anumberoIservicememberscontactingSLDNreportedthatthe
NavalCriminalInvestigativeService(NCIS),inconiunctionwithotherservicescriminalunits,
wasconductingundercoversurveillanceoperationsinDistrictoIColumbiagayIriendlybarsand
nightclubs.Thesecriminalinvestigativeactivitiesappeartobeanattempttoskirttheletterand
intentoIDADTDPDH.Currentpolicyprohibitsmilitarycriminalinvestigativeorganizations
Irominvestigatingservicememberssexualorientations.
133
ThepolicyIurtherallowsIorall
servicememberstoengagein associationalactivitiessuchasgoingtogaybars.
134
TheevidenceobtainedbySLDNsuggestscriminalinvestigatorswerespeciIically
targetingsuspectedgayservicemembersand,whileunabletodischargethemIorpatronizingthe
gayIriendlybarornightclub,solicitedthemtoengageinotherconductwhichcouldcarry
administrativedischargeorcriminalprosecution(Exhibit48).Accordingtoevidenceobtained
bySLDN,NCISconductedsurveillanceateightDistrictoIColumbiabarsornightclubs,alloI
themgay-Iriendlyestablishments.
135
NCISSpecialAgentJohnP.OConnorgavetestimonythatcriminalinvestigators
targetedindividualstheybelievedtobeservicemembersatthegayIriendlyestablishments
withoutanypriorevidenceoIservicemembermisconduct.OConnortestiIied,whenwe
identiIysomeonewhowethinkisaU.S.militarymemberwetargetthatindividualandthen
seeiItheinIormationcanbedeveloped.Accordingtothetestimony,malecovertoperatives
approachedmilitarylookingmen,initiatedconversation,Ilirtedandthenaskedthemen
whethertheyknewwheretheoperativecouldobtainillegalsubstances.OConnorIurther
testiIiedthatNCISundercoveragentstrytoelicittheinIormationthattheindividualisa
militarymemberandruntheirplatesandtrytoconIirmthatinIormation.
133
See DODI 5505.8, supranote101,at2.
134
See.e.g., DODD1332.40, supranote22,atE8.3.3.4.
135
TwoArticle32hearingswereheldinthiscase.Atthesecondhearing,NCISSpecialAgentJohnP.OConnor
gavethenamesoIeightgayIriendlyestablishments.FewerestablishmentswerenamedattheIirsthearing.
LCR 04434
63
SLDNcontactedNCISregardingourconcernsaboutitsconduct.CongressmanBarney
FrankalsoposedquestionstoNCISaboutimproperlypursuingsuspectedgayservicemembers.
NCISrespondedtoCongressmanFranksquestionsbystating,|t|herewasneveranyrandom
takingdownoIlicenseplatenumbers|outsidegayIriendlyestablishments|.(Exhibit49).NCIS
conceded,however,thatoneoIitsagentswalkedthroughtheparkinglotandinapreciseand
purposeIulmanner,notrandomly,wrotedownthelicenseplatesoI20carsthatappearedtobe
militarythen|ranthem|throughthecomputeridentiIicationsystem.NCISalsoconceded
thatitsharedtheinIormationwiththecriminaldivisionsoIeachoItheservices,includingthe
CoastGuard.
AccordingtoNCIS,|t|heonlypurposewastoshowthatmilitarymemberswerepresent
ataclubwheredrugactivitieswereknowntobetakingplace....SLDNdoesnotdisputethe
Navysauthoritytoregulatedrugpossession,distributionorusebyitsmembers.Theevidence
here,however,stronglysuggeststhattheNavywastryingtotargetgayservicemembersatgay
Iriendlyestablishments.TheNavyclaimsthatitconductssimilarsurveillanceandsting
operationsatnongayclubs,butitdidnotprovideexamples.NCISoIIicialsidentiIiedonlygay
IriendlyestablishmentstargetedbyNCIS.Thisunevenhandedinvestigativetacticviolates
DADTDPDHsintenttoerasethedoublestandarddeIensecriminalinvestigativeorganizations
historicallyappliedtogay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembers.
TheNavyhasnobusinessconductingundercoversurveillanceoperationstargetinggay,
lesbianorbisexualservicememberswhoaretryingtoabidebyDADTDPDHbykeepingtheir
privatelivesprivate.Gay-IriendlyestablishmentsaresupposedtobesaIeplaceswheregay,
lesbianandbisexualservicemembersmaygowhilekeepingtheirsexualorientationapersonal
andprivatematter.
SLDNaskedNCIStohaltitsimproperoperations.Whilenoservicemembershave
contactedSLDNrecently,SLDNremainsconcernedandwillcontinuetomonitortheservices
activities.
136
ToSLDNsknowledge,theNavyhasnotheldanyoneaccountableIorthisill-
conceivedandimproperoperation.
NavvUsesBoarasofInquirvtoDigupDirtonOfficers
Inthepastyear,SLDNreceivedtworeportsthattheNavyimproperlyusedgayoIIicers
dischargehearingstoobtainpotentiallyharmIulinIormationinviolationoIDontPursue.
Inonecase,LieutenantCommanderTomDeblois,aNavypsychiatriststationedinSan
Diego,cameouttotheNavyIorintegrityreasons.Heexplained,Icannolongerliveinshame
andsecrecy....Icannot|sic|preachtomychildrentobeproudoIwhotheyare,whenIcan
not|sic|IreelymodeltheprideIhaveIormyselI(Exhibit33).
TheNavyinitiatedadministrativeactionstodischargeDebloistellinghim,|t|heleast
IavorablecharacterizationoIservicethatmayberecommendedisOtherThanHonorable.IIthe
136
ThisincludesreviewingthemilitarypracticeoIlistinggayIriendlyestablishmentsasoII-limitsinorderto
determineiItheservicesareimpermissiblytargetinggayIriendlyestablishments.
LCR 04435
64
BoardIindsnoevidenceoImisconduct,theonlycharacterizationthatmayberecommendedis
Honorable(Exhibit50).
TheNavyshouldnothavestatedthattheleastIavorabledischargewasOtherThan
Honorableinthiscase.PentagonandNavypolicystates,|a|dischargeshallbecharacterizedas
honorabletounderhonorableconditionswhenthesolebasisIorseparationishomosexual
conduct,unlessaggravatingactsareincludedintheIindings.
137
LieutenantCommanderDeblois,ahighlyregardeddoctorwithanimpeccablerecord,had
merelymadeastatementoIhissexualorientation.Whenthediscrepancywaspointedouttothe
commandslegaladvisor,hestated,|i|ItheboardIindsanymisconduct,theymaybeableto
givean|OtherthanHonorable|
138
(Exhibit51).TheBoardsabilitytoenterintoaIishing
expeditionoILieutenantCommander DebloisliIeputhiminanuntenableposition.ABoardoI
InquiryisnotallowedtodigupdirtorpursueanoIIicerspersonalliIeinordertolowerhis
dischargecharacterization.ThisistheequivalentoIanunauthorizedsubstantialinvestigation
andconstitutesaDontPursueviolation.
ThelegaladvisorsstatementindicatestheNavywasonasearchanddestroymissionto
notonlyruinthisdoctorscareer,butlabelhimasawrongdoer.SLDNrecommendsthatthe
Navystoptryingtopunishitsgay,lesbianandbisexualoIIicersbyusingBoardsoIInquiryto
lowertheirdischargecharacterizations.
LegalOfficePreventsInvestigationBaseaonPhotographinGavNewspaper
Therearesomecasesinthelastyearwherecommands,legaloIIicesandinquiryoIIicers
demonstratedtheyknewandIollowedthelimitstoinvestigations.ASanDiegoNavalStation
commandproperlyimplementedDontPursuebyensuringthatasailorssexualorientation
wasnotinvestigatedbaseduponapictureinalocalgayandlesbiannewspaper.Uponlearning
thatthesailorsphotographwasinthenewspaper,thecommandproperlysoughtguidanceIrom
thebaselegaloIIicetodeterminewhetheritshouldinitiateaninvestigation.Accordingtothe
sailor,aseniornoncommissionedoIIicertoldhimthebaselegaloIIicesaidthatDADTDPDH
prohibitedaninvestigation.
139
ThecommandandlegaloIIiceproperlyIollowedthepolicyin
thiscaseandthesailorcontinuestoserve.
NavyDontPursueSummary
TheNavysDontPursuenumbershavedroppedsigniIicantlythisyear,loweringthe
servicestotalDontPursueviolations.TheNavysrecordisamixedblessing.Thegood
newsisthatincontrasttotheotherservices,theNavyconductedIarIewerIishingexpeditionsto
digupdirtonsailors.ThebadnewsisthatcommandersareIailingtostoptheharassmentwhich
137
DODD1132.40,supranote22,atE7.2.2.2. See alsoElectronicMessageIromChieIoINavalOperationsto
NAVADMIN, ImplementationofDoDPolicvonHomosexualConauct7(F)(Mar.11,1994)(CNOWASHINGTON
DC110300ZMAR94(NAVADMIN033/94)).
138
ToallowIurtherinquiryandpossiblynewgroundsIordischargetoberaisedattheBOInotonlyviolatesDont
Pursue,butdueprocess.
139
SeeMILPERSMAN1910-148, supranote128,at3.CredibleInIormationdoesnotexistwhentheonlyknown
inIormationisassociationalactivitysuchasIrequentinghomosexualbars.. Ia.
LCR 04436
65
compelsservicememberstocomeout,leavingtheminapotentiallymoreprecarioussituation
thanbeIore.
TheNavyneedstoremovethelanguageinitsguidelinesthatallowsacommander,athis
orherdiscretion,todecideiIasailorhasthepropensitytoengageinactsandthenpossiblysend
himorherbacktowork.TheNavyistheonlyserviceusingthisprovision.Changingthe
languagemaybeonesteptowardscorrectlyimplementingthepolicyandgettingcommandersto
stopaskingsailorstoprovetheyaregay,lesbianorbisexual.
140
MarineCorpsDontPursueNumbersIncrease
As a general rule, when a service member states that he or she is a homosexual
or bisexual and does not contest separation, little or no investigation is necessary.
141
CommandantoItheMarineCorps
When was the last time you had an encounter with a female?
When did you lose your virginity?
--QuestionsAskedoISLDNMarineCorpsClientbyanInquiryOIIicer
ThenumberoIMarineCorpsDontPursueviolationsincreasedslightlyinthepastyear
withIorty-twocomparedtothirty-eightlastyear.DespitetheincreasednumberoIviolations,
SLDNscasesrevealedsomepositivechangesintheMarineCorpsimplementationoIDont
Pursue.Thisyear,unlikepreviousyears,SLDNreceivednoreportsoItheMarineCorps
improperlyinterviewingIriends,Iamilyormilitarycoworkersinanattempttodigupdirtona
MarineortodetermineiIaMarineisgay,lesbianorbisexual.TheMarineCorps,however,
needstotakestepstoloweritsotherviolations,includingpreventing:(1)criminalinvestigative
division(CID)personnelIromimproperlypursuingservicemembers:(2)commandersand
inquiryoIIicersIromexpandingthescopeoIinvestigations:and(3)commandattemptstoIorce
servicememberstoprovetheyaregay.
OnJanuary7,2000,theMarineCorpsissuednewguidanceontheHomosexualConduct
Policy.
142
LiketheNavyandArmy,theMarineCorpsguidancemirrorsthePentagons
guidancebystating,|a|sageneralrule,whenaservicememberstatesthatheorsheisa
homosexualorbisexualanddoesnotcontestseparation,littleornoinvestigationis
necessary.
143
Similarly,theMarineCorpslanguagelimitingsubstantialinvestigationsIollowsthe
Pentagonsguidance.
144
OnediIIerenceintheMarineCorpsguidancestates,|s|uch
140
ItisimportanttonotethatthisNavypracticeisunderminingthemilitaryrationaleIorDADTDPDHbyretaining
openlygaysailors.
141
MARADMIN014/00,supranote39.
142
Ia.
143
Ia.
144
LCR 04437
66
authorization|Iorsubstantialinquiries|isnotrequiredIorinvestigationoIhomosexualactsor
marriages,asdistinguishedIromhomosexualstatements.Itisnotclearwhythislanguagewas
added,butitispotentiallyharmIultoservicemembersbecausecommandsmaymistakenly
believethattheycanembarkonwide-ranginginvestigationsinnon-statementscases.
WhiletherehavebeenanumberoIcasesinthelastyear wherecommandsorinquiry
oIIicershavetakenappropriateactiontoenIorcethepolicysDontPursueprovision,the
MarineCorpshastodoabetterioboIIollowingDontPursueacrosstheboard.
CommanaRetainsMarineImproperlvPursueabvCIDAgents
AMarineCorpscommandreversedcourse,byhaltinganimproperinvestigationbythe
CriminalInvestigativeDivision(CID)andsavingthecareeroIaMarine.CIDimproperly
pursuedtheMarineIorbeinggayaIterreportedlydiscoveringHIVrelatedmaterialsinhishouse.
TheMarinehadgrantedCIDpermissiontosearchhishomeandcarIorastolenoIIicecomputer
(Exhibit52).CIDIoundnoevidencelinkingtheMarinetothetheIt.
AIterscouringtheMarineswallet,photoalbums,personalIilesandprivateletters,
however,theagentshauledtheMarineintotheiroIIiceandinterrogatedhimabouthissexual
orientation.TheMarinestatesthattheagentsrequestedhispermissiontoreturntohisapartment
becausetheyclaimedthat,whilesearchingIorthecomputer,theysawpersonalitemsthey
wantedtoconIiscate.
145
TheMarinereportsthataCIDagent,whilepickinghisteethwithaK-Bartypemilitary
kniIe,said,|i|tsnotreallymyiobtogetintopeoplesliIestyles,whydontyougoaheadand
iusttalktousaboutit.AItertheMarinedidnotrespond,theCIDagentsreportedlytoldhimthat
hiscommandhadbeennotiIiedthattheagentssawitemsinsidehishousesuggestinghemightbe
gay.
TheMarinebelievesthattheagentsmayhaveseensomepublicationsthatprovide
inIormationonHIV/AIDSresources,aswellasupdatesonHIVdiseasetreatmentandhealth
managementmatters.TheMarinescommandwasawarethatheisHIVpositiveandheIearsthat
thecommandusedtheCIDcomputerinvestigationasarusetodiscoverwhetherheisgay.IIthis
istrue,theCIDagentsactionsviolatedDontPursuebecausespeculationabouttheMarines
However, in the event that a commander suspects that a service member has
made a statement Ior the purpose oI seeking separation Irom Naval service in
order to avoid a service obligation or upcoming deployment and who believes
that the member is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a
propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts and who
desirestoinitiateaninvestigationintothetruthoIthestatement,thecommander
must obtain authorization Irom |Assistant Secretary oI the Navy (Manpower
and Reserve AIIairs)| via the chain oI command beIore initiating a substantial
investigation.
Ia.
145
ItappearsthattheagentsweresearchingIorsomethingotherthanthemissingcomputerbecausetheydidnot
seeminterestedintheMarinespersonalcomputeranddidnotinspectthecomputersserialnumber.
LCR 04438
67
sexualorientationisnotavalidbasistoinvestigatehisprivateliIeunderthepolicy.
146
Additionally,DontPursueprohibitsinquiriesintoaservicememberssexualorientationbased
onpublicationsthatmaybeconsideredgayrelated.
147
RegardlessoIthemotive,theagents
violatedDADTDPDHbecausemilitarycriminalinvestigativeorganizationsareprohibitedIrom
conductinginvestigationstodeterminethesexualorientationoIaservicemember.
148
SLDNcontactedtheMarinescommandtostoptheillegalpursuitandtheinquiryended.
TheMarinescareerwaspreservedwithhisretirementandhealthbeneIitsintact.
CommanaHaltsImproperPursuitofMarineJisitingGavFrienalvBusiness
AMarinescommandimproperlyinvestigatedhimaIteranotherservicememberreported
hehadbeeninalocalgay-Iriendlyrestaurant.ThisconstitutesaDontPursueviolation
becausethepolicydoesnotprohibitMarinesIromgoingtogay-Iriendlybusinesses.
149
AsintheMarinescasediscussedabove,itappearsthatacriminalinvestigativeunitwas
improperlyinvolvedinthiscase.AccordingtotheMarine,aIewdayslater,amaleincivilian
attireapproachedtheMarineattherestaurantandaskedhimwhethertherestaurantisgayor
gay-owned.ThreeoItheMarinesIriendswhowerepresentatthetimereportedlyidentiIiedthe
questionerasaNCISagent.Onceagain,theclienteleorownershipoIabusinessisnotcredible
evidenceoIaservicememberssexualorientationandisnotanappropriatematteroI
investigationIormilitarycriminalorganizations.
SLDNcontactedtheMarinescommander,andinIormedhimthatrumorsorsuspicion
thataMarineisgayisnotproperinIormationuponwhichtobaseaninvestigation
150
andthatit
appearedthattheMarinesFirstSergeantinvestigatedtheMarinewithouttherequiredcommand
authorization(Exhibit53).
151
Thecommanderproperlyrespondedthatitwouldlookintothe
matter.
Intheend,theMarinerequestedanadministrativeseparationIromtheMarineCorpsdue
totheongoingharassmentheIacedIromotherMarinesaItertheotherservicemembersreport.
TheMarinereceivedanhonorabledischarge.
146
See DODD1332.14, supranote22,atE3.A4.1.3.3,E3.A4.1.3.3.2,E3.A4.1.3.3.3.CredibleinIormationdoesnot
existwhentheonlyinIormationistheopinionsoIothersthatamemberishomosexual|or|whentheinquirywould
bebasedonrumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaimsconcerningamemberssexualorientation. Ia.
147
Seeia. atE3.A4.1.3.3,E3.A4.1.3.3.4.
148
See DODI5505.8,supranote101,at2.NoDeIensecriminalinvestigativeorganizationorotherDoDlaw
enIorcementorganizationwillconductaninvestigationsolelytodetermineaservicememberssexualorientation.
NewsRelease,OIIiceoItheAssistantSecretaryoIDeIense(PublicAIIairs),SecretaryAspinReleasesNew
RegulationsonHomosexualConductintheArmedForces(Dec.22,1993).
149
See DODD1332.14, supranote22,atE3.A4.1.3.3,E3.A4.1.3.3.4.CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhen
theonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagaybar.,|or|associatingwithknown
homosexuals. Ia.
150
Seeia. atE3.A4.1.3.3,E3.A4.1.3.3.2,E3.A4.1.3.3.3.CredibleinIormationdoesnotexistwhentheinIormation
istheopinionsoIothersthatamemberisahomosexual|or|wheretheinquirywouldbebasedonrumor,suspicion,
orcapriciousclaimsconcerningamemberssexualorientation. Ia.
151
See ia. atE3.A4.1.1.1.OnlythememberscommanderisauthorizedtoinitiateIact-Iindinginquiriesinvolving
homosexualconduct. Ia.
LCR 04439
68
CommanaingOfficerAsksMarinestoProveItanaExpanasScopeofInquirv
AHendersonHallcommandingoIIicer,MaiorJeIIreyB.Barber,improperlypursuedtwo
LanceCorporalsthisyearbyaskingthempotentiallyharmIulquestionsinanattempttogetthem
toprovetheyaregay,lesbianorbisexual.
MaiorBarberimproperlypursuedtwenty-oneyearoldLanceCorporalNikeya
Cunningham,aItershecameoutinAugust2000Iorintegrityreasons(Exhibit54).MaiorBarber
initiatedasubstantialinquiryagainstherwithoutIirstreceivingservicesecretaryauthorization.
AccordingtotheQuanticoMarineCorpsbasestaIIiudgeadvocate,MaiorBarberasked
Cunninghamquestionsabout:
Purchasingsamesexpornography:
Visitingestablishmentscateringtohomosexuals:and
Joininggayorlesbianorganizations(Exhibit55).
LanceCorporalCunninghamIurtherreportsBarberaskedherwhethershehadsexwithwomen.
Dont PursuelimitsinquiriestotheIactualcircumstancesdirectlyrelevanttothe
speciIicallegation.
152
EveniIMaiorBarberhadtheproperauthorizationtoconducta
substantialinquiry,heshouldnothaveaskedthesequestionsbecauseCunninghamssexliIeand
associationalactivitieswerenotrelevanttoCunninghamsstatement.
ItappearsthatMaiorBarberdecidedthatsinceLanceCorporalCunninghamIailedto
provesheisgaybynotansweringpotentiallyharmIulquestions,herstatementmustnotbe
credible.Consequently,MaiorBarberattemptedtoretainCunningham.HewrotetoSLDNthat
heisunabletoprovideanyassurance,however,thatshewouldnotbedischargedintheIuture
Iorbeingalesbian(Exhibit56).SLDNhasIiledanInspectorGeneralcomplaintregardingthe
policyviolationsinthiscase.LanceCorporalCunninghamcontinuestoserve.
InanotherHendersonHallcasethisyear,aMarinewhocameouttoMaiorBarber
reportedthatthemaioralsoaskedhimquestionsthatviolatedDontPursue.MaiorBarber
allegedlyaskedtheMarine:
Howmanymenhaveyouhadsexwith:
Whydoyouthinkyouaregay:
Whatexactlyhaveyoudonewithothermen:
WhywerentyoumorespeciIicinyourstatement:
WasitanotherMarine:and
Whatdidyoudo?
152
ElectronicMessageIromCommandantoItheMarineCorpstoALMAR,U.S.MarineCorpsImplementationof
DoDHomosexualConauct/AaministrativeSeparationPolicvforOfficers4(C)(1)(c)(Feb.28,1994)(CMC
WASHINGTONDC281600ZFEB94(ALMAR64/94)(directingchangestoMARCORSEPMAN).
LCR 04440
69
InadditiontoimpermissiblyexpandingthescopeoItheinquiry,MaiorBarbers
questionsalsopotentiallyplacedtheMarineinseriouslegalieopardyduetotheUniIormCode
oIMilitaryJusticeimplicationsIorsame-gendersexualrelationships.Thesequestionsalso
violateDontPursuebecauseMaiorBarberwaspursuingtheidentityoIotherMarinesinwhat
appearstobeanattemptedwitchhunt.
NewRiverPersonnelJiolateDontPursuebvExpanaingInvestigation
AyoungPrivateFirstClassatNewRiverMarineCorpsAirStation,NorthCarolina,
reportsthatnumerousMarinesviolatedDontPursuebyaskingherimproperquestionsaIter
shecameouttohercommand.Shewrote,IamnotabletobethepersonIreallyam.IIeel
thatIambeingdishonestnotonlywithmyselIbutwitheveryoneIworkwith(Exhibit57).
AccordingtothePrivateFirstClass,hernon-commissionedoIIicersimproperlyasked
her,|w|hendidyoubecomebisexual?AMarineCorpscivilianpsychiatristhercommand
orderedhertoseealsoreportedlyaskedher:|a|reyouinarelationship:|w|hendidyou
becomebisexual:and|i|ssomeoneyouareattractedtomakingyoumakethisdecision?The
psychiatristsquestionsviolatedDontPursuebecausetheywerenotrelevanttotheMarines
comingoutstatement.
Thecommand-appointedinquiryoIIiceralsoaskedherimproperquestionsincluding:
Haveyoubeensexuallysolicitedorattackedinbootcamp:
Haveyoubeensexuallysolicitedorattackedbyanymarine:
Whendidyoubecomebisexual:
WasitbeIoreoraIterioiningtheMarineCorps:
IIyouwerebisexualbeIoreioining,whydidyouiointhe
CorpsknowinghowtheMarineCorpsIeelsaboutthiskindoI
thing:
Areyouinarelationshipnow:
WhenwasthelasttimeyouhadanencounterwithaIemale:
Whendidyouloseyourvirginity:and
Areyoubisexualorlesbian.
ThisisyetanotherexampleoItheMarineCorpsembarkinguponanimpermissible
inquiry.TheinquiryoIIicersquestionsareinappropriate.WhetherthePrivateFirstClasswas
solicitedorattackedbyothersisirrelevanttoherstatement,andindicatesthattheinquiryoIIicer
isnotIamiliarwithissuesrelatedtosexualorientation.Thequestionsarealsodemeaninginthat
theywrongIullysuggestthatagay,lesbianorbisexualMarinewouldonlymakeastatementiI
theyhadbeensexuallysolicitedorattacked.
Questionsrelatedtowhensheknewsheisbisexualarealsoirrelevant.Gay,lesbianand
bisexualMarinesareallowedtoserveinthemilitary
153
andquestionsrelatedtothetimingoIa
personssexualawarenessareinappropriate.Additionally,theinquiryoIIicersquestions
153
SeeMARADMIN014/00,supranote39.
LCR 04441
70
regardingthePrivateFirstClasssexualhistoryareinvasionsoIherpersonalprivacy,innoway
wererelevanttoherstatementandpotentiallyplacedherinlegalieopardy.Finally,asking
whethertheMarineislesbianorbisexualhasnoimpactonthepolicysimplementationandis
thereIore,irrelevanttotheinquiry.ThePrivateFirstClasscommandisstillconductingan
inquiryinhercase.
CommanaingOfficerWitchHuntsMarineCorpsWoman
AheterosexualMarinereportstoSLDNthatshewasinvestigatedIorbeingalesbian
aIteranoldroommateemailedtheMarinescommandandIalselystatedthattheMarineisina
sexualrelationshipwithaIemaleservicemember.TheMarinescommandingoIIicerreportedly
saidthattheMarinewasnotunderinvestigation.ThecommandingoIIicer,however,beganto
asktheMarineimproperquestionsabouttheMarinescloseIriend,theIemaleservicemember
namedintheemail.
AccordingtotheMarine,thecommandingoIIiceraskedheriItheIemaleservicemember
isgayandstatedthattheIemaleservicememberlookslikesheisbecauseshelooksso
masculine.ThecommandingoIIicerreportedlytoldtheMarinethatshewasntgoingtoaskher
iIshewasgaybecausesomeonespokeupinyourdeIenseandsaidyouarenotgay,butthe
commandingoIIicerknewthattheIemaleservicememberisgay.ThecommandingoIIicers
questionsandcommentsconstituteawitchhuntandaviolationoIDontPursuebecausethe
commandingoIIiceristryingtodetermineaservicememberssexualorientationbasedupon
mererumorsandsuspicion.
ThecommandingoIIicerreportedlytoldtheMarine,youshouldconsideryour
associationwithpeoplewhoaregaybecauseitmakesothersperceivethatyouaretooand
perceptioncountsonehundredpercent.ThecommandingoIIicerthenreportedlysaid,
|h|angingoutwithgaypeopleislikehangingoutwithdrugdealersandyoushouldntbedoing
thisbecauseitharmsyourreputation.ThecommandingoIIicerslaststatementisrepugnantin
thatitcomparesgay,lesbianandbisexualpeopletodrugdealers.Herstatementsarealso
contrarytoDADTDPDHwhichallowsMarinestoassociatewithgaypeoplewithouttheIearoI
beingpursued.TheMarinecontinuestoserve,butisIearIuloIanunwarrantedinvestigationinto
herprivateliIe.
LCR 04442
71
MarineCorpsDontPursueSummary
MarineCorpspersonnelappeartobeimplementingDontPursuebetterinthelastyear.
TheMarineCorps,however,mustbettertrainitsoIIicersandnon-commissionedoIIicersabout
thelimitstoDontPursueincludingseekingsecretariatapprovaltoinitiatesubstantial
investigationsandlimitingthescopeoIinquiries.Additionally,theMarineCorpsmustwork
withitscriminalinvestigativeunitstoensurethattheyarenotinvestigatingMarinessexual
orientationthroughimpropercriminalinvestigations,includingmonitoringgay-Iriendly
businesses.
NoCoastGuardDontPursueViolations
TherewerenoreportsoIDontPursueviolationsintheCoastGuardinthepastyear.
WhiletheCoastGuardsregulationscloselyIollowtheIour DoDservices,theCoastGuardhas
not,toSLDNsknowledge,updatedthemwithanyguidancerelatedtoproperimplementationoI
thepolicyinthelasttwoyears.AlthoughtheCoastGuardisnotunderthedirectionoI DoD,but
theDepartmentoITransportation,itimplementstheDoDsrulesanddirectivesrelatedto
DADTDPDH.TheCoastGuardshouldissuenewguidancetostrengthenitsmembers
understandingoIDontPursue.
DontPursueConclusion
Overall,DontPursueviolationsdroppedinthelastyear,theIirstdeclinesincethe
policywasimplementedin1993.Thischange,however,ismainlyduetoadisproportionate
dropinNavyviolationsbecauseitisnotimplementingDontPursueasintended. Inorderto
trulyestablishadownwardtrendinviolations,allservicesmustimprovetheirpolicy
implementation. ThiscanbeachievediI:(1)theAirForcestopsIishingexpeditionsand
unauthorizedsubstantialinvestigations,especiallyin recoupmentcases:(2)theArmyhalts
Iishingexpeditionsandunauthorizedsubstantialinvestigations:(3)theNavystopsaskingservice
memberstoproveitandIollowstheintentoIthepolicy:and(4)theMarineCorpsendsIishing
expeditions,andCIDinvolvementininvestigations.
IIthePentagonisunabletostoppersonnelIromimproperlypursuingperceivedgay,
lesbianandbisexualservicemembers,theseservicememberswillnotbeabletoperIormtheir
iobstothebestoItheirabilitiesandcommandswillloseprecioustimeandresourcespursuing
thosewho,inmanycases,onlywanttoserve.Consequently,DontPursueviolationsonly
servetoharmunitcohesion,moraleandreadiness.
LCR 04443
72
DONT HARASS
Treatment of all individuals with dignity and respect is essential
to good order and discipline. Mistreatment, harassment, and
inappropriate comments or gestures undermine this principle
and have no place in our armed forces. Commanders and
leaders must develop and maintain a climate that fosters
unit cohesion, esprit de corps, and mutual respect for all
members of the command or organization
--DepartmentoIDeIenseWorkingGrouponHarassment
154
I got beat up last night. Someone came to my bed a group of
someones and they were hitting me with blankets and soap.
I am aching all over my body. My whole body hurts I cant
believe this happened. Who did I hurt?
--PrivateFirstClassRonaldChapman
155
SLDNdocumented871reportsoIanti-gayharassmentduringthisreportingperiod,
February16,2000toFebruary15,2001.Thisrepresentsa10declineIromthe968harassment
incidentsdocumentedduring1999.Thismodestdecreaseisdueprimarilytoanti-harassment
eIIortsintheArmy.DontHarassArmyviolationsdecreased24,droppingIrom276to209.
TheNavy,bycontrast,remainedtheworstviolatoroIDontHarasswithaslightincrease,332
thisyearcomparedwithlastyearsserviceleading330.TheAirForceviolationsremainedhigh
at214,comparedto217in1999.MarineCorpsDontHarassviolationsdropped32,Irom
134toninety-two.TheCoastGuardsawasharp45increase,twenty-Iourthisyearcompared
toelevenin1999.
ThePentagonhasIallenshortoIitspromisestocurbanti-gayharassment.ThePentagon
promisedaDepartmentoIDeIenseDirectiveandInstructionthatwouldordereachoIthe
servicestoimplementbetterregulationsandtrainingonanti-gayharassment.ThePentagonhas
beensittingonthenewguidanceIorsixmonths,anirresponsibleactgiventhepervasiveclimate
oIanti-gayharassmentdocumentedbythePentagonitselI.
ThePentagontellsyoungAmericansvolunteeringIorservicetoournation,aspartoI
theirpre-enlistmentinductionprocedures,thatharassmentiswrong.SpeciIically,recruitsmust
signpaperworkstatingtheyhavereceivedtheDepartmentoIDeIense(DoD)harassment
brieIing.ThisbrieIingstates,inpart,|t|heArmedForcesdonottolerateharassmentorviolence
againstanyservicememberIoranyreason.
156
154
DepartmentoIDeIenseWorkingGroup,Anti-HarassmentActionPlan(July21,2000).
155
LetterIromPrivateFirstClassChapmantohisIamily(Sept.2000).ChapmansexperienceisdiscussedIully
laterintheDontHarasssection.
156
DEPTOFDEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO.1304.26,QualificationStanaarasforEnlistment.Appointment.anaInauction.
ApplicantBriefingItemonSeparationPolicvaddendum (1993).
LCR 04444
73
OnceouryoungmenandwomencompletetheiroathoIenlistment,however,they
IrequentlyIindarealitythattoleratesandoItenencouragesharassmentoIthoseperceivedas
gay,lesbianorbisexual.Whatsworse,theseyoungAmericansIindmanyuniIormedleaders
who,notonlycontinuetoignoretheDontHarassprovisions,butsometimesdirectly
participateintheprohibitedbehavior.
PentagonFinallyAcknowledgesAnti-GayHarassmentProblem
TheDepartmentoIDeIensehasIinallytakenstrongstepsthispastyeartoaddressthe
long-standingproblemoIanti-gayharassment.ReactingtotheJuly1999anti-gaymurderoI
ArmyPrivateFirstClassBarryWinchell,
157
andtopastSLDNdocumentationoItheharassing
climatepermeatingeachservice,thenSecretaryoIDeIenseWilliamCohenorderedthePentagon
InspectorGeneraltoconductaworld-widestudyonharassmentwithintheranks.
InspectorGeneralFinasPervasiveAnti-GavHarassment
ThePentagonInspectorGeneral(IG)releasedareport,inMarch2000,whichIorthe
IirsttimeadmittedthatharassmentoImembersperceivedasgaywaswidespread.TheIG
reportIound80oIservicemembersreporthearinganti-gaycomments.ThesurveyalsoIound
that37oI75,000servicememberssurveyedsaidtheyhadwitnessedorexperiencedtargeted
incidentsoIsuchharassment,9oIwhomreportedwitnessingthreats,and5oIwhom
reportedwitnessingphysicalassaults
158
(Exhibit58).TheIGdocumentedthateighty-Iive
percentsaidtheircommandtoleratesanti-gayharassment,and57reportedreceivingno
trainingonDontAsk,DontTell,DontPursue,DontHarass(DADTDPDH).
TheIGreportmarkedtheIirsttimeeverthatthePentagonhasacknowledgedthe
pervasivenessoIanti-gayharassmentandsaiditisaproblem.ThenSecretaryoIDeIense
WilliamCohenstatedthatanti-gayharassmentunderminesmilitaryreadiness.
159
Admittingtoa
problemistheIirststepinIixingit.
UponreceiptoItheIGsIindings,SecretaryCohencommissionedaDoDWorking
Group
160
tostudytheIGsIindingsandIormulateananti-harassmentactionplan
161
thatbuilton
theanti-gayharassmentprogramsimplementedbysomeservicesinJanuaryandFebruary2000.
157
PrivateFirstClassBarryWinchellwasbludgeonedtodeathwithabaseballbatbyanothersoldierinanArmy
barracksonFortCampbell,Kentucky,onJuly5,1999.InDecember1999,theArmyconvictedPrivateCalvin
GloveroIpremeditatedmurderandsentencedhimtoliIeinprisonwiththepossibilityoIparole.Armyprosecutors
arguedthatGloversprimarymotivewasapredisposedhatredoIgays.Onemonthlater,inJanuary2000,theArmy
convictedSpecialistJustinFisherIorobstructingthecriminalinvestigationintothemurder,lyingtoinvestigators,
andprovidingalcoholtoaminor.Forreasonsthatremainunclear,MaiorGeneralRobertT.Clark,whowasthe
CommandingGeneraloIthe101
st
AirborneDivision(AirAssault)atFortCampbellatthetime,acceptedalenient
pleabargainwithFisher,overtheobiectionsoIWinchellsIamily.Thepleaagreementdroppedtheoriginalcharges
oIprincipaltopremeditatedmurderandaccessoryaItertheIact.
158
See DoDInspectorGeneral2000 Report , supranote19,at4.
159
See generallvNewsRelease,DepartmentoIDeIense,SecretaryCohenApprovesServicesHomosexualConduct
PolicyPlans(Feb.1,2000).
160
TheWorkingGroupconsistedoIseniorcivilianandmilitaryleaders,andwaschairedbythenUnderSecretaryoI
theAirForceCarol DiBattiste.
LCR 04445
74
WorkingGroupIssuesAnti-HarassmentActionPlan
TheDeIenseDepartmentapprovedtheWorkingGroupsAnti-HarassmentActionPlan
onJuly21,2000.
162
TheWorkingGroupsplancontainsthirteenpoints,adoptingsevenoI
SLDNslong-standingrecommendationsIorcurbinganti-gayharassment(Exhibit60).These
include:strongcondemnationoImistreatment,harassment,andinappropriatecommentsor
gestures:accountabilityIorthosewhoharassorcondoneharassment:trainingIoreveryservice
member,speciIicallytailoredtotheirgradeandleveloIresponsibility:andinIormingservice
membersaboutconIidentialandnon-conIidentialchannelstoreportharassment.TheAnti-
HarassmentActionPlanagainmadeclearandunambiguousthatharassmentunderminesunit
cohesion.
EachoItheservices havemadesomeeIIortstowardimplementingtheirownanti-
harassmenttrainingprograms.
163
EachoIthem,however,continuestoawaitthegreenlightIrom
thePentagonintheIormoIaDirectiveandInstructiontoupdatetheirtrainingregulationsina
mannerconsistentwiththeAnti-HarassmentActionPlan.
164
TheIactthatthePentagonhasbeensittingonitshandsIorthepastsixmonthsandIailing
toissuetheanti-harassmentDirectiveandInstructionisreckless.PrivateFirstClassWinchellis
deadbecauseoImilitaryleadersindiIIerence.ReportsoIovertanti-gayanimuswithintheranks
remainalarminglyhigh.ItshouldnottakethemurderoIanotheryounggay,lesbianorbisexual
servicemembertoconvinceseniorPentagonleaderstodotheiriob.
161
SLDNcommunicatedwiththeWorkingGroupandoIIeredspeciIicrecommendationsonhowtoaccomplishits
goals. SeeLetterIromServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetworktoDepartmentoIDeIenseHomosexualConduct
PolicyWorkingGroup(May8,2000)(Exhibit59).
162
SeeMemorandumIromUnderSecretaryoIDeIenseBernardRostkertoSecretaryoItheArmy,SecretaryoIthe
Navy,SecretaryoItheAirForce,ChieIoIStaIIoItheArmy,ChieIoINavalOperations,ChieIoIStaIIoItheAir
Force,andCommandantoItheMarineCorps,ApprovalanaImplementationoftheActionPlanSubmitteain
ResponsetotheDoDInspectorGeneralsReportontheMilitarvEnvironmentWithRespecttotheHomosexual
ConauctPolicv(July21,2000).
163
See.e.g..ALARACT008/00,supranote34:MemorandumIromGenMichaelE.Ryan,ChieIoIStaII,&F.
WhittenPeters,SecretaryoItheAirForce,toAllAirForcePersonnel,AirForcePolicvonHarassment(Jan.10,
2000)|hereinaIterAF PolicvonHarassmentMemo|.SLDNhasprovidedeachServicewithdetailed
recommendationsonhowbesttoimplementtheAnti-HarassmentActionPlanwithintheirrespectivespheres.
(Exhibit61). SeeMemorandumIromMichelleBenecke,C.DixonOsburn&StaceySobeltoHonorableCarolA.
DiBattiste,UndersecretaryoItheAirForce,ImplementationofDoDWorkingGroupActionPlanonAnti-Gav
Harassment(Oct.27,2000):MemorandaIromC.DixonOsburn&MichelleBenecketoCDRBillCorrellus,
ImplementationofDoDWorkingGroupActionPlanonAnti-GavHarassment(Oct.27,2000)(providing
recommendationsIortheUnitedStatesNavyandtheUnitedStatesMarineCorps):MemorandumIromC.Dixon
Osburn&MichelleBenecketoTheHonorableP.T.Henry,GENJohnAbrams&LTGTimothyMaude,
ImplementationofDoDWorkingGroupActionPlanonAnti-GavHarassment(Oct.18,2000)(providing
recommendationsIortheUnitedStatesArmy).
164
TheAirForceistheexception.ThenSecretaryoItheAirForceF.WhittenPeters,andChieIoIStaIIGeneral
MichaelE.Ryan,orderedtheImplementationoIAnti-HarassmentActionPlanonOctober2,2000.Then
SecretaryPeterswrote,|w|ewholeheartedlyendorseandsupportthisactionplanandhavebegundeveloping
speciIicimplementinginstructions,revisingtrainingmaterials,andestablishingmeasuresoIeIIectivenessand
adherencetopolicy.AFImplementationofAnti-HarassmentActionPlanMemo, supranote35.
LCR 04446
75
Armyleadershave,thusIar,providedthebestexampleoItakinghighvisibilityrolesin
trainingsoldiersnottomistreateachotherbaseduponperceiveddiIIerencesinsexual
orientation.Theotherservicesanti-harassmenttrainingprogramsarelaggingbehindthatoIthe
Army,buttheyappeartobetakingsomemeasurablestepsintherightdirection.
Thissectionanalyzesthispastyearsanti-gayharassmentpoliciesandtrendsthegood
andthebadbyservice.TheDont Harasssectionalsoincludesanupdateontheclimate
developmentsatFortCampbell,Kentucky,inthewakeoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder.
ArmyDontHarassViolationsDropasLeadersBeginTrainingtheTroops
Whenever we violate the trust of any soldier, we violate the trust of all soldiers
--SecretaryoItheArmyandtheArmyChieIoIStaII
165
SLDNdocumented209incidentsoIanti-gayharassmentintheArmyduringtheyear
2000.Thisrepresentsa24declineinDont HarassviolationsIromtheprioryearsreportoI
276.
TheArmyprovidesthebestillustrationoItryingtodowhatsrightinitsanti-gay
harassmentpreventioneIIorts.SincethedeathoIoneoItheirown,PrivateFirstClassWinchell,
topArmyoIIicialshavegenerallyprovidedstrongleadershipintheIormoIpolicyedictsand
trainingmandates.TheArmyappearstobeleadingthewayamongtheservicesinimplementing
trainingprogramsandholdingthoseIoundresponsibleIoranti-gaymisconductaccountable.
TheArmystrengtheneditsDontHarasspolicyinJanuary2000(Exhibit62).The
directive,entitledDignityandRespectIorAll,
166
statesinpart,|h|arassmentoIsoldiersIor
anyreason,toincludeperceivedsexualorientation,willnotbetolerated.
WhiletheIullimpactoItheArmysheightenedemphasisontreatingperceivedgay
soldiersinadigniIiedandrespectIulmannerremainstobeseen,thereareindicationsoI
progress.ThissectionbeginswithadiscussionoIpositiveindicatorsoIArmyprogress,as
illustratedironicallybyFortCampbell.ThesectionthenIocusesonongoingArmyproblem
areasinDontHarassimplementation.
165
ALARACT008/00,supranote34.
166
Seeia.(Exhibit62).
LCR 04447
76
ReportsofArmyLeadersDoingWhatsRightontheRise
New101
st
AirborneDivisionsCommanaingGeneralDresses-DownAnti-GavCaptain
TheFortCampbell,Kentucky,commandinggeneralintervenedinthecaseoIagay
soldierbeingharassedbyhischain-oI-command.MatthewLaxton,atwenty-one-year-oldIrom
Missouri,hadservedasaninIantrymanIoralmostthreeyearsandhadalreadybeenpromotedto
therankoISergeant.UponarrivingatFortCampbell,inAugust2000,Iromanassignmentin
SouthKorea,SergeantLaxtonreportsbeingstunnedbytheintensityoIanti-gayIervorwithinhis
unit,DeltaCompany,1-327InIantryBattalion.
Sergeant LaxtonbecameconcernedIorhissaIetyaIterbecomingthetargetoIharassing
commentsandphysicalthreatsbyothersoldiers.HewasIurtherdisturbedbysoldiersinDelta
companyridiculingthemurderoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellatFortCampbelltheprevious
summer.SergeantLaxtonreportsunitleadersoIIicersandnoncommissionedoIIicersdidnot
seemtomindtheanti-gaycomments,someleadersevenparticipatedinthem.Ultimately,
Laxtonreluctantlyconcludedthattheonlywaytoprotect himselIIromtheharassmentwasto
sacriIicehisArmycareerbycomingouttohiscommandingoIIicer.
Sergeant LaxtonconIidedinhisplatoonsergeantthatheisgayandsoughtcounselasto
whatstepsheshouldtaketoensurehissaIety. Laxton,withhisplatoonsergeantssupport,
disclosedhissexualorientationtohiscompanycommander,CaptainEdwardBrady.AIter
explainingtoBradytheanti-gay hostilitywhichcompelledhiscoming-out,SergeantLaxtonwas
shockedwhentheCaptainorderedhimtoproveheisgay.
167
Additionally,Bradyexpressed
nointerestininvestigatingorhaltingtheanti-gayharassmentSergeant Laxtonreported.
AtSergeantLaxtonsrequest,SLDNintervenedandpersuadedthecommandtoprotect
LaxtonIromIurtherharassment.SoonthereaIter,however, Laxtonsplatoonsergeantoverheard
Brady,inthepresenceoIthebattalioncommander,LieutenantColonelGibbs,derisivelycall
Laxtonapolesmoker.Surprisingly,LieutenantColonelGibbssimplyignoredtheCaptains
unproIessionalbehavior.Theplatoonsergeant,recognizingtheimproprietyoICaptainBradys
bigotedremarkandwantingtotakecareoIhissoldierwhichisanoncommissionedoIIicers
primaryresponsibility
168
reportedBradysmisconduct.
IntheeventsthatIollowed,CaptainBradyretaliatedagainsttheplatoonsergeantby
threateningtolowerthesergeantsoIIicialperIormancereport.SergeantLaxton,outoIloyalty
tohisplatoonsergeant,IiledanIGcomplaint,reportingtheabusiveCaptain(Exhibit63).
167
AsdiscussedintheDontPursuesection,theDADTDPDHpolicycontainsnoproveitrequirement.Gay,
lesbianandbisexualsoldierswhoarecompelledbyconscienceorharassmenttocomeouttotheArmyshouldnotbe
subiectedtotheindignityoIprovingtheyaregay.Indeed,orderinggaystoproveitislittlemorethanamutant
variationoIprohibitedanti-gayharassment.
168
SeeUnitedStatesArmyNoncommissionedOIIicersAcademy,TheCreeaoftheNoncommissioneaOfficer.
availableathttp://www knox.army.mil/school/ncoa/creed.htm(lastupdatedNov.6,2000).
LCR 04448
77
Ultimately,SLDNcontactedthenewFortCampbellcommandinggeneral,MaiorGeneral
RichardA.Cody,
169
askingIortheplatoonsergeantsandSergeant Laxtonsprotection.Maior
GeneralCodypromptlylookedintothematterandtookswiItstepstoaddresstheproblem.
MaiorGeneralCodyassuredSLDNthattheplatoonsergeantscareerwouldnotbeharmed.
Whatsmore,MaiorGeneralCodyreportedlyissuedapersonalreprimandtoCaptainBrady,
holdinghimaccountableIorhisleadershipIailure.TheArmy,unIortunately,lostthetalentsand
experienceoISergeantLaxton.
CaptainBradysanti-gaybigotry,andLieutenantColonel GibbsindiIIerencetowardsit,
amountedtoharassment.MaiorGeneralCody,however,setagoodleadershipexampleby
holdingtheCaptainaccountable,therebysendingamessagetootherFortCampbellleadersthat
thereareconsequencestoparticipatinginandallowinganti-gayharassment.
InthewakeoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder,theDepartmentoItheArmyIG
conductedaninvestigationoIharassmentatFortCampbell.TheIGIoundsigniIicantlevelsoI
anti-gayharassmentinitsJuly2000report.
170
Inadditiontotheanti-gayharassmentIacedby
PrivateFirstClassWinchellpriortohismurder,theArmyconIirmedthatanti-gayiokingand
banteringoccurredamongstsoldiersonaregularbasis.TheIGIurtherveriIiedthatanti-gay
cadencesoccurredduringphysicaltrainingrunsandanti-gaygraIIitiappearedinpubliconthe
installation(Exhibit64).PrivateFirstClassWinchellsparentshaveIiledawrongIul-death
claimagainsttheArmyundertheMilitaryClaimsActIorthemurderoItheirson.TheArmy
Secretaryhasyettoactontheclaim.
TheexperienceoISergeantLaxtonindicatesthatanti-gayharassmentremainsaproblem
atFortCampbell.MaiorGeneralCodysresponsetotheharassment,however,indicatesthat
conditionsatFortCampbellarechangingIorthebetter.
OtherGooaExamplesofArmvLeaaersEffortstoDoWhatsRight
AcompanycommanderatFortBenning,Georgia,relatedtoSLDNhowheistryingtoteach
hissoldiersnottohategays.TheCaptainstateshebelieveshehassomegaysoldierswithin
hisunitandstatestheyareimportantmembersoIhisteam.
AcompanycommanderatFortBragg,NorthCarolina,toldSLDNhedoesnottolerateanti-
gayharassment,andistraininghissoldierstorespecteachothersprivacy.ThisCaptainalso
stateshehasgayswithinhiscommand whomherespects.
AcompanycommanderatFortRucker,Alabama,stateshebelievestheDADTDPDHpolicy
createsdivisionswithinhisunitandcausesneedlessleadershipchallenges.ThisCaptainis
169
MaiorGeneralCodyreplacedMaiorGeneralRobertT.Clark,whocommandedthe101
st
AirborneDivision
duringthetimeoIPrivateFirstClassWinchellsmurder.UnderClark,SLDNdocumentedapervasiveanti-gay
climateacrossFortCampbell.SinceClarksdeparture,SLDNreceivesIewerreportsoIegregiousDontHarass
violationsIromtheinstallation.Clark,whowasnotpromotedtoLieutenantGeneraluponhisdepartureIromFort
Campbell,ispresentlyassignedasDeputyCommandingGeneralIorthe5
th
U.S.Army,atFortSamHouston,Texas.
170
See generallvInspectorGeneral,departmentoItheArmy,FortCampbelltaskForce, DAIGSpecialAssessment/
InvestigationofJiolationsoftheDODHomosexualConauctPolicvatFortCampbell(2000).
LCR 04449
78
workinghardtotrainhissoldierstoworktogethercohesivelywithoutregardtoperceived
diIIerencesinsexualorientation.
AnArmylawyerinGermanyreportstoSLDNthatmanycommandingoIIicerstellhimthat
theydonotcarewhetherornotasoldierisgay,solongastheydoagoodiob.Thisattorney
relateshowcommandersoItenexpressIrustrationathavingtobalancetheinequities
presentedbytheDADTDPDHpolicy.HeIurtherreportsmanycommandersaretakinghigh
visibilityleadershiprolesinanattempttoendanti-gayharassment.
Regrettably,thisyearSLDNalsohasreportsoIegregiousDontHarassviolationsby
somesoldiersandtheirleaders.Inadditiontotheharassmentbychaplains,discussedinthe
Dont Tellsection,theseviolationsincludeananti-gaybeatingandthreatsoIviolence.
SomeArmyLeadersContinuetoTolerate,andSometimesParticipatein,Harassment
FortJackson.SouthCarolina.SolaierPhvsicallvAssaultea
RonaldChapmanwasphysicallyassaultedbyothersoldiersaIteradrillsergeantcalled
ChapmanaIaggot.PrivateFirstClassChapman,anineteen-year-oldIromMassachusetts,
reportedIorbasictrainingtoEchocompany,1-28InIantryRegiment,FortJacksonIulloIhope
anddreamsoIbetteringhimselIintheserviceoIourcountry.
171
SoonaIterarriving,Drill
Sergeant HagadushcalledChapmanaIaggot.SoonthereaIter,Chapmanreportsthe
harassmentbeganandincludedbeingthreatenedwithIllpoundyourIaceanddontgoto
sleeptonight.
Private FirstClassChapmanreportsbeingassaultedandbeatenbyotherEchocompany
soldiersinSeptember2000,soonaItertheIaggotincident.Chapmandescribedtheattackina
lettertohisparents,IhavesomebadnewsIoryou.Igotbeatuplastnight.Someonecameto
mybedagroupoI someonesandtheywerehittingmewithblanketsandsoap.Iamaching
allovermybody.Mywholebodyhurts.IcanttellanyonebecausetheyleItnomarks.Wholl
believeme?Icantbelievethisallhashappened.WhodidIhurt?(Exhibit65).
PrivateFirstClassChapmansmothercontactedSLDNaskingIorhelp.SLDN
intervenedandpressedthecommandtoconductaninvestigationintotheassault(Exhibit66).
FearingIorhissaIety,ChapmaninIormedhiscommandthatheisgayinordertoescapeIromthe
hostility.
AlthoughreportedincidentsoIphysicalassaultarerare,thiscaseillustrateswhatcan
happenwhenArmyleadersIailtolead.ThecriminalassaultoIPrivateFirstClassChapman
appearstohavedirectlystemmedIromDrillSergeantHagadushscallingChapmanaIaggot.
171
PrivateFirstClassChapmanreportsheenlistedintheArmybecausehewantedtoobtaineducationalbeneIits
throughtheGIBill,andgrowintoanadultwhileoIIeringhisservicetothemilitary.ChapmansreasonsIor
enlistingmirrorthoseoImanySLDNclients:patrioticyoungmenandwomenwhoviewtheopportunitiespresented
bymilitaryserviceasbeneIitingboththemselvesandournation. Theseyounggay,lesbianandbisexualAmericans
arenotonlywillingtomaketheextraordinarysacriIicesaskedoIallmembersoItheArmedForces,theyarewilling
tomaketheaddedsacriIiceaskedonlyoIthem:tolivetheirlivesinthelonelyisolationrequiredtopreventanyone
inthemilitaryIromlearningabouttheirorientation.
LCR 04450
79
Regrettably,ChapmanwasIorcedtotellbecausehisleadersandothersoldiersviolatedDont
Harass.Whenaleader,suchasthisEchocompanydrillsergeant,callsasubordinatea
Iaggot,unitreadinesssuIIersbecauseoItheharmcausedtothetargetedsoldier,aswellasthe
distrustcreatedamongstothersoldiersresultingIromtheleaderspoorexample.SLDNis
unawareoIanystepstakenbyFortJacksonleadersortheArmytohold Hagadushorthosewho
committedthecriminalassaultaccountable.
Fort Totten.NewYork.ReserveCommanaerHarassea
FirstLieutenantPaulSpraguebecameatargetIoranti-gayharassmentduetohis
presentinghisunitsDADTDPDHtraining.FirstLieutenantSpragueservedasthe354
th
TransportationBattalionHeadquartersDetachmentcommandingoIIicer.Atwenty-nine-year-
oldnativeoINewJersey,Spraguehadovertenyearscombinedactivedutyandreserveservice.
Selectedtocommandhisbattalionsheadquarterselement,Spraguereportsbeinganxiousashe
preparedtopresentthebattalionsDADTDPDHtraining.
WhilepreparingthebrieIing,FirstLieutenantSpraguereportsbeingapproachedbya
Captain,whostated,|s|inceImnota homo,IdontneedtoattendthisbrieIing.Sprague
explainedtotheoIIicertheArmyscommitmenttothetraining.TheoIIicerrespondedby
harassinglyaskingSprague,|a|reyoua homo?(Exhibit67).
FirstLieutenantSpraguereportshepresentedthemandatorytrainingandthenasked
whetherthesoldiershadquestionsaboutthepolicy.AIterSpragueIieldedsoldiersquestions
whichconsistedmostlyoIsoldiersexpressingdiIIicultyunderstandinghowgaysposean
unacceptablerisktounitcohesion
172
thebattalionSergeantMaiorrosebeIoretheunit.The
SergeantMaiorproceededtotellanoIIensiveanti-gayioke.
173
Spraguesayshewasstunned:
stunnedbytheanti-gayioke:stunnedthataseniorenlistedleaderwouldleadintheharassment:
andstunnedthattheleaderwouldtellananti-gayiokeinthewakeoItrainingthatanti-gay
iokeswerewrongandhurtArmyreadiness.
FirstLieutenantSpraguereportsreturningtohisoIIiceinastateoIshock.While
ponderingtheanti-gayanimushehadencounteredthatday,Spraguestatesasoldierapproached
himandvolunteeredthatthesoldierusedtoseekouthomosexualsintheVillage
174
andbeat
themup(Exhibit67).
ThisseriesoIeventsledFirstLieutenantSpraguetoreluctantlyconcludehecouldnot
continuesaIelyservingintheIaceoIsuchignoranceandhostility.Laterthatday,aIterbeing
awardedwithhisthirdArmyachievementmedal,Spraguetoldhisbattalioncommanderheis
gay.FirstLieutenantSpraguelaterwrote,|e|verymedalIhaveearnedisareIlectionoIme,and
IaccomplishedtheseawardwinningIeatsbecauseoIwhoIam,includingmysexualorientation
172
OneoItherationalesIorthepolicyisthatthepresenceoIopenlygaysoldierswouldcreateanunacceptable
risktounitcohesionandmoraleoIothersoldiers. See10U.S.C.654(a)(15).AccordingtoFirstLieutenant
Sprague,severalmembersoIhisunitdisagreedwiththisrationale,statingthattheydonotbelievegayswould
disruptcohesionormorale.
173
Theiokeinvolvedacucumber,broomstick,Ilashlight,andtwogaymen.
174
TheVillageisareIerencetoGreenwichVillageinNewYorkCitywheremanygays,lesbiansandbisexuals
live.
LCR 04451
80
theArmyapplaudsandrewardsmyeIIortsasasoldierbutdenouncesmysexualorientation
asahumanbeing.Spraguecontinued,|i|tisdiIIiculttobelievethatknowledgeoImysexual
orientationwouldsuddenlypresentanunacceptablerisktomyunitaIterhavingservedmy
countryIortenyears(Exhibit67).
FirstLieutenantSpragueisexactlythetypeoIleadertheArmyshouldwanttoretain.
Instead,becauseoIleadershipIailuresonthepartoISpraguessuperiors,theArmyislosinga
highqualityoIIicer.SpraguesbeinggayisnotharmIultocohesionorreadiness,asevidenced
byovertenyearsoIoutstandingserviceandnumerouscommendations.
ThecombatreadinessoIthe354
t h
TransportationBattalionis,however,probablyaIIected
bytheattitudesexpressedbytheCaptainandSergeantMaior.SuchattitudesIosterintolerance
amongsoldiers,therebycreatingdistrustwithintheunit.FirstLieutenantSpraguesleaders
IailedhimandtheArmysuIIeredasaresult.
OtherExamplesofHarassmentanaThreatsofJiolenceTowarasGavSolaiers
ASecondLieutenantwrotetohercommand,"|t|heArmysgenerallyhomophobic
environmentcanmakedailyinteractionswithmypeersextremelystressIul.IIeellikea
cowardeverytimeIstandbyinsilenceandlistentomypeersandsuperiorsmakeoII-color
commentsandiokesabouthomosexuals(Exhibit68).TheLieutenantIurtherreports
receivinganti-gayharassmentwhileacadet.TheharassmentconsistedoIsomemembersoI
hergraduatingclasspreparingaClassoI2000HomoFactorReport,reIerringtogaysas
homosandspermslurping(Exhibit69).
PrivateScottNickell,isaneighteen-year-oldsoldierassignedtothe175
th
Engineering
CompanyatFortBragg,NorthCarolina. NickellwrotetohiscommandingoIIicerstating,I
cannolongertoleratethemanygayiokesandcommentsIheareveryday.Thisincludes
wordslikeIag,queer,andhomothatareusedduringeverydayconversation.IIeel
restrainedandviolatedwhenIhearanti-gaycommentsbecauseIamunabletosayanything
indeIense.DoingsowouldiustcreatesuspicionandIurtherharassmentIromothersoldiers.
ItisalsodishearteningwhentheseiokesandcommentsaremadebyorinthepresenceoI
seniorenlistedpersonnelwhodonothingtostopit(Exhibit70).
Anineteen-year-oldPrivateassignedto,FortLeonardWood,Missouri,wrotetohis
commandstating,|asoldiersaid|iIweIindaIaggotintheplatoon,weregoingtogivehim
ablanketpartyhewontIorget...|e|versinceIarrivedatFortLeonardWoodIhaveheard
soldierscallothersoldiersqueer,cocksuckerandIaggot,andIwasscaredthatiIother
soldiersknewIwasbisexualthatIwouldgetablanketparty(Exhibit4).
AsoldierintheSouthdisclosedhissexualorientationtohiscommandaIterbecomingthe
targetoIescalatinganti-gayharassmentIromothersoldiers,includinghisunitFirst
Sergeant.Thesoldierwrote,|theFirstSergeant|toldme,inIrontoIother|soldiers|thathe
wouldshootandkillmeiIwewereeverinthesameIoxholetogetherduringawar.The
FirstSergeanthadpreviouslythreatenedviolenceagainstthesoldierbecausetheFirst
LCR 04452
81
Sergeantperceivedthesoldierasgay.Thesoldierwrote,|theFirstSergeant|threatenedto
shoveatubeoImechanicallubricantupmyanus...(Exhibit71).
LesbianBaitingRemainsanArmyProblem
WomencontinuetobedisproportionatelyimpactedbyDADTDPDHbecauseoIlesbian
baiting
175
andgenderbias.
176
BasedonthemostrecentavailablePentagonstatistics,women
comprised316oIthe1,034gaydischargesin1999,31oIthetotal1999discharges,although
womencompriseonly14oItheIorce.PastyearsratesoIIemaledischargeswithinDoDwere
similarlyhigh:in1998,28oIthegaydischargeswereIemale:in1997,22:in1996:29:in
1995,21:andin1994,womencomprised26oIthegaydischarges.
IntheArmy,womencomprised35oItheArmystotalgaydischargesin1999.These
percentagesarealarminglyhighparticularlybecauseonly15oIArmypersonnelareIemale.
ArmvROTCCaaetCalleaNotFeminineEnough
Elizabeth MoseankosROTCinstructorlesbianbaitedherbyclaimingMoseankoisnot
Ieminineenough.CadetMoseankoenrolledintheSeattleUniversityArmyROTCprogramwith
highhopesoIbecominganoIIicer. Moseankosdream,however,cametoanendaItershe
becamethetargetoIharassingrumorsandsuspicionthatsheisalesbian. Moseanko,atwenty
yearoldnativeoIWashington,reportsothercadetsbeganharassingherbyaskingwhethersheis
alesbianbecausesomeoIherIemaleIriendshaveshorthair.
Uponhearingabouttheharassment,ROTCinstructorMaiorJoeMcClungorderedCadet
MoseankointohisoIIice. McClungreportedlytoldhertoletherhairgrowout,wear
earrings,andmake-up(Exhibit72).
Maior McClungsapparentbelieIthatMoseankoisnotIeminineenoughrepresents
lesbianbaitingbecauseheassumedsheisgaybaseduponhowshelooksandthen,apparently
becauseheassumedsheisalesbian,discriminatedagainstherbyIailingtostoptheharassment.
Instead, McClungreportedlyioined intheharassmentbychastisingCadetMoseankoIornot
conIormingtohisexpectationoIhergenderrole.Suchinappropriatestereotypingand
discriminationisoItenIoundamongwomeninnontraditionaliobIields,suchasthemilitary.
177
175
LesbianbaitingisaIormoIanti-gayharassmentaswellasaIormoIsexualharassment.WomenareoItencalled
lesbians,regardlessoItheirsexualorientation,IoravarietyoIretaliatoryreasons.Somemenaccusewomenwho
reIusetheirsexualadvancesoIbeinglesbians.OthermenwhosexuallyharasswomenaccusethemoIbeing
lesbianswhenthewomenreportthesexualharassment,inanattempttoturntheinvestigationawayIromtheirown
misconduct.Others,menandwomen,accuseIemalesuperioroIIicersoIbeinglesbiansinretaliationIorpoor
perIormanceevaluationsorunpopularorders.AndyetothersaccusesuccessIulwomenoIbeinglesbianstoderail
theircareers.ThestereotyperemainsthatwomeninnontraditionaliobIieldsareviewed,asmanyhavenoted,as
dykes.LesbianbaitingthuscontinuestodisproportionatelyaIIectwomenwhoserveourcountry.
176
SeeMichelleM.BeneckeandKirstenS.Dodge,MilitarvWomen.CasualtiesoftheArmeaForcesWaron
LesbiansanaGavMen, in GAY RIGHTS,MILITARYWRONGS:POLITICAL PERSPECTIVESONLESBIANSANDGAYSIN
THE MILITARY71-108(CraigA.Zimmerman,ed.,1996).
177
AsaresultoIDADTDPDH,manywomendonotreportanti-gayharassment.Otherschoosemoretraditional
careerpaths,ortonedowntheirambition.SomewomenreporttheystoppubliclysocializingwithotherwomenIor
Iearthattheywillbelabeledaslesbiansiustbecausetheyareinagroupwithotherwomen.
LCR 04453
82
WithSLDNsassistance,MoseankohasreportedthisharassmentandaskedthatMaior
McClung,andothers,beheldaccountable. McClungsDontHarasslesbianbaitingledtothe
ArmyslossoICadet Moseanko,therebyexacerbatingtheArmysongoingpersonnelrecruiting
andretentionchallenges.
178
ArmyDontHarassSummary
AlthoughDontHarassviolationsremainanArmyproblem,theArmyhastakensome
encouragingstepsintherightdirection.Armyleadershavestated,|s|oldierswhooIIertheir
commitmentandtheirlivesinthisserviceshouldandmustbetreatedwithdignity,honorand
respect|e|verysoldierhastherighttoexpecttreatmentconsistentwithourcorevalues,asaIe
andsecureenvironment,andthesupportoItheirchainoIcommand.
179
Themessage,however,
hasnotIiltereddowntoalloIthelowerlevelcommands.ConsistentandIocusedleadership,
trainingandaccountabilityupanddownthechainoIcommandmustcontinueinorderIorthe
ArmytoIullybecomeasaIeplaceIorgay,lesbianandbisexualsoldiers,therebyimprovingits
combatreadiness.
AirForceDontHarassViolationsRemainAlarminglyHigh,LeadershipLacking
Every Air Force member deserves to work and live in an environment that is
free of discrimination and harassment.
--SecretaryoItheAirForceandtheAirForceChieIoIStaII
180
SLDNdocumented214incidentsoIanti-gayharassmentintheAirForceduringtheyear
2000.Thisrepresentsa1decreaseinDontHarassviolationsIromtheprioryearsreportoI
217violations.
TherateoIanti-gayharassmentintheAirForceremainstoohigh.AlthoughtheAir
Forcehastakensometentativestepstowardsendingtheanti-gayclimatesthathavepermeated
manycommandsIorsolong,ithasalongwaytogo.
181
AirForceleadersstrengthenedDont
HarassinJanuary2000(Exhibit73).Thedirective,entitledAirForcePolicyon
Harassment
182
states,inpart,harassment,threatsorridiculeoIindividualsorgroupsbased
178
SeegenerallvUnitedStatesArmy,UniteaStatesArmvPostureStatementFY01.ExecutiveSummarv,at
http://www.army.mil/aps/apses htm(lastvisitedMar.5,2001).
179
ALARACT008/00,supranote34(Exhibit62).
180
AFPolicvonHarassmentMemo,supra note163.
181
TheAirForceappearstohaveimplementedsomeDontHarasstraining,inthecontextoIonlinecomputer
brieIings.ManyairmenreporttoSLDN,however,thattheyhavenotreceivedthetraining.TheAirForce
trainingprogram,totheextentitexists,isnotnearlyasdevelopedandthoroughasthatoItheArmy.Requiring
someairmentoreadanonlinebrieIingisapoorsubstituteIorthevisibleleadershiprequiredtoensureaclear
understandingoIDontHarass.
182
LCR 04454
83
upontheirrealorperceiveddiIIerences,includingsexualorientation,havenoplaceintheUnited
StatesAirForceandwillnotbetolerated.
183
AirForceChieIoIStaIIGeneralRyanstated,|anti-gayharassment|show|s|alackoI
selIcontrolthatdiscreditsthepersonwhoengagesinsuchconductand,atthesametime,erodes
morale,goodorderanddiscipline.
184
TheAirForcemustcontinuetoIocusonDontHarass
implementationinordertostoptheharmtoitscombatreadinesscausedbyairmenslackoIselI
control.
ThissectionbeginswithareviewoIgoodexamplesoIDont Harassadherence
identiIiedwithintheAirForceduringthepastyear.ThesectionthenIocusesonongoingAir
ForceproblemareasinDontHarassimplementation.
PositiveIndicatorsofAirForceDontHarassAdherence
LanglevAirForceBaseHarassmentReportTakenSeriouslv,
ReportingofAnti-GavThreatsanaHarassmentRemainsDifficultChallenge
AnAirmanat LangleyAirForceBase(AFB),Virginia,contactedSLDNaIterbecoming
thetargetoIconstantanti-gayharassment.TheyoungAirmanstatesthatIormostoIhisIirsttwo
yearsonthebaseheIacedincessantharassingquestionsabouthissexualitybecausehewas
perceivedasgay.SomeairmenreportedlyusedthephraseIagmonster.TheAirmans
supervisorparticipatedinandtoleratedtheanti-gayhostility.
WithSLDNsassistance,theAirmanreportedtheharassmenttohiscommandingoIIicer.
TheAirmanwrote,|m|anyoItheiokesandinsinuationsaredeeplygraphic...|t|heharassment
isanever-endingalways-presentpartoIthedailyroutineIormyoIIice.
TheAirmanexplainedhisanxiety:
I ioined the Air Force because oI its reputation as a proIessional
military environment and intend on making a career oI it. I Iind it
verydiIIiculttostaymotivatedtothatendwhileIminthecurrent
hostile environment. I hope that we can bring a stop to this
harassment and return the proIessionalism to our shop that we
shouldbeknownIor.
TheAirmansdecisiontoreporttheharassmentinanattempttosavehiscareerwas
diIIicult.TheservicescontinuetostrugglewithhowtohandlereportsoIanti-gayharassmentin
183
Ia.AirForceleadershipissuedIurtherorders,inOctober2000,directingcommandingoIIicerstoimplementthe
DoDAnti-HarassmentActionPlan. SeeAFImplementationofAnti-HarassmentActionPlanMemo,supranote35.
Thedirectivestates,inpart,|w|ewholeheartedlyendorseandsupportthisactionplanandhavebegundeveloping
speciIicimplementinginstructions,revisingtrainingmaterials,andestablishingmeasuresoIeIIectivenessand
adherencetopolicy.Inthemeantime,weexpectallcommanderstousethisactionplanasaguidetopreventing
harassmentintheirunits Ia.(Exhibit74).
184
AF PolicvonHarassmentMemo,supra note163.
LCR 04455
84
awaythatdoesnotharmthecareersoIthosetargetedbytheharassment.InAugust1999,the
Pentagonissuedclearerandstrongerdirectiononhowtoinvestigatethreatsagainstand
harassmentoIthoseperceivedasgay
185
(Exhibit75).
ReportingharassmentisdiIIicultbecauseitbringstheservicememberupontheradar
screen.IIthecommandignoresthereportordoesnotrespondappropriately,itsendsagreen
lighttootherservicemembersthattheymayharassandabusethoseperceivedasgaywith
impunity.Also,memberswhoreportharassmentriskinvestigationunderthehomosexual
conductpolicybasedonretaliatoryaccusationslodgedbytheperpetrator(s)oIharassment.
186
ServicemembersIurtherriskthepossibilitythattheirsexualorientationwillbediscovered,
againsttheirwill,inthecourseoIanyharassmentinvestigation.
187
This LangleyAFBAirman,however,weighedtherisksand,becausehegenuinely
wantedtocontinuemilitaryservice,decidedtoreporttheharassmentandhopethathiscommand
properlyIollowed DoDpolicy.Asitturnedout,hiscommandtooktheAirmanscomplaint
seriouslybyinitiatingmeasurestohalttheharassment.AlthoughSLDNdoesnotknowtheIinal
resolution,theAirmanscommandingoIIicerassuredhimthatthoseresponsibleIorthe
prohibitedharassmentwouldbeheldaccountable.Further,theAirmanwastransIerred,perhis
request,toanotherunitwherehecouldcontinueworkinginhisskillarea.
ThisgoodreportIrom LangleyAFBsuggeststhatsomeAirForceoIIicersarestepping
uptotheplateandprovidingtheneededleadershiptoimplementtheDontHarassprovisions.
WhileitisunIortunatethattheAirmanIacedanyharassment,atleasthisleadersIollowedthe
rulesoncehebroughttheproblemtotheirattention.
185
SeeUnderSecretaryoIDeIense(P&R)RudydeLeon1999InvestigatingThreatsGuiaelinesMemo, supra
note63.Thismemorandumre-issuedandstrengthenedthepriorDoDharassmentinvestigationguidance. See
MemorandumIromUnderSecretaryEdwinDorntoSecretariesoItheMilitaryDepartments,ChairmanoItheJoint
ChieIsoIStaII,andtheInspectorGeneraloItheDepartmentoIDeIense,GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreats
AgainstServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv(Mar.24,1997).
186
ThecaseoISeniorAirmanNoelFreeman,discussedlaterinthissection,illustratesthedilemmaIacinggay,
lesbianandbisexualservicemembersinreportingharassment. Eliiah Tuatagaloa,anotherairmaninFreemansunit,
spreadrumorsaroundtheKellyAFB,Texas,dormitorythatFreemanisgay.SeniorAirmanFreemanconIronted
Tuatagaloaabouthisbehavior.Freemanwrote,|w|hile|AirmanFirstClass|Tuatagaloaseemedgenuinely
surprisedthatIwasevenremotelyconcernedabouttherumors,Iconsideredspeakingwithhissupervisorregarding
hisactions.IoptednottodosooutoIIearthatIwouldbeinvestigatedandsubsequentlydischarged(Exhibit76).
187
Well-meaningleaderssometimeselicitthisinIormationwhenquestioningaservicemember,ordiscoveritwhen
examiningevidenceinthecase.ServicememberssometimesinadvertentlyrevealthisinIormationbythewaythey
maketheirreport,orbecausetheyareexperiencinggreatanxietyIrombeingattackedorharassed.Aservice
membermayblurtout,IwasattackedbecauseImgay.
LCR 04456
85
OtherGooaReportsontheAirForceDontHarassFront
TheIormer GoodIellowAFB,Texas,StaIIJudgeAdvocate,LieutenantColonelDavid
Wesley,wasverycooperativeinSLDNseIIortstoendanti-gayharassmentatthebaseand
attheDeIenseLanguageInstitute
188
inMonterey,CaliIornia.LieutenantColonelWesley
sentAirForcepersonneltoMontereytoeducateairmenonthepolicy.
AirForcedeIenseattorneysatAndrewsAFB,Maryland,HurlburtField,Florida,LittleRock
AFB,Arkansas,andKeeslerAFB,Mississippi,reporttheyarehavingmoresuccess
advocatingIortheirgayclientswithAirForcecommandingoIIicers.ThesedeIense
attorneysreportcommandsaretakingissuesrelatingtothepolicymoreseriously.These
lawyersgenerallybelievethattheAirForceleadershipsrecentIocusonDont Harass
policyimplementationishavingIavorableresults.
AirForceDontHarassViolationsContinue
ShawAirForceBaseAirmanReceivesDeathThreats
SeniorAirmanLaurenBrown,atwenty-three-year-oldTexasnative,cameouttoher
commandaIterreceivingseveraldeaththreatsandhavingherprivateliIeinvestigatedbyAir
ForceoIIicials.InaNovember2000lettertohercommandingoIIicer,Brownwrote,Ihave
servedIiveyearsintheAirForce.Iservedthoseyearshonorablyandwithdistinction.Iwas
recentlyselectedIorpromotiontostaIIsergeant.IlovemyiobintheAirForce.Uptillthis
year,Ilovedservinginthemilitary.Ihavegonetogreatlengthstoprotectmycareer.Icant
andwontstaysilentanymore(Exhibit43).
SeniorAirmanBrowncontinued,|o|verthepastyear,myliIeatShawAFBhasbecome
completelyintolerable.DuringExerciseBrightStarinEgyptlastOctober,Ibeganreceiving
deaththreats.BrownreportsthewordsdieyouIuckingdykewerewrittenonthewindowoI
hergovernmentleasedvehicle.BrownreportedthisthreattoherAirForcesupervisor.
SoonaIterreturningIromEgypt,BrownreceivedanotherdeaththreatonShawAFB.
Thistime,anotewasleItonhervehiclestating,Godhatesqueersandsodowe,dieyou
Iuckingdyke.SeniorAirmanBrownexplainssheIearedbothIorhersaIetyandhercareer:I
didnotwantorneedtospuraninvestigationintomypersonalliIe.Iwantedtostayinthe
military.IlovedmyiobandwaslookingIorwardtomynewassignment,soalthoughIwas
worriedaboutthethreats,IcouldnotriskmycareerbycomingIorward(Exhibit43).Thus,
Brownreluctantlydecidednottoreportthenewestthreat.
Thethreatscontinued.SeniorAirmanBrownsliIewasindanger.AIewweekslater
someoneslashedtwooIhercartires.SoonthereaItersomeonetorchedhercar,completely
destroyingit.BrownunderstandablyviewedtheseincidentsaspartoIthepatternoIanti-gay
harassmentshehadendured.Sheknewshehadtoreportthecriminalconduct.
188
TheGoodIellowAFBStaIIJudgeAdvocateisresponsibleIorAirForceDeIenseLanguageInstitutelegalmatters
relatingtoDADTDPDH.
LCR 04457
86
DuringtheinvestigationoIthevehiclearson,SeniorAirmanBrownreportedthedeath
threats,butstatestheAirForcedidnotseriouslyinvestigatethem.Severalmonthslater,she
receivedanotherdeaththreat,intheIormoIawrittennoteonhervehiclestating,gun,kniIe,
bat.Iiustcantdecidewhichone.Itsnotoverdyke.InsteadoIinvestigatingthelastthreat,
theAirForceOIIiceoISpecialInvestigationsIingerprintedBrownand,toherknowledge,did
notinvestigateanyoIthethreats.
AIterSeniorAirmanBrownreportedtheseincidents,oneoIhersupervisorscalledhera
Iuckingrug muncher.TheAirForceclosedtheinvestigationintothedeaththreats,takingno
action. Brown,stillIearingIorhersaIety,Ieltshehadnoalternativebuttocome-out.HerIear
oIrepercussionsandretaliationiIshereportedtheinitialthreatsturnedouttobeiustiIied.
SeniorAirmansBrownscaseillustratespreciselywhatshouldnotbehappeninginthe
applicationoIAirForceDontHarasspolicy.Itshockstheconsciencethatlesbianairmenstill
IacetheriskoIdeaththreats,especiallyinlightoItopAirForceleadersemphasisontreating
gayswithdignityandrespect.Further,Ioraservicememberssupervisortousederisive,anti-
gayslurstowardheriswrong.ItiswrongIortheAirForcetoIailtotakereportsoIdeaththreats
seriously.ItiswrongIortheAirForcetoIailtotakestepstoprotectaperceivedlesbianwho
IearsIorherliIe.
TheIailureoIBrownsleaderstopreventthethreatsandharassmentledtoherhavingto
sacriIicehermilitarycareer.ThisleadershipIailureharmsreadinessbecauseitsendsthesignal
thatleadersarenotenIorcingDontHarassandarenottakingcareoItheirpeople,thereby
creatingdistrustanddissentwithintheranks.
DefenseLanguageInstituteHarassmentProblemContinues
InlastyearsConauctUnbecomingreport,
189
SLDNdiscussedanillegal witchhuntatthe
DeIenseLanguageInstitute(DLI),inMontereyCaliIornia.SincelearningoItheDLIproblems,
seniorPentagonandAirForcelegaloIIicialshavebeenhelpIulinattemptingtocorrectthe
problem.AirForceleadersinitiatedpolicytrainingIorairmenassignedtoDLI.Airmenreport
toSLDNthatoneoIthoseresponsibleIorlastyears witchhunthasretiredIromtheservice.
AirmenhavealsoreportedtoSLDNthattheiroIIicerincharge,ColonelSmith,hasbeen
sensitivetotheirconcernsandsaIety.DespitethesegoodeIIorts,however,SLDNdocumented
IurtherinstancesoIDont HarassviolationswithinDLIduringthepastyear.
189
See 6TH ANNUAL CONDUCT UNBECOMING REPORT , supranote36.
LCR 04458
87
AirmanFirstClassFirpoReportealvHarasseabvDLIChaplain
anaCivilianLanguageInstructors
AirmanFirstClassRobertFirpo,atwenty-year-oldIromWashington,reportsbeingthe
targetoImanyDontHarassviolationswhileattheDeIenseLanguageInstitute.
190
Firpo,
despondentovertheincessantanti-gayharassmentIromotherairmen,soughtouttheunit
chaplainIoradviceonhowtohandletheharassment.TheunitChaplain,Captain Ingles,
reportedlytoldFirpotogrowupandIigureoutwhichsexisthecorrectonetobeattractedto.
InglesIurtherreportedlytoldFirpothatheisimmatureIorlikingmales(Exhibit7).
AccordingtoAirmanFirstClassFirpo,DLIcivilianlanguageinstructorscontributedto
theharassment.Forexample,twocivilianinstructors,Ms.ChungandDr.Shin,eachreportedly
ridiculed FirpoinIrontoItheentireclassIorbeinggay,withDr.ShinspeciIicallysuggesting
FirpowasaIag. FirpoIurtherreportsbeingrepeatedlytoldbyanoncommissionedoIIicer,
TechnicalSergeantThrasher,thatFirponeededtobeiniailIorwhathedoes.
TheDontHarassviolationsbyAirForceDLIleadersspilledovertotheiuniorenlisted
airmen.Forexample,Firporeportsotherairmentoldhim,Iag,youdontbelonghereand
reIerredtohimasthatIagcallshimselIasquadleader.AirmanFirstClassFirpostatesover
theIollowingmonthshewascalledIagdozensoItimes.HeIurtherreportsoneoIhis
roommatespostingasignintheirbarracksroomwhichsaidIagIreezone.AccordingtoFirpo,
hereceivedmorethan100notesleItontheaccountabilityboardoImyroomdoor,these
handwrittennoteswereanti-gayorgay-hatecommentstargetedatme(Exhibit7).
AirmanFirstClassFirpoeventuallydecidedhehadnochoicebuttocomeouttohis
commandandrequestadischargesothathecouldescapethepervasiveanti-gayhostilityatDLI.
Firpowrote,IhaveenioyedservingintheAirForceandwouldliketocontinuemyAirForce
Career.Ihavenottoldotherpeopleaboutmysexualorientation,norhaveIperIormedanyacts
...|H|owever,IknowthatIdonotneedtosubiectmyselItolivingandworkinginaplacewith
suchhighlevelsoIharassmentandunkindness(Exhibit7).OtherairmenconIirmedFirpos
reportsoIongoingharassmentatDLI.
AirmanFirstClassHarasseabvDLIDoctor
AnAirmanFirstClassalsoreportsbeingtargetedIorharassmentatDLIbecauseoIhis
perceivedsexualorientation.TheAirmanFirstClass,reports
191
anotherservicememberstated,
|t|herewillbenoIaggotsinmymilitary!
SoonthereaIter,theAirmanFirstClassvisitedtheDLImedicalclinicwherehewas
testedIormononucleosis.TheAirForcedoctor,MaiorSmyth,askedtheAirmanFirstClass
190
AirmanFirstClassFirpostateshewasIirstharassedabouthisperceivedsexualorientationbytwobasictraining
TechnicalInstructors at LacklandAFB,Texas,StaIISergeantSaarandStaIISergeantAshcraIt.
191
TheAirmanFirstClassreportstheanti-gayharassmentbeganwhileinbasictrainingatLacklandAFB,Texas,
where hewasthreatenedwithsexualviolencebyanothermalerecruit.Further,accordingtotheAirmanFirstClass
hewasharassedbytwoTechnicalInstructors,StaIISergeantSmithandSeniorAirmanPeters.BothoItheseTIs
tauntedtheAirmanFirstClassinIrontoIotherrecruits.
LCR 04459
88
whetherhehadbeenswappingspitwith|theAirmansmale|roommateandreportedlyIurther
stated,|g|ood,becauseiIyouwouldhavebeen,wewouldhavehadtohaveputyouinthe
Navy,andonasubmarine(Exhibit6).
TheAirmanFirstClasseventuallyIeltcompelledtocomeouttohiscommandingoIIicer.
TheAirmanFirstClasswrote:
|t|he point is that things that arent supposed to be said by anyone
in the military are being said. And, the people that are taking
oIIense to these comments are too IearIul Ior their own personal
saIetytosaysomething.IIeelasiIIweretohavesaidanythingin
any oI these previous moments I have talked about, would leave
meopentomoreridicule(Exhibit6).
AirmanFirstClassFirpoandtheotherAirmanFirstClasssDLIexperiencesare,
unIortunately,merelyreIlectiveoIacontinuedhostileanti-gayclimatepermeatingthebase.
AlthoughSLDNreportedtheDLIproblemsinlastyearsConauctUnbecomingreport,and
despitegoodIaitheIIortsbysomeAirForceleaderstoaddresstheproblems,DLIappearsto
remainahotbedoIanti-gayanimus.
192
ForDLIlanguageinstructors,thechaplain,andthedoctortoverballyabuseanairman
becauseoIhisperceivedsexualityviolatesthebondsoItrustenlistedservicemembersmusthave
intheirleadersinordertodevelopasacohesiveunit.AirForceoIIicersmustprovide
strongerleadershipandtrainingontheDontHarasspolicytoallDLIpersonnel,especially
oIIicersandotherpermanentpartycadre.DLIoIIicialsIoundtohaveengagedinDont Harass
violationsshouldbeheldaccountable.
HarassmentatKellvAirForceBaseanaTexasA&MUniversitv
SeniorAirmanNoelFreeman,atwenty-one-year-oldIromCaliIornia,washarassedat
KellyAFB,Texas,andlaterasacadetintheTexasA&MROTCprogram.Freemanserved
honorablyIorIouryearsintheAirForce.WhileassignedtoKellyAFB,AirmanShawnKelly
andAirman Zach LevesquecalledFreemanIaggotandhomo,andaskedhim,heyIag,are
yougoingtoIuckthatguy?(Exhibit76).
AIterleavingtheAirForce,FreemanenrolledintheTexasA&MUniversityAirForce
ROTCprogram.Freeman,whowasnowacadet,stateshebecamethetargetoIanti-gay
harassmentbymembersoItheTexasA&MCorpsoICadetsaIterbeingspottedsittingatthe
campusGay,Lesbian,BisexualandTransgendered AggiesinIormationtableintheuniversity
studentcenter.AccordingtoFreeman,someothercadetsreactionwasveryhostilebordering
onviolent...IwascalledanembarrassmentanddisgracetomyoutIitandtheCorps.Ihave
neverbeenmadetoIeelworseandmoreashamedoIwhoandwhatIam(Exhibit77).
192
DLIislocatedinMonterey,CaliIornia,andtheinstallationisranbytheArmy.SLDNreceivesreportsIromDLI
soldierswhoarealsobeingharassedbecauseoItheirperceivedsexualorientation.
LCR 04460
89
ThehostilereactionoIhiscadetpeersledFreemantoIearIorhissaIety.Hesadly
concludedthathecouldnotserveinthemilitaryagain.SLDNhasnoevidencethattheROTC
programcommandingoIIicer,ColonelGregoryZaniewski,conductedanykindoIinquiryinto
thethreatsandharassmentoIFreeman.
CadetFreemanwrote:
I love the Air Force more than anything I have ever done in my
liIe.IwantsoverymuchtobeapilotandAirForceoIIicer,butI
realized I could not go through this Ior another 16 years. It is iust
too diIIicult, and I have to be able to live a reasonably happy liIe.
Currentpolicydoesnotallowmetodoso(Exhibit76).
ThepurposeoIROTCprogramsistotrainyoungmenandwomentobemilitary
leaders.
193
CadetFreemanwasanidealROTCcadetduetohisyearsoIhonorableenlisted
service.FreemansdesiretobecomeanoIIicershowshisstrongcommitmenttotheAirForce.
TheDontHarassviolationsatTexasA&MsetabadexampleIorIutureAirForceleaders.
AirForceDontHarassSummary
DespitesomegoodIirststepsbytopAirForceleaderstoheightenawarenessoIDont
Harasswithintheservice,muchworkremainstobedone.AirForceChieIoIStaII,General
Ryan,hasstated,|o|urproIessionalismdemands...thatwetreateachotherwithdignityand
respect.
194
AirForceleadersgoodwordsmustbecommunicatedandunderstoodbyleadersat
everyleveloIthechainoIcommand.
NavyDontHarassViolationsIncrease,AgainNavyisMostHostileService
Todays Navy/Marine Corps team is composed of diverse individuals
from every part of the United States. Respect for the individual is paramount.
-ChieIoINavalOperations
195
SLDNdocumented332incidentsoIanti-gayharassmentintheNavyduringtheyear
2000.ThisrepresentsaslightincreaseinDont HarassviolationsIromtheprioryearsreport
oI330violations.TheNavyistheonlyDoDservicewithanincreaseinDontHarass
violationsthispastyear.TheNavyhasconsistentlyratedastheworstserviceIoranti-gay
harassment,leadingthewayinDont HarassviolationsIrom1997topresent.
DespiteitspoorDontHarassrecord,thispastyeartheNavyhastakensomegood,
albeittentative,stepstowardsaddressingtheproblem.ChieIoINavalOperations,AdmiralJay
193
SeeUnitedStatesAirForce,ROTCHome, athttp://www.aIoats.aI.mil/rotc.htm(statingthatthemissionoIAir
ForceROTCistoProduceLeadersIortheAirForceandbuildbetterCitizensIorAmerica|.|)(lastvisitedMar.5,
2001).
194
195
LCR 04461
90
Johnsonstated,|c|ommandingoIIicersmustnotcondonehomosexualiokes,epithets,or
derogatorycomments,andmustensureacommandclimatethatIostersrespectIorall
individuals.
196
AlthoughthetopNavyleadershaveissuedthesehelpIuldirectives,Dont
Harassviolationsremainalarminglyhighintheservice.
197
ThissectionbeginswithadiscussionoIpositiveNavyDontHarassdevelopments.
ThesectionthenexaminestheongoingDontHarassviolationsdocumentedbySLDN.
UnIortunately,theevidenceindicatesthattheNavyhasalongwaytogobeIoretheAdmiral
JohnsonsordertorespectallsailorsisIollowed.
DespiteSeriousNavyDontHarassProblems,Thereare
SomeHopefulSignsofProgress
SanDiegoBaseaSailorSafelvReportsHarassment
AsailorstationedinSanDiego,CaliIornia,contactedSLDNaskingIorhelpinstopping
severeanti-gayharassmentIacinghim.Thesailorreportedthattwoothersailorsphysically
assaultedhimonboardhisship.Theattackerscalledthesailorhomo,Iruitcake,and
gayboy.TheassaultreportedlyoccurredinthepresenceoIsomenoncommissionedoIIicers
whoIailedtointervene.
Accordingtothesailor,hewaslaterthreatenedbyaseniorpettyoIIicerwhotoldhim,
|t|herearenoIaggotsinmyNavy,shipmate.ThepettyoIIicerproceededtoaddresstheother
sailorswithinhissectiondeclaring,|w|eallknowthat|thesailor|isgay,sowhateveryoudoto
him,makesuretheycannottraceittoyou(Exhibit78).
Thesailorreportedadditionalharassment,including:
Beingtold,IdonotlikeIags,butsinceIhavetoworkwithone,Iwill
tolerateyou.
Beingthreatened,watchyourback,Iaggot.
Beingasked,hey,yourethatIaggoteveryonestalkingabout,arentyou?
Thesailorscarwasvandalized,withthewordIagwrittenonthevehicle
windowswithagreasepen(Exhibit78).
SLDNassistedthesailorinreportingtheseDont Harassviolationstohiscommanding
oIIicerandrequestedaninvestigation.IncompliancewithNavypolicy,thecommandingoIIicer
honoredthesailorsrequestandtemporarilyremovedhimIromtheunit,pendingcompletionoI
theinquiryintothemisconduct.
198
AlthoughwedonotknowtheIinalresultsoItheinquiry,the
commandhasassuredSLDNthatthesailorsconcernsarebeingtakenseriously.
196
Ia.
197
AsbestSLDNcantell,totheextentthatDontHarasstraininghasactuallyoccurredinsomeNavyelements,
thetrainingisincorporatedasabrieIportionoItheDevelopingandBuildingTrustpresentation.TheNavy
appearstobelaggingIarbehindtheArmyinimplementingclearandthoroughpolicytrainingIoritssailorsand
leaders.
198
TheChieIoINavalOperationsstatedinanApril28,1998message:
LCR 04462
91
Thesailorcontinuestoserve,beneIitingboththeinterestsoItheNavyandtheinterestsoI
thesailor.TheultimatebeneIactor,however,ismilitaryreadiness.DespitethemultipleDont
Harassviolationswhichledtothesailorsreport,thecommandswillingnesstoIollowNavy
policybystoppingtheharassmentwithoutpreiudicingthesailorsendstherightleadership
messagetosailors:anti-gayharassmentviolatesNavypolicyandwillnotbetolerated.
HighRateofNavyDontHarassViolationsisAlarming
UnIortunately,mostreportsSLDNreceivesIromsailorsindicatethatadherenceto
DontHarasswithintheServiceistheexception,ratherthanthenorm.
USSDubuqueCommanaingOfficerIgnoresSailorsReportofHarassment,
SailorthenPhvsicallvAssaulteaanaThreatenea
SeamanApprenticeDeriuan TharringtonwasphysicallyassaultedbyothersailorsaIter
hereportedanti-gayharassmenttohisshipscommandingoIIicer(Tharringtonsexperienceis
IurtherdocumentedintheDontTellsection). Tharrington,atwenty-two-year-oldIrom
Oklahoma,wasaIraid.OthersailorsweremercilesslyharassinghimaIterrumorshemightbe
gaybeganswirlingaroundtheship.Youhangoutwithhomosexuals,youmustbegay:do
yousuckdick?:andwillyousuckmydick?,weresomeoIthecrassthingsothersailorssaid.
Tharringtonreportsbeingrepeatedlyaskedwhetherheisgay.HebegantoIearIorhissaIety
onboardtheUSSDubuque.
Seaman TharringtonreportedtheharassmenttotheUSSDubuquecommandingoIIicer,
Captain T.A. Heil,andrequestedatransIertoanothership.Captain Heilproceededtoread
Tharringtontheriotact.InresponsetoTharringtonsexpressingsaIetyconcerns,Captain Heil
toldhim,yousignedonthelinenowyouhavetodealwithit(meaningtheanti-gay
harassment).
AItermeetingwiththecommandingoIIicer,Seaman Tharringtonreportsbeingsuddenly
reassignedtomessdutyintheenlisteddiningIacility.Whileworkingintheenlistedmess,other
sailorsassaultedTharringtonbythrowingIoodtraysathim.Sailorsapproached Tharringtonand
statedtheyhadheardtherumors|Tharrington|wenttothechaplainstatingheisgay.One
sailor,PettyOIIicerHarmon,IurtherthreatenedTharringtonbysaying,Imgoingtobeatyour
|t|he Iact that a service member reports being threatened because he or she is
said or is perceived to be homosexual shall not by itselI constitute credible
inIormationiustiIyingtheinitiationoIaninvestigationoIthethreatenedservice
member.ThereportoIthethreatshouldresultinthepromptinvestigationoIthe
threat itselI. Investigators should not solicit allegations concerning the sexual
orientation or homosexual conduct oI the threatened person . . . Service
members should be able to report crimes Iree Irom Iear oI harm, reprisal or
ElectronicMessageIromChieIoINavalOperationstoNAVADMIN, GuiaelinesforInvestigatingThreatsAgainst
ServiceMembersBaseaonAllegeaHomosexualitv(Apr.22,1998)(CNOWASHINGTONDC221712ZAPR98
(NAVADMIN089/98)).
LCR 04463
92
Iuckingass,youIaggot.Othersailorsyelledthattheyweregoingtoget|Tharringtons|black
assbecause|heis|gay,acommentthatisbothracistandanti-gay.
Ultimately,Seaman TharringtonwasIorcedtoIileacomplainttohiscommandtotryto
halttheharassment(Exhibit79). Tharringtonwrote,IconsidermyselItobeanaboveaverage
sailorwhodoesnotneedthisharassment...andseenoreasontoendmyNavalcareer|dueto|
otherpeoplesmisconduct.IrespectIullyrequesttobetransIerredtoanotherCommand....
Captain Heil,inresponseto Tharringtons pleasIorprotectionagainsttheharassment
wrote,yourclaimsoIIeelingunsaIeaboardthisship...aregroundless(Exhibit80).
Leadershipissetbythetop.Here,leadershipappearstobecompletelylacking.
OtherNavvDontHarassJiolations
SomeshortexamplesprovidethebestillustrationoItheNavyDontHarassproblems
broadscope:
Atwenty-one-year-oldSeamanApprentice,IromWashington,reportsaninstructoratthe
GreatLakesNavalTrainingCenter,inIllinois,PettyOIIicerManganaro,statedinIrontoI
theentireclassthatManganarohadnorespectIorhomosandwouldnevershakeaIags
hand.ThesailorreportstheclassthenbrieIlydiscussedtheanti-gaymurderoIsailorAllen
Schindler,whowasbeatentodeathbyhisshipmatesin1992. Manganarothenreportedly
askedtheclass,|h|owmanypeopleherehategays?andhowmanyoIthesailorswantedto
killallthegays?(Exhibit9).ThesailorreportsabouthalItheclassraisedtheirhandsin
responsetothesequestions.
PettyOIIicerFirstClassThomasGoldreportsreceivingseveraldeaththreatswhilestationed
attheNationalNavalMedicalCenterin Bethesda,Maryland.PettyOIIicerGold,atwenty-
Iive-year-oldIromCaliIornia,reportstoSLDNreceivingseveralwrittendeaththreats
including,Iagsdieinthemilitary,(Exhibit81)IaggotsdieoutintheIield,andwehate
you.GoldIurtherreportsbeingthreatenedbyPettyOIIicerTownerwhostated,Imgonna
kickthatIaggotsass(Exhibit11).
PettyOIIicerSecondClassBarnabeFernandez,atwenty-three-year-oldassignedtotheUSS
MiliusinSanDiego,CaliIornia,reportsreceivingwrittenthreatsstating,Ihateyouwith
swastikasonthem.FernandezIurtherreportsbeingthreatenedwith|y|oureaIagand
youregoingtodie.OtherthreatsincludednoteswithadrawingoIahangmanand
swastikas,youregoingtodie,andIaggotwrittenonthem.Further,severalsailors
reportedlycalledFernandezaIaggot.
APettyOIIicerFirstClassstationedattheNavalNuclearPowerSchoolinCharleston,South
Carolina,reportsexperiencingrampantanti-gayharassment.ThePettyOIIicerreports
IrequentuseoIthewordIag,aswellasgaysynonymouswithstupid,Ilawed,or
Iemininebysailorsinhisunit.AccordingtothePettyOIIicer,someNavyleaders
participateinthemisconduct.ThePettyOIIicerstates,theworkandrespectIhavegivento
theNavyhasnotbeenreturnedtomebytheNavy(Exhibit82).
LCR 04464
93
AsailorassignedtotheGreatLakesNavalCenter,inIllinois,reportsconstantlybeing
lesbianbaited.ThesailorreportsbeingIearIulIorhersaIety.Shewrote,|e|verydayIwas
askediIIwasmaleorIemale.OItentimesitwasinaverythreateningmannerwitha
numberoImalesailorsapproachingmeandsometimesphysicallyintimidatingmebygetting
inmyIaceandquestioningme.IwouldIeelalotoIhostilitywhenIwasIorcedtoexplainto
diIIerentmalesailorsthatIamawoman(Exhibit83).
KorrinneBayer,aPettyOIIicerSecondClassassignedtotheUSSBoxerinSanDiego,
CaliIornia,reportsIrequentlyhearingsailorsusetheworddykeandIaggot.Thetwenty-
two-year-oldMichigannativeIearedbecomingthetargetoIharassmentshouldotherslearn
orsuspectsheisalesbian.Shewrites,Ibegantochangemypronounswhendiscussingmy
personalliIe,andcertainIriendswereevengivenmalenamessoIcouldkeepintouchviaE-
mailwithoutarousingsuspicion(Exhibit84).
PettyOIIicerFirstClassAnthony Ricciardo,atwenty-Iive-year-oldassignedtotheNuclear
PowerTrainingUnitin BallstonSpa,NewYork,reportsconstantlyhearinganti-gayiokes,
anduseoIthewordsIagandhomo. Ricciardo,aPennsylvanianative,states
noncommissionedoIIicersoItenparticipateintheharassment. Ricciardowrote,Idonot
expecttobetreatedunproIessionallynortreatedaslessthanhumansolelybecauseoImy
sexualorientation(Exhibit85).
AsailorstationedattheNavyNuclearPowerTrainingCenterinCharleston,SouthCarolina,
describesapervasiveanti-gayclimate.Thesailorwrites,|whenmy|shipmatessuspector
knowaboutonessexualorientationtheirentireattitudechangestowardsthatperson.It
changesinsuchawaythatitmakesthepersonIeelasiItheyareaninIection:unwelcome.
TheywillalmostdeIinitelybecomethebuttoImanyiokesandIaceharassmentintheirdaily
lives.AndnooneshouldhavetobearthatiustbecauseoItheirpersonalidentity(Exhibit
86).
AsailorassignedtotheGreatLakesNavalTrainingCenter,inIllinois,reportsconstantanti-
lesbianharassment.ShereportsnoncommissionedoIIicerstellinglesbianiokes,and
generalanti-gaycomments.Shestatesshereceivedpranktelephonecalls,andhada
Iirecrackerthrownintoherlivingquarters,inwhatshebelievedwasahate-crime.
AsailoratPointMugu,CaliIornia,reportsIrequentlyhearingthewordsIagandqueer.
ThesailorIurtherreportsothersailorswhosuspectheisgaymakinggayiokesandusing
eIIeminategestureswheneverheisaround.
NavyDontHarassSummary
TheNavysDontHarasscomplianceleavesmuchtobedesired.YearaIteryear,
servicemembersreportsindicatetheNavyisthemosthostileandanti-gayoItheservices.
FormerChieIoINavalOperations,AdmiralJayJohnson,stated,|c|ommandingoIIicersmust
notcondonehomosexualiokes,epithets,orderogatorycomments,andmustensureacommand
LCR 04465
94
climatethatIostersrespectIorallindividuals.
199
AdmiralJohnsonsgoodwordshavenotbeen
translatedintoactionacrosstheIleet.TheNavyremainsaneedlesslydangerousplaceIorgay,
lesbianandbisexualsailors.ThewillingnessoINavyleaderstoallowDontHarassviolations
isharmIultomilitaryreadinessbecauseitunderminesunitcohesion.TheseNavyIailuresare
simplyunacceptable.
MarineCorpsDontHarassViolationsDecreaseDespiteLackofTraining
Mistreatment of Any Marine is Incompatible with our Core Values . . . .
--CommandantoItheMarineCorps
200
TheMarineCorpshadninety-twoincidentsoIanti-gayharassmentduringtheyear2000.
Thisrepresentsa31decreaseinDontHarassviolationsIromtheprioryearsreportoI134
violations.Despitethisencouragingdecrease,SLDNcontinuestoreceivereportsoIegregious
anti-gayharassmentwithintheMarineCorps.
TheMarineCorpshastakensometentativestepsintherightdirectiontocombatanti-gay
harassment.TheCommandanthasstatedthat|a|llMarineslearnintheirearliestbasictraining
|thatharassmentiswrongand|unacceptableconductmustbedealtwithquicklyand
appropriatelybycommanders.
201
DontHarassviolationswithintheMarineCorps,however,
remainasourceoIgraveconcern.
202
ThissectionbeginswithareviewoIthegoodinMarineCorpsDont Harass
implementation.ThesectionthenprovidessomeillustrationsoIthepervasiveDontHarass
violationsreIlectedinmostoISLDNsMarineCorpscases.LiketheNavy,theMarineCorps
hasalongwaytogobeIorealloIitsmembersareIreeIrommistreatment.
199
200
MARADMIN014/00,supranote39.
201
Ia.
202
TheMarineCorpsdoesnotappeartohaveaclearDontHarasstrainingrequirement.Althoughthe
CommandantassertsthatMarinesaretaughtintheirearliestbasictrainingnottomistreateachother,SLDNs
casessuggestthisisnottrue.ManyMarinesreporttoSLDNthattheyhavereceivedlittletonotrainingon
DADTDPDHinthelastyear.TheMarineCorps,althoughanelementoItheDepartmentoItheNavy,doesnot
appeartohaveaDADTDPDHtrainingprogramsimilartotheNavysannualrequirement.
LCR 04466
95
AlthoughInfrequent,SomeReportsofMarineCorps
DontHarassComplianceReceived
MarineCorpsHolasAnti-GavLieutenantColonelMeltonAccountable
TheMarineCorpshastakendisciplinaryactionsagainstaLieutenantColonelsanti-gay
conductreportedinlastyearsConauctUnbecomingreport.InOctober1999,Lieutenant
ColonelEdwardMeltoninIormedhissubordinatesandhisbossat Twenty-NinePalms,
CaliIornia,oIhisopinionoIgaypeoplein ane-mail.
203
MeltonsemailmockedthemurderoI
PrivateFirstClassWinchell,andreIerredtogaysashomosandbacksiderangers.
204
InresponsetothisoutrageousconductbyMelton,CongressmanFrankandother
membersoItheUnitedStatesHouseoIRepresentativeswrotetothenSecretaryoIDeIense
WilliamCohendemandingthePentagonholdLieutenantColonel Meltonaccountable.
CongressmanBarneyFrankreceivedaletterIromtheAssistantSecretaryoItheNavy,Carolyn
BecraIt,stating,|a|Iterreviewingtheinvestigation,MaiorGeneral|CliIIordL.|Stanleyordered
MeltonrelievedoIhisdutiesasexecutivedirectoroItheMarineCorpsCommunications-
ElectronicsSchool,andhewasreassignedasaspecialproiectsoIIicerwithoutsupervisory
duties.HesubsequentlyretiredonJuly1,2000(Exhibit88).
TheMarineCorpsdecisivepunishmentoILieutenantColonel Meltonsendstheright
leadershipmessagetoMarines.Thoseengaginginillegalanti-gayharassmentarebreakingthe
rulesandtheirrecklessnessrisksharmingtheircareers.
Camp Leieune.NorthCarolina.CommanaingOfficerTakesSwift
ActionAfterSLDNReportofAnti-GavHarassment
AMarinesbattalionSergeantMaioratCamp Leieune,NorthCarolina,calledhima
Iaggot.SergeantMaiorRosenIield,theseniornoncommissionedoIIicerinthebattalion,also
threatenedtoplacetheMarineinthebrig,uponlearningthatheisgay.TheMarineIelt
compelledtodisclosehissexualorientationaIterbecomingthetargetoIincessantasking,
pursuing,andharassment.
InsteadoItakingstepstohalttheillegalharassmentandotherpolicyviolations,Sergeant
Maior RosenIield,instead,ioinedinwithharassmentoIhisown.SergeantMaior RosenIields
203
See 6TH ANNUAL CONDUCT UNBECOMING REPORT , supranote36,at55.Inhise-mail,LieutenantColonel
Meltonwrote:
DuetothehatecrimedeathoIahomointheArmy,wenowhavetotakeextra
steps to ensure the saIety oI the queer who has told (not kept his part oI the
DoDdontask,donttellpolicy).CommandersnowbeartheresponsibilityiI
someonedecidestoassaulttheyoungbacksideranger.BediscreetandcareIul
in your dealings with these characters. And remember, little ears are
everywhere.
Ia.(Exhibit87).
204
LieutenantColonelMeltonsactionswerewidelyreportedinthemedia. Seeia. at55n.88.
LCR 04467
96
poorleadershipexampleappearedtospuraddedanti-gayharassmenttowardstheMarine,by
otherMarines.
TheMarinerequestedSLDNassistancetoensurehissaIetyandobtainanhonorable
discharge.SLDNwrotetotheMarinesregimentalcommander,ColonelMastin Robeson,
reportingtheSergeantMaiorsmisconductandotherpolicyviolations(Exhibit53).
Colonel RobesonactedswiItlytoprotecttheMarineandinvestigatetheSergeantMaior.
Colonel RobesonwrotetoSLDN,IcanassureyouthattheallegationsoIimproprietywithinmy
commanddisturbmeandIampersonallylookingintothesituation(Exhibit89). Robesons
decisiveleadershipsenttherightmessagetoalltheMarinesinthe8
th
MarineRegiment,2d
MarineDivision,atCamp Leieune.
TheCommandantoItheMarineCorps,GeneralJamesJones,statedthatmistreatmentoI
Marineswillnotbetolerated.SergeantMaior RosenIield,however,ignoredGeneralJones
orderandactivelyparticipatedinperpetuatingtheanti-gayanimuswithinhisbattalion.
Fortunately,Colonel RobesontookGeneralJonesordermoreseriously.AlthoughSLDNdoes
notknowtheIinalresolutionoI Robesonsinvestigation,theMarinereportsbeingwelltreated
andquicklyprocessedIoranhonorableseparationIromtheMarineCorpsaIterColonel
Robesonspersonalintervention.
OtherGooaReportsofMarineCorpsDontHarassApplication
LanceCorporalNikeyaCunninghamreportsbeingouttoalloIherMarineplatoon
membersatHendersonHall,Virginia.Shestatesthatshehasnotbeenharassedbyany
Marine,althoughtheyallknowsheisalesbian.Cunninghamsbeingalesbianhasnot
harmedHeadquartersCompanysmoraleorreadiness.Tothecontrary,Cunninghamreports
beingIullyacceptedbyalloIherIellowMarines.
205
AMarineCorpscompanycommanderatCampPendleton,CaliIornia,toldSLDNhedoes
nottolerateanti-gayharassmentwithinhiscommand.Thecaptainstatesthathedoesnot
carewhetheraMarineisgay,solongastheycandotheiob.
AMarineLanceCorporalatCampPendleton,CaliIornia,reportsbeingouttoallmembers
oIhisplatoonandbeingIullyacceptedandrespected.InIact,whentheLanceCorporalonce
becamethetargetoIharassmentIromanotherMarine,theplatoonmembersralliedaround
himinsupport.Inthiscase,unitreadinessappearstohavebeenenhancedbythisLance
Corporalsopenness,asotherMarinesexpressedadmirationIorhiscourage.Totheextent
therewasanyharmtocohesionandmorale,itcameIromtheloneharasserwhosebehavior
theotheryoungMarinescollectivelysquashed.
205
LanceCorporalCunninghamspresenceasanopenlylesbianMarinehashadnoadverseaIIectonherunits
readiness.HerexampleprovidesclearevidenceoIthehypocrisyoIDADTDPDH,therationaleoIwhichisthe
presenceoIopenlygayMarineswoulddisruptunitcohesionandharmreadiness.AsCunninghamshows,this
rationaleiIIlatwrong.
LCR 04468
97
ManyMarineCorpsLeadersContinuetoIgnoreDontHarassPolicy
UnIortunately,instancesoIMarineCorpscompliancewiththeDontHarasspolicyare
IewandIarbetween.TheoverwhelmingnumberoIMarinescontactingSLDNthispastyear
reporttheircommandsareIailingtotrainMarinestonotmistreateachother,apparently
choosingtoignoreGeneralJonesorders.
LanceCorporalLesbian-BaiteaatTwentv-NinePalms.California
LanceCorporalJackieMeyer,atwenty-two-year-oldIromWisconsin,hadhadenough.
FormorethanayearandahalI,Meyerhadputupwithharassmentandinnuendo.Other
Marinesassignedto Twenty-NinePalmsspeculatedshemustbegaybecauseshedoesnot
conIormtotheirperceptionoIhowaIemaleshouldlook.
Shereports,|m|ostpeopleassumeImalesbian.WhenIwasatmedicaloneoIthe
doctorsaskedmewhyIhadsuchshorthair.ItoldhimIlikeitthatway.Hethentoldmethata
lotoIpeopletalkaboutmeandaboutmysexualorientation.Hesaidthatmostpeoplethinkthat
Imgay(Exhibit90).
LanceCorporalMeyerIurtherreports,|t|hepeopleIworkwithareveryhomophobic
...IamIorcedtostaysilentwhilemycoworkerstalkabouthowtheyhategaysandthatiItheir
kidsendupgaytheylldisownthemandkickthemout(Exhibit90).Shealsoreportshearing
hateIulwordssuchasIag,butt-packer,andbutt-plateonadailybasis.
LanceCorporalMeyerdecidedshehadtotellhercommandsheisalesbian.Meyer
wrote,Idontlookstraight.Idontactstraight,andIamconcernedthatitwouldonlybea
matteroItimebeIoreIaminvestigatedIorbeingwhoIam(Exhibit90).
MeyerexplainsherdilemmaasIollows,|i|tsveryhardtolistentothosecommentsand
notletitaIIectme.Ivetried.EverydayItry.ItsnotIairthatbecauseoItheMarineCorps
HomosexualConductPolicyIhavewaivedalloImyIirstamendmentrightswhilemyco-
workerscanspeaksohateIully(Exhibit90).
TheDontHarassviolationsleadingtoMeyersdepartingtheMarineCorpsare
harmIultounitreadiness.AnytimeMarinesmistreatotherMarines,theseedsoIdistrustare
sewnandunitcohesionisthevictim.Further,theMarineCorpslossoILanceCorporalMeyer
harmedreadinessbecauseshewasagoodMarinewithmuchtooIIerourcountry.
OtherMarineCorpsDontHarassJiolations
AMarineinSeattle,Washington,reportsbeingharassedbyhiscommandingoIIicer.The
commandingoIIicerandotherMarines,calledtheMarineIag,homo,Iruity,and
princess.WhentheMarineattemptedtoreporttheharassmentthroughthechainoI
command,thecommandingoIIicerattemptedtopreventhimIromdoingso.Eventually,the
MarinewasabletoreporttheillegalharassmentandreceivedatransIertoanotherbase
(Exhibit91).
LCR 04469
98
AMarineassignedtoCherryPoint,NorthCarolina,reportsdailyanti-gayharassmentby
otherMarines.WhataIlamingIaggotheis,ohmygod,shelookslikeadyke,andare
youdoingitwithlittleboys?arebutaIewoIthehostilecomments.TheMarinereports,at
apriorassignmentoverseas,beingdirectlyharassedbytwoMarineStaIISergeants.The
Marinewrites,|e|venthoughIdideverythinginmypowertokeepmysexualorientation
hidden,theStaIISergeantsatmyoldcommanddiscussedmyperceivedsexualorientation
withothersinmysection(Exhibit92).
AstraightMarineatCampPendleton, CaliIornia,reportsbecomingthetargetoIanti-gay
harassment,eventhoughheisheterosexual.TheMarinereportsaIewotherMarines
perceivedhimasbeinggayandbegan hasslinghim,ultimatelyvandalizinghiscar.AIterthe
Marinereportedtheillegalharassmenttohiscommand,heIoundadisturbingcomputer
generatedpictureattachedtohisbarracksroomdoor.ThepicturewasoIaheadlessMarine
withthewords,|t|hisiswhatwedotogaysintheMarines,writtenbeneathit.
206
Anothertwenty-one-year-oldLanceCorporalIromCampPendletonreportsreceiving
multipledeaththreatsandthreatsoIphysicalharm.HereportstheIollowingharassment
IromotherMarines:
ImgonnaIuckingkillyoumother Iucker
Imgoingtostompyourbrainsout
IllIuckingkillyouandleaveyouwithouttheuseoIyourlimbs
DeathtoallIaggots
Doyoutakeitintheass?
Yeah,soareyouaIudgepacker?
Doyoureallyliketosuckdick?
DoyoureallyliketogetIucked?
HowisittoIuckyourbestIriendintheass?
Fuckyou,Iaggot
TheLanceCorporalreportedthedeaththreatsandreceivedawrittenresponseIromthe
commandingoIIiceroIthe2dBattalion,4
th
Marines,LieutenantColonelR.F.Raczkowski,
statingthethreatshavenotbeensubstantiated,however,speciIicindividualswhomayhave
actedinappropriatelytowards|theLanceCorporal|havebeencounseled(Exhibit93).
206
ThisisnottheIirsttimeSLDNhasreceivedreportsoIheterosexualsbeingtargetedunderthepolicy.Under
DADTDPDH,anyonesuspectedasbeinggay,lesbianorbisexualisapotentialtargetIorharassmentandpursuit.
TheactualsexualorientationoItheservicememberisnotenoughtoprotectthemIromthepolicysharmIulaIIects.
SeegenerallvJANET HALLEY,DONT:AREADERS GUIDETOTHEMILITARYS ANTI-GAY POLICY (1999)(discussing
this phenonemon).DADTDPDHdeIineshomosexualactstoincludebodilycontactswhichareasonable
personwouldunderstandtodemonstrateapropensityorintenttoengageinanerotic,same-sexbodilycontact.
ProIessor Halleywrites,noselI-identiIiedheterosexualcanbesureoIconIormingconsistentlytotheheterosexual
protocolsstipulatedbythereasonableperson...giventherichhomosocialpracticesoIcomradeshipinthe
military...Iewservicememberscanpossiblybesounambiguouslystraightthattheywillneverwonderwhethera
reasonablepersonmightconstruetheiractionsashomosexualconduct. Ia.at117-18.
LCR 04470
99
ALanceCorporalIromCamp Leieune,NorthCarolina,reportsbeingcalledIaggotby
otherMarines.AIterlivinghisliIeinconstantIearoItheharassmentandbecomingthe
targetoIananti-gayinvestigation,theLanceCorporalatwenty-one-year-oldIromIllinois
decidedtocomeout.HewrotetohiscommandingoIIicer,IcannothidetheIactthatI
amgayanylonger.IhavedecidedthatIwillnottrytohideit.ImustbehonestaboutwhoI
ambecauseitistoodiIIiculttobegayinthemilitaryandhideit(Exhibit94).
Atwenty-year-oldLanceCorporalIromMassachusettsreportsanti-gaydeaththreatsat
Twenty-NinePalms,CaliIornia.TheLanceCorporaloverheardanotherMarinethreatento
killthatIaggot.HereportsoItenhearingMarinesinhisunittalkaboutkillinggays.The
LanceCorporalreportsbeingdirectlytoldbyanotherMarine,|i|ItheresaIaggot,well
takecareoIhim.
Atwenty-three-year-oldLanceCorporalstationedatHendersonHall,Virginia,reportsbeing
harassed.TheMarinewasaskedwhetherhelikestotakedickintheassandwhethera
bigoneIeelsgoodupthere(Exhibit95).
MarineCorpsDontHarassSummary
TheMarineCorpshasalongwaytogobeIoreallMarinesareIreeIromthethreatoI
mistreatmentatthehandsoItheircomrades.MarineleadersmustdomoretotrainonDont
HarassandholdthoseresponsibleIorharassmentaccountable.ThegoodwordsoIMarine
CorpsCommandant,GeneralJones,have,thusIar,nottranslatedintogoodactionsthroughout
theCorps.TheIailureoIMarineCorpsleaderstoensuretheIairtreatmentoIallMarinesis
likelyharmingthecombatreadinessoItheCorps.
CoastGuardDontHarassViolationsRiseSharply
The respect we have and show toward one another is the tie that binds us together in these
times of constant and accelerating change.
--CommandantoItheCoastGuard
207
SLDNdocumentedtwenty-IourincidentsoIanti-gayharassmentintheCoastGuard
duringtheyear2000,up45IromelevendocumentedDontHarassviolationsin1999.
TheCoastGuard,althoughapartoItheDepartmentoITransportation,Iollowsthe
DepartmentoIDeIenseregulationsonHomosexualConduct,includingtheDontHarass
provisions.SLDNhasnoevidencethatCoastGuardleadersconductDADTDPDHpolicy
training.ThisapparentlackoItrainingislikelythereasonIortheCoastGuardsincreasein
Dont Harassviolations.DespitebeingthesmallestoItheservices,SLDNcontinuesto
documentegregiousreportsoIanti-gaythreatsandharassmentwithintheCoastGuard.
207
CommandantoItheUnitedStatesCoastGuard,SexualHarassmentPreventionPolicvStatement.at
http://www.uscg.mil/mlclant/pdiv/pmsexualharassment.htm(lastvisitedMar.3,2001).
LCR 04471
100
GavSailorAssaulteaOnboaraCGCNorthlana
James Swinney,atwenty-two-year-oldIromConnecticut,wasphysicallyassaultedbya
pettyoIIiceronboardtheCoastGuardCutter(CGC)NorthlanaaIterthepettyoIIicerlearned
Swinneyisgay.PettyOIIicerFrederickreportedlygrabbedSwinneybythearmandthrewhim
againstthewallonboardtheship,yellinginthepresenceoIothersailorsiIwewereoIIthe
baseIdkickyourass!
208
AccordingtoSwinney,PettyOIIicerFrederickalsotoldhimyoure
nothingbutalittlepussy (reIerringtoSwinneysbeinggay). Swinneyreportedtheassaultto
hissupervisor,EnsignFiortine,aswellastotheshipcommandingoIIicer,CaptainMcgough.
Seaman SwinneyinitiallybecamethetargetoIanti-gayhostilityduetootherCGC
NorthlanasailorsperceptionsoIhissexualorientation. Swinneyreports,Ihaveheard
commentscomingIromthecrewdowninthedeckberthingsuchashomosshoulddie.When
Swinneyreportedtheanti-gayharassmenttohiscommand,hisnoncommissionedoIIicer
supervisor,PettyOIIicerOwens,yelledathiminIrontoItheentiresection|y|ourea
IuckingloserandaIuckingcoward(Exhibit96).
ThephysicalassaultonSeamanSwinneyoccurredaIterSLDNhadwrittentoCaptain
McgoughexpressingconcernIorSwinneyssaIety.ThecommandIailedtoprotectSwinney
Iromanti-gayviolence.SLDNisworkingwith SwinneytoIileanIGcomplaintrequesting
accountabilityIorthecriminalassaultandanti-gayharassment.
CoastGuaraDontHarassJiolations
ASailorreceivedanti-gayharassmentwhileassignedtotheCGCPolarSeainBellevue,
Washington.ThesailorreportsreceivingtheIollowingcomments:
SodidyougetitintheasswhileyouwereinBangor?
WhatsupIag?
Who ya givinheadtonow?
WhatsitlikebeingIuckedintheass?(Exhibit97).
Thesailor wrote,|t|heenvironmentthatIworkandliveinisunbearableandseverely
threateningattimes.Thereisabsolutelynoreasonwhyanyonewouldhavetowithstandand
sustainthisleveloIdegradation(Exhibit97).
SeamanRon ZarriellowasassignedtotheCoastGuardTrainingCenter,inYorktown,
Virginia,whenhebecamethetargetoIanti-gayhostility.Aneighteen-year-old-Irom
Maryland, Zarriellowrites,|m|anyCoastGuardservicemembersdegradehomosexualsand
theirliIestylebymakingiokesandlaughingaboutthem:creatingaIeelingthatgaysarenot
welcomed.EverydaycommentssuchasIaggotorqueerandpeoplemakingIunoIthe
communityIamnowapartoItakesanenormoustollonmyselI-conIidenceandselI-
esteem(Exhibit98).
208
Seaman SwinneyreportsPettyOIIicerFrederickwastheshipmedicalcoordinatorandSwinneyhadgoneto
FrederickIormedicaltreatmentIoraIootproblem.
LCR 04472
101
AsailorassignedtotheCoastGuardAirStationinNorthBend,Oregon,wrotetohis
commandingoIIicer,IhavesuIIeredanendlessarrayoIanti-gayslursinmypresence
duringmyenlistment.Theexplicithostilitytowardsso-calledIaggotsandqueershas
beenshockingandpersonallydemeaning.Frankly,ithasabsolutelyunderminedmyability
toconcentrateontheliIe-savingdutiesIorwhichIamresponsible(Exhibit99).
CoastGuardDontHarassSummary
CoastGuardleadersareIailingtotraintheirsubordinatesontheDont Harass
provisions.AsthesailorscommentcitedabovereIlects,itisnothinglessthanthereadinessoI
theservicethatsuIIersIromunIetteredanti-gayhostilitywithintheranks.TheCoastGuard
CommandantshouldissuespeciIicwrittendirectivesimilartothoseissuedbytheDoDservices,
prohibitinganti-gaythreatsandharassment.Admiral LoyshouldIurtherunambiguouslystate
thatallCoastGuardpersonnelincludingthoseperceivedasgay,lesbianandbisexualmustbe
treatedwithdignityandrespect.
DontHarassConclusion
And to win wars, we create cohesive teams of warriors who will bond so tightly that they are
prepared to go into battle and give their lives if necessary for the accomplishment of the
mission and for the cohesion of the group and for their individual buddies. We cannot allow
anything to happen which would disrupt that feeling of cohesion within the force.
--GeneralColinPowell,IormerChairmanJointChieIsoIStaII
209
AccordingtoNationalSecurityAdvisorCondoleezzaRice,PresidentBushiscommitted
toaharassment-IreeenvironmentIoralloIourmilitarypeople.
210
UnIortunately,mostmilitary
leadersdonotappeartosharethePresidentscommitment.
Past ConauctUnbecomingreportshavedirectlyaddressedmilitaryleadersstubborn
unwillingnesstoenIorceDontHarass.
211
Theresulthasbeenapervasiveandhostileanti-gay
climatewithineachoItheservices.Thebottomlineisthatmilitaryleadershipwaslacking,the
policywasnotbeingIollowed,andmilitaryreadinesssuIIered.HopeIully,thisyearsmodest
reductioninthenumberoIDont HarassviolationsreIlectsanimprovementincommand
leadershipclimates.
MilitarycombatreadinesssuIIerswheneverunitcohesionisharmed.Thispropositionis
codiIiedintoIederallaw.Thestatutestates,|o|neoIthemostcriticalelementsincombat
capabilityisunitcohesion,thatis,thebondsoItrustamongindividualservicemembersthat
209
Powellstatement,supranote21,at708.
210
LetterIromCondoleezzaRice,AssistanttothePresidentIorNationalSecurityAIIairs,toC.DixonOsburn,
ExecutiveDirector,ServicemembersLegalDeIenseNetwork(Feb.20,2001)(Exhibit100).
211
See.e.g.. 6TH ANNUAL CONDUCT UNBECOMING REPORT , supranote36.
LCR 04473
102
makethecombateIIectivenessoIamilitaryunitgreaterthanthesumoIthecombateIIectiveness
oItheindividualunitmembers.
212
LeadersIailuretostampoutanti-gayharassmentwithintheranksallowsanatmosphere
oIdistrustandIeartoIester.
213
Successincombathingesupontrustandteamwork.
214
Targeting
asegmentoIservicemembersIorridiculeandabusedestroystrustand,thereIore,destroys
teamwork.
215
ThepreliminarystepstakenbythePentagonandtheservicestoaddressanti-gay
harassmentareencouraging.Thereremains,however,muchhardworktobeone.UniIormed
leadersmustcontinuetobeIront-and-centerinprovidingtheneededleadership,trainingand
accountability.Duringthepastyear,manymilitaryleadershavespokentherightwords.
216
We
willhavetowaitandseewhetherthosewordstranslateintoaction.Inthemeantime,thecombat
readinessoIourArmedForcesandtheintegrityoImilitaryleadersaswellasthesaIetyand
careersoIgay,lesbianandbisexualservicemembershanginthebalance.
212
10U.S.C.654(a)(7).
213
Seegenerallv DoDInspectorGeneral2000Report , supranote19.ThePentagonsownstudyoImorethan
75,000servicemembersshowsthatgay,lesbianandbisexualyoutharetheprimarytargetsoIillegalmilitary
harassment.ThePentagonconcluded,harassmentoIperceivedhomosexualswasmostoItendonebyiunior
enlistedmalestootheriuniorenlistedmales. Ia.at18.Juniorenlistedpersonnelarealmostexclusivelyyouth.
214
GeneralH.NormanSchwarzkopIoIIeredthisdeIinitionoIsuccessincombat:
What keeps soldiers in their Ioxholes rather than running away in the Iace oI
mass waves oI attacking enemy, what keeps the marines attacking up the hills
under withering machinegun Iire, what keeps the pilots Ilying through heavy
surIace-to-airmissileIiretodeliverthebombsontargets,isthesimpleIactthat
theydonotwanttoletdowntheirbuddiesontheleItortheright.Theydonot
wanttobetraytheirunitandtheircomradeswithwhomtheyhaveestablisheda
specialbondthroughsharedhardshipandsacriIicenotonlyinthewarbutalso
inthetrainingandthepreparationIorthewar.Itiscalledunitcohesion....
SchwarzkopItestimony,supranote48,at595.
215
Additionally,SLDNspastConauctUnbecomingReportshavedocumentedtheharmIulaIIectanti-gay
harassmenthasuponpersonnelretention.Mostservicememberswhocomeoutandaresubsequentlydischarged
reporttoSLDNthatanti-gayharassmentplayedaroleintheirdecisiontosacriIicetheircareersbytelling.Many
othergay,lesbianandbisexualmembersreporttoSLDNthatinordertoescapetheharassmenttheyleavethe
militaryattheendoItheirenlistmentor,iIoIIicers,simplyresign.TheServiceshave,asaresultoIallowing
unIetteredharassmentoIthoseperceivedasgay,lostthetalentedcontributionsoImanypatrioticgay,lesbianand
bisexualAmericans.Asaresult,militaryreadinesshassuIIered.
216
SeeALARACT008/00,supranote34.
LCR 04474
LCR 04475
D E D I C AT I O N
T H I S R E P O R T I S D E D I C A T E D T O A L L T H O S E W H O L O S T T H E I R L I V E S I N T H E
S E P T E M B E R 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 A T T A C K S O N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S , E S P E C I A L L Y
L I E U T E N A N T G E N E R A L T I M O T H Y J . M A U D E , T H E A R M Y S D E P U T Y C H I E F O F
S T A F F F O R P E R S O N N E L . L T G M A U D E W A S T H E A R M Y S P O I N T P E R S O N O N
M A T T E R S R E L A T E D T O D O N T A S K , D O N T T E L L . L T G M A U D E P L A Y E D A
P I V O T A L R O L E I N W O R K I N G T O P R O T E C T O U R M E N A N D W O M E N I N U N I F O R M
F R O M A N T I - G A Y H A R A S S M E N T .
A C K N OWL E D G E ME N T S
SLDN would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the entire SLDN staff in pro-
ducing and distributing Conduct Unbecoming: The Eighth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass. We especially thank the authors and editors of this report,
Jeffery M. Cleghorn, Sharra E. Greer, Paula M. Neira, C. Dixon Osburn, Steve E. Ralls, Larry
R. Rowe and Kathi S. Westcott. We would also like to acknowledge Patrick D. Moloughney,
Richard J. Mooradian and Jennifer D. Oliva for their contributions to this report.
2002 Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
LCR 04476
S E RV I CE ME MB E R S LE GA L DE F E NS E NE T WOR K
SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK (SLDN) IS DEDICATED TO ENDING WITCH HUNTS, DEATH THREATS, IMPRISONMENT,
LESBIAN-BAITING, DISCHARGES AND OTHER DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS AGAINST MEN AND WOMEN IN THE MILITARY HARMED BY
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE, DONT HARASS, AND RELATED POLICIES, THROUGH DIRECT LEGAL ASSISTANCE, WATCHDOG
ACTIVITIES, POLICY WORK, OUTREACH AND EDUCATION, AND LITIGATION SUPPORT. SINCE 1993, SLDN HAS ASSISTED MORE THAN 3,300
SERVICE MEMBERS AFFECTED BY THE POLICY.
S LDN BOA R D OF DI R E CTOR S
HONORARY CO- CHAI RS :
COL Margarethe Cammermeyer, USANG (Ret.)
MG Vance Coleman, USA (Ret.)
BG Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
BG Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.)
MG Charles Starr, Jr., USAR (Ret.)
RADM Alan M. Steinman, MD, MPH, FACPM,
USCG/USPHS (Ret.)
S LDN BOARD CHAI R:
Thomas T. Carpenter, Esq. (Los Angeles, CA)
S LDN BOARD MEMBERS :
Thomas C. Clark, CDR, USNR (Ret.) (New York, NY)
Amy S. Courter, Col., CAP (South Lyon, MI)
The Hon. Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. (Cherry Hill, NJ)
Joe Tom Easley, Esq., (Miami, FL & Hudson, NY)
LTC G. Christopher Hammet, USANG (Ret.)
(San Antonio, TX)
Jo Ann Hoenninger, Esq. (San Francisco, CA)
Arthur J. Kelleher, CAPT, MC, USNR (Ret.) M.D.
(San Diego, CA)
Robert Murphy, Esq. (New York, NY)
Antonious L.K. Porch, Esq. (Brooklyn, NY)
Craig Wadlington, Esq. (Chicago, IL)
S LDN PE R S ONNE L
C. Dixon Osburn, Esq., Executive Director
Gerald O. Kennedy, (former SPC5, USANG),
CPA Deputy Director
LEGAL S TAFF:
Sharra E. Greer, Esq., Legal Director
MAJ Jeffery M. Cleghorn, Esq., USA (Ret.) Army Liaison
Paula M. Neira, RN, CEN, Esq. (former LT, USNR)
Coast Guard/Navy Liaison
CAPT Larry R. Rowe, Esq., JAGC, USNR (Ret.)
Marine/ Navy Liaison
Kathi S. Westcott, Esq., Air Force Liaison
DEVELOPMENT S TAFF:
Karen A. Armagost,
Director of Development
Cristian Flores, (former SSgt, USAF),
Development Assistant
Christopher Neff, Development Associate
Kenneth V. St. Pierre III, Development Associate,
Events
FI NANCE & ADMI NI S TRATI ON S TAFF:
Paris D. Marcel, Staff Associate
Isaac Mintz, Senior Accountant
COMMUNI CATI ONS S TAFF:
Steve E. Ralls, Senior Communications Coordinator
LCR 04477
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
What is Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2001 Army Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
An Army of One With One Exception
2001 Air Force Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Americas Air Force No One Comes Close Especially If You Are Gay
2001 Navy Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Failed Leadership Hijacking Dignity & Respect
2001 Marine Corps Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Once a Marine, Always a Marine Except if Youre Gay
2001 Coast Guard Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Another Year of Semper Forgot Us
The Policys Disproportionate Impact on Women and Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Why Do Service Members Make Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
End Notes (Unpublished documents cited and denoted with
e
are available in a separate volume from SLDN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Conduct Unbecoming:
T H E E I G H T H A N N U A L R E P O R T O N
Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
LCR 04478
LCR 04479
This year has been a diffi-
cult and challenging one
for all of America. We are at
war. At a time when we need our
forces to be at their strongest, Dont
Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont
Harass (DADTDPDH) continues
to undermine our national security.
It has never been more obvious than
in the weeks and months following
September 11th that this policy
weakens our military, deteriorates
our readiness and undermines the
morale and cohesion of our troops.
The day has arrived for the Bush
Administration and Members of
Congress to preserve the strength of
our nation and repeal the militarys
gay ban once and for all.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans
are making important contributions
to the war on terrorism from Navy
Airman Paul Peverelle, whose story
is detailed in the Navy section of
this report, to the anonymous sol-
dier quoted in the Army section who
is currently deployed in Operation
Enduring Freedom. Lesbians, gays
and bisexuals are flying planes.
They are translating documents.
They are fighting on the front lines.
During this conflict, and throughout
the history of our nations armed
forces, lesbian, gay and bisexual
Americans make, and have made,
the military go. And the military
makes them go home sometimes
without careers, discharged for being
gay, and sometimes in body bags.
The price we pay
for federally sanc-
tioned discrimina-
tion is too high.
In 2001, the
armed services
fired more than
1250 lesbians,
gays and bisexu-
als. This figure
includes unofficial
Air Force dis-
charge statistics
received by SLDN
from a source out-
side the Air Force
- the Air Force
has so far refused
to release to
SLDN its dis-
charge numbers
for 2001.
Assuming that the
Air Force official
numbers match
its unofficial
numbers, 2001
saw more gay dis-
charges than any year since 1987.
Since the policys implementation,
more than 7,800 American service
members have lost their jobs because
of anti-gay discrimination.
1
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
OUR REAL STRENGTH ARE THE PEOPLE WHO FLY
[THE PLANES], AND WHO MAINTAIN THEM, THE
PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE MILITARY GO.
President George W. Bush
1
TOTAL GAY DISCHARGES
COSTS OF DADTDPDH
1994
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
617
772
870
1007
1163
1046
1241 1250
$18,181,250
$234,735,556
$22,748,663
$25,636,447
$36,833,975 $36,568,770
$30,822,670
$34,270,330
$29,673,450
I
II
LCR 04480
Taxpayers have paid more than $230
million to facilitate this federal poli-
cy of job discrimination. Not
included in the figures are the costs
of investigation or the loss of count-
less men and women who resign or
choose not to reenlist because of the
gay ban.
There is no question that their skills
are urgently needed. In the days fol-
lowing the initiation of the war on
terrorism, each Service, except the
Coast Guard, issued stop-loss
orders to suspend some administra-
tive discharges.
2
Their goal? To
retain needed personnel. Yet, as they
sought so clearly to retain qualified
personnel, they took time to specifi-
cally mandate that lesbian, gay and
bisexual service members continue to
be fired. As our nation seeks to
make the military go, the Pentagon
continues to tell helicopter pilots,
cryptologists, doctors and others
with skills we so urgently need to
simply go home. Not because they
cannot do their job, but because of
their sexual orientation.
The time has come to align our pri-
orities and pursue terrorists, not the
patriotic Americans who risk their
lives for our freedom while denied
their own.
2
WHITE WASH OF SILENCE:
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS
FAILURE TO PROTECT OUR
MILITARY PERSONNEL
The White House and the Pentagon
have allowed a climate of pervasive
anti-gay
4
sentiment to fester and
grow within the services.
Administration officials have granted
implicit permission for every threat,
assault and act of intimidation that
has occurred on their watch because
they have done nothing to stop it.
Harassment is once again at record
levels,
5
an epidemic the Pentagon
itself recognizes directly undermines
good order, discipline and morale.
6
Asking and pursuing con-
tinue in all the services.
Yet, nearly two years after
the Pentagon adopted a
thirteen point Anti-
Harassment Action Plan,
nearly three years after the brutal
murder of Private First Class Barry
Winchell at Fort Campbell Kentucky,
who was murdered because of his
perceived sexual orientation, and
nearly three years after the Pentagon
ordered regular refresher training on
DADTDPDH, none of the services
have complied with either order.
That is nothing less than scandalous.
In March 2000, the DoD
Inspector General released a
report on its survey of 75,000
service members. The report
found that 80% of respondents
heard derogatory, anti-gay
remarks during the past year;
37% said they witnessed or
experienced targeted incidents
of anti-gay harassment, 9% of
whom reported anti-gay threats
and 5% of whom reported wit-
nessing or experiencing anti-gay
physical assaults. The majority
of respondents reported their
leaders took no steps to stop the
harassment.
This year the Navy was caught short
when an Associated Press photogra-
pher took a photo of a bomb with
the words High Jack this fags
scrawled across it. Navy officials
called it a spontaneous act of pen-
manship and not reflective of the
climate on board the USS Enterprise,
where the incident took place. Navy
Airman Paul Peverelle, however, was
stationed on the USS Enterprise at
that time and was verbally harassed
and threatened for being gay while
on board. That is simply unaccept-
able. In the Army section, we dis-
cuss how lawyers at the Judge
Advocate General school in
Charlottesville, VA have reportedly
made a mockery of the anti-harass-
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
65 62
37
141
127
77
191
132
89
235
182
124
350
400
161
471
968
194
412
871
159
277
1075
119
Dont Harass
Dont Pursue
Dont Ask
TOTAL VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
Treatment of all individuals with dignity and
respect is essential to good order and discipline.
- DoD Anti-Harassment Action Plan (July 21, 2000)
3
III
LCR 04481
ment training. In the Air Force sec-
tion, we describe how the Air Force
is seeking to discharge Captain
Monica Hill after she requested a
deferment from active duty to care
for her dying partner. She lost her
partner and now is about to lose her
job.
Until military officials are held
accountable for harassment, until
their jobs are on the line, lives will
continue to be ruined. This year
marks the tenth anniversary of
Seaman Allen Shindlers death at the
hands of fellow sailors because of his
perceived sexual orientation. It was
his murder that
prompted, in part,
the debate on gays
in the military nine
years ago. Since
then, the evidence
continues to grow
that DADTDPDH
undermines military
readiness and
should end. Today,
the United States is
conducting joint
operations with our allies who have
lifted their bans without incident.
In defense of homeland security,
uniformed personnel are working
alongside openly gay
people as they protect
our nation: civilian gov-
ernment employees,
countless federal, state
and local law enforce-
ment and emergency
personnel, and private-
sector-employees.
Sadly, it is reasonable to
foresee that as the cur-
rent Administration con-
tinues to do nothing, and bury its
head in the sand, there could be yet
another anti-gay murder in our
armed forces.
3
TURNING COMMITMENT
INTO ACTION:
FOR ALL OF OUR MILITARY PEOPLE
Until the day the policy is repealed,
the Bush Administration must take
proactive steps to stop asking, pur-
suit and harassment. Among our
recommendations:
Hold the services accountable
for their failure to implement
the thirteen-point Anti-
Harassment Action Plan pub-
lished in July 2000. The
Pentagons failure to require the
services to fully implement the
Plan as ordered, which could
save lives, is irresponsible. The
services should ensure every
service member from recruit to
flag and general officer receives
appropriate training to prevent
anti-gay harassment. The
Pentagon should also make clear
to all services that anti-gay
harassment includes, but is not
limited to, inappropriate com-
ments and gestures, mistreat-
ment, threats, and assaults.
Permit service
members to report
anti-gay harassment
and crimes without fear
of being outed and dis-
charged. Inspectors
General, law-enforcement per-
sonnel, equal-opportunity rep-
resentatives, chaplains, health-
care providers, commanders and
other personnel who deal with
harassment should be given
clear instructions not to out
service members who seek their
help. Service members
straight, lesbian, gay and bisex-
ualgo to these sources for
help. There must also be ade-
quate training on how to handle
complaints of harassment,
which is currently lacking.
The Pentagon must recommit
to ensuring full and adequate
training on the policys inves-
tigative limits and privacy pro-
tections. The Department of
Defense Inspector General, in a
March 2000 survey of 75,000
service members, found that
57% had not received any poli-
cy training, and of those who
said they understood the policy
to a large or very large extent,
only 26% could answer correct-
ly three basic questions about
how the policy works.
Hold accountable those who
ask, pursue or harass. Military
leaders should aggressively hold
accountable those who ask, pur-
sue or harass, starting with the
many examples cited in this
report. Commanders must
understand there are specific
consequences for violations,
from letters of counseling to
courts-martial, depending on
the offense. The Pentagon must
uphold and enforce its own law.
If, as Dr. Rice asserted to SLDN in
her letter of February 20, 2001, the
President is committed to a harass-
ment-free environment for all of our
military people, the White House
will surely agree that taking these
steps is urgently needed to protect
those who protect our nation. The
time has come to adopt and imple-
ment the policies that will preserve
the strength of our armed forces and
our nation.
The President is committed to a harassment-free
environment for all of our military people.
Dr. Condaleeza Rice (February 20, 2001)
7
Seaman Schindler
LCR 04482
4
13 POINT ANTI-HARASSMENT ACTION PLAN
General Recommendations:
1. The Department of Defense should adopt an overarching principle regarding harassment,
including that based on perceived sexual orientation:
Treatment of all individuals with dignity and respect is essential to good order and discipline.
Mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures undermine this principle and have no
place in our armed forces. Commanders and leaders must develop and maintain a climate that fosters
unit cohesion, esprit de corps, and mutual respect for all members of the command or organization.
2. The Department of Defense should issue a single Department-wide directive on harassment.
It should make clear that mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures, includ-
ing that based on sexual orientation, are not acceptable.
Further, the directive should make clear that commanders and leaders will be held accountable for
failure to enforce this directive.
Recommendations Regarding Training:
3. The Services shall ensure feedback on reporting mechanisms are in place to measure homosexual conduct
policy training and anti-harassment training effectiveness in the following three areas: knowledge, behav-
ior, and climate.
4. The Services shall review all homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programs
to ensure they address the elements and intent of the DoD overarching principle and implementing direc-
tive.
5. The Services shall review homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programs
annually to ensure they contain all information required by law and policy, including the DoD overarch-
ing principle and implementing directive, and are tailored to the grade and responsibility level of their
audiences.
LCR 04483
5
Recommendations Regarding Reporting:
6. The Services shall review all avenues for reporting mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments
or gestures to ensure they facilitate effective leadership response.
Reporting at the lowest level possible within the chain of command shall be encouraged.
Personnel shall be informed of other confidential and non-confidential avenues to report mistreat-
ment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.
7. The Services shall ensure homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programs
address all avenues to report mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures and
ensure persons receiving reports of mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures
know how to handle these reports.
8. The Services shall ensure that directives, guidance, and training clearly explain the application of the
dont ask, dont tell policy in the context of receiving and reporting complaints of mistreatment, harass-
ment, and inappropriate comments or gestures, including:
Complaints will be taken seriously, regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation;
Those receiving complaints must not ask about sexual orientation questions about sexual orienta-
tion are not needed to handle complaints; violators will be held accountable; and
Those reporting harassment ought not tell about or disclose sexual orientation information regard-
ing sexual orientation is not needed for complaints to be taken seriously.
Recommendations Regarding Enforcement:
9. The Services shall ensure that commanders and leaders take appropriate action against anyone who
engages in mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.
10. The Services shall ensure that commanders and leaders take appropriate action against anyone who con-
dones or ignores mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.
11. The Services shall examine homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programs to
ensure they provide tailored training on enforcement mechanisms.
Recommendations Regarding Measurement:
12. The Services shall ensure inspection programs assess adherence to the DoD overarching principle and
implementing directive through measurement of knowledge, behavior, and climate.
13. The Services shall determine the extent to which homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment
training programs, and the implementation of this action plan, are effective in addressing mistreatment,
harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.
July 21, 2000
LCR 04484
THE WORLD SEES OUR
COMPASSION:
SETTING THE TONE FOR
PRESERVING DIGNITY & RESPECT
Ultimately, the ban on gays in the
military must be lifted, and the
United States must join the rest of
the industrialized western nations
that have abandoned their policies of
discrimination. Forcing lesbian, gay
and bisexual service members to
hide, lie, evade and deceive their
commanders, subordinates, peers,
families and friends breaks the bonds
of trust among service members
essential to unit cohesion. It is also
inherently un-American, as is forcing
commanders to discharge mission-
tested, valued members of their team
because of who they are. Enforcing
a law that treats an entire group of
Americans as second-class citizens
undercuts the very liberties and free-
doms our military members fight to
protect.
Leadership is needed, from the halls
of the White House to the halls of
the Pentagon. Allowing rampant
harassment and policy violations to
continue unchecked will lead to the
loss of qualified personnel, lowered
morale and diminished unit cohe-
sion.
As goes the armed forces, so goes the
nation. It is time for the Bush
Administration to end its silence on
this issue. It is time for discrimina-
tion in our nations military to go.
6
The world sees our compassion
toward one another.
8
LCR 04485
DADTDPDH is a ban on
lesbians, gays and bisexu-
als serving in the military
similar to the policies banning
service that have been in place for
the past fifty years.
9
DADTDPDH
is the only law in the land that
authorizes the firing of an American
for being gay. There is no other fed-
eral, state, or local law like it.
Indeed, DADTDPDH is the only
law that punishes lesbians, gays, and
bisexuals for coming out. Many
Americans view DADTDPDH as a
benign gentlemens agreement with
discretion as the key to job security.
That is simply not the case. An
honest statement of ones sexual ori-
entation to anyone, anywhere, any-
time may lead to being fired.
THE HISTORY OF THE POLICY
DADTDPDH is the result of a
failed effort by President Clinton to
end the ban on gays in the military.
Spurred in part by the brutal 1992
murder of Seaman Allen Shindler,
candidate Clinton proposed ending
the ban by issuing an Executive
Order overriding the Department of
Defense regulations that barred gays
from serving. Congress, however,
intervened and the ban was made
law, theoretically preventing action
by future Commanders in Chief.
This law was, however, significantly
different from prior prohibitions on
service in three respects. First,
Congressional and military leaders
acknowledged, for the first time in
1993, that lesbians, gays and bisexu-
als serve our nation and do so hon-
orably.
10
Second, the policy also
states sexual orientation is no longer
a bar to military service.
11
Third,
President Clinton, Congress and
military leaders agreed to end intru-
sive questions about service mem-
bers sexual orientation and to stop
the militarys infamous investigations
to ferret out suspected lesbian, gay
and bisexual service members.
12
They agreed to take steps to prevent
anti-gay harassment.
13
They agreed
to treat lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members even-handedly in
the criminal justice system, instead
of criminally prosecuting them in
circumstances where they would not
prosecute heterosexual service mem-
bers.
14
They agreed to implement
the law with due regard for the pri-
vacy and associations of service
members.
15
The law became known
in 1993 as Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
Dont Pursue to signify the new lim-
its to investigations and the intent to
respect service members privacy.
Small steps were made to keep some
of these promises. Questioning on
sexual orientation at induction
stopped. Criminal prosecutions have
decreased and witch-hunts have
declined. President Clinton issued an
Executive Order ending discrimina-
tion in the issuance of security clear-
ances. The Department of Defense
issued guidelines on anti-gay harass-
ment and limits on investigations.
Then, in 1999, PFC Barry Winchell
was murdered by fellow soldiers at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky. In the
wake of this murder, the
Department of Defense (DoD)
issued new guidance on prohibiting
anti-gay harassment. President
Clinton issued an Executive Order
providing for sentence enhancement
under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) for hate crimes, as
well as a limited psychotherapist-
patient privilege. In February 2000,
Pentagon officials added Dont
Harass to the title of the policy.
The Pentagon then did a survey on
anti-gay harassment, finding it was
widespread. Thereafter the
Pentagon formed a working group
which issued a 13-point action plan
7
W H A T I S D O N T A S K , D O N T T E L L ,
D O N T P U R S U E , D O N T H A R A S S ?
LCR 04486
to address anti-gay harassment
which the services were then direct-
ed to implement.
These limited steps, spurred in large
part by the murder of PFC Winchell,
have done little to fulfill the promises
made when the policy was created.
Intrusive questioning continues.
Harassment continues in epidemic
proportions. Little regard for service
member privacy has been shown dur-
ing the life of this law. Simply put,
asking, pursuing and harassing have
continued for all of the nine years
since the law was passed.
THE POLICY ITSELF
SLDN documents violations of the
policy reported to us by service
members. In order to understand
the critiques of the policy and the
violations documented in this report,
it is important to understand the
policy. One way to understand the
law, and implementing regulations,
known as DADTDPDH is by break-
ing it down to its component parts.
Dont Ask. Commanders or
appointed inquiry officials shall not
ask, and members shall not be
required to reveal, their sexual orien-
tation.
16
Dont Tell. A basis for discharge
exists if . . . [t]he member has said
that he or she is a homosexual or
bisexual, or made some other state-
ment that indicates a propensity or
intent to engage in homosexual
acts . . . .
17
Dont Pursue. More than a dozen
specific investigative limits, as laid
out in DoD instructions and direc-
tives, comprise Dont Pursue. It is
the most complicated and least
understood component of the policy.
These investigative limits establish a
minimum threshold to start an
inquiry and restrict the scope of an
inquiry even when one is properly
initiated.
A service member may be investigat-
ed and administratively discharged if
they:
1) make a statement that they
are lesbian, gay or bisexual;
2) engage in physical contact
with someone of the same
sex for the purposes of sex-
ual gratification; or
3) marry, or attempt to marry,
someone of the same sex.
18
Only a service members command-
ing officer may initiate an inquiry
into homosexual conduct.
19
In
order to begin an inquiry, the com-
manding officer must receive credi-
ble information from a reliable
source that a service member has
violated the policy.
20
Actions that
are associational behavior, such as
having gay friends, going to a gay
bar, attending gay pride events, and
reading gay magazines or books, are
never to be considered credible.
21
In addition, a service members
report to his/her command regard-
ing harassment or assault based on
perceived sexuality is never to be
considered credible evidence.
22
If a determination is made that cred-
ible information exists that a service
member has violated the policy, a
service members commanding offi-
cer may initiate a limited inquiry
into the allegation or statement.
That inquiry is limited in two pri-
mary ways. First, the command
may only investigate the factual cir-
cumstances directly relevant to the
specific allegation(s).
23
Second, in
statements cases, the command may
only question the service member,
his/her chain of command, and any-
one that the service member sug-
gests.
24
In most cases of homosexu-
8
1992 1993 1995 1996 1997
Seaman
Allen
Shindler
murdered
Candidate
Clinton proposes
ending DoD reg-
ulations
banning gays
from the Military
August 1995:
President signs
Executive Order end-
ing sexual orientation
disrcimination in
issuance of security
clearances
Congress
enacts
DADTDP
into law
March 1997:
DoD issues
Dorn Memo
on anti gay
harassment
LCR 04487
al statement, no investigation is nec-
essary.
25
Cases involving private
sexual acts between consenting
adults should be dealt with adminis-
tratively, and criminal investigators
should not be involved.
26
The command may not attempt to
gather additional information not
relevant to the specific act or allega-
tion, and the command may not
question anyone outside of those
listed above without approval from
the Secretary of that Service.
27
Such
an investigation is considered a sub-
stantial investigation.
28
In order to
request authority to conduct a sub-
stantial investigation, the service
members command must be able to
clearly articulate an appropriate basis
for an investigation.
29
As with a limited inquiry, only a
cer has the authority to request per-
mission to conduct a substantial
investigation.
30
By definition, a
substantial investigation is any-
thing that extends beyond question-
ing the service member, the service
members immediate chain of com-
mand, and anyone the service mem-
ber suggests.
31
Dont Harass. The Armed Forces
do not tolerate harassment or vio-
lence against any service member,
for any reason.
32
There are many
regulations and laws that prohibit
harassment and can be applied to
anti-gay harassment cases.
Harassment can take different forms,
ranging from a hostile climate rife
with anti-gay comments, to direct
verbal and physical abuse to death
threats.
DADTDPDH is a complex policy
comprised of statute, regulations and
policy memoranda. The above
description, however, covers the
basic policy components and those
are fairly simple. Dont ask about
sexual orientation. Dont investigate
sexual orientation, except in specific
circumstances in limited ways.
Dont harass. Dont tolerate harass-
ment based on perceived sexual ori-
entation. Unfortunately, even after
nine years, the Services continue to
violate these basic rules.
9
1998 1999 2000
July 5, 1999:
PFC Barry
Winchell
murdered
August 12,
1999: DoD
issues DeLeon
Memo prohibit-
ing anti-gay
harassment
October 1999:
President Clinton
issues Executive
Order providing for
limited psychothera-
pist-patient privilege
and sentence
enhancement under
UCMJ for hate crimes
February
2000:
Dont
Harass
added to
Homosexual
Conduct
Policy
March 16,
2000: DoD
Publishes
IG Report
documenting
rampant
anti-gay
harassment
July 21, 2000:
DoD Working
Group issues 13
point Anti-
Harassment
Action Plan -
Services directed
to implement
LCR 04488
LCR 04489
Private First Class Barry
Winchell was beaten to
death in July 1999, in his
barracks at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, by fellow soldiers who
believed him to be gay. Over two
and a half years later, the Army has
yet to take any effective action to
eliminate the type of anti-gay harass-
ment that eventually led to PFC
Winchells brutal murder. Army
leaders refuse to implement the
Anti-Harassment Action Plan. In
todays
Army,
harassment
of lesbian,
gay and
bisexual
soldiers
including
those serv-
ing in our
nations
war on ter-
rorism is alive and well. SLDNs
cases reflect a worsening, hostile cli-
mate where gay soldiers face great
risk of bodily harm or death not
only from our nations enemies, but
also from our own troops.
SLDN documented during 2001 a
record 513 instances of anti-gay
harassment in the Army, a shocking
145% increase from the year 2000.
The death threats and hateful anti-
gay ridicule permeating virtually
every aspect of Army culture led to
more than 616 lesbian, gay and
bisexual soldiers being fired from
their jobs the most discharges in
any service.
33
Fort Campbell site
of the Winchell murder chalked
up 222 gay discharges, accounting
for 36% of the Armys total. Gay
soldiers continue to report frequent-
ly being asked and pursued, in
direct violation of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass.
The story in the Army this year,
much more so than in the past, is
about failed leadership driven by cal-
lous indifference. Army leaders, up
and down the chain of command,
have failed to implement the safety
and training initiatives launched in
the wake of PFC Winchells murder.
Last year, SLDN lauded the Army
for finally acknowledging its anti-gay
harassment problem and taking
some good first steps to fix it. This
year, SLDN sharply criticizes Army
leaders for collectively and quite
purposefully losing interest. Many
junior leaders have tolerated,
encouraged and participated in anti-
gay harassment, reflecting the failure
of senior leadership to act. The
Armys Vision states [w]e are
about leadership; it is our stock in
trade.
34
If the Armys climbing dis-
charge and harassment rates are what
the Army calls leadership, its time to
replenish the merchandise and
restock its shelves.
This section discusses what the
Army did more pointedly, what it
failed to do during 2001, and
what steps the Army needs to take in
2002 to get back on track.
11
2 0 0 1 A R M Y R E P O R T
AN ARMY OF ONE
WITH ONE EXCEPTION
[A]LMOST ON A DAILY BASIS, I HEAR FAG COMMENTS AND GAY JOKES ... FROM
MOST RANKS FROM PRACTICALLY EVERY MEMBER OF MY [UNIT] ONE OF
WHOM IS A [JAG OFFICER] ONE OF THE CHAPLAINS HERE HAD MADE SOME
SORT OF GAY JOKE NCOS AND OFFICERS NEVER TAKE ACTION AGAINST THOSE
MAKING THE COMMENTS, INSTEAD THEY JUST LAUGH ALONG.
soldier deployed overseas in Operation Enduring Freedom in a communication to SLDN
PFC Winchell
LCR 04490
NOTHING LESS THAN HELL:
ANTI-GAY HARASSMENT
AT RECORD LEVELS
The Armys anti-gay harassment cri-
sis is, arguably, worse than ever. In a
year where the Army fired more
than 616 lesbian, gay and bisexual
soldiers, SLDN documented an
astounding 513 Army Dont
Harass violations. The Armys
record high discharge rate appears to
be the direct result of the worsening
epidemic of anti-gay hostility. The
following sampling of soldier testi-
monies vividly illustrates the scope
of the Armys anti-gay harassment
crisis.
Specialist Dell Sellers, who had over
six years exceptional service, reports
finding pervasive anti-gay harassment
at every one of his assignments,
including two tours of duty in South
Korea and one each at Fort Stewart,
Georgia, and Fort Carson, Colorado.
If I were to find out if any-
body in this unit was gay, I
would fucking kill that indi-
vidual. Leaders statement
to soldier at Fort Sheridan,
Illinois.
Beat the shit out of those
fags beat the faggot moth-
er-fucker half dead kicked
that faggots ass.
Comments
frequently
heard by
soldier at
Fort
Gordon,
Georgia.
Who
hates this
damn fag-
got?
Leaders
question to
young sol-
diers
regarding a gay soldier at
Fort Benning, Georgia.
Dyke frequent comment
directed to female soldier at
Fort Bliss, Texas.
Why are you smiling like a
faggot swinging limb to limb
from a dick tree? Drill
Sergeants question to soldier
at Fort Benning, Georgia.
[B]eing forced to lay there
even being prodded into
laughing [at] these horrible
jokes is nothing less than
hell.
Anonymous Officer, Fort Knox, Kentucky
The year 2001 was a particular dis-
appointment given that it came on
the heels of the Armys most deter-
mined effort to do whats right by
its gay soldiers during the year
immediately following PFC
Winchells murder. In early 2000,
for example, the Army issued a
directive stating that harassment of
soldiers for any reason, to include
perceived sexual orientation, will not
be tolerated, and ordered that all
soldiers receive refresher training
on the policy.
35
The Army even
revamped its homosexual conduct
policy training materials, focusing
on the need to treat all soldiers with
dignity and respect.
36
The Army
directed that its training regulation,
Army Regulation 350-1, be revised
to include an annual Dont Harass
training requirement.
37
The Armys
orders followed the Pentagons man-
date to comply with a thirteen point
Anti-Harassment Action Plan.
12
US ARMY DISCHARGES
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
136
184
199 197
312
271
573
616
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
17
36
48
11
122
276
209
513
ARMY DONT HARASS VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
IV
V
LCR 04491
Army Chief of Staff General Eric K.
Shinseki issued the following order:
[a]ny derogatory words about any
group, including those based upon
sexual orientation may subject a
soldier to adverse administrative
actions or disciplinary measures
under the UCMJ.
38
In an effort to
stress the importance of the subject
matter, General Shinseki personally
trained all other Army four star
Generals on the policy, and encour-
aged them to do the same with their
subordinate General officers.
39
This past year, however, the Army
did almost nothing. Although the
Army issued its first-ever training
publication, entitled Dignity and
Respect: a Training Guide on
Homosexual Conduct Policy, in
May 2001, soldiers report to SLDN
that the training guide is not being
used. Over two years after directing
its revision, the Army has not updat-
ed Army Regulation 350-1 to
require annual training. The sad
truth is soldiers report receiving no
policy training at the unit level dur-
ing 2001. The Army is doing pre-
cious little to implement the Anti-
Harassment Action Plan.
The policy can only be suc-
cessful through the direct and
positive involvement of com-
manders and other leaders at
every level
The Army Inspector General
40
The Army leaderships lack of serious-
ness and long-term commitment to
the Anti-Harassment Action Plan is
obvious from the fact that there has
been no effort whatsoever to engage
the Armys Non-Commissioned
Officers (NCOs). NCOs are the
Armys backbone. The Sergeant
Major of the Army, its most senior
NCO, has never once publicly spo-
ken about the importance of treating
lesbian and gay soldiers and those
perceived as such with dignity and
respect. Until NCOs become direct-
ly involved at every level, the Anti-
Harassment Action Plan will remain
dead in the water.
Systemic policy training is in place
at the Armys schools implemented
following PFC Winchells murder.
It is, however, treated as the func-
tional equivalent of a Jerry
Springer television episode. This
training cannot be viewed as a
good-faith effort to comply with the
Anti-Harassment Action Plan when
it is conducted in such an unprofes-
sional manner. A shocking illustra-
tion comes from the highest levels of
Army academia, its law school.
13
ITS (TOO) ELEMENTARY:
TRAINING AT THE ARMYS
JAG SCHOOL
SLDN has received a report about
attorney-instructors at the Armys
JAG School routinely engaging in
professional misconduct while pre-
senting formal training on the policy.
The Armys school for training attor-
neys and senior leaders on Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
subjects, located in Charlottesville,
Virginia, has developed formal poli-
cy training in response to General
Shinsekis January 2000 directive.
The Army JAG Schools approach,
however, appears intended to poke
fun at gays and ridicule the policy,
rather than to teach Army leaders
how to apply the rules.
According to a reserve officer who
recently attended the school, three
Army Majors each a JAG attorney
presented a course entitled
Reserve Component Separations, a
portion of which ridiculed lesbian,
gay and bisexual soldiers. This spe-
cific class was taught on January 9,
2002 and was attended by approxi-
mately 85 Army Reserve and
National Guard attorney-students.
The class was presented by Majors
Robertson, Tuckey, and Woodward.
SLDNs understanding is that this
training is part of a standard JAG
School course taught to all Army
lawyers passing through the
Charlottesville campus, as well as to
all senior Army commanding officers
(in the ranks of Colonel and above).
Major Robertson, the chief instruc-
tor on the Homosexual Conduct
Policy portion of the course, said
that he supervised the attorneys
defending PFC Winchells murderers
during their courts-martial while
assigned as the Chief of the Trial
Defense Service at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky.
Major Robertson then reportedly
conducted a Power-Point presenta-
tion, with imported video and sound
clips, that at least one officer per-
Faggots Queers Tinky Winky
words contained in JAG School briefing
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

A
r
m
y
,

M
a
y

2
0
0
1
LCR 04492
ceived as inappropriate, unprofes-
sional and demeaning. The training
reportedly used a clip from the
movie Stripes referring to gay
Americans as queers, an image of
the television Tele-Tubby character
Tinky-Winky, and other video
clips containing the word faggot.
The officer providing this informa-
tion to SLDN reports that most of
the students laughed during this
presentation, leading the officer to
conclude the training was nothing
more than a joke.
During 2001, and prior to this
report of JAG School misconduct,
SLDN twice wrote to the Judge
Advocate General of the Army,
Major General Thomas J. Romig,
raising issues of concern about how
Army lawyers implement the policy.
MG Romig declined to directly
address SLDNs concerns, choosing
instead to respond, [o]ur objective
is to ensure that all individuals who
serve in our Army are treated with
dignity and respect, free from harass-
ment, now and in the future.
41
SLDN calls on MG Romig to
immediately investigate this reported
misconduct. If substantiated, MG
Romig should take swift action up
to and including relieving these
instructors from their duties for pro-
fessional dereliction. MG Romig
should further consider pressing
UCMJ charges for Conduct
Unbecoming an Officer and violat-
ing General Shinsekis order.
42
14
HAUNTED BY MURDER:
THE SPECIAL CASE OF
FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY
Fort
Campbell
discharged
222 les-
bian, gay
and bisex-
ual soldiers
during
2001,
more than
any other
Army
instal-
lation. Fort Campbell, the
site of PFC Barry
Winchells brutal anti-
gay murder in July
1999, accounted for an
astonishing 36% of the
Armys reported gay dis-
charges. This is the sec-
ond consecutive year in
which Fort Campbell
has had an inordinate
number of gay discharges, having
also discharged more gay troops than
other bases 160 (28% of the Army
total) during 2000.
Under the command of
Major General Richard
A. Cody, Fort
Campbell has worked
to improve the bases
climate. MG Cody, for
example, ordered Fort
Campbell leaders to
vigorously police the content of
[cadence runs and] training briefs
to ensure that they are devoid of
profanity or phrases demeaning of
others.
44
Unfortunately, some Fort Campbell
leaders continue to perpetuate anti-
gay attitudes within their units by
tolerating hateful anti-gay remarks.
Fort Campbells alarmingly high gay
discharge rate is at least partly driven
by ongoing instances of leader-
tolerated peer-on-peer
harassment. Despite
MG Codys efforts,
much work remains to
be done.
During 2001, SLDN
assisted eight soldiers from
Fort Campbell. Every
one of these soldiers
report hearing degrading
and
defam-
atory
com-
ments
regard-
ing
gays
while
as-
signed
to the
base.
Since my arrival at Fort
Campbell, I have heard many
anti-gay comments (e.g.,
fag, faggot, etc.). Several
times, the comments have
been heard by NCOs, but I
have not seen any NCO
make an on-the-spot correc-
tion to stop the comments.
- former Infantryman Keagan Smith
45
I must sit silently while other
soldiers ridicule gays and
bisexuals. I feel compelled to
go along with these jokes
because if I do not, then I
would become the target
- from a bisexual soldier at Fort
Campbell
Hes definitely a Homo
- comment made towards a bisexual
soldier at Fort Campbell
[W]e share a common goal of ensuring that all
Fort Campbell soldiers straight, gay, lesbian,
and those perceived to be gay or lesbian are
treated with dignity and respect.
43
Major General Richard A. Cody, Commanding General Fort Campbell
36%
64%
MG Cody
Private Smith
Discharges from Ft. Campbell,
Kentucky comprised 36% of all
Army discharges
VI
LCR 04493
He got
what he
deserved
- comment
referring to
PFC
Winchell
repeatedly
heard by a
Fort
Campbell sol-
dier
First Lieutenant Shawn Brown served
as an Air Defense Artillery Battalion
personnel officer at Fort Campbell,
completing his Army commitment in
May 2001. 1LT Brown reports hear-
ing many anti-
gay comments
made by Fort
Campbell per-
sonnel, ranging
from junior
enlisted soldiers
to members of
the officer
corps. Brown
states that
under the cur-
rent policy
ignorance
breeds because few are willing to
speak out against harassment for fear
of somehow seeming to oppose
Army policy. 1LT Brown was an
exceptional officer, but he knew that
had knowledge of his being gay come
to Army leaders attention they
would have promptly branded him
as unfit for duty. 1LT Brown left the
Army at the end of his commitment
because of this irrational prejudice.
He is one of many soldiers who
never show up in the statistics of gay
discharges, but nonetheless is a casu-
alty of the policy.
SLDN has worked with Fort
Campbell to identify steps to curb
its high gay discharge rate. In
December 2001, SLDN provided
Fort Campbell with ten specific rec-
ommendations on how to improve
the conditions under which its les-
bian, gay and bisexual troops
live and work.
46
SLDNs recommendations
focused on the continued
effort to fix training deficien-
cies identified in the July
2000 Army Inspector
Generals Fort Campbell Task
Force Report.
47
The Army
IG Report concluded Fort
Campbell had no sustain-
ment training on the policy
and its leaders lacked an
understanding and working knowl-
edge of the policy. The Army IG
further concluded that successful
implementation of safety and policy
training required commitment from
Army leaders at every level.
SLDN recommended that Fort
Campbell reexamine its procedures
for handling gay discharges. For
example, SLDN found, following
PFC Winchells murder, Fort
Campbell instituted a unique system
requiring battalion level (Lieutenant
Colonel) commanders to personally
handle gay cases. This unique
requirement had the unintended
consequence of severing junior
leader involvement especially that
of NCOs in matters relating to the
policy, thereby failing to comply
with one of the key conclusions of
the Army IG Fort Campbell Task
Forces report.
Severing junior leaders from respon-
sibility for policy implementation
relieves them from accountability in
its implementation. SLDN has
urged MG Cody to involve his sen-
ior non-commissioned officer, the
Division Sergeant Major, in policy
training and in setting the proper
leadership example.
Fort Campbells ongoing problems
with anti-gay harassment, epidemic
throughout the broader Army, can
only be addressed through forceful
leadership and holding accountable
those especially leaders who vio-
late the Dont Harass policy.
15
Pat Kutteles
mother of PFC Barry Winchell
ANYTHING BUT MAJESTIC:
LIFE AT FORT BRAGG, N.C.
Despite Lieutenant General
McNeills assertions to the contrary,
Fort Bragg leaders are failing to
work for the dignity and respect of
lesbian, gay and bisexual sol-
diers. The cases of Staff
Sergeant Wayne Peacock and
Sergeant
Carlos
Torres illus-
trate the
numerous
reports of
anti-gay harassment SLDN
received from Fort Bragg.
SSG Wayne Peacock reached a
point where he could no longer tol-
erate the per-
vasive anti-
gay climate
at Fort
Bragg. A
certified
paratrooper
with over 70
jumps from
combat air-
craft,
Peacock
wrote to his
command, I have served with
You may be certain that all members of this com-
mand work for the respect and dignity of all soldiers.
Lieutenant General Dan K. McNeill, Commanding General Fort Bragg
48
1LT Brown
SSG Peacock
LCR 04494
honor for over six years I know
that I have nothing to be ashamed of
and I can no longer continue silently
suffering from the constant barrage
of anti-gay comments that other sol-
diers and leaders make here at
Fort Bragg.
49
SGT Carlos Torres reluctantly dis-
closed his sexual orientation to Fort
Bragg leaders after becoming fed up
with the constant anti-gay harass-
ment. SGT Torres wrote to his
command I have honorably served
as a soldier for over ten years [and
can no longer endure] the frequent
anti-gay hostility I am exposed to
from other soldiers, to include some
NCOs. It seems to be okay at Fort
Bragg for soldiers to make derogato-
ry comments about and towards
gays. I can no longer tolerate this
bigotry and must speak out.
50
The poor climate at Fort Bragg is
further evidenced by an anti-gay car-
toon that ran in the on-post newspa-
per in late September 2001. The
cartoon stereotypes gay soldiers as
weak and unreliable. Although Fort
Bragg leaders apologized to SLDN
for the leadership lapse in allowing
the offensive publication, that it
happened at all shows that much
hard work remains to be done. The
publication also vividly illustrates
the Armys failure to appreciate the
many contributions of its lesbian,
gay and bisexual soldiers, such as
those of SSG Peacock and SGT
Torres. With a combined 16 plus
years of excellent military experi-
ence, Peacock and Torres epitomize
the very type of patriot needed by
our nations Army in this time of
war.
SLDN is also
concerned by
Fort Braggs
reported statis-
tics for gay dis-
charges, which
show a mysteri-
ous and unex-
plained
decrease, from
29 discharges in
2000 to only
four discharges
in 2001.
Interestingly,
neither SSG
Peacock nor
SGT Torres are likely to be counted
among Ft. Braggs discharges, since
both Peacocks and Torres discharge
paperwork stated as their reason for
separation completion of required
active service despite the fact that
neither Peacock nor Torres actually
completed their terms of
enlistment.
51
The possibility that
Fort Bragg leaders may have falsified
soldiers discharge paperwork in
order to misrepresent statistics is a
serious matter and should be
promptly investigated.
16
COMMENTS AND CONDUCT:
A FORT CARSON SOLDIERS STORY
The case of Private Mike Wooten, at
Fort Carson, Colorado, further illus-
trates the consequences of the
Armys failure to train on the policy
and allowing leader driven anti-gay
hate. The death threat was the last
straw. After suffering through
months of harassment, Private
Wooten realized he had to
come out in order to pro-
tect himself from an
onslaught of anti-gay abuse
and to ensure his safety.
Wooten wrote to his command, I
routinely hear hateful anti-gay com-
ments such as that vacuum sucks as
good as you do and you can suck
my cock. Wooten continued:
[W]ithin F Troop, rumors of
other soldiers sexual orientation
are rampant.... NCOs some-
times participate in this specula-
tion and frequently hear the anti-
gay comments being made but
never take steps to stop the com-
ments.... I have heard other sol-
diers within my unit talk openly
about perceived gay soldiers and
stated I wish I could kick their
ass. This leads me to further fear
for my safety if the speculation
about my private life is verified.
I have become the target of relentless anti-
gay harassment which includes having a
Staff Sergeant threaten to kill me if he learns
I am gay All I can think about is the
soldier back in 1999 that was killed at Fort
Campbell for his perceived sexuality.
Private Mike Wooten, Fort Carson
52
Private Wooten
Cartoon Appearing in Ft. Bragg Newspaper, Paraglide, September 2001.
LCR 04495
Wooten added:
I have tried to put up a good
front and be strong. I have
brushed off the constant com-
ments and hazing by trying to
appear not gay. Sometimes I
have attempted to deflect atten-
tion by going along with the
hateful jokes made by soldiers
and NCOs. This has caused me
great shame and personal
pain.... I have tried to serve my
country, but I cant.
SLDN notified Fort Carsons then-
Commanding General, Major
General Edward Soriano, who took
immediate steps to ensure Wootens
safety. MG Soriano ordered an
investigation into the allegations of
wrongdoing within F Troop and
whether F Troop and the 3rd
Armored Cavalry Regiment were
conducting required training on
[the policy].
The Fort Carson report substantiat-
ed the hostile anti-gay climate and
lack of training. The reports find-
ings include:
[T]he comments and con-
duct of various soldiers and
noncommissioned officers
within F Troop created an
atmosphere where offensive,
crude comments and jokes
were made and condoned by
Private Wootens immediate
section chain of command.
F Troop has no record of
conducting [DADTDPDH]
training. In addition, the
Troop commander is not
aware of the Troop ever con-
ducting the training.
There is not a local
Commanding General policy
letter covering the
Homosexual Conduct Policy.
Staff Sergeant Christopher
Porter would sometimes par-
ticipate in the joking and
would often use the word
fag in front of other non-
commissioned officers and
soldiers.
53
SLDN salutes MG Soriano for
allowing such a thorough and objec-
tive investigation into his com-
mands Dont Harass adherence.
Few commanders are so forthright.
17
OUT OF BALANCE:
A DISCONNECT BETWEEN
WORDS AND ACTIONS
The friction between the Armys
stated belief in the dignity of lesbian,
gay and bisexual soldiers, and its
failure to fully
implement prac-
tices consistent
with the Anti-
Harassment
Action Plan, has
created an environment hostile to
Army personnel. As the above illus-
trations from the JAG School, Fort
Campbell, Fort Bragg, and Fort
Carson demonstrate, Army leaders
have a long way to go to erase this
friction.
Army culture is out of balance. There is friction
between Army beliefs and practices. Over time, that
friction threatens readiness.
Report to the Army, 2001
54
ARE YOU HAVING A PROBLEM?
ARMY PURSUING GAY SOLDIERS
AT RECORD PACE; DONT ASK
VIOLATIONS CONTINUE
SLDN documented a record 133
Army Dont Pursue, along with 23
Dont Ask, violations during 2001.
It should come as no surprise that
Army leaders feel they have a green-
light to pursue since their senior
leadership has, by and large, lost
interest in ensuring lesbian, gay and
bisexual soldiers are treated with
dignity and respect. Nonetheless,
the ongoing instances of Army lead-
ers fishing for personal information
about perceived gay
soldiers is alarming.
Often times, upon
learning a soldier is
gay, leaders launch
intrusive, improper inquisitions
attempting to gather evidence to
harm the soldier, frequently by ask-
ing about sexual behaviors.
Other times, soldiers are asked about
their sexuality by their peers or their
leaders. When leaders ask questions
such as are you a lesbian? and are
you having a problem with your sex-
uality? they violate not only Dont
Ask, but Dont Pursue as well.
Army leaders are prohibited from
conducting inquiries solely to deter-
mine whether a soldier is straight,
lesbian, gay or bisexual.
55
I doubt very seriously that you are straight.
Senior NCOs statement to female soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina
LCR 04496
Have you engaged in,
attempted to engage in or
solicited another to engage in
a homosexual act?
First Sergeants question to soldier at Fort
Huachuca, Arizona
Private
Orlando
Estrella came
out to his
command, in
May 2001,
because of
anti-gay
harassment.
Private
Estrella
wrote:
[T]he Army has
proven to be much
more homophobic
and anti-gay than I
had imagined
There has been a lot
of suspicion and
rumors about serv-
ice members being
gay throughout my
unit and it has final-
ly become too emo-
tionally draining
and stressful worry-
ing about people
finding out about
me.
56
Private Estrellas
command should
have simply initiat-
ed administrative
discharge proceed-
ings but instead
chose to launch an
intrusive investiga-
tion into Estrellas
sex life. Questions
asked of Private
Estrella included:
Do you desire to have sexual
relations with an individual
of the same sex?
Do you have a same sex
partner here in Germany or
stateside?
Do any of the soldiers living
in the barracks know that
you profess to be gay?
57
In cases where lesbian, gay or bisexu-
al soldiers come out, the Army may
involuntarily discharge them.
However, Army leaders remain
bound by Dont Pursue and
should never ask intrusive questions
about the soldiers private life, par-
ticularly about homosexual acts,
just because the soldier came out.
What made you gay?
First Sergeants question of soldier at Fort
Wainwright, Alaska
Training, and consequences for those
who violate the limits on investiga-
tions, is the only way to check the
rising tide of Army Dont Pursue
violations. Dont Ask violations,
on the other hand, present a differ-
ent dilemma. That asking occurs at
all, nine years into the policy is trou-
bling, although not surprising. In a
real sense, the Dont Ask policy
inhibits development of trust
between soldiers.
Are you having a problem
with your sexuality? The Army
tells me Im not allowed to ask,
so I wont
Drill Sergeants question to soldier at Fort
Huachuca, Arizona
It is unreasonable to expect soldiers
not to query each other about their
personal lives. Indeed, such basic
interpersonal interaction is part and
parcel of how young men and
women develop trust in each other
and become cohesive as a team.
When soldiers ask questions such as
are you married? or are you dat-
ing anyone?, they are merely engag-
ing in socially acceptable behaviors
which, under the bizarre twist of the
Dont Ask policy, violates Army
rules and places gays at great risk.
Such otherwise benign questioning
is no different from that heard
everyday around the proverbial cor-
porate water-cooler, with one
notable exception: gay soldiers who
answer truthfully risk being fired
from their jobs, and becoming the
targets of increased harassment.
Are you a lesbian?
Question asked of female officer at Fort Lee,
Virginia
18
ARMY DONT PURSUE VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
16
39
43
50
101
117
100
133
ARMY DONT ASK VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
11
22 22 21 22
44
35
23
Private Estrella
VII
VIII
LCR 04497
Most lesbian, gay and bisexual sol-
diers report being compelled to play
along and pretend to be heterosexu-
al as the only way to protect them-
selves from being asked. A gay
soldier serving in Operation
Enduring Freedom describes the
dilemma: I think that I may have
done a good job trying to convince
my co-workers and command that I
am not gay ... I worry daily that I
might accidentally say or do some-
thing that might indicate my sexual
orientation.
Are you gay?
Sergeants question asked of female soldier at
Fort Carson, Colorado
Although the Armys core values call
for soldiers to live with integrity and
honor, for lesbian, gay and bisexual
troops, Dont Ask essentially asks
them to deceive and evade. Dont
Ask muddies the trust-through-
bonding water. It creates an obstacle
that forces soldiers to distance them-
selves from each other by avoiding
and, sometimes, deceiving. Over
time, the friction between the need
to trust and the need to live with
integrity, between the requirement
to not ask and the natural inclina-
tion to ask, threatens military
readiness.
19
ARMY CONCLUSION
Almost three years after PFC
Winchells murder, the Army still
has a problem. It fired a record 616
lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers
during 2001. The Dont Harass
policy is in shambles. Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont
Harass doesnt work. The question
for Army leaders is what are they
going to do about it? To get back
on track in 2002, the Army should:
Fully implement the Anti-
Harassment Action Plan;
Make the Non-Commissioned
Officer Corps become involved
in taking care of lesbian, gay
and bisexual soldiers;
Hold policy violators account-
able. Start with a thorough
investigation of the reported
misconduct at the Judge
Advocate Generals (JAG)
School;
Investigate Fort Braggs possible
manipulation of its gay dis-
charge numbers; and
Establish a joint Department of
the Army Servicemembers
Legal Defense Network Task
Force to explore better ways to
ensure Army compliance with
the policy.
In 2000, the Army made some good
first steps. 2001, however, was
marked by Army leaders complacen-
cy, indifference and stagnation.
When Army leaders allow command
climates to be polluted by virulent
anti-gay hostility, soldiers are unable
to establish esprit and camaraderie
within their platoons. When Army
leaders allow perceived lesbian, gay
and bisexual soldiers to be asked
and pursued, trust and teamwork
are the victims.
The friction between the Armys
dignity and respect rhetoric and its
widely embraced homophobic prac-
tices has created an acute infection
within the Army culture. The cul-
ture is out of balance and nothing
less than readiness as measured in
the lives of young Americans,
including those who are lesbian, gay
and bisexual hangs in the balance.
LCR 04498
LCR 04499
Comparing homosexuality
to alcoholism, thievery
[and] lying, an Air Force
Colonel demonstrated this year how
comfortable he now is in conveying
his bigotry to those he commands.
His forthright assertion that he will
ask airmen if they are gay flies in the
face of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont
Pursue, Dont Harass. His utter
disrespect for both the letter of the
law and service members, epitomizes
the brick wall SLDN has faced with
the Air Force throughout 2001.
Given the grave leadership delin-
quencies SLDN continues to see in
the Air Force with respect to DADT-
DPDH, it might be expected that
SLDN would have counted more
violations than ever before in the Air
Force. However, SLDN has record-
ed fewer total violations of DADTD-
PDH by the Air Force during the
past year. While it is impossible to
say with certainty
what factors led to
this decrease in the
number of viola-
tions, it is clear from
SLDNs Air Force
cases that the Air Force has not
improved its application of the policy.
Therefore, other factors may have
contributed to a decrease in total Air
Force violations.
First, the total number of SLDNs
Air Force cases was significantly
lower than previous years. Some of
this may be attributable to the ongo-
ing war against terrorism. Second,
when looking specifically at the issue
of harassment, unlike previous years,
this year SLDN had more Air Force
officers than Air Force enlisted
members as clients. While it should
not be said in a blanket statement
that only enlisted service members
are harassed, both SLDN and the
DoD have observed that enlisted
service members tend to be subject-
ed to more harassment, direct and
indirect, than officers.
Finally, regarding pursuit violations,
SLDN has observed that much of the
Air Forces past violations of the anti-
pursuit provisions seem to be because
of witch-hunts or motivated by recoup-
ment. During the past year, SLDN did
not document a single witch-hunt.
Furthermore, although SLDN has had
numerous Air Force recoupment cases
this year, only one case was procedural-
ly in a position where inappropriate
pursuit could and did occur. That case
is highlighted below.
SLDNs Air Force cases show that
harassment continues to be a serious
issue, and there is growing evidence
21
2 0 0 1 A I R F O R C E R E P O R T
AMERICAS AIR FORCE
NO ONE COMES CLOSE
ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE GAY
THE LAST ADMINISTRATION CALLED IT DONT ASK, DONT
TELL, BUT THAT ISNT A CORRECT WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.
BASICALLY, HOMOSEXUALITY IS LIKE ALCOHOLISM, THIEVERY,
LYING AND IS NOT TOLERATED IN THE MILITARY.... IF I THINK
YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL, I WILL ASK YOU.
November 2001 Commanders Call briefing conducted by a Colonel to
an overseas Squadron on the Air Forces Homosexual Conduct Policy.
58
US AIR FORCE DISCHARGES
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
187
235
284
309
415
352
177
191
IX
LCR 04500
of a new
trend to
punish
service
members
for being
lesbian,
gay or
bisexual
beyond
simple
discharge.
We also
continue
to see a
trend
towards
greater
recoupment efforts by the Air Force
than by other services. Furthermore,
the Air Force appears to be attempt-
ing to prevent SLDN from gathering
information relevant to its application
of the policy.
59
The Air Force has
repeatedly refused to provide SLDN
with requested information on its
implementation of the policy, sug-
gesting there is information Air Force
leaders would rather not make pub-
licly available. SLDN has been told
by a source outside the Air Force that
the unofficial number of Air Force
gay discharges for 2001 has increased
to 191. This could be one reason for
the Air Forces reticence in keeping
the public informed.
22
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
24
8
15
61
24
19
77
30
25
90
25
41
116
45
54
222
68
217
251
86
214
23
18
119
Dont Harass
Dont Pursue
Dont Ask
AIR FORCE VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
DONT PURSUE :
THE ANTI-FAMILY FACE
OF DADTDPDH
Captain
Monica
Hill faced
the most
difficult,
and yet
easiest,
decision of
her life.
She had
just been
informed
that her
partner of 14 years, Terri, was dying
of brain cancer. What made this
devastating news even more heart-
breaking was the fact that she was
scheduled to report to Andrews
AFB, more than 1000 miles away
from Terri, in a matter of days, to
enter into active duty service as a
doctor with the Air Force. After
digesting the
news that her
partner was
dying, Capt
Hill was con-
fronted with
the reality
that in the
eyes of the
Air Force,
Terri was not
legally her family. Therefore, Capt
Hill had very little standing to seek
permission to remain with Terri as
she prepared to die.
Desperate to remain with her dying
partner, and feeling it was irresponsi-
ble to move Terri from her treating
physicians, Capt Hill decided to seek
permission to delay reporting to
Andrews AFB. Hill wrote, I am
very proud of the Air Force and of
being an office(r). However, I have
been placed in an impossible situa-
tion. I cannot care for Terri during
the course of her illness and report
to active duty at Andrews AFB.
Capt Hill was left with no other
option but to explain why she need-
ed the requested deferment and
thereby outed herself to the Air
Force.
In response to her request, the Air
Force cancelled Capt Hills orders to
report to Andrews AFB but was
silent regarding her request for a
deferment. Had Capt Hill been het-
erosexual and her husband diag-
nosed with a terminal illness, the Air
Force would likely have granted the
deferment without hesitation.
Several months after her orders were
cancelled, and still without any word
on her deferment request, the Air
Force informed Capt Hill they were
initiating discharge proceedings
against her based on the revelation
of her relationship with Terri, who
tragically and unexpectedly died on
September 11, 2001. On December
11, 2001, Capt Hill was interviewed
by Major S. Peterson as part of the
discharge investigation. Violating
Air Force regulations, Maj Peterson
did not allow Capt Hills military
attorney to be present during the
interview, and he did not inform her
of her rights under military law.
61
During his questioning, Maj
Peterson insinuated that Capt Hill
If you do not see fit to grant this extension, I must
regretfully offer you my resignation because I am lesbian
and desire to be with my partner of 14 years while she
battles this terrible disease.
Captain Monica Hill to her Air Force Reserve command requesting an extension in
her deferment of active service so she could care for her terminally ill partner.
60
Capt. Hill
X
LCR 04501
was only trying to get out of com-
pleting her service commitment
when she revealed her sexual orienta-
tion in her deferment request. Even
when presented with proof of Terris
death and proof that they had rented
an apartment near Andrews AFB in
preparation for moving there, Maj
Peterson continued to question Capt
Hill about her sexual activity, moti-
vation for sending the deferment
request, commitment to the Air
Force, and when Capt Hill became
aware that she is a lesbian.
62
The Air Force has devastated Capt
Hill with its unkind treatment. Not
only has Capt Hill lost someone she
dearly loved, but she may lose her
Air Force career as well. Were it not
for the Air Forces harsh and abusive
application of DADTDPDH, Capt
Hill would have continued on in her
career with the Air Force after Terris
death. Instead, Capt Hill is fight-
ing to retain her Air Force career,
while grieving for the loss of her
partner of 14 years, and searching
for a new civilian job.
This heartbreaking story is illustra-
tive of the Air Forces strategy and
tactics in cases where recoupment of
money could be an issue. The Air
Forces desire to recoup the money it
spent for her medical school can be
the only explanation for the callous
way the Air Force has treated Capt
Hill since revealing her relationship
with Terri. However, improper pur-
suits do not occur just in recoup-
ment cases.
Have you ever been to a gay
club? Are you currently dat-
ing anyone? How long has it
been since you dated anyone?
What do you do when you
are off work? How do you
feel about gay people? Have
you had any visitors since being
stationed here from back home
or anywhere? What are your
plans for the weekend?
Questions asked of Airman Judson Smith by
Captain Craig Dumos in violation of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont
Harass
63
Airman
Judson
Smith, an
Air Force
firefight-
er/para-
medic for
more than
two years
and
assigned to
Patrick
AFB, was inappropriately investigat-
ed for being gay after his command
received an allegation about his sex-
ual orientation from a civilian
unknown to the command. Airman
Smiths command never should have
begun the investigation because the
allegation it was based on did not
rise to the level of being credible
information from a reliable source,
the standard by which commands
are required to judge whether or not
to begin an investigation. In further
violation of DADTDPDH, once the
inappropriate investigation began,
Airman Smith was subjected to very
intrusive questions, some of which
are listed above, designed to elicit
details about his personal life. The
questions violated the Dont
Pursue element of the policy in that
they went far beyond what the civil-
ian is said to have alleged.
64
Ultimately the Air Force concluded
that they did not have enough credi-
ble evidence of his sexual orienta-
tion to kick him out of the serv-
ice. Unfortunately, the damage
has been done; Airman Smith
could not continue to stay in the
Air Force constantly looking over
his shoulder. Since this investiga-
tion occurred, Airman Smith
believes he is a marked man and
that there will always be people
questioning his sexuality or mak-
ing their own assumptions.
Therefore, Airman Smith admit-
ted to his command that he is gay.
Despite support from all of his co-
workers and immediate supervisors,
Airman Smith is being discharged
from the Air Force because of his
sexual orientation.
23
THE BUCK STOPS HERE:
AIR FORCE CONTINUES TO
PURSUE MONEY
According to regulations, the mili-
tary may seek repayment, or recoup-
ment, of money spent on education
and/or recruitment bonuses if a serv-
ice member voluntarily seeks dis-
charge before the end of their com-
mitment or if discharged because of
misconduct.
65
The Air Force has
sought to recoup against gay service
members in an effort not equaled by
any of the other branches of the mil-
itary, either in desire or design.
Despite a 1994 DoD memorandum
instructing the services that a mem-
bers statement of sexual orientation
does not alone constitute a basis for
recoupment, the Air Force continues
to aggressively pursue recoupment
against service members who have
made statements of sexual orienta-
tion by attempting to prove the
statements were made for the pur-
pose of avoiding their military com-
mitments.
[A] members statement that
he or she is a homosexual,
though grounds for separation
under the current policy.
Airman Smith
LCR 04502
does not constitute a basis for
recoupment.... This does not
preclude recoupment, however,
if it is determined that the
member made the statement
for the purpose of seeking sep-
aration.
quote from Deutch Memorandum.
66
Basing its strategy on purpose of
seeking separation language, the Air
Force specifically crafts its investiga-
tions to try to develop information
to prove that service members made
statements merely to get out of the
Air Force. This strategy is apparent
in the way Capt Hill was ques-
tioned. SLDN does not anticipate
the Air Force will alter its position
on recoupment to be more in line
with the Deutch directives. The
District Court for the Northern
District of California recently ruled
that the Air Force can continue to
recoup against service members in
coming out cases as long it can
find multiple bases on which to con-
clude that a service member revealed
their sexual orientation for the pur-
pose of avoiding service.
67
It is too
early to tell how, or if, this ruling
will affect the Air Forces attitude
and strategy towards potential
recoupment cases.
While the Air Force maintains that
it does not recoup against every gay
former Air Force service member
where educational benefits or enlist-
ment bonuses have been paid,
SLDN has observed that only under
extremely unusual circumstances has
the Air Force not tenaciously sought
recoupment.
24
DONT HARASS:
THEYLL BE PUNISHED IN THE END
According to service members call-
ing SLDN, the Defense Language
Institute (DLI) in Monterey contin-
ues to be an environment ripe with
unchecked anti-gay harassment, as
detailed in prior SLDN reports. In
fact, the quote listed above comes
from one of several clients SLDN
had at DLI this year. This particular
Airman told his command that he is
bisexual because he could not con-
tinue to remain silent amid rampant
anti-gay harassment. In addition to
being directly called an anti-gay epi-
thet, during a break in one of his
classes the Airman
heard a senior Navy
enlisted sailor state,
They (homosexuals)
disgust me. I dont
care what they do because they will
be punished in the end. The
Airman has since been discharged
from the Air Force for revealing his
sexual orientation to his command.
Unfortunately, this Airmans story of
individual harassment as well as a
hostile and harassing environment is
typical of SLDNs Air Force cases. It
is also part of a disturbing and ongo-
ing trend at DLI.
More than 18 months after the DoD
directed the Services to implement
the Anti-Harassment Action Plans 13
recommendations, SLDN has yet to
discover evidence that the Air Force
has implemented a single recommen-
dation.
69
Only a few of SLDNs Air
Force clients report that they have
heard their commands make any
statement about not tolerating anti-
gay harassment. In contrast, most
report that their commands permit a
climate hostile to lesbian, gay and
bisexual service members. Although
SLDN filed a Freedom of Infor-
mation Act (FIOA) request seeking
the Air Forces training and instruc-
tions on anti-gay harassment in the
fall of 2001, we have yet to receive a
response to that request.
70
What are you a fucking faggot!
told to an Airman at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA.
68
PUNISHED FOR BEING GAY
In addition to overt anti-gay harass-
ment, SLDN has started to uncover
evidence of more subtle, institutional
harassment in the Air Force.
Increasingly, Air Force officers and
enlisted members are being pun-
ished, beyond discharge, for being
discovered to be lesbian, gay or bisex-
ual. SLDN has documented several
cases during the past year where the
Air Force has attempted to "punish"
gay service members. They do so by
giving service members incorrect or
inappropriate discharges, lower per-
formance evaluations, or refusing to
give them the promotions they have
been selected to receive. This occurs
after service members have revealed
their sexual orientation or when
their consensual, adult, same-sex
sexual conduct is discovered.
One example of such punishment
is in the case of First Lieutenant
Megan Kuzmich. In October 2000,
1st Lt Kuzmich explained to her
commander that she felt she was
compromising her integrity as an
officer by not telling him she is a les-
bian. Following her revelation, 1st
Lt Kuzmichs command investigated
her and moved to discharge her
from the Air Force. 1st Lt Kuzmich
fought the discharge recommenda-
tion at every step of the way citing
her desire to remain in the Air
Force.
LCR 04503
Despite her arguments to be
retained, in March 2001, a Board of
Inquiry found that 1st Lt Kuzmich
should be honorably discharged
from the Air Force. While 1st Lt
Kuzmich was appealing the decision,
her command withdrew her name
from the promotion list for Captain
almost one year after being selected
for the list. In a letter to her com-
mand responding to her withdrawal
from the Captains list, 1st Lt
Kuzmich wrote, I urge that my
removal from the promotion list to
Captain be reconsidered as nothing
in my performance supports this
action. The outstanding service that
I continue to render should be prop-
erly recognized with the promotion I
was selected for.
71
In fact, 1st Lt
Kuzmich had never received a poor
performance evaluation in her career.
Shortly thereafter, 1st Lt Kuzmich
received a performance evaluation
from her command that marked her
top-notch in all areas except
Professional Qualities citing that
she has not complied with
DoD/AF homosexual policies.
72
In
other words, her command lowered
her performance evaluation rating
solely because she was honest with
her command about her sexuality.
Ironically, the Professional
Qualities section of the evaluation
lists integrity and honesty as two of
the key factors in judging officer
performance. 1st Lt Kuzmich lost
her battle with the Air Force and
was honorably discharged. She
never received the promotion to
Captain that she had earned and
deserved.
25
DONT ASK:
BECAUSE IF YOU ARE GAY,
ILL TELL.
After being sexually assaulted by a
civilian, an Air Force Airman reluc-
tantly sought treatment from a med-
ical clinic on his base where he
reported that he had been raped.
The Airman was referred to a base
psychiatrist who repeatedly attempted
to get the service member to reveal
his sexual orientation, by asking the
service member several leading
questions and then the psychia-
trist made the ludicrous assertion
that he knew the Airman was gay
because of what had happened.
While information about the
Airmans sexual orientation could
have been useful for treatment, cur-
rent regulations do not allow for psy-
chiatrist-patient confidentiality.
Therefore, when his treating psychia-
trist continued to question the
Airman about his sexual orientation,
he was violating Dont Ask.
The psychiatrist went on to threaten
to out the Airman to his com-
mand if he stated he is gay which
only underscores the precarious posi-
tion in which service members can
find themselves. The Airman did
not answer the psychiatrists ques-
tions, requested treatment from
another Air Force psychiatrist, and
continues to cautiously serve our
country in the Air Force.
If you were raped, you must be gay.
Statements made to an Air Force Airman
by a civilian Air Force psychiatrist.
73
RESISTANCE TO DISCLOSING
RELEVANT INFORMATION
Every year, SLDN formally requests
information from the Air Force on a
variety of standard issues, such as
discharge statistics, reports of
inquiry, Inspector General reports of
investigation, and other client relat-
ed materials. This year, more than
any past year, and more than any
other service, the Air Force has
stalled, delayed, denied and other-
wise prevented SLDN from obtain-
ing information in the public
interest and on behalf of our
clients. As one example, the
Air Force has repeatedly
thwarted SLDN attempts to
obtain data on gay discharges,
including breakdowns by base,
gender, age, race, rank, etc. All of
the other services have complied
with similar SLDN requests in due
course. The Air Force has not.
75
Similarly, the Air Force has consis-
tently refused to produce information
SLDN requested specifically regard-
ing gay discharges from Lackland
AFB for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000.
76
SLDN has been told, but
not confirmed, that gay discharges at
Lackland AFB have declined because
the base has re-categorized them as
entry level separations. If true, this
sleight of hand would be of grave
concern. SLDN continues to with-
hold judgment at this time, but the
repeated denials of FOIA requests,
including [d]isclosure of this infor-
mation is not in the public interest,
smacks of bad faith.
77
The second area where the Air Force
seems the most reluctant to respond
Disclosure of this information is not in
the public interest.
Air Force response to an SLDN Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request.
74
LCR 04504
to FOIA requests is on the issue of
recoupment. For example, last year
when SLDN filed FOIAs seeking
information relevant to two of our
clients against whom the Air Force
sought recoupment, the Air Force
responded in both cases by stating,
The records you have requested are
partially exempt from disclosure.
Some documents pertain to the deci-
sion making process of the Air
Force.
78
The information
SLDN seeks through these inquiries
is directly relevant to our clients
cases and is not privileged informa-
tion. In light of the tenacity with
which the Air Force seeks recoup-
ment against lesbian, gay and bisex-
ual service members, its reluctance
to provide this information indicates
that recoupment remains a sensitive
issue.
26
AMERICAS AIR FORCE
WE CAN COME CLOSE
As SLDN has cited in the past,
many of the difficulties and policy
violations we see could be prevented
through better training. The Air
Force has not provided SLDN
copies of its training materials
despite specific requests. Most of
SLDNs clients report that they have
not received training within the past
year on the policy. Furthermore,
when SLDN clients and contacts
have received training, many state
that the trainers have allowed,
encouraged, and led anti-gay harass-
ment during training.
To this point, the only evidence we
have of any compliance by the Air
Force with DoD anti-harassment
guidance is a March 2000 memoran-
dum issued by General Michael
Ryan, Chief of Staff for the Air
Force, entitled a Policy Statement
on Homosexual Conduct in the Air
Force.
79
This memo emphasized
that harassment based on perceived
homosexual orientation will not be
tolerated and anti-harassment train-
ing was required. It also promised
the distribution of additional materi-
als on harassment once completed.
SLDN urges the Air Force to:
Systematically train on the
DADTDPDH policy,
emphasizing appropriate
investigative procedures, and
implement regulations
instructing that the training
occur yearly;
Create and distribute anti-
harassment training materials
and implement regulations
instructing that anti-harass-
ment training occur yearly;
Clearly identify safe places
for airmen to report anti-gay
harassment; and
Hold harassers accountable
for their actions. This is
important no matter the rank
of the harasser.
In addition to emphasizing anti-
harassment training, General Ryans
memo emphasized the need for
more extensive, and regular, training
on DADTDPDH. It further stated
that training should occur annually,
and First Sergeants should be
encouraged to attend supervisor
training. SLDN urges the Air Force
to:
Follow through with General
Ryans recommendation
regarding training on the pol-
icy and especially encourage
the inclusion of senior non-
commissioned officers
(NCO) in this training.
Senior NCOs are often first
in the chain of command to
be contacted by a lesbian, gay,
or bisexual airman about the
issue of sexual orientation;
Adopt regulations allowing
airmen to reveal their sexual
orientation to military health
care providers during the
course of treatment without
fear that the information will
be used to end their careers;
and
Cease the delay and denial
tactics they are employing in
a perceived attempt to pre-
vent SLDN from gathering
relevant information which is
in the public interest.
The Air Force can come closer to
complying with DADTDPDH, and
with protecting the safety and digni-
ty of all its airmen, through more
diligent training and emphasis on a
zero-tolerance policy for anti-gay
harassment.
No service member, from the lowest
enlisted person to the highest com-
mander, should be allowed to bring
their own biases to the work place in
a manner that humiliates, degrades,
and threatens other service members.
LCR 04505
At every turn, and in every
way, the Navy abandoned
the Assistant Secretarys
commitment to dignity
and respect in 2001. The
Navy fired 314 men and women for
being lesbian, gay or bisexual last
year. SLDN documented 271 inci-
dents of anti-gay harassment in the
Navy during the past year, including
a very public dis-
play of anti-gay
graffiti on a
bomb used in
Afghanistan in
the war on terror-
ism. The Navys
harassment
undermines its
ability to retain
qualified, skilled
sailors.
27
2 0 0 1 N A V Y R E P O R T
FAILED LEADERSHIP
HIJACKING DIGNITY & RESPECT
WE TREAT EVERYONE WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT.
Asst. Sec. Of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)
80
US NAVY DISCHARGES
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
258
269
315
413
345
314
358
314
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
15
13
23
38
25
59
58
25
46
71
46
66
85
67
158
92
65
330
19
26
332
60
45
271
Dont Harass
Dont Pursue
Dont Ask
NAVY VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
A PICTURE IS WORTH
A THOUSAND WORDS:
THE NAVYS BATTLE WITH
ANTI-GAY HARASSMENT
In October, as U.S. troops deployed
for the war against terrorism, the
Associated Press published a stark
reminder of the welcome mat gay
sailors receive in our Navy: High
Jack This Fags (sic). Scrawled
across a United States bomb aboard
the USS Enterprise, this blatant dis-
play of anti-gay animus was quickly
dismissed by Navy leaders as a
spontaneous act of penmanship
which should not be repeated.
81
XI
XII
LCR 04506
The Navy claimed, We do
expectleadership on the scene.
82
Nevertheless, accountability for those
who wrote the message, and for
those who allowed an environment
to fester where such behavior was
acceptable, was missing in action.
Navy Airman Paul Peverelle knew all
too well the leaderships refusal to
adequately deal with anti-gay harass-
ment on the USS Enterprise. He
came out to his command in April
2001 because he wanted them to
know that this great work and
effort is coming from a gay
man.
83
His command, however,
refused to discharge him, believing,
without evidence, that Peverelle was
simply trying to avoid service. Four
weeks later, Peverelle deployed for a
six month tour of duty on the USS
Enterprise. In September, after the
terrorist attacks on America, the
USS Enterprise was ordered to join
the forces fighting the war against
terrorists in Afghanistan.
Peverelle served his country honor-
ably with one of the F-14 squadrons.
Like all of our valued men and
women in uniform, Peverelle was an
integral part of Operation Enduring
Freedom.
Peverelle served as an openly gay
man. But not by choice. Having
deployed after coming out to his
command, he, like many gay men,
was careful about the people in
whom he confided.
Yet, in spite of his
own caution, his
command outed
him. His sexual ori-
entation became
common knowledge
on board the ship.
When members of
his squadron learned
that Peverelle had
come out, they
harassed him,
threatening his safe-
ty, teasing him, and calling him
derogatory names. Peverelle says, I
actually had two guys in my berthing
area call me faggot, gay bitch, and
ass licker, threatening to beat my ass
the next chance they get.
84
Peverelle reported the harassment to
his commanding officer, who did
nothing.
Shortly thereafter, as captured by the
Associated Press, the consequences of
harassment left unchecked became
abundantly clear. High Jack This
Fags. The Navy characteristically
dismissed the epithet as an isolated
incident.
85
The incident, however,
was not isolated. It was borne of a
climate that tolerates harassment
from the top down. SLDN is asking
the Navy to review the reports of
harassment aboard the USS
Enterprise and take strong, appropri-
ate action now.
The USS Enterprise has since
returned to Norfolk to a heros wel-
come. SLDN salutes the men and
women who serve our country, par-
ticularly at this difficult time. The
Navy, however, has now discharged
Seaman Peverelle for being gay.
Unfortunately, anti-gay harassment in
our Navy is far too common . . . and
far too often unchecked.
A sailor stationed in Europe, for
example, reports hearing daily anti-
gay comments from his fellow sailors.
Comments such as Youre such a
poof, Quit being such a rainbow
warrior, and Is your favorite cereal
Fruit Loops? The Navys response?
We cant control what people say.
86
Apparently, they cannot protect their
men and women in uniform, either.
Sonar Technician Third Class (E-4)
Brian Moores experience with
another spontaneous act of pen-
manship and lack of leadership on
the scene further displays the horror
gay Navy personnel face every day.
Someone wrote in green letters
across my bed sheets, FAG, says
Moore. I was . . really scared to
sleep on this ship. I no longer feel
safe here aboard the USS Curtis
Wilbur. I feel that the environment
here is intimidating and dangerous.
I hear many anti-homosexuals (sic)
comments and jokes everyday.
87
Navy leadership appears to be
immune to the policys Dont
Harass provision. A west coast
sailor reports to SLDN that, soon
after revealing to her command that
she is bisexual, she found a threaten-
ing note on her pillow. While her
command took more than a week to
check it out, female sailors began
shouting derogatory remarks to her.
Upon her return from emergency
leave, fellow sailors chased the sailor
down a pier, and three days later,
pushed her from behind, pulled her
jacket over her head and kicked her
as they laughed.
Shortly after SLDN urgently tele-
phoned her command to secure the
sailors safety, her department head
questioned whether the injuries were
self-inflicted. Sailors derive no
sense of trust in their leaders when
they fail to take harassment seriously
and, instead, blame the victim.
Ultimately, her command transferred
her. She has since been discharged,
but to SLDNs knowledge, the Navy
28
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

P
r
e
s
s
LCR 04507
has taken no action to hold account-
able those who harassed her or to
properly investigate the matter.
Rather than protecting its sailors
rather than complying with Secretary
of Defense orders to adhere to the
Pentagons Anti-Harassment Action
Plan
88
the Navy continues to do
nothing. Of the thirteen points out-
lined in the Pentagons plan, the
Navy has complied with zero.
Steps taken by the Navy to address
the policy outlined in its General
Military Training (GMT) are not
harassment specific and are woefully
inadequate. Dignity and respect?
Instructions for preventing harassment
before it starts? Identifying safe
resources for those who are harassed?
Holding those who harass accountable?
Not on this watch. Not in this Navys
GMT. Not in this Navy period.
29
HAVING IT BOTH WAYS:
NAVY COMMANDERS CONTINUE
TO RETAIN PERSONNEL
Though the Navy does little to pro-
tect gay sailors from harm, it retains
them and puts them in harms way.
SLDN has documented efforts by
naval commands to retain gay sailors
even after learning of their sexual ori-
entation. While SLDN does not
fault naval leaders for wanting to
retain qualified, skilled, and motivat-
ed men and women, it does point
out that doing so, when these sailors
happen to be gay, violates federal law
and is dangerous when measures
are not taken to protect their safety.
By asking sailors to prove their sex-
ual orientation, or by dismissing
their statements with a simple I
dont believe you, or I dont care,
commanders have found creative
ways to temporarily retain person-
nel. Nothing in DADTDPDH
requires a sailor to prove his or her
sexual orientation. Not only is ask-
ing for corroborative evidence pro-
hibited, providing corroborative evi-
dence can lead to criminal prosecu-
tion or other disciplinary actions. In
fact, Section 125, Uniform Code of
Military Justice, prohibits oral and
anal sex both homosexual and het-
erosexual. Articles 133 and 134, the
General Articles, prohibit an even
broader range of sexual and affec-
tionate conduct.
If commanders sincerely doubt the
truthfulness of a sailors coming out
statement, they may request permis-
sion from the Secretary of the Navy
to conduct a substantial investiga-
tion, defined by Navy policy. To
SLDNs knowledge, this was done
only once during the past year in the
case of an officer who came out to
her command as a lesbian. Her
command believed she was coming
out simply to avoid deployment.
After the officer did deploy for over
six months, and was cited for out-
standing seamanship,
89
her com-
mand withdrew its request for a sub-
stantial investigation, admitting that
it had wrongly accused her of mak-
ing a statement merely to avoid
deployment. This officer continues
to proudly serve.
Repealing the policy would allow
commands to retain valued sailors,
such as a west coast sailor SLDN
recently assisted. The sailor, whose
commanding officer described him as
a top ten percent performer and
the kind of sailor you want to keep
in the Navy, came out to his com-
mand.
90
The commanding officer,
hoping to keep a good sailor, offered
to ignore the statement, let the sailor
withdraw it, and continue to serve.
The sailor considered the offer but
ultimately declined. In response, the
commanding officer recommended
the sailor who was a top ten per-
former receive a general, rather than
honorable, discharge. After SLDN
intervened, the sailor received an hon-
orable discharge, and the Navy lost
yet another valuable member to the
shadows of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
YOURE BEING WATCHED:
DONT PURSUE VIOLATIONS SOAR
After a dramatic drop in the Navys
Dont Pursue violations in 2000,
SLDN documented an equally dra-
matic increase in 2001. Sailors report-
ed 60 Dont Pursue violations last
year, compared to just 19 in 2000.
This sudden rise seems to be attributa-
ble to the Navys inability to under-
stand or follow the limits of the policy.
A typical example is that of a young
sailor who went on unauthorized
absence after receiving two death
threats, including one on his car
which read, Youre being watched,
watch your ass. Upon returning
from UA and making a statement
about his sexual orientation to
escape the threats, the sailor was
asked a series of illegal questions,
including:
Are you seeing anyone?
Have you ever had sex on the ship?
Are there other gay sailors on
the ship?
Do you ever go to gay bars in
Norfolk?
91
Evidently more interested in the
sailors sexual activity than in his
safety, the command then called the
sailors parents, asking about his sex
life. The command also called the
sailors previous civilian employer to
inquire about his sexual orientation.
The Dont Pursue regulations pro-
LCR 04508
hibit these questions. Under the
policy, commands are not permitted
to ask about sexual relationships, to
start a witch hunt for other gay
sailors, or to probe associations at
gay bars. Was it prurience,
vengeance, or stupidity that led the
command to want to discuss this
sailors sex life with his parents and
civilian employer? It was inappro-
priate in any case.
While only one example, Navy lead-
ers, particularly junior leaders, fre-
quently take part in pursuits by ask-
ing intrusive and illegal questions,
launching investigations without
commanding officer approval and
asking questions that clearly exceed
proper investigative scope. While
proper training could greatly reduce
these violations, Navy leaders seem
too busy invading bedrooms to
bother with training programs.
30
I GUESS YOU DONT
HAVE TO ANSWER THAT:
ASKING AS HARASSMENT
Naval personnel largely seem unable
to control their urge to illegally ask
sailors about their sexual orientation.
Peer asking is rampant. Speculation
and gossip follow sailors who are per-
ceived to be gay. And, despite know-
ing such questions are inappropriate,
Navy leaders simply dont care.
One sailor reports to SLDN that,
while at sea, he was asked by a much
more senior sailor, Are you gay? Oh,
I guess you dont have to answer that.
The statement plainly indicated that
the sailor knew he was asking an inap-
propriate and illegal question.
Another sailor at a naval air station
received an anonymous phone call,
warning the sailor not to show up
for work the next day. When he did
not, the sailor received a second
phone call [I]ts a good thing you
didnt show up, the caller said,
cause we wouldve kicked your ass,
and you wouldve gotten fucked up.
92
When the sailors command master
chief came to his home to find out
why he missed work, the sailor told
him of the anonymous calls. The
command master chief, completely
ignoring both the safety threat and
the letter of the law, asked the sailor
if he is gay. The threat to his safety
went uninvestigated.
This corrosive environment under-
mines unit cohesion and is contrary
to the Navys own Core Values
Honor, Courage, Commitment.
Elaborated, these bedrock princi-
ples affirm in part, that sailors must
conduct themselves in the highest
ethical manner in all relationships
with peers, superiors and subordi-
nates; adhere to a higher standard of
personal conduct; show respect
towards all people; and treat each
individual with human dignity.
93
On a daily basis, SLDN sees the
Navys failure and absence of lead-
ership on the scene hypocritically
making these values appear to be
mere window dressing or eye-
wash.
FRONT PAGE NEWS:
DISCHARGES DECLINE AT NAVAL
NUCLEAR POWER TRAINING COMMAND
Last year, the Navys Nuclear Power
Training Command (NNPTC), near
Charleston, South Carolina, received
considerable public attention for its
discharge of 72 sailors under DADT-
DPDH. The command, which
accounted for 23% of all Navy gay
discharges that year, refused to dis-
cuss either with SLDN or the media
any possible causes for such a high
discharge rate. In addition, its com-
mander repeatedly declined SLDNs
offers to assist in uncovering why dis-
charges were so high. The NNPTCs
discharge numbers captured consid-
erable media attention, including
stories from the Associated Press and
front page coverage in the Charleston
Post & Courier.
94
In 2001, following last years intense
media scrutiny, discharges at
NNPTC declined dramatically to
28. SLDN has again asked to meet
with the commander to determine
whether there are lessons learned
that could be shared with other
naval commands. Unfortunately,
the door remains shut tight.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
PROTECTING THE MEN AND
WOMEN OF THE U.S. NAVY
The Navys inability or lack of desire
to protect its men and women in
uniform is inexcusable. Ten years after
the brutal murder of Seaman Allen
Schindler, Navy leaders have done
nothing to implement or comply with
Pentagon directives to prevent or curb
harassment. Navy leaders must imme-
diately implement those directives by
issuing orders to commanders:
to actively and vigorously
stamp out anti-gay harassment;
to clearly inform sailors
where they can confidentially
turn to for help; and
to hold accountable those
who persist in harassing
sailors perceived to be gay.
Anything less smacks of indignity
and disrespect for those who risk
their lives to defend freedoms denied
them by their nation.
LCR 04509
A bad situation deteriorat-
ing was the Marine Corps
story in 2001. Marines have
performed admirably in Afghanistan.
However, the Marine Corps treat-
ment of its lesbian, gay and bisexual
members continues a record of inef-
fective training and a failure to
translate Marine policy into day-to-
day reality throughout the Corps.
The last year showed a dramatic
increase in asking, pursuing and
harassing of Marines, a direct result
of poor training and failure to
implement the Anti-Harassment
Action Plan.
97
The increase in pur-
suit violations pointedly demon-
strates a
leadership
failure
because in
pursuit
violations,
it is the
chain of
command
itself that is the violator. These
increased pursuit violations are also
disappointing because they indicate
that the few positive improvements
reported in this area last year were
isolated incidents of individual com-
manders doing the right thing and
not a Corps-wide trend.
At a time when every Marine is need-
ed, the Marine Corps continues to
discharge willing, able, combat-ready
Marines simply because they are les-
bian, gay or bisexual,
98
often conve-
niently ignoring stellar service records.
In FY-2001, the Marine Corps report-
ed discharging 115 enlisted Marines;
no officers were separated.
31
2 0 0 1 M A R I N E C O R P S R E P O R T
ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE
95
EXCEPT IF YOURE GAY
EACH MARINE IS A NATIONAL ASSET. THEY MUST BE
TREATED AS SUCH.... IT IS A TEAM EFFORT.... WE
CANNOT PERFORM EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT ALL OF OUR
PLAYERS.
General J. L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps
96
US MARINE DISCHARGES
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
36
69
60
78
77
97
114 115
A FAILURE TO TRAIN
IS A FAILURE TO LEAD
Despite DoD orders to do so,
100
Marine leaders have failed to ensure
that
DADT-
DPDH is
properly
and uni-
formly
implemented in the field. This fail-
ure must stem from a systemic lack
of training. The only other explana-
tions for the leadership failure are
gross incompetence or willful dis-
obedience. Improperly trained, or
untrained, Marines of all ranks are
responsible for the increased asking
[I]n order to ensure [Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue,
Dont Harass] consistent application, it is imperative that
all Marines understand the policy and that all commanders
. . . are clear on proper enforcement of the policy.
Commandant of the Marine Corps
99
XIII
LCR 04510
and harassment incidents reported
to SLDN. More alarming, com-
mands are performing unauthorized
substantial investigations
reflecting that Marine leaders in the
field, tasked with teaching junior
Marines on DADTDPDH, do not
understand and, therefore, cannot
implement the Marine Corps policy.
In 2001, SLDN documented the
most Marine Corps policy violations
ever reported. Dont Ask violations
rose to their highest level, reflecting a
dramatic reversal of a downward
trend since 1998 and almost triple
the number reported during 2000.
Dont Pursue violations increased
reflecting the numerous unautho-
rized substantial investigations
being conducted by local commands
in clear violation of Marine Corps
policy. Dont Harass violations also
increased.
Marine Corps recruit training on
DADTDPDH is inadequate. The
total training new Marines appear to
receive consists of a form that must
be signed containing a recitation of
the three grounds for discharge with
a warning that [c]ertain homosexu-
al acts are subject to prosecution
under the UCMJ.
101
One para-
graph addresses harassment, includ-
ing based on perceived homosexuali-
ty, without any guidance on inap-
propriate conduct.
102
The only
other mention of homosexuality
appears in a briefing on the
UCMJ stating that a Marine may
receive an other than honorable
discharge for misconduct involving
homosexuality without explaining
what constitutes misconduct.
103
Marines contacting SLDN over-
whelmingly report that they have not
been trained on the policy, particular-
ly in regard to anti-gay harassment,
by their commands. Commanders
continue to fail to train their Marines
that the Corps will not tolerate
harassment based on perceived sexual
orientation, that certain behavior
constitutes harassment, and that
harassers will be held accountable.
Despite the Commandants orders,
the policy is not being implemented
and commands are not taking their
duty to comply with DADTDPDH
seriously.
32
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
10
4
6
3
6
13
12
6
4
18
24
33
45
25
63
38
17
134
42
11
92
61
31
150
Dont Harass
Dont Pursue
Dont Ask
MARINE VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
AS A GENERAL RULE:
DONT PURSUE
As a general rule, when a
service member states that he
or she is a homosexual or
bisexual and does not contest
separation, little or no investi-
gation is necessary.
104
Have you engaged in conduct
characteristic of homosexual
individuals? If so, what type
of activities have you or are
you involved in . . . .? When
have these occurred? . . .
Where have these activities
occurred? With Whom? Can
any of these individuals be
contacted . . .? Have you been
involved with recruits . . .?
Questions Asked of SSgt Stacy Strong, a
Parris Island Drill Instructor (DI), by 1stLt
Shiozawa, Marine Corps Inquiry Officer
105
In January 2000, the Commandant
issued new guidance on the
Homosexual Conduct Policy provid-
ing direction about conducting
inquiries and investigations.
106
Despite this guidance, Marine com-
mands continue to conduct improp-
er investigations into the private lives
of Marines without receiving author-
ization from the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve
Affairs) (ASN (M&RA)). Further,
the Commandant, to SLDNs
knowledge, has not held any com-
manding officer accountable for
these unauthorized investigations.
XIV
LCR 04511
SLDN is unaware of any case in
which authorization for a substantial
investigation has been granted in a
statement situation. This has not
stopped commands from expanding
the scope of inquiries, questioning
the integrity of Marines, contacting
family members and co-workers, and
labeling unauthorized investigations
as permissible inquiries. The Marine
Corps, again, has failed to properly
train commanders, Judge Advocates
and inquiry officers regarding
inquiry limitations and has failed to
train its leaders that federal law does
not require service members to
prove they are gay.
Parris Island Drill Instructor
Improperly Questioned
The DI is a legendary Marine
Corps figure. Pop culture idealizes
the Drill Instructor as the quintes-
sential Marine
107
the embodi-
ment of Marine values: Honor,
Courage and Commitment. The
Corps selects these senior non-com-
missioned officers because of their
outstanding leadership and their
ability to mold recruits into
Marines. Losing one of these elite
NCOs is a dual blow to the Corps;
it loses a role model for young
recruits and it takes years to groom a
suitable replacement.
Staff Sergeant Stacy Strong, a nine-
year veteran
and Parris
Island Drill
Instructor,
informed her
command that
she is a lesbian.
After coming
out, the
appointed
Inquiry Officer,
First Lieutenant
Shiozawa,
asked SSgt
Strong a series of improper questions
about her private sexual activity, and
sought to obtain information about
the private sexual relationships of
civilians, and information about
other Marines. Such information
could potentially be used to pursue
administrative separations or crimi-
nal prosecutions the hallmarks of
a witch hunt and well beyond a lim-
ited inquirys scope. When SSgt
Strong refused to answer, 1stLt
Shiozawa insinuated that Strongs
lack of cooperation indicated she
may be lying about being a lesbian
in order to leave the Marine
Corps.
108
1stLt Shiozawa also
doubted her truthfulness because
SSgt Strong had never sought coun-
seling before making her state-
ment.
109
This comment
ignores the fact that SSgt
Strong had no military men-
tal health resources where she
could discuss her sexual ori-
entation in confidence.
1stLt Shiozawas inquiry
report shows that this officer
has not been adequately
trained. The reports com-
ments concerning SSgt
Strongs statement and refusal
to answer improper questions
misstate federal law and Marine
DADTDPDH policy. The report
indicates that 1stLt Shiozawa was
seeking to determine if SSgt Strongs
statement was being made to avoid
military service. A properly trained
inquiry officer would have known
that an investigation into the issue
of whether a Marine made a false
statement in order to seek separation
is appropriately addressed by seeking
prior approval from the ASN
(M&RA) to conduct a substantial
investigation.
110
33
WHEN MARINE OF THE YEAR
IS NOT ENOUGH:
IMPROPER DISCHARGE
CHARACTERIZATIONS: POOR
TRAINING OR INTENTIONAL
RETALIATION?
Another troubling trend is the ten-
dency of commanders to consider a
lesser discharge characterization than
a members service warrants when a
Marine makes a statement about
sexual orientation. Marine regula-
tions provide guidance on the proper
characterization of service in a state-
ment situation.
111
However, com-
manders repeatedly ignore these reg-
ulations, usually recommending gen-
eral (under honorable conditions)
discharges when honorable dis-
charges are clearly warranted. An
unwarranted general discharge will
cause lesbian, gay and bisexual
Marines to lose their Montgomery
GI Bill benefits, some of their veter-
ans benefits and may exclude them
from some types of civilian employ-
ment. This trend reflects either a
failure to properly train command-
ers, or a deliberate retaliatory effort
to harm lesbian, gay and bisexual
Marines for coming out.
Corporal Paul ODells story best
demon-
strates this
situation.
ODell
served for
over 11
years in
the United
States
Army, the
West
Virginia
Army
National Guard, and the Marine
Corps. As a soldier, the Army
repeatedly decorated him for merito-
rious service, selecting him as both
SSgt Strong
Cpl ODell
LCR 04512
the Soldier of the Month or Soldier
of the Quarter for his unit and hon-
orably discharged him. Joining the
Marine Corps mainly for its Core
Values Honor, Courage and
Commitment
112
Cpl ODell con-
tinued his stellar performance. In
his final assignment, his battalion
command selected Cpl ODell as the
2000 Marine Support Battalion
Marine of the Year.
113
Living in the barracks, other junior
Marines repeatedly asked him about
his sexual orientation. The harass-
ment included other Marines put-
ting notes such as cocksucker and
faggot on his door. Because of the
continuous harassment, and his
desire to uphold Marine Corps val-
ues, ODell finally told his com-
mand that he is bisexual.
114
Previously, in recommending Cpl
ODell for Marine of the Year, his
company commander wrote,
[s]uperb leadership, military effi-
ciency, professional excellence, and
loyal dedication to mission accom-
plishment characterize [ODells]
action.
115
The battalion com-
mander, Lieutenant Colonel N.C.
Davis, having lauded ODell as his
battalion Marine of the Year in
March, recommended only a general
discharge and said ODell had no
potential for further service in
April.
116
LtCol Davis recommen-
dation was completely unwarranted
and could only be attributed to
ODells coming out as bisexual.
With SLDNs prodding, LtCol
Davis superiors ignored his recom-
mendation and awarded Cpl ODell
the honorable discharge his service
merited.
34
UN-CHRISTIAN TENDENCIES:
A CORPS OF HARASSMENT
Almost unanimously, the Marines
contacting SLDN during 2001
report an anti-gay climate permeat-
ing the Marine Corps. Junior
Marines constantly ask and gossip
about each others sexual orientation
and cheer anti-gay comments or
jokes. A 20 year-old private had
Marines making sexual gestures at
him, blowing kisses, making anti-gay
jokes about him, and directing anti-
gay slurs at him.
118
Other Marines
constantly hear the use of fag and
gay as a derogatory term for any-
thing considered inferior or weak.
Death threats and threats of physical
assault continue to be made. Even
officers feel free to use anti-gay slurs
without fear of accountability.
A Marine sought help from a chap-
lain. Instead of providing support,
the chaplain called the Marine a
sinner and suggested that the
Marine needed counseling for un-
Christian tendencies. When a
chaplains personal religious beliefs
prevent him or her from providing
assistance to lesbian, gay or bisexual
service
members,
the chap-
lain has an
obligation
to bring in
another
chaplain who can help. Religious
beliefs do not justify abusing a
Marine because of his or her sexual
orientation.
Note left on a Marines car
119
Another example of Marine com-
manders willingness to ignore anti-
gay harassment and retaliate against
perceived lesbian, gay or bisexual
Marines is the ongoing struggle of a
Marine whose story appeared in last
years report.
120
After informing his
new command about past anti-gay
harassment he had experienced, this
Marine was verbally harassed anew
and a note containing a death threat
was left on his car. When he report-
ed the threat, his commander did
nothing to investigate or protect him.
When he sought medical help, his
doctor harassed him for disclosing his
sexual orientation. Having been
harassed at a second
assignment, having
seen his commander
ignore his reports of
harassment, having
been harassed by a
military doctor, this
Marine felt he had
no other option but
to leave without per-
mission. Upon his
voluntary return,
instead of investigat-
ing the reasons for
his leaving and
investigating the alle-
gations of anti-gay
harassment, his battalion commander
punished him.
121
When officers are the harassers,
when harassment is reported and the
Mistreatment of any Marine is incompatible with our
core values and is unacceptable conduct . . . .
117
LCR 04513
chain of command does nothing, or
when a chaplain or doctor, tasked to
help Marines in crisis, instead
harasses them, it is of little surprise
that an anti-gay climate permeates
the Corps. The lack of training fuels
this behavior, as does the wide-
spread belief that the Corps will
not hold an anti-gay harasser
accountable.
35
UNACCEPTABLE VALUES:
ASKING AS HARASSMENT
During 2001, Dont Ask violations
reported to SLDN tripled. While
SLDN noted that Dont Ask viola-
tions in the Marine Corps had
decreased during 2000, whatever
factors that may have led to the
reduction appear to have lost effect.
One area that definitely did not
impact the past reduction in asking
violations was improved training.
No training nurtures
a belief among
Marines that asking
about a peers sexual
orientation, directly or indirectly, is
acceptable conduct. Direct questions
like [a]re you gay? or harassing
questions such as [a]re you a fag? or
[a]re you a homo? are common-
place in the barracks. Other indirect
questions, such as asking a male
Marine, Wheres your boyfriend?
are also being asked. This constant
asking, often rising to the level of
harassment, forces Marines either to
lie, challenging the Marine Corps
Core Values, or to segregate them-
selves from their fellow Marines in
vain attempts to avoid questioning,
impeding the bonding needed for
unit cohesion. By failing to teach
Marines that asking is unacceptable
and, in fact, threatens combat readi-
ness, Marine leaders are ignoring their
responsibilities to uphold regulations
and care for all of their people.
We do not ask whether a Marine is heterosexual,
homosexual or bisexual
122
THE TIME IS NOW:
BUILDING STRONG FORCEFUL
LEADERSHIP
The Commandant of the Marine
Corps must provide strong, forceful
leadership. He must correct the
training problem that exists through-
out the force and must fully imple-
ment the Anti-Harassment Action
Plan as he was directed to do more
than eighteen months ago. Unless
the Marine Corps leadership backs
up its rhetoric with concrete action
proper training and accountabili-
ty the situation facing lesbian,
gay and bisexual Marines will only
continue to deteriorate. In order to
halt further deterioration and fully
comply with the Anti-Harassment
Action Plan, the Commandant
must:
ensure that his Judge
Advocates are properly
trained and have the ability,
and command support, to
terminate unauthorized
investigations;
task the Inspector General of
the Marine Corps to investi-
gate the status of training
throughout the chain of
command;
ensure that rank-appropriate
training is being conducted
annually at all levels in the
chain of command;
hold commanders account-
able for conducting DADT-
DPDH training, particularly
addressing anti-gay harass-
ment;
clearly identify the proper
channels to report anti-gay
harassment;
clearly identify with whom
Marines can discuss their sex-
ual orientation in confidence
(i.e. chaplains and defense
attorneys); and
hold accountable those who
violate Marine Corps policy.
LCR 04514
LCR 04515
The play on words of the
Coast Guard motto
124
describes the attention that
the Coast Guard has paid
to training and harassment
under DADTDPDH.
There is hope that Rear Admiral
Ames recent pledge to eliminate
anti-gay harassment bodes well for
2002. However, especially after
September 11th, one cannot escape
the conclusion that DADTDPDH is
an anachronism in the Coast Guard.
September 11th changed the land-
scape for the Coast Guard, the
smallest military service.
125
Before
the attacks on America, the Coast
Guard focused on its usual peace-
time missions - law enforcement,
water safety, search and rescue, envi-
ronmental protection and security.
Since September 11th, the Coast
Guard has dramatically shifted its
priorities
to home-
land def-
ense.
126
This
increased
operational tempo has put an
immense burden on resources and
personnel.
127
To meet these
demands, the Coast Guard has been
authorized to mobilize its entire
reserve force and has already recalled
over one-third of its reserve
strength.
128
Additionally, it has
increasingly relied on the Coast
Guard Auxiliary, 34,000 civilian vol-
unteers, to meet its non-military
commitments.
129
Despite the need to retain every
member to meet increased opera-
tional requirements, the Coast
Guard continues to discharge experi-
enced, capable members simply
because of their sexual orientation.
During FY-2001, the Coast Guard
discharged 14 members.
130
While
this is a reduction from FY-2000,
131
the number of FY-2001 discharges is
still higher than the average number
of Coast Guard homosexual dis-
charges recorded between 1995-
1998.
132
The ban on allowing openly lesbian,
gay and bisexual patriots from serv-
ing in uniform is not justified in any
of the services. However, in the
Coast Guard it seems even more
absurd. Almost as many Team
Coast Guard members (active duty
and reserve military personnel, fed-
eral civilian employees, and civilian
volunteers) are protected from anti-
gay discrimination by Executive
Order as are subject to DADT-
37
2 0 0 1 C O A S T G U A R D R E P O R T
ANOTHER YEAR OF
SEMPER FORGOT US
WE CLEARLY SHARE THE COMMON GOAL OF ELIMI-
NATING HARASSMENT BASED UPON SEXUAL ORIENTA-
TION.... I BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT REST IN OUR
EFFORTS TO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE OUR TRAINING.
RADM F. L. Ames, Assistant Commandant for
Human Resources, after meeting with SLDN representatives
November 2001
123
US COAST GUARD DISCHARGES
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
15
12
10
14
12
19
14
XV
LCR 04516
DPDH. Coast Guardsmen every
day serve alongside openly gay peo-
ple as they protect our nation: civil-
ian employees, Auxiliarists, countless
federal, state and local law enforce-
ment and emergency services per-
sonnel, and private-sector employ-
ees. All credible evidence suggests
the Coast Guard would enhance
mission readiness by being free of
DADTDPDHs bonds.
[Kilmer] clearly lives our core
values, demonstrates the high-
est professional skills and has
the personal qualities we value
and demand in our officer
corps.
CAPT Philip M. Sanders
133
Petty
Officer
First Class
Michael
Todd
Kilmers
story best
exemplifies
the unten-
able situa-
tion the
services
face when
forced to follow a discriminatory
federal law. YN1 Kilmer, a 14-year
Coast Guard veteran, stationed in
Seattle, is described as a leader in
every sense of the word.
134
As a
junior seaman, Kilmer performed as
well as senior non-commissioned
officers.
135
As a young petty officer,
he worked as well as a seasoned
commissioned officer.
136
He was
the 1997 District Thirteen Enlisted
Person of the Year and had been
nominated by his superiors to be the
Coast Guard Enlisted Person of the
Year. Due to his outstanding per-
formance, the Coast Guard selected
him to be commissioned as an offi-
cer. While obtaining his college
degree prior to reporting to Officer
Candidate School, he was selected as
the University of Washington-
Tacomas 2000/2001 Student Leader
of the Year. He was on the fast-
track to a superior career as a Coast
Guard Mustang.
137
Petty Officer, soon to be Ensign,
Kilmer exhibited all of the qualities
that the Coast Guard looks for in its
officer leadership.
138
However,
Kilmer is gay and reached a point
where he could no longer lie about
himself. Asking to serve as an open-
ly gay officer, Kilmer wrote, I
would like to pursue a fulfilling
career as a commissioned officer in
the United States Coast Guard and
live the Coast Guards core values of
honor, respect, and devotion to duty.
Unfortunately, the Dont Ask, Dont
Tell policy does not permit me to
serve the Coast Guard with integri-
ty.
139
Simply because YN1 Kilmer is gay,
the Coast Guard immediately started
the discharge process. The Coast
Guard lost fourteen years of leader-
ship experience and a potentially
outstanding officer. The Coast
Guard did not want to lose Kilmer,
but the policy gave it no choice.
Michael Kilmers commanding offi-
cer encouraged him to apply for a
civilian position in the same com-
mand working with the same
people, doing essentially the same
job he had been doing as a military
member. He was asked to join the
Coast Guard Auxiliary in the district
where he worked as a petty officer.
His command plainly felt that serv-
ing in the same command would
not have any effect on Coast Guard
morale, unit cohesion, or good order
and discipline.
140
Kilmer, however,
declined as a matter of principle.
Faggot. Fag. Dyke.
Carpet muncher. Well take
care of business if we find out
someone is gay. Lock your
door at night, [they] might try
to crawl into bed with you
because [theyre] gay.
Examples of anti-gay slurs and comments
reported to SLDN by Coast Guardsmen dur-
ing 2001
The Coast Guard, for the eighth
year in a row, leads all the services in
its more humane treatment of its les-
bian, gay and bisexual members.
That is not to say that the Coast
Guard is without its problems and
cannot improve. Coast Guardsmen
reported 23 policy violations to
SLDN in 2001. For the second year
38
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1 1
1
6
9
6
8
1
3
2
3
2
11
1
24
2
21
Dont Harass
Dont Pursue
Dont Ask
COAST GUARD VIOLATIONS 1994-2001
PO Kilmer
XVI
LCR 04517
THE FRUITS OF POOR TRAINING -
CONTINUED ANTI-GAY HARASSMENT
AND DISTRUST OF THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND
The Coast Guard mandates
that all members of Team
Coast Guard . . . are to be
treated fairly, with respect,
dignity, and compassion.
Coast Guard statement on Civil Rights
142
When it comes to convincing
your organization that you are
serious . . .there is simply no
substitute for keeping the issue
on your front burner . . . .
Admiral James M. Loy, Commandant of the
Coast Guard, stressing the importance of
diversity
143
While Admiral Loy has been very
forceful in expressing support for
racial and ethnic diversity, he has
not placed a similar emphasis on
clearly stating to Team Coast Guard
his intolerance of anti-gay harass-
ment and support for properly train-
ing Coast Guardsmen on DADT-
DPDH. Though he has privately
expressed that anti-gay harassment is
not tolerated, 2001 passed without
ADM Loy taking any concrete
action to reduce anti-gay harassment
or to mandate continued training in
the Coast Guard. This occurred
despite the DoD working groups
Anti-Harassment Action Plan rec-
ommendations
145
and SLDNs
encouragement to make an unam-
biguous policy statement to his
force, similar to ones issued by the
other service chiefs.
146
The Coast Guard conducts DADT-
DPDH and anti-gay harassment
training only at its accession points
Cape May, New Jersey and New
London, Connecticut. The training
is included as part of the Equal
Opportunity Basic Human
Awareness and Sexual Harassment
curriculum.
147
The anemic amount
of information on this complex poli-
cy that is presented to Coast
Guardsmen at the beginning of their
careers, with no requirement for
unit-based refresher training, is
clearly inadequate. In fact, the
Coast Guard is not providing the
most basic understanding necessary
for its personnel to properly imple-
ment the policy and address the
anti-gay harassment that is ongoing
at the junior enlisted levels of the
chain of command.
By failing to properly train its per-
sonnel that anti-gay harassment will
not be tolerated and by failing to
teach what constitutes harassment
threats, assault, anti-gay slurs, anti-
gay jokes and comments, lesbian
baiting, repeatedly asking peers if
they are gay, and spreading rumors
about an individuals sexual orienta-
tion the Coast Guard perpetuates
a climate that tolerates it.
Sincerity in leadership can be
established only through con-
sistency and attentiveness.
Admiral Loy
148
Over 18 months ago, the DoD
directed the Services to implement
the Anti-Harassment Action Plans
thirteen recommendations.
149
To
date, the Coast Guard, which fol-
lows the DoDs lead on matters per-
taining to its homosexual conduct
policy, has implemented none of
them. The lack of command train-
ing sends a subtle, troubling message
to members: commands are not sin-
cere about curtailing anti-gay harass-
ment and holding harassers account-
able. The lack of command atten-
tion fosters a climate where young,
junior enlisted personnel the most
common target of anti-gay harass-
ment are afraid to report anti-gay
harassment. Their fear arises
because they do not trust the chain
of command to investigate their alle-
gations, protect them from retalia-
tion, and prevent them from becom-
ing the target of an investigation
into their sexual orientation. Coast
Guardsmen also do not know to
whom they can speak in confidence.
Fear of losing a military career sim-
ply because an honest admission of
sexual orientation was made to the
wrong person stifles the open com-
munication needed to report harass-
ment to the chain of command.
in a row, no Dont Pursue viola-
tions were reported. Dont Ask
violations doubled 2 incidents were
reported in 2001; only 1 in 2000.
Harassment reports fell to 21 still
almost double the number of harass-
ment incidents reported in 1999.
Only 14 harassment incidents were
reported between 1994-1998.
141
Harassment continues to be the
Coast Guards major issue in 2001.
This on-going problem is fueled by
a continued lack of clear, proactive
leadership condemning anti-gay
harassment from the Secretary of
Transportation and the
Commandant to all Coast Guard
personnel. There is no service-wide
training on anti-gay harassment or
DADTDPDH.
39
LCR 04518
2002: A NEW HOPE
There is hope that Coast Guard
training will improve dramatically in
2002. In November 2001, SLDN
representatives met with RADM F.
L. Ames, the Assistant Commandant
for Human Resources. In the wake
of a frank and productive meeting,
RADM Ames directed his staff to
develop a DADTDPDH Coast
Guard-wide training syllabus for ini-
tial and refresher training, to review
current sexual harassment training,
and specifically tasked that the train-
ing address:
harassment based on sexual
orientation;
where members can go for
confidential counseling; and
how to report anti-gay
harassment.
150
RADM Amess proactive leadership
and willingness to address the short-
comings in Coast Guard training
about DADTDPDH and anti-gay
harassment is very encouraging.
SLDN looks forward to working
with him and his staff on the com-
mon goals of correcting long-stand-
ing Coast Guard training shortfalls
and ensuring that all Coast
Guardsmen are treated with dignity
and respect.
2001 was another year in which the
Coast Guard failed to adequately
address its problems with anti-gay
harassment and poor training.
SLDN is hopeful that 2002 will
show an improvement in Coast
Guard training. There must be
proactive leadership to communicate
to the uniformed members of the
Coast Guard that anti-gay harass-
ment will not be tolerated and those
who harass or condone harassment
will be held accountable. This
proactive leadership will be demon-
strated by:
a communication from the
Commandant to his force
addressing respect and digni-
ty for all Coast Guardsmen,
and stating, in unmistakable
terms, that harassment based
on perceived sexual orienta-
tion is not tolerated;
completing the overhaul of
current anti-gay harassment
training;
producing the Coast Guard-
wide syllabus on DADT-
DPDH;
promulgating the newly
developed training;
clearly identifying those
individuals with whom Coast
Guardsmen can speak in
confidence about their sexual
orientation (i.e. defense
attorneys, chaplains);
designating the proper
channels to report anti-gay
harassment;
mandating annual, unit-
based training; and
holding harassers and com-
manders who fail to address
anti-gay harassment in their
commands accountable.
40
LCR 04519
SLDN has long reported
on the disproportionate
impact of DADTDPDH
on women and youth. This
year is no exception.
Women have been consistently dis-
charged at a rate nearly twice their
presence in the service. This dispro-
portionate impact is also borne out
by SLDN cases. While women
comprise approximately 14% of the
total force strength, 29% of SLDN
clients for the 2001 reporting year
were women. Most alarming is the
unofficial information SLDN has
received that 43% of the Air Forces
191 discharges are women. This is
extremely concerning since women
only comprise 19% of the Air
Forces total strength.
Women continue to be dispropor-
tionately impacted by DADTD-
PDH because of lesbian baiting and
gender bias.
151
Lesbian baiting is a
form of anti-gay harassment as well
as a form of sexual harassment.
Women are often called lesbians,
regardless of their sexual orientation,
for a variety of retaliatory reasons.
Some men accuse women who
refuse their sexual advances of being
lesbians. Other men who sexually
41
D I S P R O P O R T I O N A T E I M P A C T
O N W O M E N A N D Y O U T H
1994
12%
13% 13%
14% 14% 14%
15%
14%
26%
21%
29%
22%
28%
31%
24%
30%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Women Discharged Under DADTDPDH
Women in the Military
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT
ON WOMEN 1994-2001
Army
15%
13%
19%
6%
8%
34%
20%
43%
18%
14%
Navy Air Force Marines Coast Guard
Women Discharged
Under DADTDPDH
WOMEN DISCHARGED
BY SERVICE 2001
XVI
XVIII
LCR 04520
harass women accuse them of being
lesbians when the women report the
sexual harassment, in an attempt to
turn the investigation away from
their own misconduct. Others,
men and women, accuse female
superior officers of being lesbians
in retaliation for poor perform-
ance evaluations or unpopular
orders. Yet others accuse success-
ful women of being lesbians to
derail their careers. The stereo-
type remains that women in non-
traditional job fields are viewed,
as many have noted, as dykes.
I am proud to have served
my nation selflessly for five
years.... At Fort Hood I
am essentially forced to sit in
silence, absorbing the dis-
paraging [anti-gay] remarks
without reply. These irrespon-
sible and cruel episodes have
eroded my morale and dimin-
ished my ability to perform
my duties.
Sergeant Tracy Cade, Fort Hood, Texas
152
Sergeant Tracy Cade is an example
of what strong, high performing
women can encounter in the mili-
tary. SGT Cade was a military
policewoman with five years of out-
standing service and experience.
After encountering daily harassment
largely from male soldiers who
believed she was not feminine
enough SGT Cade felt compelled
to come out and report the harass-
ment. SGT Cade also filed an
Inspector General complaint based
on Fort Hood leaders participating
in and tol-
erating
incidents
of sexual
harassment
and anti-
gay harass-
ment.
SGT Cade
reports a
climate
where anti-
gay epi-
thets and mistreatment of soldiers
perceived as gay is widespread. She
reports hearing a dozen or more
anti-gay comments each day and
that [Captain] Steven Curso directly
participates in the anti-gay harass-
ment. [Captain] Curso frequently
used the term faggot in front of
Soldiers . Cade further reports,
[m]ale soldiers frequently talk pub-
licly about their interest in female-
on-female sexual acts. These conver-
sations take place in front of NCOs
and [t]he NCOs do not correct
the misconduct, allowing it to con-
tinue unabated.
153
SGT Cades experience is not unusu-
al. Women face an uphill battle
while serving our country, battling
enemies foreign and domestic, while
also combating gender discrimina-
tion, lesbian baiting and sexual
harassment. SLDN is gravely con-
cerned by reports that DoD is con-
sidering dismantling one of the chief
champions of women in the military
- the Department of Defense
Advisory Committee on Women in
the Services, known as DACOW-
ITS. Established in 1951 by
Secretary George Marshall,
DACOWITS has played an impor-
tant role in military preparedness.
154
SLDN urges the DoD not to shirk
its commitment to gender equality
so essential to national security by
maintaining DACOWITS.
42
Women
Men
SLDN CASES 2001 REPORTING YEAR
29%
71%
SGT Cade
XIX
LCR 04521
DADTDPDH also heavily impacts
young adults aged 18-25. While
young adults comprise only approxi-
mately 42% of the armed forces,
they comprised 90% of the Marine
Corps and Navy discharges for FY
2001 and 79% of the Coast Guards
gay discharges.
155
Similarly, youth
comprise a disproportionate number
of SLDNs cases. Young adults com-
prised 59% of SLDN clients for
reporting year 2001.
The vast majority of DADTDPDH
violations were reported to SLDN
by youth. Even more alarming,
64% of all harassment violations
were reported to SLDN by youth.
The DoD Inspector General has also
found that the majority of anti-gay
harassment is inflicted by junior
enlisted men on other junior enlist-
ed men, most of whom are young
adults aged 18 and 25.
156
The military is the largest employer
in the United States, with three mil-
lion members on active duty and in
the reserves. The military is also the
largest employer of youth in our
country, with more than one million
of the active and reserve population
between the ages of 18 and 25. The
service members most affected by
the policy are young men and
women. The military is a means by
which young people move up and
out of poverty, gain education and
life experience, and save themselves
from family or community violence.
To deny or cut short opportunities for
young lesbians, gays and bisexuals who
want to serve our country is wrong.
43
Dont Ask
84
109
690
901
35
148
315
506
Dont Pursue Dont Harass Total
Over 25
25 & under
ON YOUTH - VIOLATIONS
39%
65%
10%
90% 90%
79%
Navy Marines Coast Guard
Youth Discharged
Under DADTDPDH
Youth in the Military
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON
YOUTH - DISCHARGES 2001
25 &
under
Over 25
SLDN CASES 2001 REPORTING YEAR
41%
59%
XX
XXI
XXII
LCR 04522
LCR 04523
Dont Tell is commonly
viewed as the opposite
side of the coin from
Dont Ask. While a service
member cannot ask another service
member about his or her sexual orien-
tation, lesbian, gay and bisexual serv-
ice members cannot tell the military
about their sexual orientation.
Current policy, however, does not
prohibit telling in all circum-
stances. It allows for gays to tell
defense attorneys,
157
chaplains,
158
security clearance personnel
159
and,
in limited circumstances, doctors
who are treating patients for
HIV.
160
The Army has also indicat-
ed that Dont Tell applies to
spousal communications.
161
The
Dont Tell privacy rules do not
explicitly state whether statements of
sexual orientation in other private
contexts are permitted.
The policy allows all service mem-
bers to associate with gay friends,
participate in gay-friendly organiza-
tions and read gay publications.
162
Further, the policy states that sexual
orientation is a personal and private
matter.
163
SLDN believes that gay
service members should be able to
talk openly and honestly with psy-
chotherapists, physicians, law
enforcement officials, family and
friends. Our view is supported by
those who helped craft the current
policy, former Under Secretary of
Defense Edwin Dorn
164
and
Northwestern University military
sociologist Charles Moskos.
165
However, SLDNs interpretation is
not reflected in current application of
the policy. While some good com-
mands do not punish service mem-
bers who disclose their sexual orienta-
tion in private, discharge actions
against other service members who
make disclosures in similar contexts
are routine. The reality is that service
members who come out to anyone,
anywhere, anytime risk discharge.
The Pentagon has suggested that gays
are voluntarily coming out. The
Pentagon has admitted, however, that
it has no evidence to support its the-
ory.
166
There is no such thing as a
voluntary discharge under DADT-
DPDH as gay service members who
face discharge cannot elect to stay in
service. They have no choice.
However, most of the discharges
under the policy are characterized as
statement cases where a service
member has told someone about
their sexual orientation. This raises
the question - why are service mem-
bers making statements?
There are numerous reasons why
service members decide to make
statements to their commands about
their sexuality. Some choose to
make statements because they are
being harassed; some choose to
being threatened or blackmailed;
some choose to make statements
because they cannot lie about their
lives any longer; and some choose to
tell their commands about their sex-
uality because they believe, as Capt
Monica Hill believed, that they have
no other option.
I, Captain Monica R. Hill...
write this letter requesting a
two year deferment in my
report for active duty due to
hardship. I am prepared to
fulfill my ADSC, however, on
July 14, 2001, my partner
and dependent, Ms. Terri
Cason, was diagnosed with
terminal cancer.
Capt Monica Hill to her Air Force Reserve
command requesting an extension in her
deferment of active service so she could care
for her terminally ill partner.
167
45
W H Y D O S E R V I C E M E M B E R S
M A K E S T A T E M E N T S ?
LCR 04524
In August 2001, Capt Hill and her
partner of 14 years, Terri, were
preparing to move near Andrews Air
Force base, where Capt Hill was to
begin her active duty service with
the Air Force. Then, Terri was diag-
nosed with terminal brain cancer.
Since it would have been irresponsi-
ble to move Terri from her treating
physicians, Capt Hill sought to delay
reporting to Andrews. If Capt Hill
had been straight and Terri had been
her husband, the Air Force would
likely have granted her deferment
request. But the Air Force could not
grant a deferment request without
good reason. Capt Hill had to
explain why she needed the defer-
ment, and thereby came out. The
Air Force changed Capt Hills orders
and has now begun an inquiry
into possible separation. Were it not
for DADTDPDH, Capt Hill would
be serving our country even after the
death of her partner on September
11, 2001. Instead, Capt Hill must
fight to retain her Air Force career,
grieve for her partner, and look for a
new civilian job.
ARMY: Integrity: Do Whats
Right, Legally and Morally
United States Army Core Values
168
United States Air Force Core Values
169
NAVY: Honor: Be honest and
truthful in our dealings with
each other.
United States Navy Core Values
170
Each of the services stresses the
virtue of integrity. However, if les-
bian, gay or bisexual service mem-
bers tell anyone military or civil-
ian their careers may be in jeop-
ardy. Therefore, to protect against
harm to their military careers, les-
bians, gays and bisexuals are forced
to lie. For many service members,
compromising their personal integri-
ty is too much. Consequently, they
are honest and tell.
The Dont Ask, Dont Tell
policy restricts my ability to be
honest with my shipmates and
prevents me from building the
bonds with them that is neces-
sary for unit cohesion.
Former Air Traffic Controller Second Class
(E-5) Eric Lekberg
171
There is a misperception that it is an
easy thing not to tell. Service
members work closely with one
another, often times living with one
another. It is part of basic human
interaction to discuss your life
what you do on the weekends,
whom you are dating, whom you
love. Lesbian, gay and bisexual serv-
ice members are barred from having
such simple communications with
their co-workers. The strain is often
unbearable. This prohibition against
discussing basic information about
ones life is harmful to combat readi-
ness. It sows the seeds of distrust
among service personnel and erodes
the bonds of trust and camaraderie
necessary for effective military units.
The issue of lesbian, gay and bisexu-
al service members telling is fur-
ther complicated by the very nature
of human sexual development.
Most men and women join the
armed forces at a very young age.
With few exceptions, lesbian, gay
and bisexual youth have not fully
internalized and accepted their sexu-
al orientation at the point when they
enlist or are commissioned in the
service. SLDNs cases reflect this
reality. Many young gay service
members contact SLDN only after
they have reached a comfort level
with who they are. Once lesbians,
gays and bisexuals reach this level of
self-acceptance, they find it more
difficult to balance the requirements
of Dont Tell with their need to
lead healthy lives.
172
Further,
young lesbians, gays and bisexuals
have far more examples of healthy
role models today than ever before.
Because lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members see greater accept-
ance of homosexuality within society
at large, it is understandably difficult
for them to reconcile the contradic-
tions inherent under Dont Tell.
Another part of the explanation as to
why so many discharges are for
statements is the problem of serv-
ice members being outed.
Sometimes people inform com-
mands of a service members sexual
orientation often as a way to get
back at or punish the service mem-
ber. SLDN believes that in most
circumstances commands should
ignore such information and the
motives of those providing the infor-
mation to the commands be ques-
tioned. Unfortunately, such out-
ings generally result in discharge.
There are two other areas of particu-
lar concern. In the past, SLDN has
documented continued instances in
which health care providers and
chaplains reportedly turned in or
threatened to turn in gay service
members who sought their help in
dealing with anti-gay harassment or
the stresses imposed by DADTD-
PDH. These outings are often
considered statements. This year
we have recorded only a few
instances of this, one of which is
described in the Air Force section an
another in the Marine Corps sec-
tion, but it continues to be an issue
of great concern.
Issues involving sexual orientation
are central to the provision of ade-
quate health care, but health care
providers are often reluctant to ask
out of well-placed concern not to
46
LCR 04525
out gay service members. Service
members are reluctant to tell for
fear of being outed. While President
Clintons Executive Order providing
that communications with mental
health professionals cannot be used
as evidence in criminal proceedings
was a step in the right direction, it
has only limited value for gay service
members who, for the most part,
face administrative discharge pro-
ceedings, rather than criminal prose-
cutions.
173
While the DoD could
extend this privilege to the adminis-
trative context, making it clear that
private statements to health care
providers are not the kind of state-
ments that form a basis for dis-
charge, it has failed to do so.
The Under Secretary of Defenses
clarification in the April 1998 report
to the Secretary of Defense that
health care providers are not, in fact,
required to turn in gay service mem-
bers was also a step in the right direc-
tion.
174
However, this clarification
has not made it to the field nearly
four years later. Nor does it ade-
quately address the problem, as it
allows individual health care
providers to turn in military mem-
bers, whether required to or not,
depriving service members of the
ability to trust health care providers.
Military chaplains can be an invalu-
able resource for service members
who are lesbian, gay or bisexual.
While most chaplains keep the con-
fidences of gay service members,
some do not.
175
Others continue
to give bad legal advice, such as
directing service members to turn
themselves in, rather than sending
service members to a military
defense attorney for advice about the
policy. Still others tragically berate
gay service members, telling them
they are sick, going to hell, and
deviant. As in past Conduct
Unbecoming reports, SLDN has
again documented such cases includ-
ing that described in the Marine
Corps section. Telling gay soldiers
to trust the chaplain on the one
hand, and having a chaplain violate
that trust undermines confidence.
Sadly, such situations harm faith in
the Chaplain Corps, harm lesbian,
gay and bisexual service members,
and most importantly harm mil-
itary readiness.
SLDN has long recommended that
chaplains receive specific instructions
not to turn in gay service members
who seek their help and to treat
these conversations as confidential,
per the chaplain-penitent privilege.
Further, chaplains must be willing to
recommend another chaplain if their
personal beliefs preclude them from
adequately counseling gay service
members. As staff officers, chaplains
should not engage in behavior that
gay service members would likely
perceive as harassment, in violation
of the policys Dont Harass com-
ponent. Chaplains should assist
commands in combating anti-gay
harassment. The Pentagon should
initiate policy training programs tai-
lored for the unique duties of chap-
lains in serving the needs of lesbian,
gay and bisexual service members.
In conclusion, why service members
make statements is a complicated
question to answer. However, the
solutions are simple. Many lesbian,
gay and bisexual service members are
compelled to tell as their only
recourse to escape harassment,
including threats of physical vio-
lence. The solution lies in the hands
of military leaders stop anti-gay
harassment in the ranks.
Some service members are outed to
their commands by people they
know in order to get them dis-
charged. The solution again lies in
the hands of military leaders
include specific guidance in the
investigative limits. Reports to com-
mands about service members sexual
orientation should not automatically
be credited and the motive behind
the report should be questioned.
Some military therapists, physicians
and chaplains out or harass gay service
members. Combat readiness is
harmed when gays and lesbians in
uniform are denied safe access to
health care and spiritual counseling.
The solution again lies in the hands of
military leaders extend the privilege
of mental health care providers and
patients to the administrative context;
make clear that health care providers
and chaplains are not to turn in serv-
ice members; properly train health
care providers and chaplains and hold
them accountable when they violate a
service members confidence.
Lastly, many service members make
statements because of the enormous
ethical dilemma created by the poli-
cy or, like Capt Monica Hill,
because they feel they have no other
recourse. Congress and military
leaders should stop the hypocrisy
and tension created when lesbian,
gay and bisexual service members
are required to lie about their sexual
orientation in violation of their
core values. End the ban on
lesbians, gays and bisexuals serving
in the armed forces.
47
LCR 04526
END NOTES
1
Remarks by President Bush to Troops At Travis Air
Force Base (CA) [10/17/01 - 1:30pm] available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/
20011017-20.html
2
See Electronic Message from Commandant of the
Marine Corps to MARADMIN, Stop-Loss Policy for
Personnel Within C-130 Community (Jan. 7, 2002)
(CMC WASHINGTON DC//MRA// 070805Z
JAN02 (MARADMIN 012/02)) (allowing for con-
tinued processing of involuntary separations includ-
ing those based on sexual orientation) [hereinafter
MARADMIN 012/02]; see also U.S. Total Army
Personnel Command, MILPER, TACP-PDT-PM,
Message No. 02-064, Suspension of Voluntary
Separation of Officers and Enlisted Soldiers from the
Active Army (Stop Loss) in Selected Specialties (Jan. 3,
2002), available at http://perscomnd04.army.mil/
MILPEPmsgs.nsf/webFrameset?OpenFrameSet.html
(last visited Feb. 1, 2002); Electronic message from
Chief of Naval Operations to NAVOP, Suspension of
Provisions of Law and Navy Policy Relating to
Retirement or Separation (Sep. 28, 2001) (CNO
WASHINGTON DC//N00// 282013Z SEP 01)
(NAVOP 012/01); Electronic Message from HQ
USAF/DP to various commands, Stop Loss Approval
and Guidance (Sep. 22, 2001) (HQ USAF WASH-
NIGTON DC//CC 220135Z SEP 01); Electonic
message from HQ USAF/DP to various commands,
Stop Loss Update (For All Active, Reserve, and Air
National Guard Personnel) (Oct. 29, 2001).
e
3
Department of Defense Working Group, Anti-
Harassment Action Plan (Jul. 21, 2000) [hereinafter
Anti-Harassment Action Plan].
e
4
Whenever gay is used throughout this report, it
is used as an all-inclusive term for lesbian, gay and
bisexual.
5
SLDNs reporting year is February 16, 2001 to
February 2, 2002. It is referred to in this report as
the 2001 reporting year.
6
See Anti-Harassment Action Plan, supra note 3;
Memorandum from Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel & Readiness) Bernard Rostker to the
Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy,
Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff of the
Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, and Commandant of the Marine
Corps, Approval and Implementation of the Action
Plan Submitted in response to the DoD Inspector
Generals report on the Military Environment With
Respect to the Homosexual Conduct Policy (Jul. 21,
2000) (directing that the proposed action plan be
forwarded to the Services for implementation)
[hereinafter Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)
Bernard Rostker 2000 Implementation Memo].
e
7
Letter from Condaleeza Rice to SLDN (Feb. 20,
2001).
e
8
Remarks by President Bush at OHare
International Airport (IL) (Sep. 27, 2001), available
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/
09/20010927-1.html.
9
C. Dixon Osburn, A Policy in Desperate Search of a
Rationale: The Militarys Policy on Lesbians, Gays and
Bisexuals, 64 UMKC L. Rev. 199 (1995).
10
Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed
Forces: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. On the
Armed Services, 103d Cong., 707 (1993) (statement
of General Colin Powell) [hereinafter Powell
Statement]. [H]omosexuals have privately served
well in the past and are continuing to serve well
today. Id.
11
DEPT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO. 1332.14,
Enlisted Administrative Separations E3.A1.1.8.1.1
(1994) [hereinafter DODD 1332.14]; DEPT OF
DEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO. 1332.40, Separation
Procedures for Regular and Reserve Commissioned
Officers E2.3 (1997) [hereinafter DODD 1332.40].
A members sexual orientation is considered a per-
sonal and private matter, and is not a bar to contin-
ued service . . . unless manifested by homosexual
conduct . . . . Id.
12
Powell Statement, supra note 10, at 709. We
will not witch hunt. We will not chase. We will not
seek to learn orientation. Id.
13
DEPT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO.1304.26,
Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment,
and Induction: Applicant Briefing Item on Separation
Policy, addendum (1993). The Armed Forces do
not tolerate harassment or violence against any serv-
ice member, for any reason. Id.
14
Memorandum from Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin to the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, Implementation of the DoD Policy on
Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces (Dec. 21,
1993).
e
[The new policy] provides that investiga-
tions into sexual misconduct will be conducted in an
evenhanded manner, without regard to whether the
alleged misconduct involves homosexual or hetero-
sexual conduct. Id.
15
President William J. Clinton, Text of Remarks
Announcing the New Policy, WASH. POST, Jul. 20,
1993, at A12. President Clinton pledged that the
policy would provide for a decent regard for the
legitimate privacy and associational rights of all serv-
ice members. Id. Then Senator William Cohen
understood that the small amount of privacy under
the current policy was intended to prevent the mili-
tary from prying into peoples private lives. Policy
Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces:
Hearings Before the Senate Comm.On Armed Services,
103d Cong. 788 (statement of Senator William
Cohen).
16
DODD 1332.14, supra note 11, at E3.A4.1.4.3;
DODD 1332.40, supra note 11, at E8.4.3.
17
DODD 1332.14, supra note 11, at
E3.A4.1.3.2.2; DODD 1332.40, supra note 11, at
E8.3.2.2.
18
See DODD 1332.14, supra note 11, at
E2.3.
19
E3.A4.1.1.1; DODD 1332.40, supra note 11, at
E8.1.1.
20
E8.1.1.
21
E.8.3.3.4.
22
See Memorandum from Rudy de Leon, Under
Secretary of Defense (P&R), to the Secretaries of the
Military Departments, Guidelines for Investigating
Threats Against or Harassment of Service Members
Based on Alleged Homosexuality (Aug. 12, 1999)
[hereinafter Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)
Rudy de Leon 1999 Implementation Memo].
e
23
E8.1.3.
24
See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness), Report to the Secretary
of Defense: Review of the Effectiveness of the
Application and Enforcement of the Departments
Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Military, Apr.
1998 at 11,12. [hereinafter Under Secretary of
Defense (P&R) 1998 Report]
e
; Under Secretary of
Defense (P&R), Rudy de Leon 1999
Implementation Memo, supra note 22.
25
See Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) 1998
Report, supra note 24, at 11.
26
See DEPT OF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION 5505.8,
Investigations of Sexual Misconduct by the Defense
Criminal Investigative Organizations and Other DoD
Law Enforcement Organizations.
27
E8.1.3.; Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) 1998
Report, supra note 24, at 11,12; Under Secretary of
Defense (P&R), Rudy de Leon 1999
28
29
See id.
30
See Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) Rudy de
Leon 1999 Implementation Memo, supra note 22.
31
32
DEPT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE 1304.26,
Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment
and Induction, Applicant Briefing Item on Separation
Policy (Dec. 21, 1993).
33
The Army reported 615 Dont Ask, Dont Tell
discharges for active duty enlisted personnel during
fiscal year 2001. The Army Reserve Personnel
Command reported one enlisted 2001 gay dis-
charge. The resulting total, of 616, therefore does
not include 2001 discharges for active duty officers,
officer and enlisted National Guard personnel,
ROTC Cadets, officers and enlisted personnel in
other Army Reserve components. The 616 figure,
therefore, under-represents the true number of Army
lesbian, gay and bisexual discharges during fiscal
year 2001. SLDN has requested the additional dis-
charge data via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
channels. As of the date of this report going to
print, the Army has not provided the requested
information.
34
Memorandum from Department of the Army,
Office of the Vice Chief of Staff, to Distribution,
Well-Being Strategic Plan (Jan. 5, 2001), available at
http://www.odcsper.army.mil/directorates/wb/well-
being/stratplan.doc
48
LCR 04527
35
See Electronic Message from Headquarters,
Department of the Army to ALARACT, Homosexual
Conduct Policy (Jan. 10, 2000) (HQDA WASH-
INGTON DC 101700ZJAN 00) (ALARACT).
e
36
See id.; see also Electronic Message from
Headquarters, Department of the Army, to ALARACT,
Dignity and Respect for All (Jan. 10, 2000) (HQDA
WASHINGTON DC 101800Z JAN 00) (ALARACT
008/00) [hereinafter ALARACT 008/00].
e
37
See id.
38
Id.
39
According to information obtained by SLDN
from meetings with Army personnel in the Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODC-
SPER) and Office of the Inspector General (IG).
40
Department of the Army Inspector General Fort
Campbell Task Force, DAIG Special Assessment/
Investigation of Allegations of Violations of the DoD
Homosexual Conduct Policy at Fort Campbell A-1, 5
(Jul. 2000) (Copies available from SLDN upon
request) [hereinafter IG Fort Campbell Task Force
Report].
41
Memorandum from Brigadier General Thomas J.
Romig, Assistant Judge Advocate General of the
Army, to SLDN (Oct. 2, 2001).
e
Major General
Romig has since been promoted and is now the
Judge Advocate of the Army.
42
See ALARACT 008/00, supra note 36.
43
Memorandum fom Major General Richard A.
Cody to SLDN (Jan. 3, 2001).
e
44
Memorandum for Record from Fort Campbell,
Policy Letter #2 Respect for All Soldiers (undated).
e
45
Letter from Private Keagan Smith to Captain
Fegley (Dec. 19, 2001).
e
46
See Memorandum from SLDN to Major General
Cody, Commanding General of Fort Campbell,
SLDN Recommendations on Fort Campbell HCP
Issues (Dec. 13, 2001).
e
47
IG Fort Campbell Task Force Report, supra
note 40.
48
Memorandum from Lieutenant General Dan K.
McNeill, Ft. Bragg Commanding General, to SLDN
(Oct. 4, 2001).
e
49
Letter from Staff Sergeant Leonard Wayne
Peacock to Captain Jackson (Nov. 13, 2001).
e
50
Letter from Sergeant Carlos Torres to Captain
Raymond (Oct. 4, 2001).
e
51
See Notification from United States Army to
Staff Sergeant Leaonard W. Peacock, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty (Form DD-
214) (Dec. 3, 2001);
e
Notification from United
States Army to Sergeant Carlos Torres, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty (Form DD-
214) (Dec. 21, 2001);
e
52
Letter from Private Mike Wooten to Captain
Teague (Sep. 4, 2001).
e
53
Memorandum from Major Richard L. French to
Chief of Staff, Fort Carson, Colorado, AR 15-6
Investigation: Allegation of Soldier Harassment Based
on Suspected Sexuality and the Threatening of Life by
a Noncommissioned Officer (Sep. 18, 2001).
e
54
United States Army, The Army Training and
Leader Development Panel Officer Study: Report to the
Army para. OS-19 (2001) (Copies available from
SLDN upon request).
55
See United States Army Regulation 600-20,
Army Command Policy 4-19 (Jul. 15, 1999) (titled
Homosexual Conduct Policy).
56
Letter from Specialist Orlando Estrella to
Captain Davis (May 4, 2001).
e
57
Sworn Statement of Orlando Estrella, DA Form
2823 (May 29, 2001).
e
58
See Confidential communication from an over-
seas Air Force member (Dec. 17, 2001).
59
See Letter from Rhonda Jenkins, Chief,
Document Information & Services Branch USAF to
SLDN (Jun. 14, 2001); Letter from Evan E.
Cooper, CAPT, USAF to SLDN (Sept. 10, 2001);
Letter from Angelica Cordero, Freedom of
Information Act Manager, HQ AFPC/MSIMD to
SLDN (Dec. 10, 2001); Letter from Isaac J. Nehus,
Major, USAF, Acting Judge Advocate to SLDN
(Aug. 9, 2001); and Letter from Ronald R.
Chalecki, Acting Director, Communications and
Information, HQ AFMC/SC to SLDN (Aug. 9,
2001).
e
60
Letter from Captain Monica Hill to her com-
mand (Jul. 22, 2001).
e
61
See Guidelines for Fact-Finding Inquiries into
Homosexual Conduct, in IC 2000-1 to Air Force
Instruction 36-3206, Administrative Separation of
Commissioned Officers A2.4.4 (Mar. 10, 2000) [heri-
nafter AFI 36-3206]. Commanders or appointed
inquiry officials may ask members if they engaged in
homosexual conduct. But the member must first be
advised of the DoD policy on homosexual conduct
(and rights under Article 31, UCMJ, if applicable).
Id.
62
See E-mail from Captain Hill to SLDN (Dec. 11,
2001).
e
63
Email from Airman Smith to SLDN (Dec. 17,
2001).
e
64
See Guidelines for Fact-Finding Inquiries into
Homosexual Conduct, in IC 2000-1 to Air Force
Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of
Airmen A4.1.3 (Mar. 10, 2000) [hereinafter AFI 36-
3208]. Inquiries shall be limited to the factual cir-
cumstances directly relevant to the specific allega-
tions. Id.
65
See Air Force Instruction 36-3207, Separating
Commissioned Officers 1E.1.18 (Jul.1, 1995). Only
certain homosexual conduct constitutes a basis for
recoupment of educational assistance, special pay, or
bonuses. Homosexual conduct constitutes a basis
for recoupment if a characterization of UOTHC is
authorized, or if conduct is punishable under the
UCMJ (provisions governing sexual conduct). Id.
If the officer voluntarily separates. The officer is
subject to recoupment of a portion of education
assistance, special pay, or bonus money received.
AFI 36-3206, supra note 61, at 4.37.2.2.
66
Memorandum from John M. Deutch, Deputy
Secretary of Defense to the Secretaries of the
Military Departments, Recoupment of Education
Assistance Funds, Bonuses and Special Pay from Persons
Disenrolled or Separated on the Basis of Homosexual
Conduct (May 17, 1994) [hereinafter Deutch
Memorandum].
e
67
See Hensala v. Department of the Air Force, 148
F. Supp. 2d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
68
Confidential email communication from Airman
to SLDN (Jun. 20, 2001).
69
See Anti-Harassment Action Plan, supra note 3.
70
See Letter from SLDN to Air Force Department
of Personnel, Attn: FOIA Officer (Nov. 5, 2001).
e
71
Memorandum from 1st Lt Megan Kuzmich to
her command (Apr. 5, 2001).
e
72
Company Grade Officer Performance Report
from Colonel Ricky Ales for 1st Lt Megan Kuzmich
(Apr. 26, 2001).
e
73
Confidential telephone communication from
Airman to SLDN (Dec. 21, 2001).
74
Letter from Angelica Cordero, Freedom of
Information Act Manager, Headquarters Air Force
Personnel Center, HQ AFPC/MSIMD, to SLDN
(Dec. 10, 2001) [hereinafter Cordero letter].
e
75
See Letter from SLDN to Air Force Department
of Personnel, FOIA Officer (May 3, 2001);
e
Letter
from SLDN to Rhonda M. Jenkins, Documentation
Information & Services Branch (Jul. 23, 2001);
e
Letter from SLDN to Air Force Department of
Personnel, FOIA Officer (Nov. 1, 2001);
e
Letter
from SLDN to Air Force Department of Personnel,
FOIA Officer (Jan. 8, 2001).
e
76
See Letters from SLDN to Barbara Strayer,
FOIA Officer at Lackland AFB (Aug. 6, 2001);
e
Letter from SLDN to Air Force Personnel Center,
FOIA Officer at Randolph AFB (Nov. 5, 2001).
e
77
See Cordero letter, supra note 74; Letter from
Captain Evan E. Cooper, Flight Commander, Air
Force Education and Training Command, to SLDN
(Sept. 10, 2001).
e
78
Letter from Major Isaac J. Nehus, Acting Staff
Judge Advocate, Headquarters 88
th
Air Base Wing
(AFMC), to SLDN (Aug. 9, 2001); see also Letter
from Ronald R. Chalecki, Acting Director,
Communications and Information, to SLDN (Aug.
9, 2001).
e
79
Memorandum from Michael E. Ryan, General,
USAF, Chief of Staff, to ALMAJCOM-FOA/CC,
Homosexual Policy Guidance (Mar. 10, 2001).
e
80
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) Vision,
Mission, and Guiding Principles, available at
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/people/assist-
secnav/asn_mra/mra_vmgp.html.
81
Letter from RADM. S. R. Pietropaoli, Chief of
Navy Information, to Elizabeth Birch, Executive
Director, Human Rights Campaign (Oct. 17, 2001)
[hereinafter Pietropaoli letter].
e
82
Id.
83
E-mail from Paul Peverelle to SLDN (Nov. 6,
2001).
e
84
Id.
85
Pietropaoli letter, supra note 81.
49
LCR 04528
86
Confidential communications between client and
SLDN.
87
Letter from Brian Moore to his command (Jan.
7, 2002).
e
88
89
SLDN.
90
SLDN.
91
SLDN.
92
SLDN.
93
United States Navy, Core Values of the United
States Navy, available at
http//www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/traditions/html/
corvalu.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2002).
94
Tony Bartelme, 81 Gays Left Local Navy Sites,
THE POST & COURIER, Jun. 13, 2001, at 1A.
95
The Motto of the Marine Corps League. See, e.g.,
Marine Corps League, Marine Corps League
Northwestern Division, available at
http://www.scn.org/civic/marines/ (last visited Jan.
22, 2002).
96
Electronic Message from General J.L. Jones,
Commandant of the Marine Corps, to ALMAR,
Concern Over Senseless Fatalities (Oct.18, 2001)
(CMC WASHINGTON DC//CMC// 181715Z
OCT 01 (ALMAR 051/01)) (addressing off duty
injury and death).
e
97
98
See MARADMIN 012/02, supra note 2.
99
Electronic Message from Commandant of the
Marine Corps to MARADMIN, Homosexual
Conduct Policy (Jan.7, 2000) (CMC WASHING-
TON DC//MP// 070800Z JAN 00 (MARADMIN
014/00)) (modified by MARADMIN 025/00)
[hereinafter MARADMIN 014/00].
e
100
See Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) Bernard
Rostker 2000 Implementation Memo, supra note 6.
101
United States Marine Corps, Article 137,
UCMJ Phase 1 Training Homosexual Conduct Policy
(undated) (forwarded by Letter from LtCol. J.R.
West to Larry Rowe, SLDN Staff Attorney (Dec.12,
2001) (responding to FOIA request for Marine
training material).
e
102
See id.
103
United States Marine Corps, Instructional
Training Company, Support Battalion, Recruit
Training Regiment, Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
San Diego, California, Lesson Plan, Article 137
UCMJ Phase II Training, Uniform Code of Military
Justice 12 (Jan. 2001) (forwarded by Letter from
LtCol. J.R. West to Larry Rowe, SLDN Staff
Attorney (Dec.12, 2001) (responding to FOIA
request for Marine training material).
e
104
MARADMIN 014/00, supra note 99.
105
Facsimile from SSgt Stacy Strong to Sharra E.
Greer, Legal Director, SLDN (May 15, 2001) (for-
warding 1stLt Shiozawas questions).
e
106
107
Several movie and television portrayals of
Marine DIs include Jack Webb in The DI, Louis
Gossett Jr. in An Officer and a Gentleman, R. Lee
Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, and even, humorously,
Frank Sutton in Gomer Pyle USMC.
108
Letter from 1stLt L.A. Shiozawa USMCR to
Commanding Officer, Fourth Recruit Training
Battalion, Preliminary Inquiry Into the Circumstances
Surrounding the Self Admission of Homosexuality by
Staff Sergeant Stacy D. Strong (May 17, 2001) [here-
inafter Shiozawa Report].
e
109
See id.
110
See Electronic Message from Commandant of
the Marine Corps, to ALMAR, U.S. Marine Corps
Implementation of DoD Homosexual Conduct /
Administrative Separation Policy for Officers (Feb. 28,
1994) (CMC WASHINGTON DC//MP//
281600Z FEB 94 (ALMAR 64/94)); MARADMIN
014/00, supra note 99.
111
See UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MCO
P1900.16F, Marine Corps Separation and Retirement
Manual (MARCORPSEPMAN) 6207 (May 30, 2001).
112
See Memorandum from Corporal Paul ODell,
USMC, to CWO4 Carl J. Adams, Jr., Commanding
Officer, Headquarters Company, Marine Support
Battalion (Apr. 1, 2001) [hereinafter ODell
Memo].
e
113
Electronic Message from LtCol. N.C. Davis,
USMC, to Various Subordinate Commands (Mar.1,
2001) (MARSPTBN FT GEORGE G MEADE
MD 011542Z MAR 01).
e
114
See ODell Memo, supra note 112.
115
Letter from Commanding Officer,
Headquarters Company, to Commanding Officer,
Marine Support Battalion, Nomination for Marine
Support Battalion Marine of the Year ICO Corporal
Paul H. ODell (Feb. 8, 2001).
e
116
Letter from Commanding Officer, Marine
Support Battalion, to Commanding Officer, Marine
Corps Base, Quantico, VA, Recommendation for
Administrative Separation By Reason of Homosexual
Conduct in the Case of Corporal Paul H. ODell
USMC (Apr. 5, 2001).
e
117
118
See E-mail from Marine private to Patrick
Moloughney, SLDN staff paralegal (May 31,
2001).
e
119
Letter from Jeffrey Cleghorn, SLDN Staff
Attorney, to Major General Edward Hanlan, Jr,,
USMC, (Apr. 17, 2001).
e
120
See STACEY L. SOBEL ET AL., CONDUCT
UNBECOMING: THE SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE, DONT
HARASS 86-87 (2001).
121
See supra note 119.
122
123
Letter from RADM F.L. Ames, Assistant
Commandant for Human Resources to Larry R.
Rowe, Staff Attorney, Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network (Nov. 8, 2001).
e
124
The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus
(Always Ready).
125
Team Coast Guard consists of approximately
35,000 active duty personnel, 8,000 reservists, 8,000
civilian employees, and 34,000 civilian auxiliary
members. See United States Coast Guard, Personnel
Statistics, available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/
comrel/factfile/Factcards/PersonnelStats.html (last
visited Jan. 2, 2002); see also United States Coast
Guard, Out of Uniform - Civilians in the Coast
Guard, available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/
history/h_cgciv.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2002);
David Vergun, Homeland Defense Begins at the
Waters Edge - On Patrol With the U.S. Coast Guard,
SEA POWER, Dec. 2001, at 50.
126
See Richard R. Burgess, U.S. Strikes Terrorist,
Taliban Sites; Sea Services Mobilize for Long War -
Coast Guard Plays Key Role in Homeland Security
Strategy, SEA POWER, Nov. 2001, at 24 (citing
RADM Terry M. Cross, Assistant Commandant for
Operations).
127
See William Booth, A Changed America / Ports -
Where Sea Meets Shore, Scenario for Terrorists -
Nations Vulnerable Ports Revamp Defense, WASH.
POST, Jan. 3, 2002, at A6 (reporting that reserve
recall is costing $1 million a day) (quoting CAPT
J.M. Holmes, Coast Guard Commanding Officer
for Long Beach-Los Angeles, Frankly? This is not
sustainable. It wears down our resources, and it
wears down our people.).
128
See Vergun, supra note 125, at 50.
129
See id.
130
See E-mail from Chelle Price, Computer
Specialist, Management Information Services, Coast
Guard Human Resources Service & Information
Center, to Larry R. Rowe, Staff Attorney, SLDN
(Nov. 2, 2001).
e
131
See Letter from Ensign D.J. Kennedy, United
States Coast Guard Personnel Command, to Sharra
E. Greer, Legal Director, SLDN (May 22, 2001).
e
132
See C. DIXON OSBURN ET AL, CONDUCT
UNBECOMING - THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE tbl.
Annual Gay Discharges Under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, Dont Pursue (1999) [hereinafter 6
TH
ANNUAL
REPORT].
133
Letter from CAPT P.M. Sanders, Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District (o), to
Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command
(CGPC) (Feb. 24, 1999) (endorsing YN1 Kilmers
application for PPEP and recommending his selec-
tion).
e
134
Letter from CAPT W.W. Peterson to President,
PPEP Selection Panel (Feb. 25,1999) (recommend-
ing YN1 Kilmers selection).
e
135
See Letter from YN1 Michael Todd Kilmer to
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC-epm)
(Dec. 19, 2001) (quoting YNCM Borders,
Supervisor D13 (a), CG-3307 of May 30,1990).
e
136
See id. (quoting Captain Losser, Division Chief,
D13 (a), CG-3307 of Jun. 9, 1992).
137
Mustang is military slang for an officer who has
been promoted from the enlisted ranks.
50
LCR 04529
138
Letter from CAPT J.J. Hathaway to President,
PPEP Selection Panel (Feb. 23, 1999).
e
139
Letter from YN1 Michael Todd Kilmer to
CAPT Philip M. Sanders (Aug. 30, 2001).
e
140
Telephone interview by Paula M. Neira with
YN1 Michael Kilmer (Jan. 2, 2002).
141
6TH ANNUAL CONDUCT UNBECOMING
REPORT, supra note 132, at tbl. Dont Harass
Violations by Service 1994-1998.
142
United States Coast Guard, Civil Rights, avail-
able at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/fact-
file/Factcards/Civil Rights.html (last visited Jan. 2,
2002).
143
Admiral James M. Loy, Address at NNOA
National Conference (Jul. 18, 2001), available at
http://www.uscg.mil/Commandant/Speeches/Diversi
ty%20Taming%20the%20Tiger%20071801.html
(last visited Jan. 2, 2002).
144
Letter from Thomas F. Fisher, Office of the
Commandant, United States Coast Guard, to Larry
R. Rowe, Staff Attorney, Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network, (Jul. 17, 2001).
e
145
146
See STACEY L. SOBEL ET AL, CONDUCT
UNBECOMING - THE SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE AT 90
(2000).
147
Letter from RADM F. L. Ames, Assistant
Commandant for Human Resources to Larry R.
Rowe, Staff Attorney, Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network (Sep. 17, 2001).
e
148
See supra note 143.
149
150
See supra note 123.
151
See Michelle M. Benecke and Kirsten S. Dodge,
Military Women: Casualties of the Armed Forces War
on Lesbians and Gay Men, in GAY RIGHTS, MILITARY
WRONGS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LESBIANS
AND GAYS IN THE MILITARY 71-108 (Craig A.
Zimmerman, ed., 1996).
152
Letter from Sergeant Tracey Cade to Captain
Timothy Smith (Jul. 26, 2001).
e
153
Letter from SLDN to Inspector General, Ft.
Hood, (Oct. 2, 2001) (filing an Inspector General
report on behalf of Tracey Cade).
e
154
DoD News Briefing, Wednesday, October 22,
1997 - 1:30 p.m., Dr. Judith Youngman, Chair,
DACOWITS, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/
news/Oct1997/t10301997_tacowits.html (last visit-
ed Jan. 29, 2002).
155
SLDN does not have the 2001 discharge num-
bers by age for the Army or the Air Force.
156
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Report on the Military
Environment with Respect to the Homosexual Conduct
Policy, Report No. D-2000-101, 18 (Mar. 16, 2000).
157
158
159
See DEPT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO. 5200.2,
DoD Personnel Security Program encl. 3.7 (1997); see
also DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE MANUAL, DIS-
20-1-M, encl. 18.C (1993).
160
See DEPT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE NO. 6485.1,
Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) encl.
3.2.1.9 (1991). Information obtained from a
Service member during, or as a result of, an epi-
demiological assessment interview may not be used
against the Service member (in adverse criminal or
administrative actions). Id.
161
United States Army, TRADOC Common Core
TSP 181-A-0001, Identify the Legal Implications of
the Homosexual Conduct Policy, app. 4, fig. 4, avail-
able at http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-
bin/atdl.dll/cctsp/181-a-0001/181-a-0001.htm (last
visited Nov. 2, 2001).
162
E3.A4.1.3.3.4 (stating [credible information does
not exist when] the only information known is an
associational activity such as going to a gay bar, pos-
sessing or reading homosexual publications, associat-
ing with known homosexuals . . . .); DODD
1332.40, supra note 11, at E.8.3.3.4.
163
E.2.3.
164
See Letter from Edwin Dorn to The Honorable
Carol DiBattiste, Under Secretary of the Air Force
(May 1, 2000).
e
Recent reports have indicated that
physicians, EEO personnel, inspectors general and
law enforcement personnel believe that they are
obliged to turn in service members who reveal their
sexual orientation when they report anti-gay harass-
ment, or who are discovered to be gay during an
investigation into the reported harassment. If these
practices occur, then they have the effect of punish-
ing the victim. This is not what I anticipated or
intended when I was involved in the development of
DoDs 1997 anti-harassment guidance. Id.
165
See Letter from Charles Moskos, Professor,
Northwestern University, to The Honorable William
S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, (Apr. 12, 2000).
e
In my opinion, military members who reveal their
sexual orientation during private medical treatment
sessions or in the course of reporting harassment and
threats are not telling in a manner contemplated
under the policy. It is appropriate for officials to
assist these service members, not turn them in.
Indeed, it is the outing of service members to their
units that triggers concerns about unit cohesion. Id.
Our view is further supported by former Reagan
Administration defense official Lawrence Korb (Mr.
Korb is now with the Council on Foreign
Relations); see Letter from Lawrence J. Korb to The
Honorable Carol A. DiBattiste, Undersecretary of
the Air Force (May 8, 2000).
e
My primary con-
cerns are the on-going harassment of service mem-
bers by their supervisors and peers, and the lack of
safe places for service members to turn within the
military if they are facing harassment, medical or
mental health problems or seeking spiritual guid-
ance. Id.
166
Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) 1998
Report, supra note 24, at 2, 5.
167
Letter from Captain Monica Hill to her com-
mand (Jul. 22, 2001).
e
168
United States Army, Army Values: Integrity, at
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/graphics/integrity.jpg
(last visited Mar. 4, 2001).
169
United States Air Force, The Core Values of the
Air Force, available at
http://www.af.mil/news/speech/current/The_Core_
Values_of_the_Air_.html (reporting a speech given
by The Honorable Sheila E. Widnall, then Secretary
of the Air Force, to Air Force Academy Cadets, at
Colorado Springs on Apr. 18, 1996) (last visited
Mar. 4, 2001).
170
See supra note 93.
171
Letter from AC2 Eric Lekberg to his command
(May 27, 2001).
e
172
See Vivienne Cass, Ph.D., Sexual Orientation
Identity Formation: A Western Phenomenon, in
TEXTBOOK OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND MENTAL
HEALTH 227, 231-47 (Robert P. Cabaj & Terry S.
Stein, eds., 1996).
173
See Exec. Order No. 13140 (Oct. 7, 1999).
174
175
See generally Army Regulation 165-1, Chaplain
Activities in the United States Army (1998) A privi-
leged communication is defined as any communica-
tion to a chaplain [including those made as a] mat-
ter of conscience. Id. at 4.4.m(1).
51
LCR 04530
TABLES AND CHARTS INDEX
I
Total Gay Discharges, Source Department of
Defense, United States Army, United States Navy,
United States Air Force, Unofficial Source Outside
the Air Force for FY 2001, United States Marine
Corps, United States Coast Guard
II
Costs of DADTDPDH, Source
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, General
Accounting Office, Defense Force Management:
Statistics Related to DoDs Policy on Homosexuality
(1992)
III
Total Violations 1994-2001, Source
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
IV
US Army Discharges, Source Department of
Defense, United States Army
V
Army Dont Harass Violations 1994-2001,
Source Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
VI
Pie Chart of Fort Campbell Discharges, Source
United States Army
VII
Army Dont Pursue Violations 1994-2001,
VIII
Army Dont Ask Violations 1994-2001,
IX
USAF Discharges Source Department of
Defense, United States Air Force, Unofficial Source
Outside the Air Force for FY 2001
X
Air Force Violations 1994-2001, Source
XI
US Navy Discharges 1994-2001, Source
Department of Defense, United States Navy
XII
Navy Violations 1994-2001, Source
XIII
Marine Discharges 1994-2001, Source
Department of Defense, United States Marine
Corps
XIV
Marine Violations 1994-2001, Source
XV
US Coast Guard Discharges 1995-2001,
Source United States Coast Guard
XVI
Coast Guard Violations 1994-2001, Source
XVII
Disproportionate Impact on Women 1994-
2001, Source The Defense Almanac available at
www.dod.gov/pubs/almanac (last visited Feb 1,
2002), United States Army, United States Navy,
United States Air Force, Unofficial Source Outside
the Air Force for FY 2001, United States Marine
Corps, United States Coast Guard
XVIII
Women Separated by Service - 2001,
Source The Defense Almanac available at
www.dod.gov/pubs/almanac (last visited Feb 1,
2002), United States Army, United States Navy,
Unofficial Source Outside the Air Force, United
States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard
XIX
Pie Chart SLDN Cases 2001 Reporting Year
by Sex, Source Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network
XX
Pie Chart SLDN Cases 2001 Report Year by
Age, Source Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network
XXI
Disproportionate Impact on Youth
Violations, Source Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network
XXII
Disproportionate Impact on Youth
Discharges 2001, Source The Defense Almanac
available at www.dod.gov/pubs/almanac (last visited
Feb 1, 2002), United States Army, United States
Navy, Unofficial Source Outside the Air Force,
United States Marine Corps, United States Coast
Guard
52
LCR 04531

(Part 19 of 19)

P.O. Box 65301 Washington, DC 20035-5301
202.328.3244 fax: 202.797-1635
sldn@sldn.org www.sldn.org
LCR 04532
Dedication
TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE FAI THFULLY SERVI NG I N ENFORCED
SI LENCE TO SECURE FOR AMERI CA THE FREEDOM THAT I S DENI ED TO THEM.
Acknowledgements
ducing and distributing Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont
Jeffery M. Cleghorn, Sharra E. Greer, C. Dixon Osburn, Steve E. Ralls, and Kathi S.
Westcott. We would also like to acknowledge Christopher Neff, Paula Neira and David W.
Young for their contributions to this report.
A Vision
F r e e d o m t o S e r v e
A Mission
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a national, non-profit legal services,
watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment
of military personnel affected by Dont Ask, Dont Tell and related forms of intolerance.
SLDN was founded in 1993 in the wake of the debate leading to Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
SLDN has worked tirelessly to provide free legal services to those harmed by Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, to protect service members from harassment and to press for changes that
improve service members daily lives. SLDN has responded to over 4,300 requests for assis-
tance and obtained almost three dozen changes to military policy and practice, including an
Executive Order on hate crimes in the military.
LCR 04533
BOARD CO- CHAI RS :
Thomas T. Carpenter, Esq., Capt., USMC
(1970-1980) Los Angeles, CA
Jo Ann Hoenninger, Esq., Lt., USAF (1978-1980)
San Francisco, CA
BOARD MEMBERS :
Kathleen Clark, Esq. St. Louis, MO
Thomas C. Clark, CDR, USNR (Ret.) New York, NY
Amy S. Courter, Col., CAP South Lyon, MI
Anna M. Curren San Diego, CA
The Hon. Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. Philadelphia, PA
Joe Tom Easley, Esq. Miami, FL
G. Christopher Hammet, LTC, USANG
San Antonio, TX
Arthur J. Kelleher, CAPT, MC, USNR (Ret.)
San Diego, CA
Huong Thien Nguyen, Esq. San Francisco, CA
Antonious L.K. Porch, Esq. Brooklyn, NY
HONORARY BOARD:
COL Margarethe Cammermeyer, USA (Ret.)
Master Chief Petty Officer Vincent W. Patton, III,
USCG (Ret.)
BG Virgil A. Richard, USA (Ret.)
RADM Alan M. Steinman, MD, MPH,
USCG/USPHS (Ret.)
S LDN PE R S ONNE L
Deputy Director
LEGAL / POLI CY S TAFF:
Sharra E. Greer, Esq., Legal Director
MAJ Jeffery M. Cleghorn, Esq., USA (Ret.)
Army/Marine Liaison
Christopher Neff, Policy Associate
Kathi S. Westcott, Esq., Air Force/Coast Guard/
Navy Liaison
DEVELOPMENT S TAFF:
David R. Bobbit, Director of Development
Karen A. Armagost, Senior Development Associate
for Membership & Database Management
Cristian Flores, (former SSgt, USAF),
Development Associate, Events
Sarah L. Wentz, Development Assistant
Vibha Bhatia, Staff Associate for Operations
Isaac Mintz, Senior Accountant
Steve E. Ralls, Director of Communications
LCR 04534
Spotlight: Services Continue to Discharge Linguists Critical to National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
What is Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
2002 Army Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Army Is Aiming in the Right Direction, But Still Missing the Target
Spotlight: The Nomination of MG Robert T. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
2002 Air Force Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Air Force: Searching For Strength In Diversity
2002 Navy Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Navy Meets Increased Workload with Split Personality Towards Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Sailors
Missing the Mark: The Marines and Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Tides of Change: A Restructured Coast Guard Grapples with Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Disproportionate Impact on Women and Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Why Do Service Members Make Statements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
e
Table of Contents
Conduct Unbecoming:
T H E N I N T H A N N U A L R E P O R T O N
Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
LCR 04535
LCR 04536
History repeats itself.
During any time of war or conflict
for America, gay discharges have
dropped. Gay discharges decreased
during the Korean War, the Viet
Nam conflict, the Persian Gulf War,
and now again during Operation
Enduring Freedom.
3
This year, gay discharges dropped to
906 from 1273 last year the lowest
discharge figure since 1996. The
Navy and Air Force both recorded
the fewest number of gay discharges
since Congress codified Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont
Harass into law in 1993.
4
Why? Perhaps because every service
member, regardless of sexual orienta-
tion, is critical in our nations fight
against terrorism. Perhaps because
many commanders, like those who
follow the official
guidance at
Twenty-nine
Palms Marine Base, would rather
focus on the mission than on their
troops private lives. Perhaps because
commands are recognizing, as LTJG
Jenny Kopsteins command did, that
sexual orientation [does] not disrupt
good order and discipline....
The answer, we suspect, is all of the
above.
Discharges of highly qualified service
members, however, continue. In the
summer of 2002, the Army discharged
seven linguists, all trained in Arabic, for
being gay.
5
They did so despite a critical
shortage of Arabic specialists. Even now,
many more linguists who speak Arabic,
Farsi and Korean the languages of the
Axis of Evil - have been discharged or
are currently facing discharge.
1
Executive Summary
TOTAL GAY DISCHARGES 1994-2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
617
772
870
1007
1163
1046
1241
1273
906
I
GAY DISCHARGES DROP DURING TIME OF WAR
BIGOTRY IS NOT A PART OF OUR SOUL. ITS NOT GOING TO BE
A PART OF OUR FUTURE . . . THATS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY.
1
HOMOSEXUALS CAN AND DO SERVE HONORABLY IN THE
MARINE CORPS. HOMOSEXUALS CAN AND DO MAKE SOME OF
THE BEST MARINES. HOMOSEXUALS ARE CAPABLE OF MILITARY
SERVICE AND CAN AND DO PERFORM AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE
IN THE MILITARY.
Official Memorandum from Twenty-nine Palms Marine Base
2
Thirteen coalition
partners in Operation
Enduring Freedom allow lesbian,
gay and bisexual troops to serve
openly: Australia, Belgium,
Canada, Czech Republic,
Denmark, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands,
Norway, Spain and Sweden.
LCR 04537
At the same time, ironically,
American troops are serving along-
side thirteen coalition partners in
Operation Enduring Freedom who
have abandoned their bans on gays
serving in the military.
6
According
to the Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military at the
University of California, lifting these
bans have been non-events.
7
Lifting the ban in the United States
military would be a non-event too.
According to a recent survey, many
service members report serving with
a service member whom they know
to be lesbian, gay or bisexual.
8
American troops also serve with
civilians in the CIA, FBI, NSA and
agencies inside the Department of
Homeland Security who do not face
a gay ban.
9
Public opinion polls
show that 72% of Americans sup-
port gays in the military.
10
A report
published in International Security
argues that concerns about unit
cohesion not are supported by
empirical data.
11
Military studies
from the leading force management
researchers at RAND and
PERSEREC seriously question the
efficacy of the militarys gay ban.
12
The chorus of dissent from Dont
Ask, Dont Tell continues to grow.
This year, the largest American-
based human rights group, Human
Rights Watch, issued a report calling
the gay ban an affront to interna-
tional human rights.
13
Human
Rights Watch called on President
Bush and Congress to repeal Dont
Ask, Dont Tell.
14
We agree. Our national security is
served when our national soul is free
from the bigotry of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell. The time has come to
lift the ban.
2
INCOMPLETE: BUSH
ADMINISTRATION FAILS TO
IMPLEMENT ANTI-HARASSMENT
ACTION PLAN
The decrease in military discharges
is mirrored by a decrease in reports
of harassment to SLDN during
2002.
17
We hope military leaders
are learning from past experience
that retention requires respect and
that those subjected to anti-gay hos-
tility will leave military service. The
decline in harassment does not,
however, reflect an elimination of
serious anti-gay hostility in the
armed forces. The military remains
an unsafe place for lesbian, gay and
bisexual Americans. Reports of anti-
gay harassment remain at disturbing-
ly high levels. Other policy viola-
tions, asking and pursuing, also con-
tinue at unacceptably high levels.
Almost four years after soldiers mur-
dered PFC Barry Winchell for being
perceived to be gay, and almost three
years after then-Secretary of Defense
William Cohen promulgated an
Anti-Harassment Action Plan
(AHAP), the Bush Administration
has failed to implement the plan.
The Department of Defense has
failed to issue a single Department-
wide directive on harassment as
required by the AHAP. The directive
was to make clear that mistreatment,
harassment, and inappropriate com-
ments or gestures, including that
based on sexual orientation, are not
acceptable.
18
Further, according to
the AHAP, the directive should
make clear that commanders and
leaders will be held accountable for
19
That directive has not been issued.
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
65 62
37
141
127
77
191
132
89
235
182
124
350
400
161
471
968
194
412
871
802
159
277
226
1075
119 125
Dont Ask
Dont Pursue
Dont Harass
TOTAL VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
Sen. Levin: Does [DoD] still support the
13-point Anti-Harassment Action Plan
which was promulgated in July 2000?
Mr. Abell: Yes, sir. It has been
implemented by all three services.
Charles Abell, testifying before the Senate Armed Services
Committee during hearings to confirm his nomination as
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel & Readiness
15
Claire Shipman: Our next social
report card gays in the military.
Charles Moskos: On gays in the
military, its an incomplete.
Vice Adm. Patricia Tracey: Incomplete
on sexual preference.
A Good Morning America Report on Social Progress in the
Armed Forces, September 9, 2002
16
II
LCR 04538
3
13 Point Anti-Harassment Action Plan
ior, and climate.
tive.
audiences.
LCR 04539
4
July 21, 2000
LCR 04540
The AHAP requires each of the
Services to implement training on
Dont Ask, Dont Tell and anti-
harassment measures. The training,
according to the AHAP, is to be tai-
lored to the grade and responsibility
of the audience, and administered to
every member of the military.
SLDN has documented, however,
that the training rarely meets the
standards set forth by the AHAP.
The Army has come closest to meet-
ing those guidelines. The Marine
Corps openly acknowledged its
training is inadequate. The Navy
and Air Force have blatantly failed
to meet the requirements altogether.
The AHAP also has specific require-
ments regarding reporting. The
Services are required to provide clear
training on how to report harass-
ment and to instruct those who
receive such complaints not to ask
about a service members sexual ori-
entation. Here, too, the Army has
come closest to meeting the guide-
lines. The Marine Corps has taken
small steps. The other Services,
however, have done nothing in this
important area.
Enforcement, also required by the
AHAP, is absent from all of the
Services. Complaints of harassment
continue to fall on deaf ears, and are
dismissed without consideration.
Credible, well-documented cases of
harassment go uninvestigated and
offenders go unpunished.
Accountability for those who harass
or condone anti-gay harassment is
little more than empty words from
military leaders.
Anti-gay harassment enforcement
stands in stark contrast to how other
complaints of harassment are han-
dled. For example, the military
tracks reported cases of sexual
harassment. Incidents of sexual
harassment have decreased from
1,599 in 1993 to 319 in 2000.
20
Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David
Chu, stated to put it as bluntly as
possible, [sexual harassment is] a
career killer and we make sure that
we enforce those standards.
21
The
Pentagon has not made the same
commitment regarding anti-gay
harassment.
The Services are required by the
AHAP to ensure inspection pro-
grams to assess adherence to the
AHAP and assess the effectiveness of
efforts to address anti-gay harass-
ment. While the Army, Air Force
and Marine Corps have taken small
steps in the right direction on meas-
urement, the Navy has completely
failed to make any assessment of its
efforts. None of the Services have
evaluated the level of anti-gay
harassment. The only measurement
of levels of anti-gay harassment was
the DoD Inspector General report
published in March of 2000 which
prompted creation of the AHAP.
The prevalence of anti-gay harass-
ment revealed by the DoD IG report
makes the Services failure to meas-
ure the climate in the ranks a gross
deficiency.
According to the AHAP, treatment
of all individuals with dignity and
respect is essential to good order and
discipline.
23
During time of war,
when good order and discipline is
vital, it is irresponsible for the
Pentagon to not take its commit-
ment to end harassment seriously.
5
DOD IG Findings
22
80% have heard derogatory,
anti-gay remarks during the
past year;
of anti-gay harassment
9% of whom reported
anti-gay threats
5% of whom reported
witnessing or experiencing
anti-gay physical assaults.
The majority of respondents
reported that leaders took no
steps to stop the harassment.
WHAT THE PENTAGON AND
SERVICES MUST DO:
INTERIM STEPS ON THE JOURNEY TO
FREEDOM
Congress should repeal Dont Ask,
Dont Tell. Until then, the Bush
Administration must, at the very
least, take proactive steps to stop
asking, pursuits and harassment.
SLDN recommends that the
Department of Defense and
Services:
Ensure Full and Adequate
Training on Anti-Harassment
and Policys Investigative
Limits. The Services should
ensure every service member
from recruit to flag officer
receives rank-appropriate train-
ing to prevent anti-gay harass-
Department policy concerning harassment is based on the fact that treatment
of all individuals with dignity and respect is essential to good order and
discipline. Mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or
gestures undermine this principle and have no place in our armed forces.
Dr. David S.C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense
24
LCR 04541
ment. The Pentagon should
make clear that anti-gay harass-
ment includes, but is not limit-
ed to, inappropriate comments
and gestures, mistreatment,
threats and assaults. The
Pentagon should make clear
that Dont Ask, Dont Tell
contains specific investigative
limits.
Provide Adequate Avenues To
Report Harassment. The
Pentagon must ensure that all
service members understand
avenues available for reporting
harassment. All service mem-
bers should know that com-
plaints are to be taken seriously
and those making complaints
will not be asked about their
sexual orientation. Inspectors
General, law enforcement per-
care providers, commanders
and all personnel who deal with
harassment must be given clear
instructions not to out service
members who seek their help.
The Services should adopt a
rule of privacy for conversations
with health care providers.
There must be adequate train-
ing on how to respond to com-
plaints of harassment.
Enforce Policy and Hold
Accountable Those Who Ask,
Pursue Or Harass. The
Pentagon must require enforce-
ment of prohibitions against
asking, pursuits, and harass-
ment. Commands must hold
accountable those who harass or
condone harassment, as well as
those who ask or pursue.
Commanders must understand
there are specific consequences
for violations, from letters of
counseling to courts-martial,
depending on the offense. The
Pentagon must uphold and
enforce its own rules and regu-
lations.
Measure Effectiveness of
Training and Guidance. The
Pentagon must require the serv-
ices to measure the results of
their efforts in implementing
the AHAP.
Verbal commitments to fully imple-
ment the AHAP, and address harass-
ment, must become concrete actions
in the best interest of service mem-
bers.
6
REALIZING THE FREEDOM TO SERVE
History will remember Dont Ask,
Dont Tell as a stubborn scourge of
bigotry within our national soul.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual service
members begin and end their days
fighting for freedoms denied them at
home. They face unforgivable
harassment, discrimination and dis-
regard. More than 9,000 Americans
have been fired since 1993 because
of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, at a cost
of more than a quarter billion dol-
lars in tax payer money.
Equal opportunity is a uniquely
American
ideal that
continues
to be
withheld
from
uniquely
qualified
American
patriots.
Congress,
the
Pentagon
and the
White
House must work together to lift the
ban. Forcing lesbian, gay and bisex-
ual service members to lie, hide,
evade and deceive those around
them breaks the bonds of trust
among service members. We must
never lose sight of the values of
respect and tolerance that make our
country strong. Our liberties, our
armed forces and our future are all
made stronger by realizing the
promise of the freedom to serve.
The time has come to lift the ban
and welcome all qualified patriots to
our struggle for freedom, regardless
of their sexual orientation.
[W]e must never lose sight of the
values that make our country so
strong, the values of respect and
tolerance.
25
COSTS OF DONT ASK, DONT TELL
1994-2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL
$17,591,906
$258,397,701
$21,275,304
$25 047,103 $26 697,265
$36,833,975 $37,010,778
$30,822,670
$33,739,921
$29,378,778
III
LCR 04542
Despite facing sharp
criticism for discharging
seven Arabic linguists for
being gay, the Services
have continued to expel
gay linguists at a rapid rate.
These discharges have not been lim-
ited to Arabic linguists. As this
report went to press, SLDN was
assisting ten
linguists facing
discharge from
the Army and
Air Force.
These recent
cases include
Specialist
Cathleen
Glover, an
Arabic linguist;
Private First
Class Ryan
Craig, a Korean linguist; and Private
First Class Luis Rosas, a Farsi lin-
guist. These men and women are
one more reminder of the damage
Dont Ask, Dont Tell inflicts on
our national security.
Our nation faces a serious shortfall in
the number of trained professionals
who can speak and decipher the lan-
guages President Bush has indicated
are critical to national security lan-
guages from
nations the
President has
termed the
Axis of Evil.
According to
a Govern-
ment
Accounting
Office
(GAO) study
released in
January
2002, the Army faces a critical short-
fall in linguists needed to translate
intercepts and interrogate suspected
terrorists. The report concluded that
staff shortfalls have adversely affected
agency operations and compromised
U.S. military, law enforcement, intel-
ligence, counterterrorism and diplo-
matic efforts.
28
7
Spotlight
SERVICES CONTINUE TO DISCHARGE LINGUISTS
CRITICAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY
THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAVE SOUGHT TO RECRUIT PEOPLE WITH LANGUAGE
SKILLS SO THAT DOCUMENTS AND INTERCEPTS COULD BE TRANSLATED PROMPTLY BUT
IN THE MILITARY, AT LEAST, THE DESIRE TO DEFEAT AT QAEDA HAS BEEN PREEMPTED BY
AN APPARENTLY MORE IMPORTANT PRIORITY: CONTINUING THE IRRATIONAL DISCRIMI-
NATION AGAINST GAY MEN AND LESBIANS WHO WOULD SERVE THIS COUNTRY.
Washington Post, November 20, 2002
26
THIS IS A NEW HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY.
Rep. Barney Frank commenting on the discharge of the linguists
27
GAO REPORT: JANUARY 2002
SHORTFALL OF ARMY TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS IN 2001
Authorized Filled Unfilled Percent
Language Positions Positions Positions Shortfall
Arabic 84 42 42 50%
Korean 62 39 23 37%
Mandarin Chinese 52 32 20 38%
Farsi 40 13 27 68%
Russian 91 57 34 37%
Total 329 183 146 44%
Specialist Glover
T
O
L
E
S

(
c
)

2
0
0
2

T
h
e

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

P
o
s
t
.

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
A
L

P
R
E
S
S

S
Y
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
LCR 04543
The majority of language specialists
are being discharged from the
Defense Language Institute (DLI),
the militarys premier language train-
ing facility in Monterey, California.
The discharge of linguists from DLI,
however, is not a new phenomenon.
SLDN has warned of problems at
DLI for years. For example, as
reported in Conduct Unbecoming, the
6th Annual Report on Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, in 1999 there were signifi-
cant policy violations at DLI,
including a witch-hunt, which
resulted in the discharge of 14 serv-
ice members.
This ongoing loss of essential
personnel is disturbing news in any
language.
8
by Cathleen M. Glover
Guest Commentary
For those of us in the armed services who
are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, life behind
closed doors can be hell. The policy of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue,
Dont Harass forces us to shove our
identities in the closet, making many of
us suffer in silence or leave the military.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is that absurd
policy from the Clinton era that attempts
the impossible by allowing homosexuals
to serve as long as they are in the clos-
et. The Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
part was added later in an attempt to
prevent witch hunts, but in the anti-gay
climate of the military, comments can be
heard daily and harassment still goes on.
Many people wonder why homosexuals
join the military. Why do heterosexuals
join the military? Why are the automo-
biles of our nation covered in stars and
stripes? Most of us assume that we will
be able to maintain a level of privacy
under which we can lead double lives.
The truth is, none of us realizes how dif-
ficult it is to live a double life in which a
relationship must be conducted behind
closed doors and one must shield him-
self with lies. I dont have to explain the
strain this puts on a relationship.
Recently, a pair of sailors came out to the
Navy, fearing their safety in a hostile envi-
ronment. The Navy refused to initiate sep-
aration proceedings or outline any steps
guaranteeing the safety of these openly
gay service members. It was only three
years ago that a soldier was beaten to
death at Fort Campbell by soldiers who
perceived him to be gay. The commander
at the time tolerated and even encouraged
the homophobic environment, and at this
time gay rights activists are fighting to pre-
vent his promotion. I hope they succeed.
The fear that we all feel in these hostile
environments is a constant presence. It
drives some of us into severe depressions
and others of us to seek discharge in order
to protect ourselves. This is the only way
we can ensure our safety, since the upper
ranks of the military refuse to do so.
The two sailors felt that their safety was
threatened, so they came out, and it
took intervention by Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton to enforce the existing
policy on homosexual conduct and to get
the Navy to discharge them.
We realize that we are living in a state of
perpetual war and that qualified soldiers
and sailors should be retained, but the
military cannot have it both ways. If the
armed services continue to maintain a
hostile, anti-gay climate, then we will be
forced to continue to seek discharge
until this ridiculous policy is dropped.
The United States is the only NATO
country that has a ban on homosexuals.
Its time we move into the 21st century
with the rest of the industrialized world.
Cathleen M. Glover is a lesbian member
of the Army. She worked at the Defense
Language Institute at the Presidio of
Monterey for two years and recently was
transferred to Goodfellow Air Force Base
in San Angelo, Texas.
Coming Out in a World of Hatred
LCR 04544
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is
a ban on lesbians, gays
and bisexuals serving in
the military similar to
the policies banning serv-
ice that have been in place
for the past fifty years.
29
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is the only
law in the land that authorizes the
firing of an American for being gay.
There is no other federal, state, or
local law like it. Indeed, Dont Ask,
Dont Tell is the only law that pun-
ishes lesbians, gays and bisexuals for
coming out. Many Americans view
Dont Ask, Dont Tell as a benign
gentlemens agreement with discre-
tion as the key to job security. That
is simply not the case. An honest
statement of ones sexual orientation
to anyone, anywhere, anytime may
lead to being fired.
THE HISTORY OF THE POLICY
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is the result
of a failed effort by President
Clinton to end the ban on gays in
the military. Spurred in part by the
brutal 1992 murder of Seaman Allen
Schindler, then candidate Clinton
proposed ending the ban by issuing
an Executive Order overriding the
Department of Defense regulations
that barred gays from serving.
Congress, however, intervened and
the ban was made law, preventing
action by future Commanders in
Chief.
This law was, however, significantly
different from prior prohibitions on
service in three respects. First,
Congressional and military leaders
acknowledged, for the first time in
1993, that lesbians, gays and bisexu-
als serve our nation and do so hon-
orably.
30
Second, the policy also
states sexual orientation is no longer
a bar to military service.
31
Third,
President Clinton, Congress and
military leaders agreed to end intru-
sive questions about service mem-
bers sexual orientation and to stop
the militarys infamous investigations
to ferret out suspected lesbian, gay
and bisexual service members.
32
They agreed to take steps to prevent
33
They agreed
to treat lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members even-handedly in
the criminal justice system, instead
of criminally prosecuting them in
circumstances where they would not
prosecute heterosexual service mem-
bers.
34
They agreed to implement
the law with due regard for the pri-
vacy and associations of service
members.
35
The law became known
in 1993 as Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
Dont Pursue to signify the new
limits to investigations and the
intent to respect service members
privacy.
Small steps were made to keep some
of these promises. Questions regard-
ing sexual orientation at induction
have, for the most part, stopped.
Criminal prosecutions have
decreased and witch-hunts have
declined. President Clinton issued
an Executive Order ending discrimi-
nation in the issuance of security
clearances. The Department of
Defense issued guidelines on anti-
gay harassment and limits on inves-
tigations. Then, in 1999, PFC
Barry Winchell was murdered by fel-
low soldiers at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky. In the wake of this mur-
der, the Department of Defense
(DoD) issued new guidance on pro-
hibiting anti-gay harassment.
President Clinton issued an
Executive Order providing for sen-
tence enhancement under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) for hate crimes, as well as a
limited psychotherapist-patient priv-
ilege. In February 2000, Pentagon
officials added Dont Harass to the
title of the policy. The Pentagon
then conducted a survey on anti-gay
9
What is Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
Dont Pursue, Dont Harass?
LCR 04545
harassment, finding it was wide-
spread. Thereafter, the Pentagon
formed a Working Group which
issued a 13-point action plan to
address anti-gay harassment, which
the Services were then directed to
implement.
These limited steps, spurred in large
part by the murder of PFC Barry
Winchell, have done little to fulfill
the promises made when the policy
was created. Intrusive questioning
continues. Harassment continues in
alarming proportions. Little regard
for service member privacy has been
shown during the life of this law.
Simply put, asking, pursuing and
harassing have continued for all of
the almost ten years since the law
was passed.
THE POLICY ITSELF
SLDN documents violations of the
policy reported to us by service
members. In order to understand
the critiques of the policy and the
violations documented in this
report, it is important to understand
the policy. One way to understand
the law, and implementing regula-
tions, known as Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, is by breaking it down into its
component parts.
required to reveal, their sexual orien-
tation.
36
exists if . . . [t]he member has said that
he or she is a homosexual or bisexual,
or made some other statement that
indicates a propensity or intent to
engage in homosexual acts . . . .
37
specific investigative limits as laid out
in DoD instructions and directives
comprise Dont Pursue. It is the
most complicated and least under-
stood component of the policy. These
investigative limits establish a mini-
mum threshold to start an inquiry
and restrict the scope of an inquiry
when one is properly initiated.
they:
38
39
In
order to begin an inquiry, the com-
manding officer must receive credi-
ble information from a reliable
source that a service member has
violated the policy.
40
Actions that
are associational behavior, such as
having gay friends, going to a gay
bar, attending gay pride events, and
reading gay magazines or books, are
never to be considered credible.
41
In
addition, a service members report
to his/her command regarding
harassment or assault based on per-
ceived sexuality is never to be con-
sidered credible evidence.
42
If a determination is made that cred-
ible information exists that a service
mary ways. First, the command
may only investigate the factual cir-
cumstances directly relevant to the
specific allegation(s).
43
Second, in
statements cases, the command may
only question the service member,
his/her chain of command, and any-
10
1992 1993 1995 1996 1997
Seaman
Allen
Shindler
murdered
Candidate
Clinton proposes
ending DoD reg-
ulations
banning gays
from the Military
August 1995:
President signs
Executive Order end-
ing sexual orientation
disrcimination in
issuance of security
clearances
Congress
enacts
DADTDP
into law
March 1997:
DoD issues
Dorn Memo
on anti gay
harassment
LCR 04546
one that the service member sug-
gests.
44
In most cases of homosexual
statements, no investigation is neces-
sary.
45
Cases involving sexual acts
between consenting adults should be
dealt with administratively, and
criminal investigators should not be
involved.
46
listed above, without approval from
the Secretary of that Service.
47
Such
48
In order to
49
cer has the authority to request per-
mission to conduct a substantial
investigation.
50
By definition, a
substantial investigation is any-
thing that extends beyond question-
ing the service member, the service
members immediate chain of com-
mand, and anyone the service mem-
ber suggests.
51
lence against any service member,
for any reason.
52
There are many
regulations and laws that prohibit
harassment and can be applied to
anti-gay harassment cases.
Harassment can take different forms,
ranging from a hostile climate rife
with anti-gay comments, to direct
verbal and physical abuse, to death
threats.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is a complex
law comprised of statute, regulations
and policy memoranda. The above
description, however, covers the
basic components of the law and
those are fairly simple. Dont ask
about sexual orientation. Dont
investigate sexual orientation, except
in specific circumstances and in lim-
ited ways. Dont harass. Dont tol-
erate harassment based on perceived
sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, even after almost
nine years, the Services continue to
violate these basic rules.
11
1998 1999 2000
July 5, 1999:
PFC Barry
Winchell
murdered
August 12,
1999: DoD
issues DeLeon
Memo prohibit-
ing anti-gay
harassment
October 1999:
President Clinton
issues Executive
Order providing for
limited psychothera-
pist-patient privilege
and sentence
enhancement under
UCMJ for hate crimes
February
2000:
Dont
Harass
added to
Homosexual
Conduct
Policy
March 16,
2000: DoD
Publishes
IG Report
documenting
rampant
anti-gay
harassment
July 21, 2000:
DoD Working
Group issues
13 point Anti-
Harassment
Action Plan -
Services directed
to implement
LCR 04547
LCR 04548
The news from the Army
during 2002 was a mixed
bag.
On the one hand, the Army is doing
more than its sister Services to train
on Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Gay dis-
charges this year dropped to the low-
est point since 1999. During 2002,
more Army leaders also publicly
spoke about their commitment to
prohibiting harassment than did
leaders in the other Services. The
Army Inspector General began sys-
temic checks on Dont Ask, Dont
Tell adherence, and the Army invit-
ed SLDN to meet with senior
Pentagon leaders to discuss policy
implementation. SLDN also visited
Fort Campbell, and spoke at the
Army War College.
On the other hand, documented
reports of anti-gay harassment dur-
ing 2002 were the second highest
ever recorded. The Armys Dont
Ask, Dont
Tell training
still gives
scant men-
tion to the
Dont
Harass
prong of the
policy, thereby falling well short of
fully implementing the AHAP.
Army leaders are not consistently
13
2002 Army Report
AS AMERICAN SOCIETY MOVES TOWARD AN EVER MORE
POSITIVE APPRECIATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG PEOPLE,
IT BEHOOVES THE MILITARY TO DETERMINE HOW SUC-
CESSFULLY WE ARE INCULCATING THE MORES OF THOSE
WE REPRESENT AND DEFEND.
MG Robert Ivany, Commandant, U.S. Army War College
53
US ARMY DONT ASK, DONT TELL
DISCHARGES 1994-2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
136
184
199 197
312
271
573
638
429
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
17
36
48
41
122
276
209
480
405
ARMY DONT HARASS VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
V
IV
ARMY IS AIMING IN RIGHT DIRECTION,
BUT STILL MISSING THE TARGET
LCR 04549
enforcing the Dont Harass provi-
sions, nor are they measuring the
effectiveness of anti-harassment ini-
tiatives, as required by the AHAP.
Reports of asking and pursuits, in
direct violation of the policy, slightly
increased.
SLDN appreciates the Armys active
engagement compared to the other
Services. We especially appreciate
the leadership of LTG John
LeMoyne DCSPER-G1, the Armys
point person on the policy. Being
open and honest about the Armys
policy programs, and the challenges
the Army faces, allows for dialogue.
We will remain strong in our criti-
cism of the Armys shortcomings
when deserved, but also recognize
the progress made within the Army.
14
[Gay soldiers] will continue to be treated with dignity and respect. The
Army owes nothing less to [soldiers who have given many] honorable years
in the service of their country.
COL Gerald Ferguson, Jr., Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry Division.
54
I am committed to ensuring that every soldier in the Warrior Division is
treated with dignity and respect.
MG John Wood, Division Commander, 2d Infantry Division.
55
The 10th Mountain Division (light infantry) strongly agrees with you that
there is no room for harassment or threats in the military. Treating soldiers
with dignity and respect is a bedrock Army value which we take very seriously.
MG F.L Hagenbeck, Division Commander, 10th Mountain Division.
56
I certainly agree with you that treatment of all individuals with dignity
and respect is essential to good order and discipline.
COL Jackson Flake, III, Chief of Staff, 1st Armored Division.
57
Reports of violations of the [Dont Ask, Dont Tell] policy within I Corps
and Fort Lewis will be dealt with immediately and appropriately.
LTG Edward Soriano, Commanding General, I Corps and Fort Lewis.
58
GAYS & GRENADES: SOLDIERS
STILL FACE HARASSMENT AT
UNACCEPTABLY HIGH LEVELS
SLDN documented fewer reports of
anti-gay harassment in the Army in
2002, 405 compared to 513 in
2001. Although this decrease is wel-
come, reports of harassment were
still unacceptably high. SLDN sus-
pects that the decrease is tied to the
decrease in discharges as well as the
Armys modest steps to implement
the AHAP. The Army, however, still
has a significant ongoing harassment
problem largely attributable to its
failure to fully implement the
AHAP. Contributing to the prob-
lem is a noticeable absence of leader-
ship amongst the ranks of the Non-
Commissioned Officer (NCO)
corps. In fact, SLDN continues to
document instances where NCOs
directly participate in the anti-gay
harassment.
North
Carolina
Army
National
Guardsman
SPC Brad
Powells expe-
rience illus-
trates this
ongoing
problem.
SPC Powell
reports an NCO instructing his
units hand grenade training encour-
aged the soldiers to visualize blow-
ing up a gay bar while throwing
their grenades. SPC Powell further
reports hearing NCOs tell soldiers
that the only way to decrease our
nuclear arsenal is to put all fags on
an island and nuke it, as well as
NCOs saying the only thing a good
fag needs is a good fag bashing.
60
The hostile climate led SPC Powell
to reveal his sexual orientation to his
command, seeking to escape what
Powell understandably viewed as a
dangerous situation. Soon there-
after, SPC Powell reports
receiving a written death threat
in the form of a note left on his
truck during a weekend drill.
The note stated fags die!
SPC Powells receipt of the
death threat reaffirmed his
belief that his only recourse to
protect himself from the danger
was to reveal that he is gay.
SPC Powells experiences, and
others like it, indicate that
much work remains before the
Armys pledge to treat all soldiers
including those perceived as gay
with dignity and respect is ful-
filled.
61
The Army has recently indicated to
SLDN a greater understanding of
the need for it to remedy its harass-
ment problem by a determined
implementation of the AHAP. The
AHAPs four components training,
reporting, enforcement and measure-
ment provide a framework to eval-
uate the Armys anti-harassment
efforts to date.
SPC Powell
Not a day goes by here that I am not
inundated with derogatory comments
regarding gay people or being gay ....
Hatred for and misunderstanding of
gays is rampant in the Army.
Soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina
59
LCR 04550
THE ARMY & YOUNG AMERICANS:
A BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE
Not all lesbian, gay and bisexual sol-
diers face
harassment;
many find
respect and
acceptance. For
example,
Sergeant Casey
Murphy, an
Army commu-
nications repair
person assigned
to Fort Hood,
Texas, is typical
of many lesbian, gay and bisexual
soldiers. SGT Murphy enlisted in
the Army out of love of country
and a strong sense of patriotism.
SGT Murphy came out during
her teenage years. Her family and
friends all know she is a lesbian. At
Fort Hood, most of the soldiers in
her unit also know. As she
befriended other soldiers, develop-
ing the bonds of trust that are criti-
cal to unit cohesion and combat
readiness, SGT Murphy
found it easy to be open and
honest about her sexual ori-
entation. She is widely
respected by other troops and
their awareness of SGT
Murphys lesbian orientation
does not adversely affect their
opinions of her professional
competence or personal char-
acter. SLDN heard similar
positive stories from several
soldiers throughout 2002,
indicating SGT Murphy is part of a
growing rule, not an exception.
Increasingly, young lesbian, gay and
bisexual Americans like SGT
Murphy are comfortable with
their sexual orientations and are less
inclined to present themselves to
the world as heterosexual. In terms
of our perceptions and treatment of
gays, American society has come a
long way since the introduction of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell in 1993.
Young lesbians, gays and bisexuals
continue to enlist in our nations
Army, and some, like SGT Murphy,
find ways to live their lives with
integrity even in the face of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, which pres-
sures them to do the opposite in
hopes of making them invisible.
The Army is, sadly, losing the valu-
able skills and experience of SGT
Murphy because of its anti-gay ban.
SGT Murphys chain of command
is discharging her, after discovering
that she has been serving as an open
lesbian. Although her fellow sol-
diers are comfortable with SGT
Murphy being a lesbian, her com-
mand is not. Such is the reality
under Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
15
ARMY TRAINING: MISSING
THE HARASSMENT TARGET
The AHAP requires that [t]he
Services shall ensure feedback on
reporting mechanisms are in place to
measure homosexual conduct policy
training and anti-harassment train-
ing effectiveness.
63
Spurred into action by PFC
Winchells 1999 murder, the Army
began implementing training on
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Specifically,
the Army:
Conducted Unit Refresher
training during the year 2000;
64
Ordered Dont Ask, Dont
Tell training in its profession-
al military education system,
ensuring that officers and
NCOs receive training on the
policys basics;
65
Published a policy training
model on one of its websites;
Published a training brochure,
and a training manual;
66
Directed an update to its train-
ing Regulation (Army
Regulation 350-1) mandating
annual unit-level Dont Ask,
Dont Tell training;
67
and
Ordered its IG to check policy
training as a special interest
inspection item.
68
These actions, though, are less than
they appear. As of early 2003, the
Armys training regulation had not
been updated to reflect mandatory
annual training fully three years
after the Chief of Staff directive
requiring the update was issued.
69
The training conducted at Army
schools does not adequately empha-
size the Dont Harass prong of the
policy. The website anti-harassment
materials, the training materials and
brochure do not appear to be used
in any consistent way. In fact, most
commands do not appear to know
these resources even exist.
According to the Army Inspector
General, 71% of soldiers report
receiving some form of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell training from April 2001
through April 2002.
70
Most soldiers
with whom SLDN spoke, however,
stated that the training, to the extent
it happened at all, was brief and
made little to no mention of the
policys Dont Harass provisions.
While we are pleased that the
schools are conducting training, the
quality of the training appears to
leave much to be desired.
I am going to snap your fucking
neck, so know you have it coming.
Death threat received by Gay soldier while serving in
Kuwait
62
SGT Murphy
LCR 04551
I am committed to doing
all I can to ensure that all
my troopers are treated with
dignity and respect and are
able to serve their nation in
an environment that is safe
and free from harassment of
any form.
MG David Petraeus, Division Commander,
101st Airborne Division and Fort
Campbell
71
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, site of
the 1999 anti-gay murder of PFC
Barry Winchell, continues to lead
the Army indeed lead every mili-
tary base in discharging gay
troops. Although its 92 gay dis-
charges during 2002 are down con-
siderably from
the 222 during
2001, the num-
ber remains
alarmingly
high.
72
SLDN
continues to
work with sen-
ior Fort
Campbell lead-
ers, including
the new com-
manding gener-
al, MG David Petraeus, to address
this problem.
16
RAISE YOUR HAND: HARASSMENT
REPORTING MECHANISMS NOT YET
EFFECTIVE
The AHAP requires the Services to
review all avenues for reporting
mistreatment, harassment, and inap-
propriate comments or gestures to
ensure they facilitate effective leader-
ship response.
74
The Army has designated defense
attorneys and Chaplains as confiden-
tial resources for reporting
75
The
Army allows soldiers to use
other resources to report
harassment, including the
command and Inspectors
General, but stresses that
these resources are not confi-
dential. If a gay soldier is
being harassed and the sol-
diers sexual orientation sur-
faces during the harassment
reporting process, the gay
soldier will be at great risk of investi-
gation and discharge. Unfortunately,
according to the Army IG, 70% of
soldiers are unaware of these confi-
dential designations.
76
The Army has done a poor job ensur-
ing its troops know how to report anti-
gay harassment and to whom they can
safely report it. The Army also contin-
ues to fail to establish command cli-
mates where lesbian, gay and bisexual
soldiers feel comfortable speaking out
about harassment. Most gay troops
with whom SLDN has spoken over
the past year indicate they are afraid to
report harassment for fear of becoming
the target of an anti-gay investigation
or of worsening harassment. Until
Army leaders actually make it safe for
gays to report harassment, the AHAPs
reporting component will remain only
partially implemented.
Army Sergeant
Sonya Contreras
experience illus-
trates the Armys
problem. SGT
Contreras, a
recruiter in
California,
reports receiving
unit Equal
Opportunity
training on
January 4, 2003.
During this training, instructors told
anti-gay jokes, leading her unit
commander, Captain Ruiz, to sug-
gest anyone who is gay to raise their
hand if they felt offended by the
jokes.
77
SGT Contreras felt despon-
dent. She wrote to her command:
I have not raised my hand
once, or spoken out against
anyone who has felt free to
make homosexual com-
ments and jokes in the
nearly five years that I have
served in our nations
Army. But today, Sir, I
raise my hand .... There is
the discrimination that I
feel on a daily basis, the
witty jokes, and slanderous
comments about gays, but
it goes uncorrected. It is
obvious to me that no mat-
ter how many EO classes
we have, how many times I
hear the Dont Ask, Dont
Tell policy delivered, I will
never be able to feel like a
part of the team.
78
The Army has a duty to set safe con-
ditions for lesbian, gay, and bisexual
troops to feel comfortable reporting
harassment, and have an expectation
that their reports will be taken seri-
ously. SGT Contreras experience of
having gays ridiculed during the con-
duct of an Equal Opportunity train-
ing briefing indicates that the Army
has a ways to go before its AHAP
reporting procedures actually work.
Fags shouldnt be in the military.
Comment directed towards PFC Luis Rosas, a Farsi
(Persian) linguist at DLI
73
SGT Contreras
MG Petraeus
FORT CAMPBELL DISCHARGES
250 222
200 160
150
100 92
50 17
0
1999 2000 2001 2002
LCR 04552
SUBSTANTIATED: ACCOUNTABILITY
OF HARASSERS MISSING IN ACTION
The AHAP
requires that
[t]he Services
shall ensure that
commanders and
leaders take
appropriate
action against
anyone who
engages in mis-
treatment,
harassment, and
inappropriate
comments or gestures.
80
The Army appears to have failed to
hold a single person accountable for
anti-gay harassment this past year.
In case after case, SLDN has provid-
ed the Army with specific, detailed
accountings of anti-gay misconduct,
asking that those responsible be held
accountable. Yet, time and again,
the Armys response is to rubber-
stamp the excuses of those accused
of the misconduct. Army leaders
will not gain the confidence of sol-
diers if it fails to seriously and
demonstrably hold accountable
those who harass.
The Armys recommendation that
MG Robert T. Clark be promoted to
Lieutenant General sends a strong
signal that it is insincere in its com-
mitment to enforce anti-harassment
policies. MG Clark was the com-
manding general at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, when soldiers used a base-
ball bat to bludgeon to death PFC
Barry Winchell while he slept. MG
Clarks leadership
failures, before and
after the murder,
are examined more
fully in an accom-
panying spotlight
section.
The Army also
failed Sergeant
Tracey Cade. In
last years Conduct
Unbecoming
report, SLDN discussed how SGT
Cades officers and superior NCOs
routinely used the words faggot
and fuck in the presence of female
soldiers.
81
SLDN reported the
harassment to the Fort Hood, Texas,
Inspector General alleging [m]ale
soldiers frequently talk publicly
about their interest in female-on-
female sexual acts. These conversa-
tions take place in front of NCOs
and female soldiers, to include SGT
Cade. The NCOs do not correct
the misconduct, allowing it to con-
tinue unabated.
82
The Inspector
General concluded that the allega-
tions of sexual harassment did not fit
the definitions of sexual harassment
and were not substantiated. The
IG did not investigate the allegations
of anti-gay harassment at all.
83
The Army failed Specialist Gidonny
Ramos, too. SPC Ramos reported
being harassed by a Chaplain after
the Chaplain learned Ramos is a les-
bian.
84
The Chaplain, Major
Leininger, informed Ramos that he
does not accept gays, told her she
was going to hell, and that homo-
sexuality is a curable disease.
85
SLDN reported the misconduct to
the Army Inspector General, asking
that Major Leininger be held
accountable. The Army IG, howev-
er, reported back to SLDN that the
allegation was not substantiated.
86
Remarkably, the IG investigators
failed to question the only eyewit-
ness to the harassment, calling into
question the competence and objec-
tivity of the investigation.
87
The Army also failed to hold
accountable COL Kevin Rice the
Army Installation commander at the
Defense Language Institute after
Rice launched an improper anti-gay
investigation after learning that two
of his soldiers were lesbian. COL
Rices appointed inquiry officer, 1LT
Ruthe, proceeded to ask others ques-
tions about the two soldiers sex
lives, whether others saw them kiss-
ing women or engaging in sexual
acts. Ruthe further threatened sol-
diers with jail if they did not
cooperate with his inquisition.
88
SLDN reported 1LT Ruthes inves-
tigative misconduct to the Army
Inspector General, asking that Ruthe
and his superiors be held
accountable. The result? The IG
wrote to SLDN that no investiga-
tive action is warranted. Despite
declining to investigate the matter,
the IG proceeded to proffer the per-
plexing conclusion that the prepon-
derance of evidence did not support
your allegation of investigative mis-
conduct.
89
Given that the IG
declined to investigate, it is difficult
to imagine what evidence it was
referring to. A preponderance of
nothing is nothing.
The Army also failed to hold
accountable lawyers at the Armys
Judge Advocate General (JAG)
school for conducting Dont Ask,
Dont Tell training that belittled
and demeaned lesbians, gays and
bisexuals. In last years Conduct
Unbecoming report, SLDN docu-
mented Dont Ask, Dont Tell
training misconduct at the Armys
JAG School.
90
The JAG School
training contained a clip from a
Monty Python movie making light
of gay people with a male actor
singing a song about men wearing
17
As a former Army-level commander, I thoroughly
understand and embrace the Chief of Staff of the
Armys directive to ensure that all Soldiers are
treated with dignity and respect. As the Inspector
General, I plan to assist commanders in ensuring
that their training programs fully comply with all
applicable laws, directives, and policies designed to
create a positive and supportive command climate.
LTG Paul T. Mikolashek, Army Inspector General
79
LTG Mikolashek
LCR 04553
womens clothing, wearing high
heels, suspenders and a bra and
being a girlie man. The training
made no mention of the anti-harass-
ment rules. What is astonishing is
that the training was done by the
Armys lawyers those charged with
knowing Dont Ask, Dont Tell
better than anyone else, those
charged with advising senior Army
leaders.
SLDN wrote to the Armys top
lawyer, MG Thomas Romig, asking
for accountability.
91
We also asked
the Army IG to look into the mat-
ter. To date, the Army has reported
no action. A senior Army lawyer
working in the Inspector Generals
office, though, said that he did not
believe the complaint warranted seri-
ous consideration.
These incidents evidence a contin-
ued failure by senior Army leaders to
take anti-gay harassment seriously
and to provide the needed public
leadership to stamp it out. If the
Army wants soldiers to have confi-
dence in its commitment to the
AHAP implementation, as its leaders
publicly assert, it needs to begin
practicing what it preaches. Soldiers
and their advocates will not have
confidence in the fairness of the
Army system until it begins enforc-
ing Dont Ask, Dont Tell
provisions.
18
SURVEYING HARASSMENT:
MEASUREMENT COMES UP SHORT
The AHAP
requires that
[t]he
Services shall
determine
the extent to
which [Dont
Ask, Dont
Tell] training
and anti-
harassment
training pro-
grams are
effective in addressing mistreatment,
harassment and inappropriate com-
ments or gestures.
93
The Army is not measur-
ing the effectiveness of its
AHAP training program.
Although the Army
Inspector General recently
conducted a special inter-
est item review of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell training,
the review did not attempt
to measure whether the
training is actually making a
difference.
94
For example, the
IG used a brief survey for sol-
diers that asked, what can a
soldier do if threatened,
harassed or accused of being
homosexual?
95
The survey
does not, however, ask any
questions about the occurrence
of harassment.
When contrasted with a DoD
IG survey conducted in 2000
in response to the PFC Winchell
murder, the Armys failure to make a
good faith effort to measure the
scope of current harassment and to
see if its harassment training is
working is disappointing.
96
The
DoD IG survey asked, for example:
How often have you heard
offensive speech, derogatory
names, jokes, or remarks about
homosexuals in the last 12
months on your installation?
How often during the past 12
months have you witnessed or
experienced event(s)/behavior(s)
involving military personnel, on
or off duty, who harassed anoth-
er military person(s) because of
perceived homosexuality?
SLDN recommends that the Army
formulate questions similar to the
DoD IG survey harassment ques-
tions to better gauge the scope of its
ongoing harassment problem.
I have found that the Army has unnecessarily
created an environment of intolerance. On a
daily basis I hear jokes, crass comments, innu-
endos and personal opinions that belittle gay
men and women. I have heard them from the
mouths of privates and of colonels.
SGT Pepe Johnson, former Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Soldier of the Year
92
SGT Johnson
LCR 04554
19
FRIENDS LIKE THESE:
ARMY PURSUES AND ASKS GAYS
SLDN documented an increase in
Army Dont Pursue and Dont
Ask violations during 2002. The
Armys continuing difficulty in
adhering to these two important pol-
icy components is not surprising
given the difficulty it has in imple-
menting the AHAP. The message
communicated to the field intend-
ed or not is that if it is okay to
harass perceived lesbian, gay and
bisexual soldiers, asking and pur-
suing is also permissible.
The case of Staff Sergeant Karen
Coleman vividly illustrates this ongo-
ing problem. SSG Coleman was an
Army helicopter repairperson who
had served 11 years in the military.
In August 2002, SSG Colemans first
sergeant received a phone call from a
person claiming to be a female
friend of SSG
Coleman. Based
upon this anony-
mous information,
which the command
had no reason to
believe, and despite
SSG Colemans
being a few short
months away from
completing her mili-
tary service obliga-
tion, she found her-
self the target of an
intrusive Army
inquisition into her
private life.
Dont Pursue was
designed to prevent
commands from
acting on anony-
mous information.
Commands should
not investigate serv-
ice members based
on non-credible alle-
gations designed to
cause harm to les-
bian, gay and bisex-
ual soldiers
careers.
97
Former
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin
explained in 1993, [i]f I came to the
commander and said that you told
me that you were gay, if that was the
only thing going, my expectation
would be that the commander would
not do anything.
98
In SSG
Colemans case, the first sergeant
should have simply ignored the
anonymous phone call and allowed
this outstanding soldier to continue
serving our country. Instead, she was
investigated and discharged.
I endured three and a half-hour
improper interrogation about my
sexuality .... He stated that I
would lose my VA benefits since this
issue was severe enough to possibly
put me in jail .... I was devastated
and betrayed .... as my military
career was being ripped away.
SSG Karen Coleman, Fort Eustis, Virginia
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ARMY MARCHING INTO 2003
Ten years into the life of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, the Army continues to
struggle with the policys implemen-
tation, especially the Dont Harass
piece. The sad truth is that, despite
Army leaders asser-
tions to the contrary,
the Army does not
take anti-gay harass-
ment nearly as serious-
ly as it does other
forms of prohibited
harassment.
In October 2002, SLDN wrote to
all Army Division Commanders
100
providing simple recommendations
to assist them in better implement-
ing the AHAP. SLDNs recommen-
dations included:
Commanding Generals publish
a policy letter stressing the need
to treat perceived lesbian, gay
and bisexual troops with dignity
and respect;
Commanding Generals use
their base newspaper and other
publications to educate soldiers
I have served my country honorably during
the past eleven years and have achieved much.
I dont regret a minute of it.
A Gay Arabic and German linguist, Louisiana National Guard
99
ARMY DONT PURSUE VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
16
39
43
50
101
117
100
169
130
ARMY DONT ASK VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
11
22 22 21 22
44
35
33
23
VI
VII
LCR 04555
about the dignity and respect
requirement; and
Commanding Generals invite
SLDN to speak with their sen-
ior leaders to stress their com-
mitment to ensuring the well-
being of all troops, including
gay soldiers.
SLDN continues to urge that these
combat unit commanding generals
follow these recommendations.
Servicewide, to improve, the Army
needs to:
Fully implement the AHAP,
improving the training and
reporting components of the
AHAP, and implementing the
enforcement and measure-
ment components;
Direct NCOs to become
involved in all facets of the gay
policy;
Task Equal Opportunity repre-
sentatives to oversee the AHAP
(as they do with other types of
harassment, including gender
and race harassment); and
Form a committee to review
AHAP implementation, includ-
ing the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel (G-1), the Judge
Advocate General, Inspector
General, an Equal Opportunity
Representative, Chaplains, and
SLDN.
20
LCR 04556
In a display of his indiffer-
ence towards lesbian, gay
and bisexual service mem-
bers, President Bush recently
nominated Major General
Robert T. Clark, former
commanding general of
Fort Campbell, Ky., for
promotion to Lieutenant
General, the Armys second
highest rank.
The promo-
tion, which
would include
command of
the prestigious
Fifth United
States Army,
sends a danger-
ous message
about the Bush
Administra-
tions regard for
the safety and
well-being of its military personnel.
The message from the
Administration, the Pentagon and
the Army is that it does not take
anti-gay harassment seriously and
will not hold accountable those who
fail to lead and address anti-gay
harassment within their commands.
MG Clark was at the helm of Fort
Campbell in 1999 when PFC Barry
Winchell was beaten to death with a
baseball bat by fellow soldiers who
thought Winchell was gay. Clarks
behavior before, during and after the
murder, clearly showed a failure of
leadership to address anti-gay harass-
ment. Prior to the murder, there
were serious problems of anti-gay
harassment at Fort Campbell. PFC
Winchell was harassed for months
before his death, and leaders in his
chain of command knew about the
harassment. They did nothing, and
in some instances even participated.
The Inspector General at the base
turned PFC Winchell away when he
tried to get help. As commander of
the base, MG Clark was responsible
for the conduct of the leaders and
soldiers he commanded.
In wake of the murder, MG Clark
did nothing. He issued no state-
ments regarding anti-gay harass-
ment, implemented no training
regarding anti-gay harassment, and
neglected to assure accountability for
those who harassed or condoned
harassment. He even refused to
speak or meet with PFC Winchells
parents. Anti-gay graffiti, including
a crude drawing of a baseball bat
with the words fag-whacker writ-
ten on it appeared in public areas of
Fort Campbell after the murder.
MG Clarks actions and inactions
resulted in a record number of dis-
charges from his base. In fiscal year
1999, gay discharges from Fort
21
Spotlight
THE NOMINATION OF MG ROBERT T. CLARK
AT THE TOP OF [THE] CHAIN AT FORT CAMPBELL SAT GENERAL CLARK. INSTEAD
OF BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO A SOLDIER IN GOOD STAND-
ING UNDER HIS COMMAND, HE IS BEING PROMOTED.
Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe, October 16, 2002
101
MG Clark
Pat & Wally Kutteles,
parents of PFC Winchell
LCR 04557
22
Campbell consti-
tuted 3.6% of all
Army discharges.
After the murder,
and still under
MG Clarks watch,
discharges in FY
2000 sky-rocket-
ed, comprising an
astounding 27.7%
of the Armys
total. Service
members fled the
base in an attempt
to escape the envi-
ronment Clark had created. They
were literally running for their lives.
Despite this overwhelming evidence
concerning MG Clarks leadership
failure regarding anti-gay harassment
at Fort Campbell, the White House
has brushed aside concerns for serv-
ice member safety and sought to
reward MG Clark with a prestigious
promotion. SLDN has opposed the
nomination, which was originally
considered in October 2002 during
a closed door session of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. The
Committee allowed Clark to testify,
but refused to hear from PFC
Winchells mother or others with
information related to the environ-
ment at Fort Campbell.
SLDN, along with People for the
American Way, the National
Organization for Women, the
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force,
the Human Rights Campaign and
Michigans Triangle Foundation, will
continue to oppose Clarks promo-
tion.
102
Our men and women in uniform
deserve better.
Anti-gay graffiti found at Fort Campbell
after the murder of PFC Winchell
LCR 04558
During FY 2002, the Air
Force discharged fewer
service members under
Dont Ask, Dont Tell
than ever before. SLDN also
recorded the fewest reports of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell violations from the
Air Force since 1994. In as much as
the Air Force continues to be reluc-
tant to share information with
SLDN, however, we can only specu-
late as to why discharge and viola-
tion numbers have decreased.
One plausible explanation for the
decrease in discharge and violation
numbers may be that the Air Force
has recognized the need to retain
qualified personnel during the war
on terrorism. The Air Force may be
taking steps unknown to SLDN that
explain the decrease in discharges
and reported violations. We do
know, however, that the Air Forces
efforts to reduce anti-gay harassment
appear inconsistent. While the Air
Force has implemented some train-
ing and measurement procedures
partially complying
with the AHAP,
SLDN continues to
hear from airmen
that they are not
receiving training
on Dont Ask,
Dont Tell or the
prevention of anti-
gay harassment
beyond general
23
2002 Air Force Report
AMERICAN STRENGTH COMES FROM THE DIVERSITY OF OUR
PEOPLE, UNITED BY THE COMMON VISION WE SHARE: FREEDOM.
Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche
103
US AIR FORCE DONT ASK, DONT TELL DISCHARGES
1994-2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
187
235
284
309
415
352
177
217
121
VIII
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
24
8
15
61
24
19
77
30
25
90
25
41
116
45
54
222
68
217
251
86
214
76
23 22
3
18
119
AIR FORCE VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
Dont Ask
Dont Pursue
Dont Harass
IX
AIR FORCE: SEARCHING
FOR STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY
LCR 04559
training at boot camp.
Despite lower numbers of discharges
and violations, harassment and inap-
propriate asking persist as areas of
concern. SLDN saw an increase,
over the last year, in reports of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy viola-
tions centering on invasions of pri-
vacy. Specifically, inappropriate ask-
ing remains an issue undermining
the Air Forces strength.
24
INVASION OF PRIVACY: ASKING,
PURSUING AND OUTING
The Air Force continues to pry into
service members private lives in vio-
lation of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. In
2002, SLDN received an increase in
reported Dont Ask violations and
saw evidence of a continuation of
the Air Forces tendency towards
inappropriate pursuits. While most
of the asking violations were report-
ed to SLDN by young airmen,
between the ages of 18 and 25, it
appears supervisors as well as peers
were responsible for the violations.
The following is a list of questions
asked directly of airmen during their
course of duty:
Do you have something
to tell me? Are you gay?
You are gay, arent you?
Do you have a wife?
Why arent you married
[at your age]?
Are you gay?
Are you a faggot?
The continued prevalence of asking,
and the failure to hold those who
ask accountable, is unacceptable.
At the same time asking violations
increased, the Air Force also persisted
in pursuing and inappropriately
investigating airmen based on inva-
sions of privacy and violations of con-
fidentiality. During 2002, the Air
Force chose to discharge numerous
qualified, trained and competent air-
men whose sexual orientations were
revealed to the Air Force unwittingly.
These cases clearly show there is no
zone of privacy for service members
and there are few, if any, safe spaces
for lesbian, gay and bisexual airmen
to be themselves.
The cases of Cadet Jack Glover and
Cadet David Hall exemplify the Air
Forces propensity to inappropriately
pursue and discharge talented air-
men based on violations of their pri-
vacy. In the summer of 2002,
Glover and Hall were looking for-
ward to entering their last year of
ROTC at the University of Alaska as
leaders in their cadet corps. They
were also looking forward to, and
planning for, their careers as Air
Force officers. Unfortunately, in
June their excitement was interrupt-
ed when Cadet Glover was called
into his ROTC commanders office
for questioning. Glover was told
that he was under investigation for
homosexual conduct and was asked
about allegations that he was
involved in a homosexual relation-
ship with Cadet Hall. Cadet Glover
refused to answer any questions
asked by his commander, as did
Cadet Hall, who was subsequently
confronted with the
same allegations by the
ROTC command.
The Cadets careers as Air Force offi-
cers were cut short because a former
friend outed them to their ROTC
command. There is no dispute that
ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL?
In July 2002, SLDN caught the
Air Force Reserves still using an
outdated 1987 recruiting form
asking recruits if they are gay.
The old form illegally asks
recruits, Are you homosexual
or bisexual? and Do you
intend to engage in homosexual
acts?
Three recruiting offices, as well
as the Air Force Reserve
Publications Command, told
SLDN that the enlistment appli-
cation containing the questions
was the only form available to
recruitment offices. Mike West,
forms manager for the Air Force
Reserve Command, told SLDN,
I can assure you [the form in
question] is the latest version
officially released for use.
104
The Pentagon had previously
ordered all services to update
recruiting forms after imple-
mentation of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. The 1994 recruiting form
available to all Services does
not ask questions about sexual
orientation.
The Air Force Reserves compli-
ance with the federal Dont
Ask policy was long overdue.
Cadets Glover and Hall
Graphic courtesy of the Washington Blade
LCR 04560
they were top performers in their
ROTC program. In fact, prior to
the investigation, Glover and Hall
were rated the number three and
number one cadets in their unit,
respectively, by their commander.
Even as the investigation was ongo-
ing, both were promoted to group
commanders with the rank of
Lieutenant Colonel. Cadet Hall had
already served in the Air Force as an
enlisted man and was honorably dis-
charged prior to entering college.
Instead of respecting their privacy
off duty, the Air Force chose to inap-
propriately investigate and pursue
disenrollment from ROTC of
Glover and Hall. Cadets Glover and
Hall were model cadets. Their
grades, attitude and leadership abili-
ties were lauded by their Air Force
commanders. The one mistake they
made was to trust a fellow ROTC
cadet, someone they considered a
friend, and acknowledge to her they
are gay. This trust was betrayed. Just
before Glover and Halls friend grad-
uated from college and became a
lieutenant in the Air Force, she told
the cadets ROTC command of their
admission. The resulting disenroll-
ment means that Glover and Hall
lost their college scholarships prior
to entering their senior year, and
they are prevented from becoming
officers in the Air Force or ever serv-
ing our country in the military.
105
Similarly, Senior Airman Brandi
Grijalva saw her trust and confiden-
tiality broken after seeking counsel-
ing from an Air Force chaplains
assistant. While temporarily sta-
tioned at
Tyndall
Air Force
Base for
training,
Senior
Airman
Grijalva
sought
help from
a chaplains
assistant
due to
problems
she was having at home. Concerned
about the confidentiality of their
conversation, Grijalva was hesitant
to discuss the issues causing her
unhappiness. Informed that their
conversation was safe and confiden-
tial, Senior Airman Grijalva revealed
to the chaplains assistant that she
and her partner were having difficul-
ties in their relationship. Following
that revelation, the chaplains assis-
tant broke the promise of confiden-
tiality and Senior Airman Grijalva
was investigated for homosexual
conduct.
Initially, Senior Airman Grijalva
denied telling the chaplains assistant
she is gay. Soon, however, Grijalva
recognized that her suspected sex-
uality would likely follow her
throughout her Air Force career.
Unwilling to live in an environ-
ment requiring her to lie and fear
losing her job because of her sexu-
al orientation, Senior Airman
Grijalva told her command in
September 2002 about the viola-
tion of confidence by the chap-
lains assistant and confirmed she
is a lesbian.
106
Shortly after her
command received this informa-
tion, the Air Force honorably dis-
charged Senior Airman Grijalva.
There has been no indication the Air
Force investigated this violation of
Grijalvas confidentiality or that the
chaplains assistant was ever held
accountable for the violation.
25
FALLING SHORT ON THE JOB:
HARASSMENT AND INADEQUATE
TRAINING PERSIST
Despite decreased reports of anti-gay
harassment to SLDN by Air Force
members during the past year, fag,
dyke, and queer, as well as anti-
gay comments and jokes remain
everyday occurrences in the Air
Force. As with asking violations, the
vast majority of specific harassment
complaints to SLDN last
year were made by airmen
between the ages of 18 and
25. Supporting these
reports, SLDN heard from
senior noncommissioned
officers (NCOs) and offi-
cers that an anti-gay climate persists
in the Air Force. Most of these
NCOs and officers report they are
not consistently receiving annual
Dont Ask, Dont Tell training, or
anti-harassment training as required
under the AHAP.
Information regarding the Air
Forces implementation of the
AHAPs four prongs training,
reporting, enforcement and measure-
ment is incomplete and inade-
quate. SLDN made a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request to
the Air Force for its anti-harassment
training materials and instructions.
The response back from the Air
Force indicates that it has not made
much progress.
Airman Grijalva
[I have seen] a significant increase in anti-
gay jokes and comments in the workplace
during the last year.
quote from an active duty senior Air Force officer stationed in Texas
LCR 04561
RIGHT TO REPORT: SAFE CHANNELS
A MYSTERY IN THE AIR FORCE
With regard to training and report-
ing, the Air Force says that its
Dont Ask, Dont Tell training
materials show compliance with the
AHAP. These materials do not meet
that mark. The anti-harassment
training consists of two Power Point
slides stating that an Air Force mem-
ber threatened or harassed because
of their perceived sexual orientation
has every right to report the threat
or harassment to the authorities.
107
The slides do not explain what is
anti-gay harassment as required by
the AHAP. Nor do the slides identi-
fy to whom the service member
should report harassment. These
slides do not meet the training and
reporting requirements of the AHAP.
The Air Force has prepared separate
materials for general audiences and
commanders, judge advocates and
law enforcement personnel. While
parts of these training materials are
tailored to the target audience, the
slides addressing harassment are
identical. This fails to meet the
AHAP requirement that training be
tailored to the grade and responsibil-
ity level of the audience.
26
INCOMPLETE STEPS:
ANTI-HARASSMENT ENFORCEMENT
AND MEASUREMENT
The Air Force appears to have taken
no steps to enforce anti-harassment
provisions. There is no information in
the Air Force materials that harassers,
or those who condone harassment,
will be held accountable for their
actions. The Air Force has not provid-
ed SLDN any instructions or informa-
tion regarding accountability.
The Air Force has taken some small
steps towards implementing the
measurement provisions of the
AHAP. Specifically, Air Force
Instruction 90-201 is intended to
address the measurement prong of
the AHAP. This instruction requires
the Air Force Inspector General to
evaluate the training of all those
charged with implementing the
homosexual conduct policy, and to
assess commander, staff judge advo-
cate, and investigator training on the
DoD homosexual conduct policy.
108
Regrettably, this instruction does not
mention anti-harassment training
specifically as the AHAP orders.
Furthermore, no remedy is indicated
if a unit is found not to be in com-
pliance with requirements.
The Air Force has taken some steps
towards reducing anti-gay harass-
ment but these steps are anemic.
Nearly three years after the AHAP
was directed to be implemented, it is
disturbing that so little progress in
the Air Force has been made.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
AIM HIGH AIR FORCE 2003
With fewer discharges and Dont
Ask, Dont Tell violations, the Air
Force seems to be making some
progress. The Air Force, however,
must do much more to eradicate
harassment, asking and pursuits.
During the next year, SLDN recom-
mends the Air Force take the follow-
ing steps to improve the climate and
productivity of their personnel:
Open a dialogue with SLDN
on training and implementation
of Dont Ask, Dont Tell and
the AHAP;
Fully implement all prongs of
the AHAP;
Alter their tailored training to
truly address different audience
levels (command, judge advo-
cates, senior NCOs, Inspectors
General and enlisted ranks);
Re-emphasize in training mate-
rials that asking about sexual
orientation is a violation of the
policy and hold accountable
those who ask;
Clearly identify how and to
whom Air Force members can
safely report harassment based
on perceived sexual orientation;
Authorize Equal Opportunity
staff to investigate reports of
harassment based on perceived
sexual orientation;
Hold harassers, and those con-
doning harassment, accountable
for their actions; and
Provide more specific training
on credible evidence and lim-
its to investigations under
Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
The future of the Air Force will
depend on cutting-edge technology
and a diverse team of people com-
bining to fulfill our missions.
Talent and brain power come in
many packages.
Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche
109
LCR 04562
2002 Navy Report
Under the spotlight of the
war on terrorism, the
Navy discharged 218 serv-
ice members for being gay
- the fewest sailors ever
under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell.
111
Along with a decrease in
discharge numbers, SLDN also
recorded an overall drop in Dont
Ask, Dont Tell
violations in the
Navy. Despite
this overall
decrease, howev-
er, harassment
remains a signifi-
cant problem
within the Navy
and asking vio-
lations increased
during 2002. With little informa-
tion coming from the Navy about
their efforts to prevent anti-gay
harassment or ensure proper applica-
tion of Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
SLDN can only speculate why dis-
charge and violation numbers were
down during 2002. Perhaps dis-
charge numbers are down because of
the Navys participation in the war
on terrorism and its need to recruit
and retain good, qualified sailors.
With the war on terrorism raging
thousands of miles away from our
country, Navy ships, planes, and
personnel are literally on the front-
lines and are part of the staging for
war. Last year, an increased work-
load, or OPTEMPO, forced the
Navy to reemphasize the importance
27
NOW MORE THAN EVER, WE MUST RECRUIT AND RETAIN THE
BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, DESPITE THE REALITY AND STRAINS
OF INCREASED OPTEMPO.
CNO Guidance for 2002, 4 January 2002
110
US NAVY DONT ASK, DONT TELL DISCHARGES
1994-2002
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
258
269
315
413
345
314
358
314
218
X
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
15
13
23
38
25
59 58
25
46
71
46
66
85
67
158
92
65
330
19
26
332
60
53
230
19
45
271
Dont Ask
Dont Pursue
Dont Harass
NAVY VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
XI
NAVY MEETS INCREASED WORKLOAD
WITH SPLIT PERSONALITY TOWARDS
LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL SAILORS
LCR 04563
NAVY EMPHASIZES RETENTION:
INCLUDING LESBIAN, GAY AND
BISEXUAL SERVICE MEMBERS
The Navy is increasingly attempting
to retain openly lesbian, gay and
bisexual sailors, recognizing that it is
in the best interest of the Navy to do
so. Navy commands seem to be fol-
lowing CNO guidance from last
year empha-
sizing reten-
tion and
recruitment.
Navy com-
mands may
also be fol-
lowing the
lead of their
sailors, who
recognize the
contributions
of openly les-
bian, gay and
bisexual sailors and support the
retention of those sailors by not
outing them.
114
A powerful example of the growing
trend of Navy commands retaining
good sailors, despite knowing they
are lesbian, gay or bisexual, is the
story of LTJG Jenny Kopfstein.
LTJG Kopfstein was an officer
assigned to the USS Shiloh when,
more than two years ago, her
command learned she is a les-
bian. Recognizing her capabili-
ties as a sailor and an officer,
Kopfsteins command sought to
retain her for continued service
while the Navy determined her
fate.
During her more than two years
aboard the Shiloh, LTJG
Kopfstein performed above and
beyond officer expectations.
Kopfstein sailed on deployment with
the Shiloh and was recognized as an
outstanding officer onboard the
ship. In her final Fitness Report
(FitRep), or officer evaluation, in
July 2002, Kopfsteins commander,
Captain W.E. Dewes, lauded
her as a trusted Officer of the
Deck and the best ship handler
among her peers. Captain
Dewes also explicitly states in
the same FitRep, [LTJG
Kopfsteins] sexual orientation
has not disrupted good order
and discipline onboard USS
Shiloh. Captain Dewes con-
cludes his comments by stating,
LTJG Kopfstein has been an
asset to the ship and the Navy,
but unfortunately her sexual
orientation precludes further naval
service.
115
After serving more than
two years as an out lesbian naval
officer, defying the specious ratio-
nales underlying Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, the Navy honorably dis-
charged LTJG Kopfstein in October
2002.
Similar to LTJG Kopsteins case,
Hospitalman Roy Hills command
attempted to retain him after learn-
ing he is gay. Again, Hills com-
mand recognized his retention bene-
fited the Navy. In May 2002,
Hospitalman Hill came out to his
command while reporting anti-gay
harassment he witnessed during his
three years of service. In his letter,
Hill outlined the types of harass-
ment he encountered, beginning
with his boot camp experience and
ending with his transition to Camp
Lejune, where he submitted his let-
ter. Hill
relayed to
his com-
mand that
he heard
fag, queer,
cocker-
sucker
jokes con-
stantly and
saw a class-
mate made
the brunt
of many bull-dyke jokes.
Hospitalman Hill also reported he
had been asked point blank by other
sailors if he is gay. Hill explained in
his letter how the direct and indirect
harassment created an uncomfort-
able and hostile environment in
which he was required to work
everyday. He had reached a point
where he felt it necessary to make
his command aware of his con-
cerns.
116
Hospitalman Hills command react-
ed to the letter by ignoring his
reports of harassment and informing
of its recruitment and retention
efforts of good sailors. These factors
may have led to the Navys apparent
split personality treatment of lesbian,
gay and bisexual sailors. Some com-
mands are recognizing that a sailors
sexual orientation has no bearing on
their ability to do the job, nor does
it negatively affect the good order
and discipline of its units. SLDN
saw a rise in the last few years of the
Navys efforts to retain openly gay
sailors. Countering this retention
movement are the Navy commands
who continue to ask about and pur-
sue sailors sexual orientation and
who encourage or allow working
environments filled with anti-gay
jokes, comments, rumors and
threats.
28
LTJG Kopfstein
Hospitalman Hill
We have repeatedly challenged Navy
leaders to recruit, retain, and motivate
112
I couldnt care less whether the guy who
pulls me out of a burning airplane is
straight, gay or into Velveeta.
From an editorial by Ken Lynch, aviation operations limited-
duty officer, in the February 3, 2003 Navy Times.
113
V
i
r
g
i
l
i
o

S
a
n
t
o
s

f
o
r

T
h
e

A
d
v
o
c
a
t
e

-

U
s
e
d

w
i
t
h

P
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
LCR 04564
29
Hill they were retaining him. LT
Cooper, Hills commands advising
attorney, explained to SLDN that
the command conceded HN Hill
was indeed a gay male but CDR
Mulvanny believed Navy policy
allowed for him to retain an openly
gay male if he determined it was for
the good of the service.
117
Hospitalman Hills command saw
that Hill was a good sailor, with a
fine service record and therefore
sought to retain Hill for the good
of the service. This simple act of
retention however, did not address
the issue of Hospitalman Hills con-
cern about continuing to work in an
uncomfortable and threatening envi-
ronment. There is a clear difference
between threats to your safety from
an outside enemy and threats to
your safety from within your own
work group. In light of his com-
mands disregard of his concerns and
failure to address the harassment he
was experiencing, Hill maintained
his efforts to separate from the Navy
and was honorably discharged in
October 2002.
NAVY CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS:
ASKING AND PURSUITS CONTINUE
In contrast to their retention efforts
towards many openly lesbian, gay
and bisexual sailors, the Navy con-
tinues to ask and pursue sailors
rumored to be homosexual in direct
violation of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
The Navy cant have it both ways.
Sailors reported to SLDN being
asked the following questions by
other sailors and supervisors during
the past year:
We heard you are gay. Are you
gay?
You gotta be gay?
Did someone go to a gay bar?
Why dont you go to a whore
house? Are you a fag?
What are you some kind of
fag?
Are you gay? Oh, you dont
have to answer that. asked by
Petty Officer First Class
Are you homosexual? asked
by a non-commissioned officer
Are you gay or something?
asked by LT at Portsmouth
During the early spring of last year,
Petty Officer First Class Derek
Sparks discovered just how vulnera-
ble a sailor can be under Dont
Ask, Dont Tell. After more than
14 1/2 years of service, he found
himself under an excruciating com-
mand spotlight following a dubious
report that he was gay and involved
in homosexual activity onboard his
ship. The investigation began after
Petty Officer Sparks Master Chief
alleged Sparks and two other sailors
were engaged in homosexual activity
in Sparks office. The Master Chief
provided two statements of the
alleged conduct. The first statement
the Master Chief provided was less
than a page and contained very few
details about the alleged activity.
The second statement, provided
after his first statement, was much
longer and gave the appearance that
the Master Chief was coached in
documenting his alleged observa-
tions of homosexual conduct.
119
Throughout the command
investigation into these allega-
tions, the three sailors involved
denied committing the acts.
Petty Officer Sparks answered
questions during numerous
command interviews. Each
time, he denied doing anything
other than watching an action
movie on the TV in his office
with the other two sailors. Each
time, the questions seemed to get
more involved and broader in scope.
Who is Sailor X (sailor from
another ship)?
How did you meet Sailor A?
How did you meet Sailor B?
What is your relationship with
Sailor A?
What is your relationship with
Sailor B?
How would you characterize the
relationship between Sailor A
and Sailor X?
What were Sailor A and Sailor
B doing when [you] left [your]
office?
120
Petty Officer Sparks command vio-
lated Dont Ask, Dont Tell and
Navy policy by beginning an investi-
gation based on dubious informa-
tion, and continued to violate the
policy by questioning Sparks about
events
beyond the
scope of the
alleged con-
duct and
seeking
information
about a sailor
from another
ship.
Petty Officer Sparks
The government must decide that
it cannot have it both ways. It
must also rid itself of the notion
that ones sexual preference is a
reflection of ones courage.
Keith Taylor, 23 year Navy enlisted wrote in an edito-
rial to the Navy Times, December 16, 2002
118
LCR 04565
After the intensive questioning he
faced from his command, Petty
Officer Sparks decided not to fight
his proposed discharge and leave the
Navy. Sparks denied the allegation
of homosexual conduct brought by
his Master Chief, but admitted to
his command that he is gay. In
April 2002, the Navy discharged
Petty Officer Sparks, giving him a
General discharge. Petty Officer
Sparks considers this last Navy act as
an additional insult. Prior to the
Master Chief s allegations, Sparks
had an excellent service record and
his own command recommended he
receive an Honorable discharge.
Petty Officer Sparks is now seeking
to upgrade his discharge characteri-
zation through the Board for
Correction of Naval Records.
30
HARASSMENT: NAVY CLIMATE
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
The Navys treatment of Petty
Officer Sparks during its investiga-
tion and his discharge is indicative
of how far the Navy still needs to go
in improving its working environ-
ment. Another indicator of climate
problems, despite the CNOs
emphasis on improving the working
environment, is the rampant anti-
gay harassment reported during the
past year. While there were fewer
reports of harassment from sailors in
2002, a total of 230 reported viola-
tions is unacceptable.
As in previous years, sailors report to
SLDN that the general climate in
the Navy is one where faggot,
dyke, and queer are part of the
everyday language they hear.
Further, they continue to report
anti-gay comments and threats from
peers as well as supervisors. The fol-
lowing are only a few of the threats
and comments reported by sailors to
SLDN during 2002:
I dont want a pole smoker in
my division.
We cant guarantee your safety.
If you are gay in my town,
well kill you.
I cant wait till we get under
way again so I can watch your
little queer ass drown.
You are a fucking queer.
Sometimes you dont have to
ask, you can just tell.
Faggot, if you are here tomor-
row night, youll go home in a
body bag.
This type of anti-gay atmosphere is
just the environment Petty Officer
Jason Reilly and Airman Apprentice
Jason Hiett faced everyday aboard
the USS Iwo Jima. Sometime in
December 2001, rumors about Petty
Officer Reilly being gay started to
circulate around the ship. After
becoming more and more uncom-
fortable with hearing rumors about
his sexual orientation and suspected
conduct, Petty Officer Reilly admit-
ted to his command that he is gay.
Following his admission, LCDR
Buzzard questioned Petty Officer
Reilly. In violation of Navy regula-
tions and Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
LCDR Buzzard asked Petty Officer
Reilly to prove his sexual orienta-
tion. LCDR Buzzard went so far as
to incorrectly tell Petty Officer Reilly
that kissing was not a homosexual
act and alluded to Reilly that he
needed to admit to more conduct.
LCDR Buzzard then advised Reilly
that if he admitted to engaging in
sodomy he would be punished by
court martial.
122
Shortly after Petty Officer Reillys
admission, Airman Apprentice Hiett
reported to his commander that he
is gay. Heitt knew Reilly was under
investigation and was concerned for
his own safety and security aboard
the Iwo Jima. Petty Officer Reilly
and Airman Apprentice Heitt used a
buddy system aboard the ship for
protection and their time spent
together sparked more rumors about
the pairs sexual orientation. Instead
of ensuring their safety, the admis-
sions by Reilly and Hiett made their
environment worse. Rumors turned
into questions and anti-gay com-
ments made directly to them.
In July 2002, SLDN assisted Petty
Officer Reilly and Airman
Apprentice Hiett in reporting the
intense anti-gay harassment they
were encountering. This harassment
included a threat by the ships
Command Master Chief to send
Reilly to the brig if he was caught
confirming he is gay when asked by
others. Instead of holding sailors
accountable for violating Dont Ask,
Dont Tell by asking Petty Officer
Reilly about his sexual orientation,
the Command Master Chief tried to
make Reillys honesty a crime.
123
The Navy responded to the com-
plaint by ordering the USS Iwo
Jimas commanding officer to inves-
tigate his own ship and command
actions. Without an investigation
by someone outside of the Iwo Jimas
chain of command, SLDN was not
surprised to hear that the command-
ing officer failed to substantiate any
anti-gay harassment occurred against
Petty Officer Reilly and Airman
Apprentice Hiett while onboard the
ship.
124
[Quality of service]also includes
providing Sailors with a work
environment of which they can be
proud.
121
LCR 04566
Shortly after the harassment investiga-
tion concluded, Petty Officer Reilly
and Airman Apprentice Hiett sought
relief to escape the hostile environ-
ment in which they served by provid-
ing additional information to the
Navy to prove they are gay and
requested discharge. In September
2002, the Navy ordered Reilly and
Hiett placed on leave and they subse-
quently discharged the sailors in
October 2002. As our report went to
print, Petty Officer Reilly and Airman
Apprentice Hiett still had not received
their final pay from the Navy.
31
INCOMPLETE AND INEFFECTIVE:
A PROGRESS REPORT ON NAVY
AHAP IMPLEMENTATION
Despite assurance of compliance,
available evidence suggests that the
Navy continues to view anti-gay
harassment training and prevention
as very low priorities. The Navy has
provided very little information on
how they are
addressing the four
AHAP prongs of
training, reporting,
enforcement and
measurement.
With regard to train-
ing and reporting, the
Navy appears to fall
well short of comply-
ing with the AHAP.
The Navy currently
combines its Dont Ask, Dont Tell
training with its general military train-
ing (GMT) for equal opportunity,
sexual harassment prevention, and
grievance procedures. This training,
revised in 2000, speaks to the issues of
fostering climates of respect, and
ensuring sailors are able to report
harassment free from harm, reprisal,
or inappropriate or inadequate com-
mand response, but it does not
explain how, and to whom, a sailor
can safely report anti-gay harass-
ment.
126
The Navy also claims to
specifically provide Navy leaders and
legal professional with more in depth
training on the prevention of anti-gay
harassment and Dont Ask, Dont
Tell.
127
Despite this claim, SLDN
has been unable to obtain any train-
ing materials other than the GMT
materials mentioned above.
FOLLOW THROUGH LACKING:
NAVY ANTI-HARASSMENT
ENFORCEMENT AND MEASUREMENT
SLDN has no evidence that the
Navy has taken steps to implement
the enforcement or measurement
prongs of AHAP. The Navy GMT
materials say little about what will
happen to sailors who harass other
sailors, or commands who violate
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Further, it
is not clear the Navy is measuring
the effectiveness of its training in
any systematic way. The Navy
claims that the Inspector General
staffs include specific interest items
in their inspections on the question
of Dont Ask, Dont Tell training,
application and enforcement.
128
There is no indication that the
Inspector General staffs seek infor-
mation about anti-gay harassment.
Furthermore, the Navy has not
explained what it does with the
information the Inspector General
staffs collect.
SLDN will continue seeking infor-
mation about the Navys Dont Ask,
Dont Tell and AHAP implementa-
tion. The Navys sincerity that it is
moving to implement the AHAP
and maintain dignity and respect for
all sailors, however, remains ques-
tionable.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SAFETY AND SECURITY OF SAILORS
MUST BE A PRIORITY FOR THE NAVY
IN 2003
There is no question that the Navy
must make a commitment to imple-
ment the AHAP to reduce harass-
ment and protect its sailors.
Although SLDN understands the
Navy is operating under intense
OPTEMPO circumstances, reducing
harassment and encouraging an
atmosphere of respect without
regard to sexual orientation can only
improve the work of sailors everyday.
SLDN recommends Navy leaders:
AHAP;
Update the GMT training to
more clearly explain how and to
whom sailors can safely report
anti-gay harassment;
[R]egarding the Department of the Navys imple-
mentation of the Department of Defense Thirteen
Point Anti-Harassment Action Plan ... I assure
you that the Department of the Navy is sensitive to
this issue, and that we require compliance with the
letter and the spirit of the various laws, regulations
and policies that surround it.
William A. Navas, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs) in a letter to Senator Mark Dayton, September 19, 2002
125
LCR 04567
sexual orientation;
Instruct Navy leaders on how to
hold accountable anyone who
violates Dont Ask, Dont Tell
or participates or condones
Provide in-depth training on
credible evidence and limits to
investigations under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell;
Create training tailored to dif-
ferent audience levels (com-
mand, judge advocates, senior
NCOs, and inspectors general
vs. junior enlisted ranks);
Actively measure the effective-
ness of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
and anti-harassment training;
Alter training as necessary when
its effectiveness is found to be
lacking; and
Raise improving command
climates and working environ-
ments to a higher priority.
32
LCR 04568
2002 Marine Corps Report
The Marine Corps
saw some improvement
during 2002. Slightly fewer
Marines were discharged for being
lesbian, gay or bisexual. The Corps
also saw a decrease in Dont Ask,
Dont Tell violations with a total of
92 the fewest violations since
1997. SLDN documented fewer
Dont Harass violations, providing
some hope that the conditions under
which lesbian, gay and bisexual
Marines serve may be improving.
The Corps conducted an annual
review during 2002 of its Dont
Ask, Dont Tell compliance and,
surprisingly, publicly acknowledged
that it is missing the mark, pledging
to do better.
131
The Commandant
ordered renewed policy training.
These are positive steps in the right
direction. The Marine Corps, how-
ever, still has a long way to go to
fully
implement
the AHAP
and treat
all Marines
with dignity and respect.
Unfortunately, too many Marines
report receiving death threats, being
assaulted, or otherwise harassed
33
IF YOU CAN DO THE JOB, YOU HAVE THE JOB.
GEN Mike Hagee, the new Commandant of the Marine Corps,
discussing his approach to empowering enlisted Marines
129
I THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT AS A MARINE
CORPS WE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY
CANNOT GRANT GAYS AND LESBIANS THE FREEDOM TO
SERVE OPENLY.
Lance Corporal at Camp Pendleton, California
130
US MARINE CORPS
DONT ASK, DONT TELL
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
36
69
60
78
77
97
114 115
109
XII
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2001
10
4
6
3
6
13 12
6
4
18
24
33
45
25
63
38
17
134
42
11
92
11
21
57
61
31
150
MARINE CORPS VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
Dont Ask
Dont Pursue
Dont Harass
XIII
MISSING THE MARK:
THE MARINES AND DONT ASK, DONT TELL
LCR 04569
VULGAR STATEMENTS & A CLOSED
FIST: ANTI-GAY HARASSMENT
CONTINUES
The case of a Camp Pendleton
Lance Corporal, who found himself
the target of a death threat from a
Marine NCO after the NCO
learned that the Lance Corporal is
bisexual, illustrates the nature of the
Corps ongoing
problem with anti-
gay harassment.
The NCO, Sgt.
Galvan, threatened
the young Marine,
saying if I ever
caught you doing fag-
got shit, I would kill
you. Soon thereafter,
the Marine was physi-
cally assaulted by
LCpl. Cascante.
Cascante called the
Marine a faggot and
proceeded to hit him
in the face with a
closed fist.
133
The Lance Corporal
reported the assault
and death threat to his
company commander,
Capt. Pace. The Lance
Corporal stated I am
being harassed about this on a daily
basis now .... the word faggot is used
commonly and aggressively. Vulgar
statements are made referring to
homosexual acts.
134
The commands reaction to the
Lance Corporals report? CWO2
Gutierrez told me just to ignore
them and to let them say what they
were going to say. The commands
refusal to address the criminal
behaviors directed towards the Lance
Corporal forced him to come out as
the only means he felt he had to
protect himself from further physical
harm. The Lance Corporal stated,
I feel very threatened and in fear
for my life.
135
The experience of this Lance
Corporal should not be happening
ten years into the life of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell. The Marine Corps
directly participated in the develop-
ment of the AHAP and has publicly
pledged to implement the Plan.
136
The reality in 2002, however, is that
the Marine Corps anti-harassment
efforts are not yet fully effective. The
Marine Corps has yet to implement
the AHAPs four components
training, reporting, enforcement and
measurement.
34
TODAYS LESSON: MARINE CORPS
AHAP TRAINING IS SKETCHY, AT BEST
A Marine Corps review of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell training found the
Corps to be lacking. In response,
the Commandant directed new and
clearer policy training.
139
The train-
ing plans developed by the Marine
Corps, however,
make scarce men-
tion of the Dont
Harass prong of
the policy. In fact,
SLDNs review of
the lesson plan and
student handout prepared by the
Marine Corps revealed they contain
virtually no mention of Dont
Harass.
140
This training, therefore,
does not satisfy the AHAP require-
ments. A case from Twenty-nine
Palms, California, provides an
insight into the Marine Corps
efforts.
An April 4, 2002 memorandum
from Twenty-nine Palms on the sub-
ject of Homosexual Conduct
Discharge Potential states: The fol-
lowing is the Commanding Officer,
because of perceptions they may be
lesbian, gay or bisexual. Similarly,
too many Marines report to SLDN
that they continue to be directly
asked whether they are gay, and con-
tinue to fear becoming the target of
an intrusive inquisition into their
private lives. Marine leaders also
continue to improperly give gay
Marines lower discharge characteri-
zations.
Sissy .... youre a fucking freak .... fucking fag ....
shut up, fag.
Comments directed towards a Camp Pendleton Lance Corporal by Marine
noncommissioned officers
132
Numerous commands are not in compliance with
the requirement to conduct required homosexual
conduct policy briefings for Marines .
137
Note received by SLDN client
LCR 04570
Marine Corps Communication and
Electronics School (MCCES) guid-
ance on Administrative Discharges
for the reason of Homosexual
Conduct.
141
The Twenty-nine Palms memo,
signed by Captain Darrell V. Allen,
Adjutant/Legal Officer Captain
USMC, makes a number of surpris-
ing assertions. Among them:
Homosexuals can and do serve
[h]onorably in the Marine
Corps. Homosexuals can and
do make some of the best
Marines. Homosexuals are
capable of Military Service and
can and do perform as well as
anyone else in the Military; and
Claiming to be Homosexual is
not automatic grounds for dis-
charge. We hesitate to dis-
charge Marines solely based on
a statement they make about
their Sexual Orientation.
SLDN applauds this progressive
stance and agrees that lesbian, gay
and bisexual Marines should not be
discharged for honestly stating their
sexual orientation. In our experi-
ence, most Marines who make com-
ing out statements do so in response
to anti-gay harassment. Marine
leaders, therefore, need to address
the harassment that is likely driving
these coming out statements.
Allowing the Marine to continue
serving does not relieve the com-
mand of its responsibility under the
AHAP to stop the harassment. This
Twenty-nine Palms Dont Ask,
Dont Tell training memo does not
make this point.
The memo also
asserts that gay
Marines will only be
discharged when
evidence of conduct
which brings dis-
credit on the Armed
Forces is found.
The memo states:
During a period of 2 years,
2000 through 2001, MCCES
has had 19 Marines considered
for discharge for Homosexual
Conduct. Of those considered,
only 5 were actually discharged.
These 5 were separated when
evidence was found that proved
they were engaging in
Homosexual Conduct of a
nature to bring discredit on the
Marine Corps; and
Examples of evidence that was
[sic] found include pictures on a
website, photographs found in
the barracks room, eyewitnesses
who caught a Marine in the act,
or a combinations [sic] of vari-
ous factors and other evidence
that can support a statement of
Sexual Orientation.
142
Dont Ask, Dont Tell contains no
requirement that Marine commands
obtain evidence of service discredit-
ing behavior in their handling of gay
cases. SLDN is concerned that
requiring evidence of conduct before
discharging gay Marines may lead to
abuses. This concern is reinforced
by the questions this same command
believes are appropriate to ask in
investigating gays.
Are you currently, or do you
intend to engage in homosexual
acts?
Do you have a propensity to
engage in homosexual acts?
Are you currently or do you
intend to enter into a homosex-
ual marriage?
These questions are inappropriate
because they exceed the scope of any
legitimate fact finding inquiry
allowed under the Dont Pursue
limitations. This Twenty-nine Palms
Policy memorandum indicates that
some Marine leaders do not under-
stand the basics of the Dont Ask,
Dont Tell policy.
SLDN is concerned that the com-
mand seems to be encouraging
investigating officers to dig up dirt
on gay Marines in an effort to iden-
tify service discrediting behaviors.
Evidence of such behaviors could
subject the Marine to UCMJ crimi-
nal prosecution, or allow the com-
mand to administratively give the
Marine a damaging other than hon-
orable discharge characterization.
As a matter of policy implementa-
tion, this part of the Twenty-nine
Palms memo is troubling.
The notion of gay Marines serving
openly is a positive one. Twenty-
nine Palms admission that it is deny-
ing gay discharges to all but those
found engaging in prohibited sexual
behaviors indicates that gay Marines
are serving openly. This commands
admission that its gay Marines are
not detrimental to morale or readi-
ness further discredits the already
weak rationale for the gay ban.
SLDN suspects the ongoing war
against terrorism and the need to
retain qualified service members may
have influenced the Twenty-nine
Palms commands policy pronounce-
ment. Although the Marine Corps
issued a stop loss directive imple-
mented on January 15, 2003 and
essentially halting personnel separa-
tions across the Service it contains
an express exception that allows gay
discharges to continue.
143
It is fore-
seeable that commanders will never-
theless decide to retain gay Marines
during this time of combat necessity.
35
If I slipped up just once and let my real self show
I fear that I will be killed or beat [sic] severely ....
[other Marines] talk about what they would do if
they found out that a Marine in their platoon was
gay, namely kill or severely injure them.
A Private from Camp Pendleton, California
138
LCR 04571
AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT:
A FAILURE TO IDENTIFY SAFE
CHANNELS
Marine leaders have established, as
required by the AHAP, avenues for
reporting mistreatment, harassment,
and inappropriate comments or ges-
tures.
145
The Marine Corps has
not, however, designated confiden-
tial resources for reporting anti-gay
harassment. Marine Corps policy
states that reporting harassment
through the chain of command is
the preferred method,
146
although
Marines may also make reports to
Chaplains and IGs. Lesbian, gay
and bisexual Marines who report
harassment, however, face the risk of
investigation and discharge if they
inadvertently discuss their sexual ori-
entation during the reporting
process. Therefore, Marines are
understandably hesitant
to report anti-gay mis-
treatment at all.
The Twenty-nine Palms
commands Dont Ask,
Dont Tell memo dis-
cussed above illustrates
the dilemma facing gay
Marines. The memo flatly asserts
that there is no threat to
Homosexual Service Members of
this command, either physically or
professionally (career).
147
This
would come as news to the many
lesbian, gay and bisexual Marines
serving at Twenty-nine Palms. In
fact, Twenty-nine Palms reputation
as being a particularly hostile place
for gay Marines is well documented.
In SLDNs 7
th
Conduct Unbecoming
report, we discussed the case of a
senior Twenty-nine Palms officers
anti-gay misconduct. Following the
1999 murder of Army PFC Barry
Winchell, Marine Corps Lt. Col.
Edward Melton sent out an official
email mocking PFC Winchells mur-
der and referring to gays as homos
and back side rangers.
148
The same
Report contains the story of Twenty-
nine Palms LCpl. Jackie Meyer who
reported [t]he people I work with
are very homophobic .... I am forced
to stay silent while my coworkers
talk about how they hate gays and
that if their kids end up gay theyll
disown them and kick them out.
149
The Marine Corps is still missing
the AHAP reporting mark. Lesbian,
gay and bisexual Marines will report
harassment when Marine leaders
make it possible for them to do so.
The Marine Corps should designate
confidential reporting resources,
including Chaplains, defense attor-
neys, IGs, medical personnel and
Equal Opportunity advisors. Until
such time, the Corps reality will
continue to differ starkly from its
rhetoric.
36
MISSING IN USMC:
ANTI-HARASSMENT ENFORCEMENT
AND MEASUREMENT
Despite the AHAP requirement to
enforce anti-harassment rules and
measure the effectiveness of anti-
harassment programs, the Marine
Corps continues to tolerate mistreat-
ment, harassment and derogatory
comments about lesbians, gays and
bisexuals. Reports of those engaging
in the misconduct being held account-
able are scarce, indicating that Marine
leaders are not taking the AHAP
enforcement requirement seriously.
The Marine
Corps also
does not
have a sys-
tem in place
to measure
AHAP
effectiveness.
Although
the Marine
Corps
Inspector
General appears to be taking the leader-
ship role in monitoring Dont Ask,
Dont Tell training compliance, neither
the IG nor any other Corps agency
appears to be taking a serious look at
the substance of the anti-harassment
training or the trainings effectiveness.
The Commandant ordered Marines
to be tested annually on the Policy,
which also will be made part of the
Corps Common Skills
Handbook.
151
This is a good first
step towards being able to better
measure Marines Dont Ask, Dont
Tell understanding. The inclusion of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell information
in the Common Skills Handbook is a
very positive development which
should also assist unit level commands
in better training their Marines.
An example of a good AHAP meas-
urement tool, however, is found in
the DoD IG survey used following
the 1999 PFC Winchell murder.
152
This confidential survey asked direct
questions about the frequency and
nature of anti-gay harassment. The
Marine Corps IG should adopt
questions similar to those used in
the DoD IG survey to better gauge
the occurrence of harassment within
the Corps, as well as the effective-
ness of anti-harassment training.
Jokes and talk referring to mice and anal sex involving
men, fudge packers, and fags were laughed at in my pres-
ence during the past few drills I attended. More specifi-
cally, at a class given during Octobers drill commander
Caprio was quoting General Lejune: When asked why
we dont wear a beret he said then wed either look like
the French or fags and we sure dont want to be either.
Marine Corporal Reservist in New Jersey
150
I cant tell you the number of times [the anti-
gay harassment] got so bad Id just sit in my
room . . . tying a noose. I was depressed, and I
couldnt even talk to a psychiatrist because
theyd be obligated to report me for being gay.
A gay Marine in Okinawa
144
LCR 04572
ACCEPTABLE PREJUDICE: MARINES
STRUGGLE WITH DONT ASK AND
DONT PURSUE VIOLATIONS.
During 2002, SLDN documented a
decrease in Dont Ask and Dont
Pursue violations. The persistence
of violations, however, ten years into
the life of Dont Ask, Dont Tell is
concerning. The Marine Corps
Commandants concession that
many of his commands are not in
compliance with Dont Ask, Dont
Tell requirements may help to
explain the continued occurrence of
ask and pursue violations. A
close review of the case of Capt. Kira
Zielinski is helpful in fully appreciat-
ing the scope of the problem. If this
could happen to a distinguished offi-
cer, it could easily happen to any
Marine.
The story of Capt. Kira Zielinski, a
Marine helicopter pilot, demon-
strates that commanders and their
military attorneys continue to misin-
terpret the Marine Corps Dont
Ask, Dont Tell policy and are not
properly enforcing it.
Capt. Zielinski told her command in
April 2001 that she is bisexual. In
response, her chain of command
conducted two improper substantial
investigations. Substantial investiga-
tions entail inquiries which extend
beyond questioning the Marine and
her chain of command. Substantial
investigations require Service
Secretary authoriza-
tion.
155
After the
initial improper
investigation, the
Cherry Point com-
manding general,
Major General
Thomas A. Braatan,
appears to have
ordered a further
investigation,
156
despite his request
seeking Secretary of
the Navy approval
for a substantial
investigation being
disapproved.
During the investigations, a Marine
attorney, Capt. V.C. Danyluk, the
appointed inquiry officer, improper-
ly contacted members of Capt.
Zielinskis
squadron
who were not
in her chain
of
command.
157
Capt.
Danyluk also
intrusively
questioned
Capt.
Zielinskis
mother
about Capt.
Zielinskis sexuality and her propen-
sity to engage in homosexual behav-
ior in the future.
158
Capt. Danyluk
then contacted a Marine Chaplain
from whom Capt. Zielinski had
sought counseling, impermissibly
seeking information Zielinski may
have shared, in confidence, with the
Chaplain.
The Marine Corps eventually noti-
fied Capt. Zielinski that a Board of
Inquiry (BOI) would be convened,
threatening her with an other than
honorable discharge although
there was no basis for an OTH dis-
charge in her case.
Capt. Zielinski sought assistance
from her squadron Chaplain,
Chaplain Grey. Chaplain Grey
instead of assisting this officer or
directing her to a Chaplain who
would be able to assist proceeded
to berate Capt. Zielinski, calling her
a sinner and suggesting that she
needed counseling for her un-
Christian tendencies.
159
During the investigation, Capt.
Zielinski reported anti-gay harass-
ment she had experienced and
observed at Cherry Point, as well as
previous commands including
Quantico, Twenty-nine Palms, El
Toro, and Okinawa. For example,
Capt. Zielinski informed the investi-
gating officer of anti-gay misconduct
in Okinawa, which included her
commanding officer and department
heads frequently using anti-gay
language in her presence.
160
Although Capt. Zielinski
reported this misconduct, there
is no evidence that the Marine
Corps took any action to inves-
tigate the misconduct or to
hold those responsible account-
able. Capt. Zielinski was hon-
orably discharged from the
Marine Corps in 2002.
Capt. Zielenskis case illustrates
the failings of the Marine
Corps Dont Ask, Dont Tell
implementation. Command offi-
cials had apparently never been
trained on the policy. Dont Ask,
Dont Tell was not enforced; no one
was held accountable for their mis-
deeds. SLDN has filed a formal
Marine Corps IG complaint on
Capt. Zielenskis behalf and we are
awaiting the Corps response.
37
[The Lieutenant] attempted to draw similar per-
sonality traits between these alternative individu-
als and myself. She later directly identified these
individuals as homosexuals. She attempted to get
some kind of affirmation from me .
A Corporal from New River, North Carolina. The Marine reports that he
and two others were directly asked whether they are gay.
153
Prejudice against homosexuality is not only an
acceptable prejudice in the Marine Corps, but a
prejudice proudly held aloft and openly applauded
within commands as one of the virtues which set
Marines apart from civilians.
Captain Kira K. Zielinski, Cherry Point, North Carolina
154
Capt. Zielinski
LCR 04573
38
IMPROPER: MARINES CONTINUE TO
GIVE STIGMATIZING DISCHARGE
CHARACTERIZATIONS
In last years Conduct Unbecoming
report, we expressed alarm that in
some statements cases Marines were
being given improper discharge
characterizations in an apparent
effort to retaliate against the Marine
for coming out. During 2002 this
disturbing trend continued.
For example, a Private First Class in
New River, North Carolina, recently
found himself faced with an effort
by his command to improperly give
him a general, under honorable
conditions discharge instead of the
honorable that he deserved.
161
Lower discharge characterizations
disadvantage service personnel by
limiting their eligibility for many
veterans benefits and programs.
The mere fact that a Marine is invol-
untarily separated prior to the end of
his enlistment cannot be a reason-
able justification for punishing a
Marine with a lower discharge char-
acterization than he otherwise has
earned by his performance. The
Marine Corps should not be in the
business of penalizing gay Marines
for simply acknowledging the truth
of their sexual orientation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A CALL TO CHANGE FOR THE
MARINE CORP IN 2003
The Marine Corps needs to do
much more to satisfy the letter and
the spirit of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
and the AHAP. Marine leaders have
a professional and moral duty to
take care of all of their Marines,
and bisexual. GEN Hagees admo-
nition that if you can do the job,
you have the job should be more
than a rhetorical sound bite. During
2003, the Marine Corps should:
Fully implement all facets of the
AHAP;
Designate confidential resources
for reporting anti-gay harass-
ment;
Hold accountable leaders who
tolerate anti-gay harassment;
Direct NCOs to become involved
in all facets of the gay policy;
Task Equal Opportunity repre-
sentatives to oversee the AHAP
(as they do with other types of
harassment, including gender
and race harassment); and
End the practice of giving les-
bian, gay and bisexual Marines
lower discharge characteriza-
tions than their service records
warrant.
LCR 04574
Discharges under Dont
Ask, Dont Tell reached
an all-time high during
FY 2002 as the United
States Coast Guard strug-
gled with adapting to its
new mission and place
within the newly formed
Department of Homeland
Security. Transitioning to its
updated role in an era of heightened
security, the Coast Guard faces a
stark contradiction. Active duty les-
bian, gay and bisexual Coast Guard
members face asking, pursuit,
harassment and losing their jobs
while they work side by side with
Coast Guard civilian employees,
Auxiliary members, federal law
enforcement and intelligence person-
nel protected from discrimination
based on actual or perceived sexual
orientation.
163
Coinciding with the increase in dis-
charges,
SLDN
received
more
requests
for assis-
tance from
Coast
Guard
members
39
THE U.S. COAST GUARD IS EMBARKING ON A
TRANSFORMATION OF LEVIATHAN PROPORTIONS
Mike Brunker, MSNBC
162
US COAST GUARD DONT ASK, DONT TELL
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2001
15
12
10
14
12
19
14
29 XIV
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 1 1
6
9
6
8
1
3
2
3
2
11
1
24
34
2
6
14
21
COAST GUARD VIOLATIONS 1994-2002
Dont Ask
Dont Pursue
Dont Harass
XV
2002 Coast Guard Report
TIDES OF CHANGE: A RESTRUCTURED
COAST GUARD GRAPPLES WITH
DONT ASK, DONT TELL
LCR 04575
and the most reported violations of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell ever seen.
Significantly, during both 2000 and
2001, Coast Guard members report-
ed zero Dont Pursue violations to
SLDN. This past year, however,
Coast Guard members reported 14
Dont Pursue violations.
The increased numbers of discharges
and reports of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell violations may be caused by
the Coast Guards turbulent year and
its outdated training. In an effort to
remedy its acknowledged deficiency
in training, the Coast Guard began
revamping its Dont Ask, Dont
Tell training and anti-harassment
training during 2002. Although the
new training Rear Admiral Ames
promised to SLDN in 2001 has not
yet surfaced in final form, the Coast
Guard did make specific additions to
its personnel manual to reflect some
of the principles outlined in the
AHAP. The new language in its per-
sonnel manual is positive and signif-
icantly improves the manual.
During the past year, the Coast
Guard also began drafting changes
to its annual Equal Opportunity
training curriculum. The target date
for finalizing these changes is tenta-
tively set for the summer of 2003.
40
COAST GUARDS NEW ROLE IN HOMELAND SECURITY
During a year where the Coast Guard was adjusting to its increased
security responsibility, winds of change came in the form of the new
Department of Homeland Security. Last fall the United States Congress
passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which transferred the Coast
Guard from the Department of Transportation to the newly formed
Department of Homeland Security. This transition was completed
March 1, 2003.
164
The new Department of Homeland Security will
combine resources from many different government agencies, such as
the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and
Transportation. With 41,000 employees, the Coast Guard will be the
second-largest component of the new department.
165
As a component of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast
Guard will be working with more security and law enforcement agency
personnel than ever before. Federal law enforcement officers, intelli-
gence personnel, and even military personnel from other countries will
work along side Coast Guard members with the goal of securing our peo-
ple and our country. From this team, only the active duty Coast Guard
members work in fear of being targeted, and perhaps losing their jobs,
because of their perceived sexual orientation.
NOT ALL COAST GUARD CHANGE IS
GOOD: ASKING, HARASSMENT AND
PURSUITS RISE
Inappropriate investigations based
on rumors and innuendo, and with-
out proper command authorization,
were present in numerous SLDN
Coast Guard cases in 2002. Petty
Officer Lee Reinharts case is one
example of the troubling trends we
saw over the past year in the Coast
Guard. An environment accepting
of rumors and anti-gay harassment
seems to be growing.
Lee Reinhart joined the Coast
Guard as Petty Officer Second Class
following three years of civilian life.
Previously honorably discharged
from the Navy, Reinhart decided he
missed the military and
enlisted in the Coast
Guard. Excited about
his new career, Petty
Officer Reinhart settled
into his new assignment
aboard the USCGC
Hamilton. Nothing warned him of
the events that would quickly lead to
his discharge from the Coast Guard
and end his dream of serving to pro-
tect his country.
Rumor and innuendo ended Petty
Officer Reinharts military career.
Shortly after his first deployment
began, Reinhart said he began to
hear rumors about the sexual orien-
tation of other crewmembers of the
Hamilton. Although concerned,
Petty Officer Reinhart ignored this
climate until the anti-gay rumors
turned to him. During a deploy-
ment stop in Portland, Oregon,
Petty Officer Reinhart and a few
other enlisted members of the crew
visited a gay bar. Under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, this visit to the gay bar
is associational behavior and is not
evidence of Petty Officer Reinharts
sexual orientation or that of any of
the other crewmembers.
Unfortunately, this did not stop the
development of rumors leading to
an inappropriate investigation.
While the Hamilton was sailing to
Hawaii, Petty Officer Reinharts
Chief jokingly relayed rumors about
a couple of gay crew members while
in the chiefs mess. The Hamiltons
command senior chief reported these
jokes and rumors he overheard in
the mess to the ships Executive
Officer (XO). Acting on these
Hes a fucking faggot. Would love to take
care of business if we found a gay on board.
I hear there is a queer on board.
Anonymous quotes heard by SLDN Coast Guard clients
LCR 04576
CLEARING THE WATERS: COAST
GUARD SEEKS TO CHANGE DONT
ASK, DONT TELL AND ANTI-
HARASSMENT TRAINING
The Coast Guard has taken some
initial steps towards revamping how
it deals with Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
This progress is reflected in the
changes made to the Coast Guard
Personnel Manual. In particular, the
Coast Guard added Dont Pursue
and Dont Harass language to the
Personnel Manual section addressing
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Much of
the added language is very promis-
ing. Specifically, the Coast Guard
Personnel Manual states, [h]arass-
ment can take different forms, rang-
ing from innocent comments and
jokes causing a hostile climate, to
direct verbal or
physical abuse.
167
The Coast Guard
has not completed
the training modifi-
cations on anti-
harassment and
Dont Ask, Dont
Tell promised in
2001. SLDN believes the Coast
Guard remains committed to revis-
ing its training. The timeline, how-
ever, was affected last year by its
preparation for transition to
Homeland Security.
SLDN expects the Coast Guard to
fulfill its commitment and provide
additional guidance regarding anti-
gay harassment in the Equal
Opportunity curriculum it is cur-
rently revising. To assist in this
work, in June 2002, SLDN submit-
ted a memo to the Coast Guard sug-
gesting the training include the
AHAP prongs of training, reporting,
enforcement and measurement.
168
Specifically, SLDN suggested the
Coast Guard ensure its training
materials contain clear and accurate
information using appropriate vehi-
cles to illustrate prevention of anti-
gay harassment and emphasizing
strong leadership and accountability.
SLDN also suggested the Coast
Guard tailor its training material to
its audience, preferably with com-
manding officers, senior noncom-
missioned officers, attorneys,
Inspectors General, chaplains and
equal opportunity officers receiving
specialized training.
Final suggestions included clarifying
to whom and how Coast
Guardsmen should report anti-gay
harassment, guiding principles on
holding guardsmen accountable for
rumors, and seemingly without prior
knowledge or approval by the
Hamiltons commanding officer, the
XO began an inappropriate investi-
gation into Petty Officer Reinharts
sexual orientation. Dont Ask,
Dont Tell explicitly states that only
the commanding officer has the
authority to initiate an investigation
into an allegation of homosexual
conduct based on credible evi-
dence. Further, rumors do not
constitute credible evidence.
A fellow crewmember alerted Petty
Officer Reinhart that the XO was
questioning Hamilton crewmembers
about his sexual orientation.
Concerned about this investigation
and his career, Petty Officer
Reinhart used his chain of command
and went directly to the XO to find
out what was going on. Waiting
outside of the XOs office, Reinhart
saw another crewmember he had
gone to the gay bar with leaving the
XOs office. This crewmember
informed Petty Officer Reinhart he
already had provided a statement to
the XO regarding his own sexual
orientation.
Petty Officer Reinhart faced ques-
tion after question from the XO
after entering the office. Despite the
fact that no conduct occurred at the
gay bar, Reinhart struggled to
remain silent about his own sexual
orientation as the questioning per-
sisted. It became even more difficult
after the XO told Reinhart he would
only stop questioning other
crewmembers if Reinhart stated he
was gay. Finally, Petty Officer
Reinhart admitted to the XO he had
gone to the gar bar in Portland, and
he is gay.
The remainder of the trip to Hawaii
was unbearable for Reinhart.
Rumors about the sexual orientation
of Reinhart and other crewmembers
escalated to the point where
Reinhart became concerned more
crewmembers were going to come
under investigation. Indeed,
Reinhart heard from two other
crewmembers that they were under
investigation because of rumors
about their sexual orientation. By
the time the boat reached Hawaii,
Petty Officer Reinhart felt defeated.
He decided not to fight his com-
mands recommendation for his dis-
charge.
Although Petty Officer Reinhart
received an honorable discharge
from the Coast Guard, he still wants
nothing more than to be back in the
service. He hopes when Dont Ask,
Dont Tell ends, he will be able to
reenlist and finish his career in the
military.
41
The Coast Guard does not tolerate harassment
and mistreatment of anyone, whether they are
service members, civilian employees, Auxiliarists
or members of the general public, for alleged or
perceived sexual orientation, or any reason.
Coast Guard Manual, Chapter 12.E.1, para 4
166
LCR 04577
anti-gay harassment, and measuring
the effectiveness of the Coast
Guards training program on anti-
gay harassment.
Measurement is especially important
because changes to the Coast Guard
Equal Opportunity curriculum
should target the prevention of anti-
gay harassment specifically, not just
general harassment. SLDN looks
forward to receiving concrete infor-
mation during 2003 on how the
Coast Guard will address the AHAP
requirements.
42
RECOMMENDATIONS: THE COAST
GUARD IN 2003 WORKING FOR
CHANGE IN THE HOMELAND
In January of 2003, SLDN represen-
tatives met with RADM Kenneth T.
Venuto, the Assistant Commander
for Human Resources, and members
of his staff. As occurred last year,
when SLDN met with RADM F.L.
Ames, the dialogue in the meeting
was frank and productive. With
assurances that SLDN and the Coast
Guard have a mutual goal in pre-
venting harassment of any Coast
Guard member, SLDN remains
encouraged in our continued rela-
tionship with the Coast Guard. In
the coming year, SLDN looks for-
ward to the completion of the Coast
Guards revised training on Dont
Ask, Dont Tell and anti-gay harass-
ment and hopes to see the training
specifically address:
Harassment based on sexual ori-
entation;
To whom, and how members
should report anti-gay harass-
ment;
The identification of safe spaces
for Coast Guard members to
receive confidential counseling;
Examples of harassment,
including name-calling and
jokes, using anti-gay language;
and
Clear guidance to Coast Guard
commands on credible evi-
dence and investigative limits
The new training should use blunt,
specific language to clarify to all
members of the Coast Guard that
this type of harassment is unaccept-
able and those using these words will
be held accountable.
2003 opened positively with the
Coast Guard and SLDN hopes this
foreshadows beneficial changes to
come throughout the year.
LCR 04578
SLDN has long reported
on the disproportionate
impact of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell on women
and youth. This year is
no exception.
Women have been consistently dis-
charged at a rate nearly twice their
presence in the service. While we do
not have all the discharge numbers
for FY 2002, the numbers we do
have indicate this trend continues.
Thirty-six percent of the Armys dis-
charges under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell were women, while women
comprise only 15% of the Armys
total force strength. In the Coast
Guard, 34% of the discharges were
women, while 7% of the force is
women. Similarly, in the Air Force
34% of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell
discharges were women, while
women only comprise 19% of the
Air Forces total strength. In the
Marines Corps, 27% of the Dont
Ask, Dont Tell discharges were
women, compared to their being 6%
of the Corps. This disproportionate
impact is also born out by SLDN
cases; women comprised 26% of
SLDN cases for 2002.
43
1994
12%
13% 13%
14% 14% 14%
15%
14%
26%
21%
29%
22%
28%
31%
24%
30%
15%
31%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2001
Women Discharged Under Dont Ask, Dont Tell
ON WOMEN
Army
15%
19%
10%
6%
32%
34% 34%
27%
Air Force Marines Coast Guard
Women Discharged
Under Dont Ask, Dont Tell
WOMEN DISCHARGED
BY SERVICE 2002
XVI
XVII
Disproportionate Impact
on Women and Youth
LCR 04579
The policy hits women of
color especially hard. While
we do not have the data for FY
2002, a look at the FY 2001 dis-
charge numbers makes this clear.
African American women were dis-
charged at almost three times their
presence in the military. Latina and
other women of color were also dis-
charged at a disproportionate rate.
SLDN does not know why African
American women are impacted so
hard by this policy. SLDN is com-
mitted to further study on this issue.
Women continue to be dispropor-
tionately impacted by Dont Ask,
Dont Tell because of lesbian baiting
and gender bias.
169
Lesbian baiting is
a form of anti-gay harassment as
well as a form of sexual harassment.
Women are often called lesbians,
regardless of their sexual orientation,
for a variety of retaliatory reasons.
Some men accuse women who
refuse their sexual advances of being
lesbians. Other men who sexually
harass women accuse them of being
lesbians when the women report the
sexual harassment, in an attempt to
turn the investigation away from
their own misconduct. Others, men
and women, accuse female superior
officers of being lesbians in retalia-
tion for poor performance evalua-
tions or unpopular orders. Yet oth-
ers accuse successful women of being
lesbians to derail their careers. The
stereotype remains that women in
nontraditional job fields are viewed,
as many have noted, as dykes.
44
Women
Men
SLDN 2002 CASES BY GENDER
26%
74%
XVIII
African American
Women
Separated
African American
Women in the
Military
Hispanic
Women in the
Military
Hispanic Women
Separated
Other Women
of Color in the
Military
Other Women
of Color
Separated
0.84%
3.26%
0.31%
0.60%
0.25%
0.91%
IMPACT ON WOMEN OF COLOR -
2001 DONT ASK, DONT TELL DISCHARGES
XIX
LCR 04580
Dont Ask, Dont Tell
also heavily impacts young
adults aged 18-25. Due to
lack of data from DoD, SLDN only
has the discharge data for FY 2002
from the Air Force, Marine Corps
and Coast Guard. In the Air Force,
83% of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell
discharges were young adults, while
they comprise only 35% of the force.
In the Marine Corps, youth com-
prise 65% of the force, but 95% of
the Dont Ask, Dont Tell dis-
charges. Service members under 26
comprise only 10% of the Coast
Guard forces, yet they comprised
86% of the FY 2002 discharges
under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. This
is a consistent trend. In FY 2001,
while young adults comprised only
approximately 42% of the other
armed forces, they comprised 90% of
the Marine Corps and Navy dis-
charges and 79% of the Coast Guard
gay discharges.
170
Similarly, youth
comprise a disproportionate number
of SLDNs cases. Young adults com-
prised 58% of SLDN clients for
reporting year 2002.
The vast majority of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell violations - 65% - were
reported to SLDN by youth.
Asking is rampant; 80% of all ask-
ing violations were reported by
young adults. Harassment too con-
tinues to be a disproportionate prob-
lem among young service members -
61% of all harassment violations
were reported to SLDN by youth.
The DoD Inspector General has also
found that the majority of anti-gay
harassment is inflicted by junior
enlisted men on other junior enlist-
ed men - the majority of who are
young adults aged 18 to 25.
171
The military is the largest employer
in the United States, with approxi-
mately 2.5 million members on
active duty and in the reserves. The
military is also the largest employer
of youth in our country, with more
than one million of the active and
reserve population between the ages
of 18 and 25. The service members
most affected by the policy are young
men and women. The military is a
means by which young people move
up and out of poverty. To deny or
cut short opportunities for young les-
bians, gays and bisexuals who want
to serve our country is wrong.
45
Dont Ask
80%
63% 63%
65%
42% 42%
42%
42%
Dont Pursue Dont Harass Total
Over 25
25 & under
ON YOUTH - 2002 VIOLATIONS
35%
65%
10%
83%
90%
86%
Air Force Marines Coast Guard
Youth Discharged Under
Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Youth in the Military
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON
YOUTH - 2002 DISCHARGES
25 &
under
Over 25
SLDN 2002 CASES BY AGE
42%
58%
XX
XXI
XXII
LCR 04581
LCR 04582
Dont Tell is commonly
viewed as the opposite
side of the coin from
Dont Ask. While a service
member cannot ask another service
member about his or her sexual ori-
entation; lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members cannot tell the
military about their sexual orienta-
tion.
Current policy, however, does not
prohibit telling in all circum-
stances. It allows for gays to tell
defense attorneys,
172
chaplains,
173
security clearance personnel
174
and,
in limited circumstances, doctors
who are treating patients for HIV.
175
The Dont Tell privacy rules do
not explicitly state whether state-
ments of sexual orientation in other
private contexts are permitted.
The policy allows all service mem-
bers to associate with gay friends,
participate in gay-friendly organiza-
tions and read gay publications.
176
Further, the policy states that sexual
orientation is a personal and private
matter.
177
SLDN believes that gay
service members should be able to
talk openly and honestly with psy-
chotherapists, physicians, law
enforcement officials, family and
friends. Our view is supported by
those who helped craft the current
policy, former Under Secretary of
Defense Edwin Dorn
178
and military
sociologist Charles Moskos, of
Northwestern University.
179
SLDNs interpretation, however, is
not reflected in current application
of the policy. While some good
commands do not punish service
members who disclose their sexual
orientation in private, discharge
actions against other service mem-
bers who make disclosures in similar
contexts are routine. The reality is
that service members who come out
to anyone, anywhere, anytime risk
discharge.
The Pentagon has suggested that gays
are voluntarily coming out. The
Pentagon has admitted, however, that
it has no evidence to support its the-
ory.
180
There is no such thing as a
voluntary discharge under Dont
Ask, Dont Tell as gay service mem-
bers who face discharge cannot elect
to stay in service. They have no
choice. Most of the discharges under
the policy, however, are characterized
as statement cases where a service
member has told someone about
their sexual orientation. This raises
the question - why are service mem-
bers making statements?
There are numerous reasons why
service members decide to make
statements to their commands about
their sexuality. Some choose to
being harassed; some choose to
being threatened or blackmailed;
some choose to make statements
because they cannot lie about their
lives any longer; and some choose to
tell their commands about their sex-
uality because they believe that they
have no other option.
47
Why do Service Members
Make Statements?
LCR 04583
HARASSMENT: DIFFICULT TO STAY
SILENT IN FEAR
Harassment is one of the primary rea-
sons service members who contact
SLDN decide to make statements.
After months, sometimes years, of
being subjected to constant harassment
they have lost faith that their chain of
command will protect them. They
have no confidence that they will not
lose their careers and be subject to more
intense harassment if they file a com-
plaint. Unfortunately, these concerns
are justified. Until the Pentagon takes
the necessary steps to address anti-gay
harassment, service members will con-
tinue to justifiably believe that they
have no choice but to reveal their sexual
orientation to protect themselves.
48
fags die!
Note left on SPC Powells Car
SPC Brad Powell was compelled to
reveal his sexual orientation to
escape harassment that threatened
his physical safety. His NCO told
soldiers to visualize blowing up a
gay bar during a grenade training
exercise. SPC Powell heard NCOs
say the only way to decrease our
nuclear arsenal is to put all fags on
an island and nuke it and the
only thing a good fag needs is a
good fag bashing. To escape this
hostile climate, SPC Powell
revealed his sexual orientation to
his command. Shortly thereafter,
he received a note on his car stat-
ing fags die, reaffirming for SPC
Powell that the only way to protect
himself was to reveal that he is gay.
SILENCE: NOT SIMPLE
ARMY: Integrity: Do Whats
Right, Legally and Morally
United States Army Core Values181
United States Air Force Core Values182
NAVY: Honor: Be honest and
truthful in our dealings with
each other.
United States Navy Core Values183
MARINE CORPS: Integrity
means being honest, candid,
and upright, always.
United States Marine Corps Core Values184
COAST GUARD: Honor -
Integrity is our standard
United States Coast Guard Core Values185
Each of the services stresses the
virtue of integrity. If lesbian, gay or
bisexual service members tell any-
one military or civilian their
careers may be in jeopardy.
Lesbians, gays and bisexuals are
therefore forced to lie in order to
serve. For many service members,
compromising their personal integri-
ty is too much. Consequently, they
are honest and tell.
There is a misperception that it is an
easy thing not to tell. Service
members work closely with one
another, often times living with one
another. It is part of basic human
interaction to discuss your life
what you do on the weekends,
whom you are dating, whom you
love. Lesbian, gay and bisexual serv-
ice members are barred from having
such simple communications with
their co-workers. The strain is often
unbearable. This prohibition against
discussing basic information about
ones life is harmful to combat readi-
ness. It sows the seeds of distrust
among service personnel and erodes
the bonds of trust and camaraderie
necessary for effective military units.
The issue of lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members telling is further
complicated by the very nature of
human sexual development. Most
men and women join the armed
forces at a very young age. With few
exceptions, lesbian, gay and bisexual
youth have not fully internalized and
accepted their sexual orientation at
the point when they enlist or are
commissioned in the service. SLDNs
cases reflect this reality. Many young
gay service members contact SLDN
only after they have reached a comfort
level with who they are. Once les-
bians, gays and bisexuals reach this
level of self-acceptance, they find it
more difficult to balance the require-
ments of Dont Tell with their need
to lead healthy lives.
187
Further,
young lesbians, gays and bisexuals
have far more examples of healthy role
models today than ever before.
Because lesbian, gay and bisexual serv-
ice members see greater acceptance of
homosexuality within society at large,
it is understandably difficult for them
to reconcile the contradictions inher-
ent under Dont Tell.
During an Army Equal
Opportunity training, the
instructors told anti-gay jokes.
The unit commander, Captain
Ruiz, suggested anyone who is
gay to raise their hand if they
felt offended by the jokes.
186
Army Sergeant Sonya Contreras
was in the audience. After five
years, SGT Contreras felt
despondent and could stay
silent no more. She wrote to
her command, I have not
raised my hand once, or spoken
out against anyone who has felt
free to make homosexual com-
ments and jokes in the nearly
five years that I have served in
our nations Army. But today,
Sir, I raise my hand ....
LCR 04584
OUTING: IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE
SERVICE MEMBER WHO TELLS
Another part of the explanation as to
why so many discharges are for
statements is the problem of serv-
ice members being outed.
Sometimes people inform com-
mands of a service members sexual
orientation often as a way to get
back at or punish the service mem-
ber. SLDN believes that in most
circumstances commands should
ignore such information and the
motives of those providing the infor-
mation to the commands be ques-
tioned. Unfortunately, such out-
ings generally result in discharge.
49
BETRAYAL OF TRUST: CHAPLAINS
AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
SLDN has documented continued
instances in which health care
providers and chaplains reportedly
turned in or threatened to turn in
gay service members who sought
their help in dealing with anti-gay
harassment or the stresses imposed
by Dont Ask, Dont Tell. These
outings are often considered state-
ments.
Issues involving sexual orientation
are central to the provision of ade-
quate health care, but health care
providers are often reluctant to ask
out of well-placed concern not to
out gay service members. Service
members are reluctant to tell for
fear of being outed. While President
Clintons Executive Order providing
that communications with mental
health professionals cannot be used
as evidence in criminal proceedings
was a step in the right direction, it
has only limited value for gay service
members who, for the most part,
face administrative discharge pro-
ceedings, rather than criminal prose-
cutions.
189
While the DoD could
extend this privilege to the adminis-
trative context, making it clear that
private statements to health care
providers are not the kind of state-
ments that form a basis for dis-
charge, it has failed to do so.
The Under Secretary of Defenses
clarification in the April 1998 report
to the Secretary of Defense that
health care providers are not, in fact,
required to turn in gay service mem-
bers was also a step in the right
direction.
190
This clarification, how-
ever, has not made it to the field
nearly five years later. Nor does it
adequately address the problem, as it
allows individual therapists to turn
in military members, whether
required to or not, depriving service
members of the ability to trust ther-
apists.
Military chaplains can be an invalu-
able resource for service members
who are lesbian, gay or bisexual.
Chaplains are supposed to be one of
the safe spaces for service members
to discuss their sexual orientation.
While most chaplains keep the con-
fidences of gay service members,
some do not.
191
Others continue to
give bad legal advice, such as direct-
ing service members to turn them-
selves in, rather than sending service
members to a military defense attor-
ney for advice about the policy. Still
others tragically berate gay service
members, telling them they are sick,
going to hell, and deviant.
Telling gay soldiers to trust chaplains
on the one hand, and having chap-
lains violate that trust undermines
confidence. Sadly, such situations
harm faith in the Chaplain Corps,
Staff Sergeant Karen Coleman was
a victim of being outed. SSG
Colemans 11 year career in the
Army was ended by a civilian
woman with whom she had previ-
ously had a relationship. Motivated
by a desire to hurt SSG Coleman
personally and professionally, this
woman called SSG Colemans first
sergeant and stated that she was
SSG Colemans lover. Based on
this anonymous phone call, SSG
Coleman was investigated, interro-
gated and ultimately discharged.
Cadets Jack Glover and David Hall
were victims of a betrayal of trust.
Cadets Glover and Hall were model
Air Force ROTC cadets. Cadet Hall
had already served in the Air Force
as an enlisted man and was honor-
ably discharged prior to entering
college. Their grades, attitude and
leadership abilities were lauded by
their Air Force commanders. The
one mistake they made was to
trust a fellow ROTC cadet, some-
one they considered a friend, and
acknowledge to her they are gay.
Just before Glover and Halls friend
graduated from college and
became a lieutenant in the Air
Force, she told the cadets ROTC
command of their admission. The
Air Force chose to investigate. The
resulting disenrollment meant that
Glover and Hall lost their college
scholarships prior to entering their
senior year, and they are prevented
from becoming officers in the Air
Force or ever serving our country in
the military.
188
Two such cases of broken trust
appear in this years report.
Senior Airman Grijalva was
outed by a chaplains assistant
whose help she sought during a
time of crisis even after she
was assured confidentiality.
Marine Capt. Kira Zielinski
sought the assistance of a
chaplain. Instead of help, she
was called sinner and told
that she needed counseling for
her un-Christian tenden-
cies.
192
LCR 04585
harm lesbian, gay and bisexual serv-
ice members, and most importantly
harm military readiness.
SLDN has long recommended that
chaplains receive specific instructions
not to turn in gay service members
who seek their help and to treat
these conversations as confidential,
per the chaplain-penitent privilege.
Further, chaplains must be willing to
recommend another chaplain if their
personal beliefs preclude them from
adequately counseling gay service
members. As staff officers, chaplains
should not engage in behavior that
gay service members would likely
perceive as harassment, in violation
of the policys Dont Harass com-
ponent. Chaplains should assist
commands in combating anti-gay
harassment. The Pentagon should
initiate policy training programs tai-
lored for the unique duties of chap-
lains in serving the needs of lesbian,
gay and bisexual service members.
50
TELLING: A SIMPLE SOLUTION
Why service members make state-
ments is a complicated question to
answer. The solutions, however, are
simple. Many lesbian, gay and
bisexual service members are com-
pelled to tell as their only recourse
to escape harassment, including
threats of physical violence. The
solution lies in the hands of military
leaders stop anti-gay harassment in
the ranks.
Some service members are outed to
their commands by people they
know in order to get them dis-
charged. DoD should include spe-
cific guidance in the investigative
limits that reports to commands
about service members sexual orien-
tation should not automatically be
considered credible evidence and the
motive behind the report should be
questioned.
Some military therapists, physicians
and chaplains out or harass gay serv-
ice members. Combat readiness is
harmed when gays and lesbians in
uniform are denied safe access to
health care and spiritual counseling.
The solution again lies in the hands
of military leaders extend the priv-
ilege of mental health care providers
and patients to the administrative
context; make clear that health care
providers and chaplains are not to
turn in service members; properly
train health care providers and chap-
lains and hold them accountable
when they violate a service members
confidence.
Lastly, many service members make
statements because of the enormous
ethical dilemma created by the poli-
cy or because they feel they have no
other recourse. Congress and mili-
tary leaders should stop the
hypocrisy that requires lesbian, gay
and bisexual service members to lie
as a condition of service. Congress
should lift the ban on lesbians, gays
and bisexuals serving in the armed
forces and allow them the freedom
to serve.
LCR 04586
END NOTES
1
Linda D. Kozaryn, U.S. Must Reject
Bigotry, Bush Says in Address to American
Muslims, AMERICAN FORCES PRESS, Sept. 11,
2002, at http://www.defenselink.mil/
news/Sep2002/n09112002 200209111.html
(last visited February 4, 2003) [hereinafter
Kozaryn article].
2
Letter from Capt. Darrell V. Allen, MCCES
Adjutant, 29 Palms, Subj: Homosexual
Conduct Discharge Potential, (Apr. 4, 2002)
[hereinafter 29 Palms Memorandum].
e
3
For documentation on the decrease in dis-
charges of lesbians, gays and bisexuals during
World War II, the Korean Conflict, the
Vietnam Conflict and the Persian Gulf War
see RANDY SHILTS, CONDUCT UNBECOMING
(St. Martins Press, 1993) 70-71,163,210,355-
57,387,569-570,575,741,745-6.
4
SLDN only has the number of Navy enlist-
ed service members, and not officers, dis-
charged under Dont Ask, Dont Tell for FY
2002; however, no more than nine officers
during the last four years have been dis-
charged during a fiscal year. In FY 2001, 2
officers were discharged under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell; in FY 2000 5 were officers dis-
charged; in FY 1999, 4 officers were dis-
charged, FY 1998, 9 officers were discharged.
Therefore, excepting an unlikely 400%
increase in officer discharges last year, FY
2002 marks the lowest number of discharges
in the Navy since the law was adopted.
5
Whenever gay is used throughout this
report, it is used as an all-inclusive term for
lesbian, gay and bisexual.
6
U.S. Central Command, see generally
www.centcom.mil.
7
See AARON BELKIN & JASON MCNICHOL, THE
EFFECTS OF THE 1992 LIFTING OF
RESTRICTIONS ON GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE IN
THE CANADIAN FORCES: APPRAISING THE
EVIDENCE (Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military at University of
California at Santa Barbara, April 2000);
AARON BELK N & JASON MCNICHOL, THE
EFFECTS OF INCLUDING GAY AND LESBIAN
SOLDIERS IN THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENSE
FORCES: APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE (Center for
the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
at University of California at Santa Barbara,
September 2000); AARON BELKIN & JASON
MCNICHOL, THE EFFECTS OF INCLUDING GAY
AND LESBIAN SOLDIERS IN THE BRITISH ARMED
FORCES: APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE (Center for
the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
at University of California at Santa Barbara,
November 2000); AARON BELKIN & JASON
MCNICHOL, THE EFFECTS OF LIFTING OF
RESTRICTIONS ON GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE IN
THE ISRAELI FORCES: APPRAISING THE
EVIDENCE (Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military at University of
California at Santa Barbara, June 2000).
8
J.W. Bicknell, Jr., Study of naval officers
attitudes towards homosexuals in the military
(2000) (unpublished M.S. thesis, Naval
Postgraduate School) (on file with the Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA) (finding
that 21% of naval officers and 39% enlisted
sailors attending the Defense Language
Institute in 1999 answered yes to the survey
question, I personally know a homosexual
service member.)
9
Exec. Order No. 13,087, 63 Fed. Reg.
30,097 (Jun. 2, 1998).
10
Beth Berlo, Two Polls Confirm Growing
Acceptance of Gay Civil Rights, BAY WINDOWS,
Jun. 22, 2001.
http://www.baywindows.com/main.cfm?inclu
de=detail&storyid=80432 (last visited Feb.
13, 2003).
11
E. KIER, HOMOSEXUALS IN THE U.S.
MILITARY: OPEN INTEGRATION AND COMBAT
EFFECTIVENESS, 23 INTL SECURITY 5-39
(1998).
12
THEODORE R. SARBIN, PH.D., & KENNETH
E. KAROLS, M.D., PH.D., DEFENSE
PERSONNEL SECURITY RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION CENTER, NONCONFORMING
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND MILITARY
SUITABILITY Dec. 1988); RAND CORP.,
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND U.S. MILITARY
PERSONNEL POLICY: OPTIONS AND
ASSESSMENT, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (1993).
13
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, UNIFORM
DISCRIMINATION: THE DONT ASK, DONT
TELL POLICY OF THE U.S. MILITARY, Vol. 15,
No. 1 (G), 49 (Jan. 2003).
14
Letter from Kenneth Roth, Executive
Director, Human Rights Watch, to President
Bush (Jan. 23, 2003) at
http://hrw.org/press/2003/01/bushltr012303.
htm (last visited Feb. 11, 2003).
15
Nominations: Hearings Before the Senate
Comm. on the Armed Services, 107
th
Cong.
(Sept. 27, 2002) (testimony of Charles S.
Abell).
16
Good Morning America (ABC television
broadcast, Sept. 9, 2002).
17
SLDNs reporting year is February 1, 2002
to January 31, 2003. It is referred to in this
report as the 2002 reporting year.
18
Department of Defense Working Group,
Anti-Harassment Action Plan (Jul. 21, 2000)
[hereinafter AHAP].
19
Id.
20
Good Morning America (ABC television
broadcast, Sept. 9, 2002).
21
Id.
22
Appendix C. Homosexual Conduct Policy
Survey, DOD INSPECTOR GENERALS DONT
ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE POLICY
SURVEY (undated) [hereinafter DoD Inspector
General Policy Survey].
e
23
See AHAP, supra note 18; Memorandum
from Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel
& Readiness) Bernard Rostker to the
Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy,
Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff of
the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief
of Staff of the Air Force, and Commandant of
the Marine Corps, Approval and
Implementation of the Action Plan Submitted
in response to the DoD Inspector Generals
report on the Military Environment With
Respect to the Homosexual Conduct Policy (Jul.
21, 2000) (directing that the proposed action
plan be forwarded to the Services for imple-
mentation).
e
24
Letter from David S.C. Chu to Senator
Mark Dayton (Oct. 24, 2002).
e
25
Kozaryn article, supra note 1.
26
Editorial, No Gay Help Wanted, WASH.
POST, Nov. 20, 2002, at A24.
27
John Johnson, Army Expels 9 Gay Linguists,
PHILA. INQ., Nov. 17, 2002, at A8.
28
REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTERS ON
FOREIGN LANGUAGES: HUMAN CAPITAL
APPROACH NEEDED TO CORRECT STAFFING
AND PROFICIENCY SHORTFALLS (General
Accounting Office, GAO 02-375, Jan. 2002) 2.
29
C. Dixon Osburn, A Policy in Desperate
Search of a Rationale: The Militarys Policy on
Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals, 64 UMKC L.
REV. 199 (1995).
30
Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the
Armed Forces: Hearings Before the Senate
Comm. on the Armed Services, 103d Cong.,
707 (1993) (statement of General Colin
Powell) [hereinafter Powell Statement].
[H]omosexuals have privately served well in
the past and are continuing to serve well
today. Id.
31
Enlisted Administrative Separations [hereinafter
DODD 1332.14], para. E3.A1.1.8.1.1
(1994); DEPT OF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION
1332.40, Separation Procedures for Regular
and Reserve Commissioned Officers [hereinafter
DODI 1332.40], para. E2.3 (1997). A
members sexual orientation is considered a
personal and private matter, and is not a bar
to continued service . . . unless manifested by
homosexual conduct . . . . Id.
32
Statement of General Colin Powell, supra
note 30, at 709. We will not ask, we will
not witch hunt, we will not seek to learn ori-
entation. Id.
33
Qualification Standards for Enlistment,
Appointment, and Induction: Applicant
Briefing Item on Separation Policy, addendum
(1993) [hereinafter DoDD 1304.26 adden-
dum]. The Armed Forces do not tolerate
harassment or violence against any service
member, for any reason. Id.
34
Memorandum from Secretary of Defense
Les Aspin to the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, Implementation of the DoD
51
LCR 04587
Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed
Forces (Dec. 21, 1993).
e
[The new policy]
provides that investigations into sexual mis-
conduct will be conducted in an evenhanded
manner, without regard to whether the
alleged misconduct involves homosexual or
heterosexual conduct. Id.
35
See PUB. PAPERS William J. Clinton, 1993,
vol. 1, p. 1111. President Clinton pledged
that the policy would provide for a decent
regard for the legitimate privacy and associa-
tional rights of all service members. Id.
Then Senator William Cohen understood
that the small amount of privacy under the
current policy was intended to prevent the
military from prying into peoples private
lives. See, Policy Concerning Homosexuality in
the Armed Forces: Hearings Before the Senate
Comm. on Armed Services, 103d Cong. 787
(statement of Senator William Cohen).
36
E3.A4.1.4.3; DODI 1332.40, supra note 31,
at E8.4.3.
37
E3.A4.1.3.2.2; DODI 1332.40, supra note 31,
at E8.3.2.2.
38
at E2.3.
39
at E8.1.1.
40
at E8.1.1.
41
at E.8.3.3.4.
42
See Memorandum from Rudy de Leon,
Under Secretary of Defense (P&R), to the
Secretaries of the Military Departments,
Guidelines for Investigating Threats Against or
Harassment of Service Members Based on
Alleged Homosexuality (Aug. 12, 1999) [here-
inafter Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)
Rudy de Leon 1999 Implementation Memo].
e
43
at E8.1.3.
44
See Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (P&R), Report to the Secretary of
Defense: Review of the Effectiveness of the
Application and Enforcement of the
Departments Policy on Homosexual Conduct in
the Military [hereinafter Under Secretary of
Defense (P&R) 1998 Report], at 11,12 (Apr.
1998) ; See also Under Secretary of Defense
(P&R) Rudy de Leon 1999 Implementation
Memo, supra note 42.
45
See Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)
1998 Report, supra note 44, at 11.
46
See generally, DEPT OF DEFENSE
INSTRUCTION 5505.8, Investigations of Sexual
Misconduct by the Defense Criminal
Investigative Organizations and Other DoD
Law Enforcement Organizations (2000).
47
at E8.1.3.; see also, Under Secretary of
Defense (P&R) 1998 Report, supra note 44,
at 11,12; see also, Under Secretary of Defense
(P&R) Rudy de Leon 1999 Implementation
Memo, supra note 42.
48
49
See id.
50
Rudy de Leon 1999 Implementation Memo,
supra note 42.
51
52
DoDD 1304.26 addendum, supra note 33.
53
Letter from MG Robert R. Ivany,
Commandant, US Army War College, to
Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN (Oct. 16, 2002).
e
54
Letter from COL Gerald E. Ferguson, Jr.,
Chief of Staff 1
st
Cavalry Division, to Jeffery
Cleghorn, SLDN (Oct. 4, 2002).
e
55
Letter from MG John R. Wood,
Commanding General, 2d Infantry Division,
to Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN (Oct. 17, 2002).
e
56
Letter from MG F.L. Hagenbeck,
Commanding General, 10
th
Mountain
Division, to Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN (Oct.
18, 2002).
e
57
Letter from COL Jackson L. Flake, III,
Chief of Staff, 1
st
Armored Division, to
Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN (Nov. 12, 2002).
e
58
Letter from LTG Edward Soriano,
Commanding General, I Corps and Fort
Lewis, to Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN, (Oct. 15,
2002).
e
59
Memorandum from Anonymous Soldier at
Fort Bragg, NC, to CPT Adam Steelhammer,
A Company, 307
th
Engineer Battalion, Fort
Bragg, NC, Subj: Reasons for admission of
homosexuality to the US Army (Feb. 24,
2002).
e
60
Letter from SPC Auville B. Powell, to CPT
Allen (Jun. 28, 2002).
e
61
Electronic Message from Headquarters
Department of the Army to ALARACT, Subj:
Homosexual Conduct Policy (HQDA
WASHINGTON, DC 101700ZJAN 00)
(Jan. 10, 2000) [hereinafter ALARACT
Message].
e
62
Sworn Statement from Anonymous Soldier
in Kuwait (Aug. 8, 2002)
e
; see also, Letter
from Jeffery M. Cleghorn, SLDN, to LTG
Edward Soriano, Commanding General, I
Corps and Fort Lewis (Oct. 8, 2002).
e
63
See AHAP, supra note 18.
64
ALARACT Message, supra note 61.
65
Letter from Bernard P. Ingold, Deputy
Legislative Counsel, Department of the Army,
to Senator Mark Dayton, (Sep. 4, 2002).
[hereinafter Ingold letter].
e
66
Id.
67
68
Ingold letter, supra note 65.
69
70
Memorandum from Office of the Inspector
General, Department of the Army, to the
Army Chief of Staff, Subj: Special Interest
Item Implementation of Homosexual
Conduct Policy Training ACTION MEM-
ORANDUM (Apr. 11, 2002) [hereinafter
IG Letter].
e
71
Letter from MG David H. Petraeus,
st
Airborne
Division and Fort Campbell, to Jeffery
Cleghorn, SLDN (Oct. 18, 2002).
e
72
Letter from COL Thomas J. Schoenbeck,
Chief of Staff, 101
st
Airborne Division and
Fort Campbell, to Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN
(Jan. 13, 2003).
e
73
Letter from PFC Luis Rosas (Dec. 9,
2002).
e
74
AHAP, supra note 18.
75
Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Army Homosexual
Conduct Policy, HOT TOPICS: CURRENT
ISSUES FOR ARMY LEADERS 8 (Winter 2000)
(stating [a] soldier can discuss any topic
regarding sexual orientation with a legal assis-
tance attorney or chaplain.).
76
IG Letter, supra note 70.
77
E-mail from Sonya R. Contreras to Jeffery
Cleghorn, SLDN, Re: Sonya R. Contreras
(Jan. 8, 2003).
e
78
Id.
79
Letter from LTG Paul T. Mikolashek,
Inspector General, U.S. Army, to Jeffery
Cleghorn, SLDN (Nov. 1, 2002).
e
80
81
See SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE
NETWORK, CONDUCT UNBECOMING THE
8
TH
ANNUAL REPORT ON DONT ASK, DONT
TELL, DONT PURSUE, DONT HARASS 42
(2002) [hereinafter SLDN 8
TH
ANNUAL
REPORT].
82
Letter from Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN, to
LTC William H. Haight, Inspector General,
1
st
Cavalry Division, Re: Report of Sexual
Harassment and Anti-Gay Harassment (Oct.
2, 2001).
e
83
Memorandum from Inspector General,
HQ 1
st
Cavalry Division, to Commander 1
st
Cavalry Division, Subj: Report of Inspector
General Investigative Inquiry (Apr. 23,
2002).
e
84
See STACEY L. SOBEL ET AL, CONDUCT
UNBECOMING THE 7
TH
ANNUAL REPORT ON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE
25-27 (2000) [hereinafter SLDN 7
TH
ANNUAL
REPORT].
85
Letter from Jeffery M. Cleghorn, SLDN, to
LTG Michael Ackerman, Inspector General,
U.S. Army, Re: Request for Inspector
52
LCR 04588
General Investigation ICO Former SGT
Gidonny S. Ramos (Feb. 7, 2001).
e
86
Letter from Robert M. De Ocampo,
Records Release Officer, Office of the Army
Inspector General, to Jeffery Cleghorn,
SLDN, (Mar. 19, 2002).
e
87
Letter from Carlos Ramos to LTG Michael
Ackerman, Inspector General, U.S. Army,
(Mar. 11, 2002).
e
88
COL Kevin M. Rice, Installation
Commander, Defense Language Institute
(May. 17, 2002).
e
89
Letter from LTG Michael Ackerman,
Inspector General, U.S. Army, to Jeffery
Cleghorn, SLDN (Jun. 10, 2002).
e
90
SLDN 8
TH
ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81,
at 13-14.
91
MG Thomas J. Romig, The Judge Advocate
General of the Army, Re: Homosexual
Conduct Policy (HCP) Training at JAG
School (Jun. 7, 2002).
e
92
Letter (unsigned) from SGT Pepe Johnson
(Sep. 6, 2002).
e
93
94
IG Letter, supra note 70.
95
Id.
96
DoD Inspector General Policy Survey,
supra note 22.
97
See DODD 1332.14, supra note 31, para.
para. E8.1.1.
98
See, Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the
Armed Forces: Hearings Before the Senate
Comm. on Armed Services, 103d Cong. 721
(statement of then Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin).
99
Letter from Anonymous Sergeant,
Louisiana National Guard (undated).
e
100
Letter from Jeffery M. Cleghorn, SLDN,
to MG Buford C. Blount, III, Commanding
General, 3
rd
Infantry Division, Re: The
Homosexual Conduct/Dignity & Respect
Policy (Oct. 4, 2002) (citing to letter from
Cleghorn, to MG Walter L. Sharp,
rd
Infantry Division,
Re: Dignity and Respect: The Armys
Homosexual Conduct Policy (Nov. 29,
2001)).
e
101
Thomas Oliphant, General Rises Despite A
Tainted Command, BOSTON GLOBE, October
16, 2002.
102
For a detailed account of MG Clarks lead-
ership failures and the current status of the
nomination fight see www.SLDN.org.
103
TSgt Scott Elliott, SECAF strives to build
optimum force, AIR FORCE PRINT NEWS, Feb.
19, 2002.
104
Email from Mike West, HQ AFRC
Publishing Information Technology Specialist,
to Troy D. Byers, SLDN (Jun. 17, 2002).
e
105
DD Form 256, Honorable Discharge
Certificate; DD Form 785, Record of
Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type
Training, pertaining to SSgt David A. Hall
(USAFR) and Amn Jack D. Glover (USAFR).
e
106
Letter from SrA Brandi L. Grijalva to Lt
Col Pat Savoy, 97
th
Services Commander
(Sept. 17, 2002).
e
107
Select slides from Air Force Training
Homosexual Policy for Commanders, Judge
Advocates and Law Enforcement, and
Homosexual Policy (General Audiences)
(undated).
e
108
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 90-201, Inspector
General Activities, paras. 2.3, A6.2.5 (Oct. 1,
2002).
109
Roche, released in Air Force Print News,
2/19/02.
110
CNO Guidance for 2002 (Jan. 4 2002).
e
111
SLDN only has the number of Navy
enlisted service members, and not officers,
discharged under Dont Ask, Dont Tell for
FY 2002; however, no more than nine officers
during the last four years have been dis-
charged during a fiscal year. In FY 2001, 2
officers were discharged under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell; in FY 2000 5 were officers dis-
charged; in FY 1999, 4 officers were dis-
charged, FY 1998, 9 officers were discharged.
Therefore, excepting an unlikely 400%
increase in officer discharges last year, FY
2002 marks the lowest number of discharges
in the Navy since the law was adopted.
112
CNO Guidance for 2002, supra note 110.
e
113
Ken Lynch, Editorial, Musings On War,
Domestic Enemies, Yoda In Kahakis And Horses
Patooties, NAVY TIMES, February 3, 2003, at
54.
114
21% of naval officers and 39% enlisted
sailors attending the Defense Language
Institute in 1999 answered yes to the survey
question, I personally know a homosexual
service member. J.W. Bicknell, Jr., Study of
naval officers attitudes towards homosexuals
in the military (2000) (unpublished M.S. the-
sis, Naval Postgraduate School) (on file with
the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA).
115
LTJG Jenny Kopfstein, Fitness Report and
Counseling Record (July 2002).
e
116
Letter from HN Roy Hill to CDR R.J.
Mulvanny, Commanding Officer, 2d Med
Battalion, 2d FSSG, Camp Lejeune, NC
(May 31. 2002).
e
117
Letter from Paula Neira, SLDN, to BG
Michael R. Lehnert, Commanding General,
2d Force Service Support Group, Camp
Lejeune, NC (Aug. 19, 2002).
e
118
Keith Taylor (23-year Navy enlisted),
Editorial, Military policy on gays wastes valu-
able talent, NAVY TIMES, Dec. 16, 2002, at 54.
119
Statements by Master Chief Douglas W.
Huffman (Feb. 21, 2002).
e
120
Email from Petty Officer Derek Sparks to
Paula Neira, SLDN (Mar. 8, 2002).
e
121
CNO Guidance for 2002, supra note 110.
e
122
Email from Petty Officer Jason Reilly to
Kathi Westcott, SLDN (May 31, 2002).
e
123
Letter from Paula Neira, SLDN, to
VADM Norbert Ryan, Jr, Chief of Naval
Personnel (Jul. 15, 2002).
e
124
Letter from RADM M.P. Nowakowski,
Commander, Amphibious Group 2, to Paula
Neira, SLDN (16 Sep. 2002).
e
125
Letter from William A. Navis, Jr., Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs), to Senator Mark Dayton
(Sep. 19, 2002).
e
126
Selected Navy Homosexual Conduct
Training Slides, General Military Training
Developing and Building Trust (undated).
e
127
Letter from William A. Navis, Jr., Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs), to Senator Mark Dayton
(Sep. 19, 2002), supra note 125.
e
128
Id
129
Corps to Re-Emphasize Policy on Gays,
MARINE CORPS TIMES, Jan. 27, 2003, at 5.
130
Letter from Anonymous Lance Corporal
(base) to Lt. Col. Callan, Commanding
Officer MAL, (Sep. 18, 2002).
e
131
Corps to Re-Emphasize Policy on Gays, supra
note 129; Electronic Message MARADMIN
451/02, CMC Washington DC, 220745Z
AUG 02, Subj: Homosexual Conduct Policy
Tasks and Responsibilities [hereinafter
MARADMIN 451/102].
e
132
Letter from Anonymous Lance Corporal,
Camp Pendelton, to Captain Torres (Aug. 8,
2002); Letter from Anonymous Lance
Corporal, Camp Pendelton, to Captain G.B.
Pace, Commanding Officer, Headquarters
Company, 3d Marines, 3d Marine Division
(Sep. 5, 2002).
e
133
Id.
134
Id.
135
Id.
136
Memorandum from C.L. Grotzky, HQ
USMC, to Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Subj:
Implementation of the Thirteen Point Anti-
Harassment Plan (Sep. 12, 2002).
e
137
138
Letter from Anonymous Marine Private at
Camp Pendleton (undated) (received by
SLDN during 2002).
e
139
Id.
140
USMC, "Lesson Plan, Emerging
Concepts/Contemporary Issues, DoD
Homosexual Policy," Aug. 1, 2002; "Student
Handout," Aug. 13, 2002.
e
141
Twnety-nine Palms Memorandum, supra
note 2.
142
Id.
143
Electronic Message, MARADMIN
53
LCR 04589
007/03, Marine Corps Stop Move and Stop
Loss (Jan. 7, 2003) (071500Z Jan 03).
144
David Allen, Support group helps some gay
Okinawa troops balance lifestyle, military, STARS
AND STRIPES (PACIFIC EDITION), May 2, 2002.
145
146
147
29 Palms Memorandum, supra note 2.
148
SLDN 7
TH
ANNUAL REPORT, supra note
84, at 84.
149
Id. at 86.
150
Letter from Anonymous Marine Corporal
(Oct. 1, 2002).
e
151
152
DoD Inspector General Policy Survey,
supra note 22.
153
Timeline by Anonymous Marine at New
River (undated).
e
154
Letter from Capt. Kira K. Zielinski to
Commanding Officer, Marine Aviation
Training Support Group - 21 (undated) [here-
inafter Zielinski letter].
e
155
See Electronic Message from Commandant
of the Marine Corps, to ALMAR, U.S. Marine
Corps Implementation of DoD Homosexual
Conduct/Administrative Separation Policy for
Officers (Feb. 28, 1994) (CMC WASHING-
TON DC//MP//281600Z FEB 94 (ALMAR
64/94)); Electronic Message from
Commandant of the Marine Corps to
MARADMIN, Homosexual Conduct Policy (Jan.
7, 2000) (CMC WASHINGTON DC//IMP//
070800Z JAN 00 (MARADMIN 014/00))
(modified by MARADMIN 014/2001).
156
See Memorandum from Capt. V.C.
Danyluk, USMC, Trial Service Office, to Col.
J.A. White, Commanding Officer, Marine
Aviation Training Support Group, Non-
Substantial Inquiry of Captain Kira Zielinski
(Jul. 6, 2001).
e
157
See id.
158
See id.
159
See Zielinski letter, supra note 154.
160
See Memorandum from Capt. V.C.
Danyluk, USMC, Trial Service Office, to Col.
L.L. Larson, Commanding Officer, Marine
Aviation Training Support Group, Non-
Substantial Inquiry of Captain Kira Zielinski
(Apr. 23, 2001).
e
161
Letter from Sharra E. Greer, SLDN Legal
Director, to MG Dennis T. Krupp,
Commanding General, 2d MAW, U.S. MAR-
FORLANT (May 7, 2002).
e
162
Sea Change for the Coast Guard, Mike
Brunker (MSNBC 12/19/2002).
163
Exec. Order No. 13,087, 3 C.F.R. 13087
(1998).
164
See generally, Homeland Security Act of
2002, Pub. L. No.107-296, 116 Stat. 2135.
165
Sea Change for the Coast Guard, Mike
Brunker (MSNBC 12/19/2002), supra note
162.
166
Commandant Instruction M1000.6, Coast
Guard Personnel Manual, para. 12.E.1.4 (Nov.
12, 2002).
167
Id.
168
Letter from Paul Neira, SLDN, to Ms.
Lenora Ennis, USCG (Jun. 13, 2002).
169
See Michelle M. Benecke and Kirsten S.
Dodge, Military Women: Casualties of the
Armed Forces War on Lesbians and Gay Men,
GAY RIGHTS, MILITARY WRONGS: POLITICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON LESBIANS AND GAYS IN THE
MILITARY 71-108 (Craig A. Zimmerman, ed.,
1996).
170
SLDN does not have the FY 2001 dis-
charge numbers by age for the Army or the
Air Force.
171
See Evaluation Report: Military
Environment With Respect to the Homosexual
Conduct Policy, Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense, Rept.
No. D-2000-101, 18 (Mar. 16, 2000).
172
173
174
See DEPT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE 5200.2,
DoD Personnel Security Program encl. 3.7
(1997); see also, DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICE MANUAL, DIS-20-1-M, encl. 18.C
(1993).
175
Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1)
encl. 3.2.1.9 (1991). Information obtained
from a Service member during, or as a result
of, an epidemiological assessment interview
may not be used against the Service member
(in adverse criminal or administrative
actions). Id.
176
E3.A4.1.3.3.4 (stating [credible information
does not exist when] the only information
known is an associational activity such as
going to a gay bar, possessing or reading
homosexual publications, associating with
known homosexuals . . . .); DODI 1332.40,
supra note 31, at E.8.3.3.4.
177
at E.2.3.
178
See Letter from Edwin Dorn to The
Honorable Carol DiBattiste, Under Secretary
of the Air Force (May 1, 2000).
e
Recent
reports have indicated that physicians, EEO
personnel, inspectors general and law enforce-
ment personnel believe that they are obliged
to turn in service members who reveal their
sexual orientation when they report anti-gay
harassment, or who are discovered to be gay
during an investigation into the reported
harassment. If these practices occur, then
they have the effect of punishing the victim.
This is not what I anticipated or intended
when I was involved in the development of
DoDs 1997 anti-harassment guidance. Id.
179
See Letter from Charles Moskos, Professor,
Northwestern University, to The Honorable
William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, (Apr.
12, 2000).
e
In my opinion, military members
who reveal their sexual orientation during pri-
vate medical treatment sessions or in the
course of reporting harassment and threats are
not telling in a manner contemplated under
the policy. It is appropriate for officials to
assist these service members, not turn them
in. Indeed, it is the outing of service mem-
bers to their units that triggers concerns about
unit cohesion. Id. Our view is further sup-
ported by former Reagan Administration
defense official Lawrence Korb (Mr. Korb is
now with the Council on Foreign Relations).
See Letter from Lawrence J. Korb to The
Honorable Carol A. DiBattiste,
Undersecretary of the Air Force (May 8,
2000).
e
My primary concerns are the on-
going harassment of service members by their
supervisors and peers, and the lack of safe
places for service members to turn within the
military if they are facing harassment, medical
or mental health problems or seeking spiritual
guidance. Id.
180
181
United States Army, Army Values: Integrity,
at
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/graphics/integri
ty.jpg (last visited Jan. 20, 2003).
182
United States Air Force, The Core Values
of the Air Force, available at
http://www.af.mil/news/speech/current/The_
Core_Values_of_the_Air_.html (reporting a
speech given by The Honorable Sheila E.
Widnall, then Secretary of the Air Force, to
Air Force Academy Cadets, at Colorado
Springs on Apr. 18, 1996) (last visited Jan.
20, 2003).
183
United States Navy, Core Values of the
United States Navy, available at
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/tradi-
tions/html/corvalu.html (last visited Jan. 20,
2003).
184
United States Marine Corp Core Values,
Integrity, available at
http://www.usmc.mil/almars/almar2000.nsf/d5
0a617f5ac75ae085256856004f3afc/ce041316b
e6e481085256a55005e11e3?OpenDocument
(last visited Jan. 20, 2003).
185
Coast Guard Core Values, available at
http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/cutter/reliance/v
alues.html (last visited Jan. 20, 2003).
186
E-mail from Sonya R. Contreras to Jeffery
Cleghorn, SLDN, Re: Sonya R. Contreras
(Jan. 8, 2003) supra note 77.
187
See Vivienne Cass, Ph.D., Sexual
Orientation Identity Formation: A Western
Phenomenon, in TEXTBOOK OF
HOMOSEXUALITY AND MENTAL HEALTH 227,
231-47 (Robert P. Cabaj & Terry S. Stein,
eds., 1996).
188
DD Form 256, Honorable Discharge
Certificate; DD Form 785, Record of
Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type
54
LCR 04590
Training, pertaining to SSgt David A. Hall
(USAFR) and Amn Jack D. Glover (USAFR),
supra note 105.
189
See Exec. Order No. 13140 (Oct. 7,
1999).
190
191
See generally ARMY REGULATION 165-1,
Chaplain Activities in the United States Army
(1998). A privileged communication is
defined as any communication to a chaplain
[including those made as a] matter of con-
science. Id. at para. 4.4.m(1).
192
See Zielinski letter, supra note 154.
55
I. "Total Gay Discharges 1994-2002,"
Source- Department of Defense, United
States Army, United States Air Force, United
States Navy, United States Marine Corps,
United States Coast Guard.
II. "Total Violations 1994-2002," Source-
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
III. "Costs of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' 1994-
2002," Source - Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network, General Accounting Office,
Defense Force Management: Statistics Related
to DoD's Policy on Homosexuality (1992).
IV. "US Army 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Discharges 1994-2002," Source - Department
of Defense, United States Army.
V. "Army 'Don't Harass' Violations 1994-
Defense Network.
VI. "Army 'Don't Pursue' Violations 1994-
Defense Network.
VII. "Army 'Don't Ask' Violations 1994-
Defense Network.
VIII. "US Air Force 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
of Defense, United States Air Force.
IX. "Air Force Violations 1994-2002,"
Source - Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network.
X. "US Navy 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
of Defense, United States Navy.
XI. "Navy Violations 1994-2002," Source -
XII. "US Marine Corps 'Don't Ask, Don't
Tell' Discharges 1994-2002,"
Source - Department of Defense, United
States Marine Corps.
XIII. "Marine Corps Violations 1994-2002,"
Network.
XIV. "US Coast Guard 'Don't Ask, Don't
Tell' Discharges 1995-2002," Source - United
States Coast Guard.
XV. "Coast Guard Violations 1994-2002,"
Source - Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
XVI. "Disproportionate Impact on Women"
Source - Department of Defense, United
States Army, United States Air Force, United
States Navy, United States Marine Corps,
XVII. "Women Discharged by Service 2002,"
Source - United States Army, United States
Air Force, United States Marine Corps,
XVIII. "SLDN 2002 Cases by Gender,"
Network.
XIX. "Impact on Women of Color - 2001
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Discharges," Source -
Department of Defense, United States Army,
United States Air Force, United States Navy,
United States Marine Corps, United States
Coast Guard.
XX. "SLDN 2002 Cases by Age," Source -
XXI. "Disproportionate Impact on Youth -
2002 Violations," Source - Servicemembers
Legal Defense Network
XXII.Disproportionate Impact on Youth -
2002 Discharges, Source - United States Air
Force, United States Marine Corps and
LCR 04591
LCR 04592
D E D I C AT I ON
TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE FAI THFULLY SERVI NG I N ENFORCED
SI LENCE TO SECURE FOR AMERI CA THE FREEDOM THAT I S DENI ED TO THEM.
A C K NOWL E D G ME NT S
ducing and distributing Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont
Sharon E. Debbage Alexander, Sharra E. Greer, C. Dixon Osburn, Steve E. Ralls, and
Kathi S. Westcott. We would also like to acknowledge Abigayle Needham, Christopher L.
Neff, Jeffery L. Light, and Joseph T. Gasper for their contributions to this report.
A V I S I ON
F r e e d o m t o S e r v e
A MI S S I ON
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a national, non-profit legal services,
watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment
of military personnel affected by Dont Ask, Dont Tell and related forms of intolerance.
SLDN was founded in 1993 in the wake of the debate leading to Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
SLDN has worked tirelessly to provide free legal services to those harmed by Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, to protect service members from harassment and to press for changes that
improve service members daily lives. SLDN has responded to over 5,400 requests for assis-
tance and obtained almost three dozen changes to military policy and practice, including an
Executive Order on hate crimes in the military.
Design by Audrey Denson - Cover Photography by Judy Rolfe
LCR 04593
BOARD CO- CHAI RS :
Thomas T. Carpenter, Esq., Capt., USMC
(1970-1980) Los Angeles, CA
Jo Ann Hoenninger, Esq., Lt., USAF (1978-1980)
San Francisco, CA
BOARD MEMBERS :
Jean Albright, MSgt., USAF (Ret.) - Chicago, IL
Kathleen Clark, Esq. St. Louis, MO
Thomas C. Clark, CDR, USNR (Ret.) New York, NY
Amy S. Courter, Col., CAP South Lyon, MI
Anna M. Curren San Diego, CA
The Hon. Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. Philadelphia, PA
Joe Tom Easley, Esq. Miami, FL
G. Christopher Hammet, LTC, USANG
San Antonio, TX
Arthur J. Kelleher, CAPT, MC, USNR (Ret.)
San Diego, CA
Linda Netsch, Esq., Maj., USAF (1984-1998) -
Mount Pleasant, SC
Antonious L.K. Porch, Esq. Brooklyn, NY
HONORARY BOARD:
COL Robert V. Barnes, Jr., USA (Ret.)
COL Graham Beard, USA (Ret.)
COL Margarethe Cammermeyer, USA (Ret.)
CAPT Susanne Caviness, Ph.D., USPHS
Chaplain (COL) Paul W. Dodd, LPC, USA (Ret.)
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence J. Korb
COL Eugene A. Andy Leonard, USA (Ret.)
Robert Michael Rankin, M.D., Capt, MC, USNR, (Ret.)
BG Virgil A. Richard, USA (Ret.)
RADM Alan M. Steinman, MD, MPH,
USCG/USPHS (Ret.)
S LDN PE R S ONNE L
Deputy Director
LAW a nd POLI CY S TAFF:
Sharra E. Greer, Esq., Director of Law and Policy
Sharon E. Debbage Alexander, Esq.,
(former Capt., USA) Counsel for Law and Policy,
Army / Marine Liaison
Christopher L. Neff, Policy Advocate
Kathi S. Westcott, Esq., Senior Counsel for Law
and Policy, Air Force/Coast Guard/Navy Liaison
DEVELOPMENT S TAFF:
Karen A. Armagost, Senior Development Associate
for Membership & Database Management
Shana McBean, Events Manager
Sarah L. Wentz, Development Assistant
Vibha Bhatia, Staff Associate
Isaac Mintz, Manager of Accounting & Information Systems
Steve Ralls, Director of Communications
LCR 04594
Momentum: After Ten Years, A Growing Movement For Freedom
Spotlight: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Fighting for Freedom: Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Americans on the Frontlines in Iraq
Ten Years Of Dont Ask, Dont Tell: A Disservice To The Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
What is Dont Ask, Dont Tell? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Hopes Dashed That The Ban Would Be Lifted: How "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Became A Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
The Early Years of Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Confusion and Backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Reality Sinks In: Dont Ask, Dont Tell is a Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Murder and Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Opposition to the Ban Grows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Conclusion: Dont Ask, Dont Tell was Bad Law When it Was Passed, and It Is Bad Law Today . . . . . . . . . . .24
2003 Army Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Army Holds Its Ground on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, But Does Not Advance
2003 Air Force Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Air Force Slides Back on Dont Ask, Dont Tell Implementation
2003 Navy Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Navy's Dont Ask, Dont Tell Uncertainty Continues
Marine Corps Marking Time on Dont Ask, Dont Tell Implementation
The New Coast Guard Struggles with Dont Ask, Dont Tell Under Heightened Demands on Personnel
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
T H E T E N T H A N N U A L R E P O R T O N
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
CONDUCT UNBECOMI NG:
LCR 04595
LCR 04596
Momentum to repeal
Dont Ask, Dont Tell
is building.
As fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq
continues, the Pentagon has dis-
charged the fewest lesbian, gay and
bisexual service members since 1995.
The Pentagon expelled 787 service
members for being gay
3
in FY2003,
down 17% from FY2002, and 39%
from FY2001. Gay discharge num-
bers have dropped every time
America has entered a war, from
Korea to Vietnam to the Persian
Gulf to the present conflicts.
4
As more and more lesbian, gay and
bisexual Americans serve with honor,
veterans of the war on terrorism are
beginning to speak out. In this
years report, we include the experi-
ences of several service members
who have served with distinction in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
More of our allies have dropped
their bans, and our American troops
are fighting alongside openly lesbian,
gay and bisexual allied personnel in
the war on terrorism.
5
They are also
joined by our own skilled operatives
from the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and National
Security Agency (NSA), whose agen-
cies do not discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation.
6
In an historic declaration, three retired
flag officers, and members of SLDNs
Honorary Board Generals Keith
Kerr and Virgil Richard and Admiral
Alan Steinman came out publicly
this year in The New York Times and
denounced Dont Ask, Dont Tell as
ineffective. There are gays and les-
bians who want to serve honorably
and with integrity, but have been
forced to compromise, Brigadier
General Richard told the Times. It is
a matter of honor and integrity.
7
The three officers were joined by
thirteen other retired senior military
leaders in calling for an end to the
ban, including former Reagan
Administration Assistant Secretary of
Defense Lawrence J. Korb and for-
mer Judge Advocate General of the
Navy, Rear Admiral John Hutson,
USN (Ret.).
8
1
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
Total Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
617
772
870
1007
1163
1046
1241
1273
906
787
I
MOMENTUM: AFTER TEN YEARS,
A GROWING MOVEMENT FOR FREEDOM
Dont Ask, Dont Tell works against our military
preparedness, is unfair to patriotic Americans
and, as a policy, has failed miserably. It must be
repealed.
The Washington Post
1
The rationale for the [gay ban] had always
been that the presence of homosexuals in the
military somehow undermined unit cohesion
and morale . . . . the reality, increasingly, is that
in practice this rationale is undermined by
experience.
Tom Oliphant, The Boston Globe
2
LCR 04597
Former President Bill Clinton said
for the first time ever that, Simply
put, there is no evidence to support
the gay ban, marking a major
retreat from a policy that he once
called a major step forward.
9
The American people agree. In two
separate public opinion polls,
Americans registered their strongest
support for gays serving openly in
our armed forces. In a December
2003 Gallup poll, 79% of Americans
said they support allowing lesbian,
gay and bisexual Americans to serve
openly in the armed forces.
10
In a
poll from the conservative Fox News
organization, 64% of Americans said
they support gays serving openly in
our armed forces.
11
In 1993, the
number was 57%.
12
Our nations most respected newspa-
pers agree. Almost every major daily
newspaper has weighed in on the
side of opportunity for lesbian, gay
and bisexual service members. The
New York Times. The Washington
Post. USA Today. The Chicago
Tribune. The New Orleans Times-
Picayune. The Los Angeles Times.
13
The list goes on and on.
Policymakers agree. Every
Democratic presidential candidate
called for an end to the current ban,
including Vietnam veteran Sen. John
Kerry (D-MA) and former NATO
Supreme Allied Commander
General Wesley Clark.
14
Members of
Congress are also speaking out
against Dont Ask, Dont Tell and
taking action in greater numbers.
The Supreme Courts historic June
2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas,
15
overturning state sodomy laws, also
calls into question both the militarys
sodomy statute and Dont Ask,
Dont Tell.
In 2003, for the first time in a
decade, veterans and their allies con-
vened in Washington, D.C. to urge
their elected representatives to open
the door to service for every quali-
fied American, regardless of sexual
orientation. Participants in the
event, part of SLDNs first annual
lobby day, met with more than fifty
congressional offices.
Reality television gave America two
new images of gay veterans this past
year. Jason Tiner, came out as gay
on the Bravos gay dating show, Boy
Meets Boy. And Reichen Lehmkuhl,
an Air Force Academy graduate, and
his partner, won CBS Amazing Race.
In the decade since Dont Ask,
Dont Tell became law, overwhelm-
ing evidence has
shown the militarys
gay ban to be coun-
terproductive to our
national interests
and contrary to our
nations ideals.
In this years report,
we provide a ten
year review of
Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, highlighting
the major events of
the past decade.
The failed promise to lift the ban a
decade ago. The Department of
Defense (DoD) policies that made it
clear Dont Ask, Dont Tell is a
ban. The anti-gay harassment left
unchecked that was exposed by the
tragic murder of Private First Class
(PFC) Barry Winchell. The careers
that have been ruined by pursuits
and witch hunts. The loss to the
nation of talented needed service
members like the 37 linguists -
many speaking Arabic, Farsi and
Korean - discharged from the
Defense Language Institute.
As discharges during the war in Iraq
drop to historically low levels,
Americans see first hand the talents
of the lesbian, gay and bisexual
patriots.
This irrational policy of exclusion
has cost our nation, and our security,
almost 10,000 dedicated and trained
Americans over the past ten years.
Thats more than two full brigades.
It is also one-third of the 30,000
new recruits that the Army now says
it needs to fight the war on terror-
ism.
16
It costs between one quarter billion
and 1.2 billion dollars just to train
replacements for those men and
women fired simply because of their
sexual orientation.
17
2
Costs of Dont Ask, Dont Tell 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TOTAL
$17,591,906
$281,499,971
$21,275,304
$25,047,103
$36,833,975
$26,697,265
$23,102,269
$37,010,778
$30,822,670
$33,739,921
$29,378,778
II
Kerr Richard Steinman
LCR 04598
The cost of shrinking the pool of
talent for our nations armed forces,
meanwhile, is immeasurable.
Yet today, the pool of accomplished
lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans
who have served in our nations mili-
tary is one million strong, according
to a recent study by the Urban
Institute.
18
These patriotic men and
women continue to live every day
embracing the core values of their
services: truth, honor, dignity,
respect and integrity.
From the front pages and into
Americas living rooms, proud gay
veterans spoke out about their
service to our country.
3
REMEMBERING THE PAST:
HOLDING A GENERAL
ACCOUNTABLE
While there is new and palpable
momentum to repeal Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, 2003 reminded all
Americans how far we have to go.
The confirmation of Major General
(MG) Robert T. Clark for promo-
tion to Lieutenant General was a
prime example.
Clark was commander of Fort
Campbell, Kentucky, in 1999 when
PFC Barry Winchell was bludg-
eoned to death by fellow soldiers
who believed Winchell was gay.
Under Clarks watch many reports of
anti-gay harassment surfaced in
addition to Winchells murder,
including anti-gay graffiti.
19
Clark
also implemented a policy at Fort
Campbell that led to a record num-
ber of gay discharges at the post. A
Department of Army Inspector
General (IG) report found other
troubling facts about Clarks tenure
at the post, including command-
wide low morale; inadequate deliv-
ery of health care to soldiers and
their families; and wide-spread,
leader-condoned underage drinking
in the barracks.
20
According to a
report from 60 Minutes, Fort
Campbell also saw an alarming spike
in domestic abuse cases during
Clarks tenure.
21
Despite Clarks
claims that the IG report exonerated
him, the IG in fact asked no ques-
tions regarding anti-gay harassment.
The Senate Armed Services
Committee refused to act on Clarks
nomination in 2002 due to serious
concerns about his leadership at Fort
Campbell. Undeterred, President
Bush re-nominated him in 2003.
The Senate had never denied pro-
motion to a General, let alone ques-
tioned his fitness to lead based on
his handling of anti-gay harassment
under his watch.
For fourteen months, Senators
debated MG Clarks leadership, the
rampant anti-gay environment
under his watch, and the state of les-
bian, gay and bisexual military per-
sonnel. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
expressed concerns about the nomi-
nation stating on NBC Nightly News
that, [t]here is compelling evidence
that there were problems at this
base.
22
As the nomination moved
out of the powerful Senate Armed
Services Committee, three of the
Committees members Sen. Daniel
Akaka (D-HI), Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Edward
Kennedy (D-MA) voted to deny
Clarks promotion.
There is compelling evidence that
anti-gay harassment at Fort
Campbell was pervasive, Sen.
Kennedy said on the Senate floor.
23
Sen. Kennedy went on to say that,
when he pointed to such evidence
during Committee hearings,
General Clark stated that he agrees
with these findings, but that he was,
nonetheless, not aware of a single
instance of anti-gay harassment prior
to the murder, leading Sen.
Kennedy to conclude that the avail-
able evidence indicated that General
Clarks response was not adequate.
24
Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN), also
speaking on the Senate floor, broad-
ened the question of Clarks nomina-
tion. What about those gay and
lesbian service members? What
message are we sending them? Sen.
Dayton asked as a vote on Clarks
nomination neared.
25
And in a written statement, Sen.
Akaka said he was disturbed by
General Clarks continued reliance
on lack of knowledge regarding mis-
conduct and anti-gay harassment on
post as a rationale for his lack of
action. Sen. Akaka concluded that
I could not support his promotion
to Lieutenant General.
26
Senators
Russ Feingold (D-WI), John Kerry
(D-MA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-
NJ) submitted their concerns about
the nomination to the Congressional
Record.
While Clark was eventually confirmed
by the Senate, the debate surrounding
his nomination brought the issue of
anti-gay harassment in the military to
the Senate floor for the first time in
history. Military leaders were put on
notice that Congressional leaders will
no longer turn a blind eye to anti-gay
harassment, and signaled growing
frustration with the militarys intransi-
gence toward its lesbian, gay and
bisexual personnel.
LCR 04599
4
1 3 P O I N T A N T I - H A R A S S ME N T A C T I O N P L A N
ior, and climate.
tive.
audiences.
LCR 04600
5
July 21, 2000
LCR 04601
REVIEWING THE PRESENT:
LITTLE PROGRESS IS MADE TO
IMPLEMENT THE ANTI-HARASSMENT
ACTION PLAN
The Bush Administration and its
Pentagon leaders continue to ignore a
growing epidemic of anti-gay harass-
ment within the armed forces.
Despite the adoption of a compre-
hensive Anti-Harassment Action Plan
(AHAP) by then-Secretary of Defense
William Cohen more than four years
ago, Defense Department leaders
refuse to implement the plan and
continue to turn a blind eye to dan-
gerous harassment within the ranks.
The AHAP specifically notes that
treatment of all individuals with
dignity and respect is essential to
good order and discipline.
Its words, however, have never made
it down the chain of command.
The Plan continues to collect dust
on Pentagon shelves.
In response to the Pentagons failure
to follow the Plan, twenty-two
Members of Congress, in a July
2003 letter to Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, ordered action. In their
letter, the Congressional
Representatives conclude that the
Services are not in full compliance
with AHAP and subsequent order
and request that the Department of
Defense evaluate the Plans imple-
mentation and report on its
progress.
In a September 2003 response to the
letter, Under Secretary of Defense Dr.
David Chu indicated he would com-
ply with the Congressional request.
An honest review will find that:
The Pentagon has failed to
issue a single Department-wide
directive on harassment, as
required by the AHAP. The
directive, according to the Anti-
Harassment Action Plan, must
make clear that mistreatment,
harassment and inappropriate
comments or gestures, includ-
ing based on sexual orientation,
are not acceptable. Further,
the directive should make clear
that commanders and leaders
will be held accountable for fail-
ure to enforce this directive.
None of the individual services
have implemented the training
requirements spelled out under
the AHAP. The training is to
be tailored to the grade and
responsibility of the audience,
and administered to every
member of the military.
Instead, SLDN has documented
that training rarely meets such
standards, and is instead often
treated as a joke and dismissed
by military leaders. The Army
has come closest to meeting
those guidelines and this year
took a step forward with the
development of a new training
for Non-commissioned Officers
(NCOs). Unfortunately, the
Army failed to include anti-gay
harassment training in its revi-
sion of its training regulations
this year. The Marine Corps
acknowledges its training is
inadequate. The Navy and Air
Force have blatantly failed to
meet the requirements altogeth-
er, and indeed took steps back-
ward in 2003.
No service has properly
instructed personnel on how to
safely report anti-gay harass-
ment. The services are required
to provide clear training on how
to report harassment and to
instruct those who receive such
complaints not to ask about a
service members sexual orienta-
tion. While some services have
taken small steps, most have
completely failed to properly
inform service members. Here,
too, the Army has come closest
to meeting the guidelines, but
the message is not reaching the
field. The Marine Corps has
taken small steps. The other
services, however, continue to do
nothing in this important area.
None of the services have
enforced or evaluated adher-
ence to the Anti-Harassment
Action Plan. The services are
required by the AHAP to
ensure inspection programs to
assess adherence to the AHAP
and assess the effectiveness of
efforts to address anti-gay
harassment. While the Army,
Air Force and Marine Corps
have taken small steps in the
right direction on measurement,
the Navy has completely failed
to make any assessment of its
efforts. None of the services
have evaluated the level of anti-
gay harassment. Enforcement,
also required by the AHAP, is
absent from all of the services.
Instead, complaints of harass-
ment continue to fall on deaf
ears. Credible, well-document-
ed cases of harassment go unin-
vestigated and offenders go
unpunished. Accountability is
non-existent.
6
We write to request full and com-
plete implementation of the 13
Point Anti-Harassment Action Plan
(AHAP) by all of the Armed
Services... . We conclude that the
Services are not in full compliance
with the ... . Action Plan and ask
that the Department of Defense
evaluate the Plans implementation.
22 Members of Congress in a Letter to Secretary of
Defense Ronald Rumsfeld
27
[A]ny harassment of the members of
our Armed Forces is unacceptable.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness Dr. David S.C. Chu
28
LCR 04602
All this, despite overwhelming evi-
dence, as reported by the DoD
Inspector General, on the need for
such programs.
This Administration, which has for
too long ignored the safety of a spe-
cific segment of its military person-
nel, must immediately:
Ensure full and adequate train-
ing on anti-harassment pro-
grams and the laws investiga-
tive limits. The services should
ensure every service member
from recruit to flag officer
receives rank-appropriate train-
ing to prevent anti-gay harass-
ment. The Pentagon should
also make clear that anti-gay
harassment includes, but is not
limited to, inappropriate com-
ments and gestures, mistreat-
ment, threats and assaults. The
Pentagon should make clear
that Dont Ask, Dont Tell
contains specific investigative
limits.
Provide adequate avenues to
report harassment. The
Pentagon must ensure that all
service members understand
avenues available for reporting
harassment. All service mem-
bers should know that com-
plaints are to be taken seriously
and those making complaints
will not be asked about their
sexual orientation. Inspectors
General, law enforcement per-
care providers, commanders and
all personnel who deal with
harassment must be given clear
instructions not to out service
members who seek their help.
The services must also adopt a
rule of privacy for conversations
with health care providers.
And, there must be adequate
training on how to respond to
complaints of harassment.
Enforce the policy and hold
accountable those who ask,
pursue or harass. The
Pentagon must require enforce-
ment of prohibitions against
asking, pursuits and harassment.
Commands must hold account-
able those who harass or con-
done harassment, as well as
those who ask or pursue.
Commanders must also under-
stand there are specific conse-
quences for violations, from let-
ters of counseling to courts-
martial, depending on the
offense. The Pentagon must
uphold and enforce its own rules
and regulations.
Measure the effectiveness of
training and guidance. The
Pentagon must require the serv-
ices to measure the results of
their efforts in implementing
the Anti-Harassment Action
Plan.
Sound-bites offering empty promises
to protect men and women in uni-
form are useless. The Pentagon
must take concrete steps to address
harassment. This Administration
must leave no service member
behind.
7
DOD IG Findings
80% have heard derogatory,
anti-gay remarks during the
past year;
of anti-gay harassment
9% of whom reported
anti-gay threats
5% of whom reported
witnessing or experiencing
anti-gay physical assaults.
CHARTING THE FUTURE:
THE STATE CANNOT DEMEAN
THEIR EXISTENCE OR CONTROL
THEIR DESTINY
Lawrence v. Texas
The future of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell is clear the ban will be lifted.
The question remains when and
how.
The Supreme Courts decision in
Lawrence v. Texas,
31
while it does not
directly address Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, does call into serious question
the future of a law that is predicated
on governmental intrusion into the
private lives of its citizens.
In broad and sweeping language,
Justice Anthony Kennedy confirmed
in the Lawrence case the right to
liberty under the Due Process
Clause, which, he wrote, gives the
full right to engage in private con-
duct without government interven-
Theres only one good way to celebrate the 10 year anniversary of this law:
by ending the discrimination against American sons and daughters who
are protecting us everywhere, everyday and who also happen to be gay.
Robin Gerber, USA Today
29
[Dont Ask, Dont Tell] has done the nation a disservice by doing
wrong to those who would fight for it.
Editorial: Unhappy Anniversary, The Washington Post
30
III
LCR 04603
tion. The decision, he summarized,
found that in the matter of private,
consensual adults, the state cannot
demean their existence or control
their destiny.
32
Service members, straight and gay,
have already challenged the militarys
sodomy statute, and that antiquated
statutes fate lies, initially, with the
Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, the militarys highest crimi-
nal court of appeals.
Another case already filed challenges
Dont Ask, Dont Tell using the
Lawrence decision before the Court
of Federal Claims. Lieutenant
Colonel (LTC) Steve Loomis, a dec-
orated Vietnam combat veteran and
recipient of the Purple Heart, was
discharged eight days prior to his
twenty year retirement for being gay.
LTC Loomis is challenging his dis-
charge and the constitutionality of
The Pentagon says it is fairly
enforcing the law.
33
There is, how-
ever, no fair way to implement
Dont Ask, Dont Tell or any policy
of discrimination. The truth is evi-
dent and overwhelming: there is no
evidence to support the gay ban.
Pentagon leaders must speak up for
repeal. Former Presidents,
Secretaries of Defense, service lead-
ers, senior enlisted leaders, and all
Americans must speak up and
demand repeal. As the courts, veter-
ans and the American people speak
out in favor of opportunity for all,
the end of discrimination in our
armed forces is closer, and more
attainable, than ever before.
Overturning Dont Ask, Dont Tell
is the right thing for our military, for
our service members and for all
Americans. The momentum is
building.
8
LCR 04604
SLDN estimates that the
Pentagon has deployed as
many as 10,000 lesbian,
gay and bisexual service
members to Afghanistan,
Iraq and other locations
in the Middle East.
35
As they continue to fight, more and
more stories about the heroism of
lesbian, gay and bisexual patriots
emerge. Their testimony is a power-
ful reminder that bravery and patri-
otism know no sexual orientation.
9
SPOTLI GHT
FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM:
LESBIAN, GAY & BISEXUAL AMERICANS
ON THE FRONTLINES IN IRAQ
Great Britain lifted its ban on gays after our debate in 1993,
and over the past year, I did not see any of the critics of gays in
the military here in America asking the British to stay out of
Afghanistan or Iraq.
President Bill Clinton, in remarks made to SLDN
34
FROM THE FRONTLINE OF QATAR:
CAPTAIN AUSTIN ROOKE
The Army recalled Captain Austin
Rooke to active duty in the wake of
the terrorist attacks on September
11th, 2001. At the time he was
recalled, Rooke had been working for
the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force, one of the nations largest les-
bian, gay, bisexual and transgender
advocacy organizations.
Rooke received his commission as an
officer after graduating from the
University of Texas on an ROTC
scholarship.
Following graduation, Rooke served
four years on active duty, including
assignments in Bosnia, working with
NATO allies. Like many gay sol-
diers, Rooke came out to himself
while in the Army. In 1998, after
completing his active duty obliga-
tion, Rooke went into the inactive
reserves.
Upon his recall to active duty, Rooke
reported to Fort Lewis to work in
military intelligence. He extended
his service commitment by six
months to volunteer for overseas
duty in Qatar, in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom and
for the first few weeks of Operation
Iraqi Freedom serving with the
Special Operation Forces.
Rooke says it was not easy serving as
a gay man overseas. I had only one
Now that I am back home, I can
do what so many cannot: speak
about the sacrifices made and the
accomplishments realized by les-
bian, gay, bisexual and transgen-
der Americans serving our coun-
try at its time of greatest need. I
know they are there, serving, as I
did, under a veil of silence and
anonymity. They cannot speak,
but today I can.
36
CAPTAIN AUSTIN ROOKE
LCR 04605
FROM THE SKIES OVER
THE PERSIAN GULF:
A PILOT CLOUDED BY
DONT ASK, DONT TELL
The vast majority of service mem-
bers deployed for Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom cannot be out. They
are the shadows and voices behind
the screens. Yet, without their
courage and skill, America could not
carry out its mission.
One such sailor is a Seahawk heli-
copter pilot who was deployed in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. His mis-
sions included combat search and
rescue, submarine hunting, small
boat defense and Special Forces sup-
port. Seahawk pilots are the ones
who try to stop terrorists from strik-
ing ships like the USS Cole and who
helped secure the oil wells in Iraq
prior to invasion to ensure that Iraqi
forces did not set them ablaze.
Our mantra is up in twelve, meaning
we have to go from a dead sleep to air-
borne in twelve minutes to carry out
any mission assignment, he explains.
38
He speaks anonymously, because his
name could mean his discharge. He
speaks on behalf of at least a dozen
sailors based on his ship who are gay.
FROM THE FRONTLINE OF IRAQ:
GAY MARINE SERVES IN SILENCE
An SLDN client who must remain
anonymous because he continues to
serve on active duty served as an
infantryman in Iraq for seven
months, conducting security patrols
and humanitarian assistance.
A native Spanish speaker, Joaquins
command selected him to serve as an
interpreter for U.S. forces working
with allied forces from Spanish-speak-
ing countries. An immigrant to
America from Mexico, Joaquin had a
uniquely American dream: to become
a United States Marine. Joaquin
impressed local recruiters in his home
town because he had attended recruit-
ing events since he was fifteen years
old. I wanted, he says, to give some-
thing back to my country, America.
Joaquin is also a gay American, and
came to terms with his sexuality dur-
ing high school.
At first, he brushed aside the issue of
his sexual orientation, not wanting
anything to interfere with his dream
of becoming a Marine. But as he
fought for freedom abroad that his
country denied him at home, Joaquin
became increasingly wary of serving
under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. The
ban compromised his integrity.
Reluctantly, he came out to his com-
mand as a matter of honesty, and in
response to harassment from other
Marines who concluded that his
silence about his private life indicat-
ed he was likely gay. The Marine
Corps has not yet discharged
Joaquin and he continues to serve
his country proudly.
friend I could really be open to and
confide in, he says. I did not
know anyone else who was gay. And
the environment was such that one
did not feel comfortable coming
out, Rooke says.
Sources of comfort for Rooke,
though, were the care packages that
his friends from the Task Force sent
him. Those care packages made
me feel connected back to friends
and support back home, he says.
Today, Rooke has returned home to
Washington, D.C. and continues his
work with the Task Force.
His isolated existence in service to
his country stands in stark contrast
to his career with the Task Force,
where he works on the frontlines for
freedom again for his community
as well as his country.
10
When I was in Iraq, I served
alongside some of our nations
staunchest allies, many of whom
allow gay people to serve openly.
In my own country, however, I
cannot serve openly and honestly.
37
LANCE CORPORAL JOAQUIN
What would I say to someone
who is anti-gay? If it werent for
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, I would
say You are a bigot. Get out.
Move on. Its better for the mili-
tary for him to find another job
40
ANONYMOUS NAVY PILOT
LCR 04606
FROM THE FRONTLINE
OF AFGHANISTAN:
MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF
THE COAST GUARD VINCENT W.
PATTON III, (RET.)
General John Abizaid, Commander
of U.S. Central Command, and the
USO, invited SLDN Honorary
Board member, Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Coast Guard Vincent
W. Patton III (Ret.) to tour
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan
and Pakistan with the USO. Patton
tried to go into Iraq twice, but each
time his aircraft turned back due to
enemy fire. Pattons mission which
was part of the USOs Operation
Handshake program, was to gauge
the morale of our troops involved in
military operations in the Middle
East.
Patton served in the U.S. Coast
Guard for over 30 years, retiring
after serving as the Coast Guards
top senior enlisted service member
for over four years. Patton most
recently completed his divinity stud-
ies at Graduate Theological Union,
Berkeley, CA and is now an
ordained minister.
Patton says that he spoke to roughly
700-800 troops, mostly soldiers,
during his tour. While he talked
about a variety of topics with the
troops, he also talked candidly about
his thoughts on gays in the military
and the Dont Ask, Dont Tell, pol-
icy. Its like building a sandwich,
Patton says. You dont start off the
conversation talking about gays in
the military. I had to first build
trust with the individual I was talk-
ing with. In doing so, I found some
common ground, that opened up
the dialogue to pursue the discussion
further to touch on this sensitive yet
volatile subject, Patton says.
Attitudes regarding lesbian, gay and
bisexual colleagues, he says, split
largely among generational lines.
Young enlisted troops were not con-
cerned about the sexual orientation
of their military colleagues. I
found in my conversations that for
the most part they are more cultural-
ly exposed to gays. They grew up
with it so its no big deal. Theres a
lot to be said about Barry
Goldwaters statement, you dont
have to be straight to be a good sol-
dier, you just have to know how to
shoot straight, Patton says.
41
Pattons experience shows that lead-
ership makes a difference. One sol-
dier came out to Patton because he
had heard that he was asking troops
about gays in the military, and
telling them about his work on
behalf of SLDN. Having gained the
trust of the troops, and showing
leadership on behalf of all service
members, he created a zone of com-
fort where at least one soldier was
willing to be open. The soldier said,
I know about SLDN.
42
The soldier reported that he knew
of three other soldiers in his unit
that are gay or lesbian, but they kept
themselves distant from each other
out of fear of being discovered,
Patton says.
43
When Patton returned to the United
States, he visited troops at Walter
Reed Medical Center in Bethesda.
He saw many of the soldiers with a
variety of injuries from serious burns
to amputated limbs incurred from
their hazardous profession. They are
the face of the war on terrorism that
few see. They were in bad shape.
I had to steel myself to stay positive.
The visit was so overwhelming that
when I got back to my car, I had to
cry and have a talk with God about
how deeply this event was so trou-
bling to me. They have given so
much for our country, Patton says.
44
It is quite likely that more than one
of the patients Patton saw is gay.
He speaks for his partner, also serv-
ing in the Navy, fighting for our
country, too. Weve been together,
he says, for three years. Everyone
on his partners ship knows he is gay
and, he says, at least five percent of
the ship is gay.
39
Back on his ship, the pilot finds
comfort in confiding with his gay
colleagues, but says everyone is care-
ful to come out only to those they
trust. The pilot intends to make the
Navy his career and serve for at least
twenty years. One wrong story
about life back home, made to one
wrong person, however, could result
in his discharge.
11
When we take the time to listen,
we learn. Too many leaders are
unwilling to open their eyes and
ears and hearts to the courage of
our lesbian, gay and bisexual serv-
ice members. That trend is chang-
ing as more gay veterans speak
candidly about their service.
45
MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE COAST
GUARD VINCENT W. PATTON III, (RET.)
LCR 04607
FROM THE HOMEFRONT:
A DISCHARGED SAILOR WAITS FOR
HER GIRLFRIEND TO RETURN
Unlike their peers, lesbian, gay and
bisexual service members have no
teary goodbyes at dock-side.
Communication is cryptic, to
obscure the gender of their loved
ones left behind. Separation, for
months or for years, is made more
painful by the inability to simply say
I love you in a phone call back
home. And, perhaps most cruelly of
all, the partners of gay personnel
injured or killed in battle may never
be notified of their loved ones status.
One such partner met her girlfriend
two years ago in the Navy. Jen
worked in Navy legal affairs; her
partner reads radar, tracks incoming
missiles and recently sailed to the
Persian Gulf to fight a war.
Jen has since been discharged under
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, but her
partner remains on active duty, and
plans to stay in for twenty years.
12
Being able to acknowledge their
love, Jen said, would take a
weight off our shoulders.
Although Jen said she is not bitter
about the dont ask, dont tell pol-
icy that ended her naval career, she
thinks reform is overdue. The pol-
icy needs to change because there
are so many gays serving and serv-
ing well, she said, sounding like
any proud spouse of an American
service member. Theyre out there,
and theyre fighting for us.
47
The media are filled with photos
of the worried families of straight
soldiers, including their tearful,
poignant goodbyes or their joyous
reunions. But gay and lesbian
partners cant share such scenes.
They cant access the support
services the military offers spouses.
They cant be sure they would be the
first to find out if their loved ones
were wounded, captured or killed.
Patricia Ward Biederman in The Los Angeles Times
46
LCR 04608
The decade under Dont
Ask, Dont Tell has been a
disservice to our country
and to the people who
serve in our Armed Forces.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell has deprived
our Armed Forces of the skills, tal-
ent, experience and commitment of
nearly 10,000 personnel discharged
under the law.
It has deprived us of untold num-
bers of young Americans who have
chosen not to serve or who have cut
short their careers in the military
because of the ban. The ban
demands self-denial far beyond the
already substantial sacrifices expected
of uniformed personnel and their
families.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell forces gay
military personnel to live a lie as a
condition of service. The law denies
others the opportunity to know and
learn from their gay colleagues.
The history of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell is complicated. A comprehen-
sive account of the policy, its genesis
and application, would require vol-
umes to tell. On this tenth anniver-
sary, however, we review some of the
defining moments of the past decade.
We review how the initial promise of
a more benign policy toward gays
actually created mass confusion
about the policy and backlash
against lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members.
We review how, over time, the new
law showed its true colors as a gay
ban, just like its predecessors, not a
step forward for our nation, our mil-
itary or our military personnel.
We review the epidemic of anti-gay
harassment in the ranks and the
inadequate response of our military
leaders. In particular, we review the
brutal murder of Private First Class
Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, exposing six years of
harassment and violence against gay
service members left unchecked by
military leaders.
Lastly, we examine the significant
shift in public opinion post
September 11th in support of gays
serving openly in the military. The
American people and some military
leaders are beginning to acknowl-
edge that Dont Ask, Dont Tell
was bad policy when it became law,
and it is bad policy today. It is time
for change.
13
TEN YEARS OF DON T ASK,
DON T TELL. A DI SSERVI CE
TO THE NATI ON
WHAT IS DONT ASK, DONT TELL?
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue,
Dont Harass is a statutory ban on
gays in the military, similar to the
regulatory bans that preceded it.
48
It
is the only law in America that
authorizes firing someone for his or
her sexual orientation. Indeed,
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is the only
law that punishes lesbians, gays and
bisexuals for coming out. Many
Americans believe that Dont Ask,
Dont Tell represents a compromise
in which gay people can serve in the
military as long as they are discrete
about their personal lives. Ten years
experience has proven beyond a
doubt that this is simply not the
case. An honest statement by a gay
service member of his or her sexual
orientation to anyone, at anytime,
anywhere may lead to discharge.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is an
umbrella term for the statute, regula-
tions and memoranda that comprise
the ban. It is perhaps easiest to
understand by breaking it down into
its component parts.
LCR 04609
required to reveal, their sexual
orientation.
49
exists if . . . [t]he member has said that
he or she is a homosexual or bisexual,
or made some other statement that
indicates a propensity or intent to
engage in homosexual acts . . . .
50
specific investigative limits laid out in
DoD instructions and directives com-
prise Dont Pursue. It is the most
complicated and least understood
component of the policy. These
investigative limits establish a mini-
mum threshold to start an inquiry
and restrict the scope of an inquiry
when one is properly initiated.
they:
51
52
In order
to begin an inquiry, the command-
ing officer must receive credible
information from a reliable source
that a service member has violated
the policy.
53
Actions that are associa-
tional behavior, such as having gay
friends, going to a gay bar, attending
gay pride events, and reading gay
magazines or books, are never to be
considered credible.
54
In addition, a
service members report to his/her
command regarding harassment or
assault based on perceived sexuality
is never to be considered credible
evidence of their sexual orientation.
55
If a determination is made that credi-
ble information exists that a service
mary ways. First, the command may
only investigate the factual circum-
stances directly relevant to the specif-
ic allegation(s).
56
Second, in state-
ments cases, the command may only
question the service member, his/her
chain of command, and anyone that
the service member suggests.
57
In
most cases of homosexual statements,
no investigation is necessary.
58
Cases
involving sexual acts between con-
senting adults should normally be
dealt with administratively, and crim-
inal investigators should not be
involved, except in extraordinary cir-
cumstances.
59
listed above, without approval from
the Secretary of that service.
60
Such
61
In order to
62
service members commanding officer
has the authority to request permis-
sion to conduct a substantial investi-
gation.
63
By definition, a substan-
tial investigation is anything that
extends beyond questioning the serv-
ice member, the service members
immediate chain of command, and
anyone the service member suggests.
64
lence against any service member, for
any reason.
65
There are many regu-
lations and laws that prohibit harass-
ment and can be applied to anti-gay
harassment cases. Harassment can
take different forms, ranging from a
hostile climate rife with anti-gay
comments, to direct verbal and phys-
ical abuse, to death threats.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell is a complex
law comprised of statute, regulations
and policy memoranda. The above
description, however, covers the basic
components of the law and those are
fairly simple. Dont ask about sexual
orientation. Dont investigate sexual
orientation, except in specific circum-
stances and in limited ways. Dont
harass. Dont tolerate harassment
based on perceived sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, even after almost ten
years, the services continue to violate
these basic rules.
14
HOPES DASHED THAT THE BAN
WOULD BE LIFTED: HOW DONT
ASK, DONT TELL BECAME A LAW
The prohibition of gays from mili-
tary service has been an issue since
the regulatory ban began during
World War II. In 1992, the issue
came to the forefront of the
American consciousness with the
national news coverage of the brutal
murder of Seaman Allen Schindler,
beaten to death by fellow sailors
because he was gay.
66
The murder
and the public response that accom-
panied it helped bring attention and
support to then-candidate Bill
Clintons vow to lift the ban on gays
in the military if he were elected
President.
LCR 04610
After President
Clintons elec-
tion, there was
hope that he
would issue an
Executive
Order allowing
gays and les-
bians to serve
following the
example of
President Harry
Truman who
integrated the military by Executive
Order. The political response in
opposition to lifting the ban was
swift and vicious. In the intense
political wrangling that plagued his
Administration in early 1993, it
became clear that President Clintons
promise of an end to the ban would
be blocked by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and conservatives in Congress,
including members of the Presidents
own party.
67
Congress held hearings heavily
weighted toward supporters of the
ban.
68
The Pentagon created a work-
ing group to examine the issue that
was also biased towards retention of
the existing policy.
69
Ultimately, in
July 1993, President Clinton
announced that a compromise had
been reached. This compromise was
presented to the public as a gentle-
mans agreement which would
respect the sensibilities of heterosex-
ual service members while affording
some privacy to gay members of the
armed forces. Assurances of a zone
of privacy with respect to sexual
orientation were made, as then-
Chair of the Joint Chiefs Colin
Powell promised, We wont witch
hunt. We wont chase. We wont
seek to learn orientation.
70
Military
leaders promised that discretion
would be all that was required of gay
service members, and in exchange,
gay service members would not be
subject to invasive questioning. As a
result, this new policy came to be
popularly known as Dont Ask,
Dont Tell.
In November 1993, the new ban on
gays in the military became law a
statute passed by Congress. No
longer could the ban be lifted by
Executive Order, nor was it still pos-
sible to work through the regulations
to alter the status of gay military
personnel.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell was different
from prior prohibitions on service in
three respects. First, Congressional
and military leaders acknowledged,
for the first time in 1993, that les-
bians, gays and bisexuals serve our
nation and do so honorably.
71
Second, the policy states sexual ori-
entation is no longer a bar to mili-
tary service.
72
Third, President
Clinton, Congress and military lead-
ers agreed to end intrusive questions
about service members sexual orien-
tation and to stop the militarys infa-
mous investigations to ferret out sus-
pected lesbian, gay and bisexual
service members.
73
They agreed to
take steps to prevent anti-gay harass-
ment.
74
They agreed to treat lesbian,
gay and bisexual service members
even-handedly in the criminal justice
system, instead of criminally prose-
cuting them in circumstances where
they would not prosecute heterosex-
ual service members.
75
They agreed
to implement the law with due
regard for the privacy and associa-
tions of service members.
76
The ink on the new statute had
barely dried when the promises
underlying it were broken. The
gentlemans agreement proved illu-
sory when the regulations imple-
15
I lost my son Allen to anti-gay
hatred at the hands of his fellow
sailors. My sons life was ended in
the most brutal way imaginable,
and the Navy has done nothing to
ensure that another mother of a
gay sailor in the future wont have
to go through this kind of pain.
DOROTHY HOLMAN, MOTHER
OF ALLEN SCHINDLER
As a member of the Military
Working Group assigned by the
Secretary of Defense to develop a
policy to meet President Clintons
intent to lift the ban, I can attest
to the unfairness of the process
that led to Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. There was no honest discus-
sion about whether gay service
members contribute positively or
negatively to unit cohesion. Anti-
gay stereotypes and a sense that the
military should not break with
tradition so as to acknowledge the
civil rights of gay Americans were
key features of the working groups
dynamic. My 30 years of military
service lead me to believe that gay,
lesbian and bisexual members of
the Armed Services deserve every
opportunity afforded straight serv-
ice members; sexual orientation is
irrelevant to ones ability to serve
well in our Armed Forces.
MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE COAST
GUARD VINCENT W. PATTON, USCG (RET.)
Schindler
LCR 04611
16
THE EARLY YEARS OF
DONT ASK, DONT TELL:
CONFUSION AND BACKLASH
In the first few years of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, some believed, mistak-
enly, that the new policy represented
a liberalization of the prior ban on
gays in the military. The response
from military leaders, however creat-
ed mass confusion in the ranks.
DoD failed to distribute the new
regulations, or train on the policys
investigative limits.
DoD and the services issued guid-
ance that directly contradicted the
promises made when Dont Ask,
Dont Tell became law.
The confusion generated by inaction
and missteps created a vacuum
quickly filled by anti-gay harassment
and improper investigations - mani-
festations of a severe backlash against
service members perceived to be gay,
or even gay-friendly. Conservatives
within the military transferred their
anti-Clinton sentiment and their
anger at what they perceived to be a
homosexual agenda foisted on
them by a President with no military
credibility, to the easiest targets
their gay coworkers.
81
Where once
gay service members flew largely
under the radar, there was now
nowhere to hide after the political
firestorm that surrounded Dont
Ask, Dont Tell.
82
Anti-gay harass-
ment and witch hunts soared. The
human toll mounted as careers were
shattered by an increasing number of
illegal investigations and discharges.
CONFUSION
When the Department of Defense
issued the regulations implementing
Dont Ask, Dont Tell and the serv-
ices followed with their directives,
the promises made by those who
supported the new ban were already
broken. The regulations contradict-
ed the very assurances that made
Dont Ask, Dont Tell palatable to
those who favored lifting or liberaliz-
ing the ban.
83
There was no zone of
privacy for gay service members, and
it was clear that discretion would
not save anyones career.
84
Contrary
to the promises made, nothing short
of celibacy and complete secrecy
would be necessary for gay service
members to avoid discharge under
the new regulations.
For example, in June 1994, the
Navy Manpower Analysis Center
issued a memorandum suggesting
that public displays of support for
gay activities by Navy members may
be inconsistent with good military
character contrary to Dont Ask,
Dont Tell.
85
The Navy issued this
memo in response to the discovery
that an active duty sailor was a
member of a gay choir.
In another memo, the Navy
instructed psychologists and other
healthcare providers to turn in serv-
ice members who sought counseling
for issues related to their sexual ori-
entation.
86
Again, from all indica-
tions, Congress had no intent to
include within the mandate Dont
Tell a prohibition that would pre-
vent members of the armed services
from obtaining adequate medical
assistance by requiring them to lie to
their military healthcare providers.
Nonetheless, this guidance served as
the basis for a number of
discharges.
87
A November 1994 memorandum
from Richard A. Peterson, Air Force
Judge Advocate General instructs
investigators to question parents,
siblings, school counselors, room-
mates, and close friends of suspected
gay service members. The memo
also tacitly promotes witch hunts in
that it states that commands may
take action against service members
discovered to be gay during the
course of an investigation into
another service member.
88
Nothing
in Dont Ask, Dont Tell or its leg-
islative history even hints at a prohi-
bition on telling to parents and
family members; the only justifica-
tion asserted for the Dont Tell
component of the law lay in the
(unfounded) premise that unit cohe-
sion would be impacted negatively
by open gay service. No one ever
argued that coming out to ones par-
ent would impact military readiness.
Then DoD General Counsel Judith
Miller buttressed the Air Force
memo with one of her own on
August 18, 1995, which, among
menting it were published. Witch
hunts and anti-gay harassment were
left unchecked by the Pentagon.
The promised zone of privacy did
not materialize. It quickly became
clear that far from a liberalization of
the prior regulations, Dont Ask,
Dont Tell was a ban on gay service
of the most insidious kind.
77
No Evidence to Support the Ban: Four reports authored or commissioned by
DoD since 1957 have concluded there is no evidence to support a ban on
military service by gay people. The Navys 1957 Crittenden Report chal-
lenged the assumption that gay people in the military posed security risks.
78
Two reports issued by the Personnel Security Research and Education Center
in 1988 and 1989 concluded that there was no empirical evidence to support
the ban, finding that gay people performed as well as heterosexuals.
79
Finally,
a 1993 Rand Report commissioned by DoD concluded that allowing gay peo-
ple to serve openly in the military posed no threat to readiness.
80
Congress
and the public virtually ignored these studies during the debates surrounding
the creation of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
LCR 04612
other things, instructed com-
manders and inquiry officers
to inquire into whether serv-
ice members making state-
ments of homosexual or
bisexual orientation had ever
engaged in a sexual relation-
ship with a person of the
same sex.
89
Once again, this
instruction contradicted the
stated intent of the Dont
Pursue component of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell.
DoD General Counsel Miller
issued this memorandum in
response to a surprising case in
which a service member actually pre-
vailed against the odds to remain in
the service as an openly gay woman.
This was the case of Navy
Lieutenant Zoe Dunning. Dunning
was a Naval Reserve Lieutenant
when she stated publicly that she
was a lesbian, and the Naval Reserve
initiated discharge proceedings
against her.
90
Dunning fought to
remain in the Naval Reserves, argu-
ing that her status as a lesbian could
not serve as the basis for her dis-
charge without evidence that she
intended to act upon her sexual ori-
entation so as to violate military
law.
91
The separation board agreed
and retained her. The Miller memo-
randum prohibited further use of
Dunnings successful status versus
conduct defense.
92
Dunning
nonetheless continues to serve today,
having now reached the rank of
Commander.
Commander Dunning and others
like her present perhaps the most
salient contradiction that marked
this early period of the ban - the fact
that many gay service members chal-
lenging the ban in court served
openly during this period with over-
whelming support from their col-
leagues and their commands. A
number of service members came
out in 1993 as well, when gay dis-
charges were temporarily suspended
while the new
policy was
being ironed
out.
93
The
Pentagon has
never once sug-
gested that mil-
itary effective-
ness decreased
while these
openly lesbian,
gay and bisexual
Americans
served our country in uniform.
Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer
was perhaps the most celebrated case
of a lesbian serving openly, with her
story forming the basis of a movie
with Glenn Close, Serving in Silence.
The Army National Guard initiated
Colonel Cammermeyers discharge
after learning that she is a lesbian
during a security clearance investiga-
tion.
94
Cammermeyer, a Vietnam
veteran, successfully challenged her
discharge, and received overwhelm-
ing support from her military col-
leagues.
95
She served as an open les-
bian for four and one-half years.
She was not alone.
Petty Officer Mark Phillips cowork-
ers presented him with a chocolate
cake on the anniversary of his com-
ing out to his unit, and Captain Rich
Richenbergs colleagues surprised
him with a birthday party during his
legal battle to stay in the military.
96
Sergeant Justin Elzie served as an
openly gay Marine for many years
before he left the military.
97
Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, rated
as one of the Navys top airborne
sonar analysts, served openly even
before he became a plaintiff in litiga-
tion challenging the ban.
98
His unit
was named the most combat-ready
in the Pacific Fleet, and Meinholds
coworkers supported him through-
out his battle to stay in the Navy.
99
One of Meinholds coworkers, who
admitted to being the bigot from
hell prior to working with
Meinhold, said Meinhold totally
changed his attitude toward gays in
the military.
100
For members of the Armed Forces
trying to make sense of the new ban
during these early years, the juxtapo-
sition of these successful openly gay
service members against the regula-
tions mandating discharge of any
person found to be gay regardless
of his or her accomplishments or
value to the unit was perplexing.
The silver lining in these early years
should have been the limits on
administrative and criminal investi-
gations included among the initial
guidance from DoD and the services.
The prohibition of the use of crimi-
nal investigators in almost all
inquiries into alleged homosexual
conduct was a significant improve-
ment over prior regulations. And
even though Dont Ask, Dont Tell
is and will always be a ban on gays
in the military, the limits on admin-
istrative investigations, if observed,
would have provided some minimal
protections for gay service members.
DoD and the services, however,
failed to disseminate this guidance to
commanders in the field.
101
The vac-
uum created by the lack of guidance
was quickly filled with misinforma-
tion, leading to severe violations of
service members privacy in contra-
vention of the new regulations.
Accountability for such violations
was virtually non-existent, providing
no real incentive for commanders to
learn the new regulations and
observe them.
102
BACKLASH
The confusion created by the new
regulations themselves, the vacuum
created by the poor dissemination of
the regulations, and the additional
guidance that undercut the initial
promises of the policy, set the stage
17
Cammermeyer
LCR 04613
for anti-gay forces within the military
to engage in substantial backlash
against service members perceived to
be gay or even gay friendly. Gay dis-
charges soared during the first years
of the policy, and witch hunts and
anti-gay harassment skyrocketed.
SLDN documented a startling num-
ber of witch hunts in its first three
annual reports on Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. One of the most outrageous
occurred in Okinawa in 1994, when
twenty-one service members were
questioned about their sexual orien-
tation and the sexual orientation of
other service members in a massive
sweep of suspected gay personnel.
103
Another egregious situation occurred
in the same year in South Korea,
where a young female enlisted sol-
dier was threatened with criminal
charges for allegedly being a lesbian,
after she reported a sexual assault
committed by male soldiers and they
initiated rumors about her sexual
orientation in retaliation.
104
On the USS Simon Lake, ported in
Sardinia in 1995, over sixty women
were questioned about their sexual
orientation.
105
General Powells
promises in 1993 of Dont Pursue
notwithstanding, witch hunts and
illegal pursuits were rampant during
the first three to four years of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell.
In addition to the
witch hunts, anti-
gay harassment sky-
rocketed during the
first years of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell,
and remains a sig-
nificant problem
today.
106
In 1995,
SLDN documented
ten death threats in
just one year under
the ban.
107
When
service members
reported death
threats, they were
routinely investigated themselves or
found their complaints ignored.
The case of Airman Sean Fucci illus-
trates how military leadership has
consistently failed to stop harass-
ment.
108
Fucci reported a note read-
ing, DIE FAG left in his room.
His commanders offered him no
protection, and failed to investigate
the source of the threat.
109
Instead,
his supervisor questioned him about
his sexual orientation, forcing Fucci
to move off-base at his own expense
for his personal safety.
110
Even the tragic death of Seaman
Allen Schindler at the hands of fellow
sailors was not enough to make the
leadership of the USS Belleau Woods
take anti-gay violence seriously. In
1996, a young sailor on the same
ship from which
Schindler and his
murderers hailed
was told by his
Chief Master at
Arms that he would be killed in the
same way Schindler was if he exer-
cised his right to a discharge board
to fight allegations of gay conduct.
111
Assured that his leaders would not
protect him and fearful for his safety
the sailor accepted the discharge.
112
Not all harassment was this extreme.
But the day-to-day experience for
gay service members during this
period, and throughout the history
of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, has been
characterized by persistent anti-gay
comments, jokes, cadences, and epi-
thets - on the parts of both officers
and non-commissioned officers
(NCOs), as well as junior enlisted
personnel. Hostile command cli-
mates for gay service members have
been the rule, rather than the excep-
tion. After putting up with anti-gay
language and veiled threats of physi-
cal and professional harm for long
periods of time, some service mem-
bers found it necessary to make
coming out statements as a matter of
principle or personal safety. One
such case was that of Air Force
Major Robert Kittyle, in which an
inquiry officer concluded, It
appears Major Kittyle made this
announcement after he could not
tolerate derogatory comments con-
cerning homosexuals.
113
A form of harassment know as les-
bian-baiting was prevalent during
18
Women are dispro-
portionately impact-
ed by the ban, mak-
ing up 30% of all
gay discharges
despite comprising
only 14% of the
force.
Total Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
617
772
870
1007
1163
1046
1241
1273
906
787
1994
12%
13% 13%
14% 14% 14%
15%
14%
26%
21%
29%
22%
28%
31%
24%
30%
15% 15%
31%
33%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2001
Women Discharged Under "DA, DT"
Disproportionate Impact on Women
IV
I
LCR 04614
this period and made life very diffi-
cult for many women in the serv-
ice.
114
Top female performers, as well
as women who rebuffed the sexual
advances of male colleagues and
superiors, were regularly targeted by
rumors of lesbian conduct.
115
This
may be one of the reasons behind the
fact that women are discharged at a
rate twice their presence in the serv-
ices under Dont, Ask, Dont Tell.
19
REALITY SINKS IN:
DONT ASK, DONT TELL IS A BAN
In 1998, SLDN continued to docu-
ment inadequate dissemination of
the regulations implementing Dont
Ask, Dont Tell. Commanders and
military lawyers received conflicting
guidance when they received any
guidance at all. Service members
and commands were still confused
about the new rules. Nevertheless,
by the mid 1990s, norms emerged -
some good, some not.
Criminal investigations became less
common, witch hunts decreased,
and inappropriate command-direct-
ed asking and pursuits also generally
decreased.
Conversely, gay discharges increased
exponentially. Reports of anti-gay
harassment skyrocketed. Attempts
to preserve the promised zone of pri-
vacy completely failed. The last of
the constitutional challenges to
Dont Ask, Dont Tell also failed,
extinguishing the hope some held
that the courts would lift the ban.
116
THE RULES OF DONT ASK,
DONT TELL BECOME CLEARER
While the regulations implementing
Dont Ask, Dont Tell were prom-
ulgated in 1994,
117
it took years
before they began to filter down to
the unit level.
118
Even where the
new regulations were available, old
habits died hard, and reversion to
the tactics allowable under the prior
ban, but not under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, was common
119
In 1998, DoD released its only
review of the implementation of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. While the
report white-washed many of the
problems in the first years of the
implementation of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, it acknowledged the
improper investigations reported by
SLDN, and recommended that
those responsible for implementing
the policy be given better training to
ensure compliance with the regula-
tions.
120
The review also contained
recommendations that DoD stress
the need for consultation with
higher headquarters prior to the
initiation of substantial investiga-
tions.
121
Finally, the report recom-
mended the reissuance of existing
guidance on anti-gay harassment.
122
Certain aspects of the new rules,
however, began to be generally
observed. The new security clearance
rules were one example.
123
The new
regulations, followed by an Executive
Order, prohibited the use of informa-
tion about a service members sexual
orientation garnered during the secu-
rity clearance process as a basis for
investigation and discharge.
124
Criminal investigations also became
less common, as word got out
even where the regulations did not
that the regulations prohibited the
use of criminal investigators in
administrative investigations under
125
In the
early 1990s, SLDN documented
more than a dozen cases of criminal
prosecution for consensual same-sex
conduct. Over time, reports of
criminal investigations diminished.
In 1997, SLDN reported that it did
not receive a single report of a gay
service member undergoing court
martial for consensual same-sex sex-
ual conduct during the entire year.
126
There were exceptions to this trend,
like the 1995 case of Air Force
Debra Meeks. The Air Force held
Major Meeks beyond her retirement
date and subjected her to court-mar-
tial for allegedly engaging in sexual
conduct with another female.
127
At
stake were Meeks liberty and her
twenty year retirement pension. The
court-martial acquitted her.
Witch hunts were not entirely a
thing of the past by the mid-to-late
1990s. A plea arrangement used in
a 1996 sexual assault case at Hickam
Air Force Base in Hawaii provided a
lesser sentence for the accused in
exchange for his promise to give the
names of all men with whom he had
had consensual sex.
128
The defen-
dant offered 17 names of men in all
branches of the military but the
Coast Guard, and every one was dis-
charged.
129
Over time, command-directed ask-
ing and pursing decreased. The regu-
lations were still inadequately dis-
seminated. SLDN reported in 1997
that it was still receiving regular
requests for copies of the regulations
from commanders and JAG officers.
The norm, however, was beginning
to change.
There were exceptions to the general
trend away from improper adminis-
trative investigations.
130
One of the
more flagrant of these was the
March 1999 witch hunt at the
Defense Language Institute in
Monterey, California, in which 14
airmen, primarily women were dis-
charged.
131
Another example of unlawful pursuit
was the highly publicized case of
Senior Petty Officer Timothy
LCR 04615
McVeigh, outed to his command
when AOL disclosed his personal
information including the use of
the word gay in his user profile
to a Navy investigator.
132
A federal
judge found the Navy acted improp-
erly in McVeighs case.
133
Perhaps the most heart-wrenching
example of an inappropriate admin-
istrative investigation was the case of
Air Force Captain Monica Hill, sub-
jected to invasive and demeaning
questions about her sexual life after
requesting a deferment of her active
duty report date to care for her ter-
minally ill partner.
134
Upon receiv-
ing the deferment request, the Air
Force immediately suspended Hills
orders in order to investigate her.
135
Hills partner died several months
later, and the Air Force discharged
Hill several months after that.
136
Complaints of inappropriate investi-
gations by service members rarely
resulted in the investigations being
stopped, and often resulted in retali-
ation. Such was the case of Nikki
Galvan, a West Point cadet who
stood up for what she believed were
her rights under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, when she reported a
Lieutenant Colonel for inappropri-
ately questioning her about her sexu-
al orientation and sexual activities.
137
In response to her complaint,
Galvans diaries and three years
worth of emails were seized, and
information contained in them led
to her discharge.
138
While improper command-directed
asking decreased, peer asking
increased as a new generation of
Americans entered the service.
These young Americans were unfa-
miliar with the closet as a cultural
phenomenon, having grown up
watching Will and Grace, and having
much greater access to openly gay
people than had prior generations.
139
Many of them thought nothing of
asking questions about the sexual
orientation of their peers, sometimes
causing trouble for gay service mem-
bers struggling to keep their sexual
orientation secret.
HARASSMENT CONTINUES
TO INCREASE
Throughout the mid-to-late 1990s,
harassment continued to increase, as
did the targeting of service members
who reported harassment for admin-
istrative investigation. In 1997,
Assistant Secretary of Defense Edwin
Dorn issued a memorandum empha-
sizing that reports of anti-gay harass-
ment or threats do not constitute a
basis for investigation.
140
In 1997,
however, SLDN reported that not
one of the many commanders and
JAG officers with whom SLDN
worked had ever heard of, much less
seen a copy of, the Dorn memo.
141
Lieutenant Edward Galloways expe-
rience of constant anti-gay harass-
ment and inappropriate questioning
from peers and subordinates on the
USS Vandergrift was typical.
142
When
the anti-gay climate aboard his ship
proved too humiliating to bear, he
came out to his commander in the
hopes that he would put a stop to
the harassment and ensure his own
safety.
143
Far from protecting
Galloway, the commander allowed
the anti-gay climate to persist
unchecked and offered Galloway no
protection, despite acknowledging
that a large percentage of the ships
crew harbored anti-gay sentiments.
144
In another particularly egregious
example of anti-gay harassment in
the Navy, graffiti aimed at a gay
sailor reading Youre a dead faggot
was left on the sailors bunk for
more than two weeks.
145
Over time it became clear to service
members, commands and the public
that Dont Ask, Dont Tell is indeed
a ban on gays in the military. Over
time, the rules of this new ban began
to filter down from the Pentagon to
commands. The new ban kept les-
bian, gay and bisexual service mem-
bers second class citizens in the mili-
tary. The forced silence of gay serv-
ice members and failure to address
the barrage of harassment and vio-
lence set the stage for tragedy.
20
Dont Ask, Dont Tell Hits
Young People Hardest. Personnel
under 25 years of age are target-
ed at much higher rates for inves-
tigation and discharge under the
ban than their percentage of the
force would suggest.
Source: Department of Defense
MURDER AND HARASSMENT
The tragic 1999 murder of Private
First Class (PFC) Barry Winchell for
his perceived sexual orientation
exposed on the national stage the
militarys tolerance of anti-gay vio-
lence and harassment. It represented
a defining moment in the history of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. No longer
could one ever view Dont Ask,
Dont Tell as a benign policy.
On July 5, 1999, PFC Barry
Winchell was beaten to death with a
baseball bat in his sleep by fellow sol-
diers who believed he was gay.
146
At
the trial of his murderers, soldiers
testified that Winchell endured four
LCR 04616
months of daily
anti-gay taunts
and harassing
comments from
the two killers
and others prior
to his death.
147
Winchell had
tried to report
the harassment
to the Fort
Campbell
Inspector
General, but was turned away.
Winchells chain of command was
aware of the harassment and did lit-
tle. Some members of Winchells
chain of command even participated
in the harassment.
Faggot, faggot down the street.
Shot him, shot him til he
retreats.
Cadence reported at Fort Campbell
in the weeks following Private First
Class Winchells murder.
At Fort Campbell, soldiers continued
to report anti-gay graffiti and anti-gay
cadences in the weeks and months
after Winchells death.
148
Gay dis-
charges at Fort Campbell skyrocketed
after the murder. In FY1999, Fort
Campbells gay discharges represented
3.6% of the Army total. By FY2000,
they represented almost 28% of the
Army total.
149
Winchells murder,
and the Armys inadequate response
to it, was a clear sign to gay soldiers
that their lives would not be protect-
ed in the face of anti-gay violence.
Many consequently came to view
assignment to Fort Campbell as a
death sentence. Gay soldiers fled the
installation in droves, often making
statements of homosexual orientation
purely as a means of self-preservation.
Fort Campbell was not the only
place in the military where anti-gay
rhetoric was pervasive. Rather, it
was the most extreme example of a
systemic problem across the services.
Just three months following the
Winchell murder, a Marine Lieutenant
Colonel at Twenty-Nine Palms sent an
email to his subordinates mocking the
Winchell murder and deriding the
premise that commanders should take
responsibility for the safety of their gay
Marines, or backside rangers, as he
called them.
150
In early 2000, a senior non-commis-
sioned officer on the USS Carl
Vinson told a sailor rumored to be
gay, Im not the one you want to
tell that you are gay; I will discharge
you from the Navy and send you
home in a box.
151
SLDN reported
scores of similar statements by lead-
ers and junior enlisted personnel
across the services in 1999 and 2000.
There is not, nor has there ever
been a climate of homophobia
at Fort Campbell.
LTG Robert Clark.
152
Department policy concerning
harassment is based on the fact
that treatment of all individuals
with dignity and respect is
essential to good order and dis-
cipline. Mistreatment, harass-
ment, and inappropriate com-
ments or gestures undermine
this principle and have no place
in our armed forces.
Dr. David S.C. Chu, Under
Secretary of Defense
153
We never intended to become
activists, but the murder of our
son and the Armys indifference to
the anti-gay climate that led to it
left us no other choice. The com-
mand climate at Fort Campbell
set the conditions for our sons
death. After his death, the com-
mand, including the commanding
general Robert T. Clark, failed to
take any action to correct the anti-
gay climate on the base. No one
in command at the time of our
sons murder was ever held
accountable for the leadership fail-
ures that cost us our son. We will
continue to fight for an end to the
ban, in the hopes that no other
parents will ever have to endure
the loss of a child to anti-gay vio-
lence in the military again.
Pat and Wally Kutteles, parents of
Private First Class Barry Winchell
RESPONSE FROM DOD
AND THE SERVICES
The Pentagon took its first look at
anti-gay harassment in 1998, and
discovered confusion in the ranks
about how to respond to such harass-
ment.
154
Ironically, little more than a
month after Winchells murder,
Under Secretary of Defense Rudy de
Leon issued a memorandum reiterat-
ing DoD policy to investigate threats
of harassment, in response to defi-
ciencies discovered during the 1998
review.
155
This reaction was unfortu-
nately too little, too late.
21
Winchell
LCR 04617
In response to the Winchell murder,
the DoD Inspector General adminis-
tered a survey to assess the command
climate across the services and deter-
mine whether anti-gay harassment
was truly a problem.
156
The results of
the survey, reported in March 2000,
indicated that anti-gay harassment
was a substantial problem. 80% of
service members reported having
heard derogatory anti-gay remarks in
the preceding year. 37% indicated
that they witnessed or experienced
targeted incidents of anti-gay harass-
ment of those, 14% reported anti-
gay threats or anti-gay physical
assaults.
157
The DoD could no longer
claim that anti-gay harassment was
an isolated occurrence.
The DoD formed a working group
to address the now demonstrated
wide-spread problem of anti-gay
harassment. The working group
proposed a thirteen point Anti-
Harassment Action Plan (AHAP)
and on July 21, 2000 Under
Secretary of Defense Bernard
Rostker instructed the services to
implement the plan.
The AHAP contained four primary
mandates designed to curb anti-gay
harassment: (1) training to prevent
harassment; (2) appropriate and
effective reporting mechanisms for
complaints of anti-gay harassment;
(3) enforcement of the prohibition
on harassment and accountability
for those who violate it; and (4)
measurement of AHAP implementa-
tion and the plans effectiveness.
Unfortunately, the requirements of
AHAP have gone largely unfulfilled
to date and anti-gay harassment con-
tinues to be a significant problem
across the services.
In addition to issuing AHAP, the
Administration had one final
response to the epidemic of anti-gay
harassment. Then President Clinton
issued Executive Order 13140 pro-
viding for sentence enhancement
under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for hate crimes.
158
Anti-gay harassment left unchecked
contributed to the tragic murder of
PFC Barry Winchell. In response to
this tragedy, the military finally
began to acknowledge anti-gay
harassment is a problem and has
taken some steps to address it. The
failure to adequately address anti-gay
harassment, however, has allowed
anti-gay harassment to continue in
the ranks and leaves open the possi-
bility of yet another tragedy.
22
OPPOSITION TO THE BAN GROWS
Over the years, evidence that Dont
Ask, Dont Tell has failed service
members and America has grown.
After ten years, Dont Ask, Dont
Tell has led to the discharge of near-
ly 10,000 service members and the
loss of countless others who have
chosen to leave the military earlier in
their careers rather than serve in
silence. The price to the American
taxpayer is estimated between one
quarter of a billion to over $1.2 bil-
lion.
159
The lost time, resources and
personnel caused by the law represent
an immeasurable disservice to mili-
tary readiness and American security.
The September 11th, 2001 terrorist
attacks and the military actions that
followed have brought the failure of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell into stark
relief. When the U.S. went to war in
Afghanistan, gay discharges decreased
29%, a fact that is unsurprising given
the historical trend toward fewer gay
discharges in times of war.
160
In FY2003, during which time the
U.S. embarked on a second effort,
Operation Iraqi Freedom, discharges
dropped another 13%. The irony of
gay service members being allowed
to serve during the times when unit
cohesion is of the utmost impor-
tance has not been lost on many
Americans.
American troops have been serving
side by side with openly gay mem-
bers of allied forces, including the
United Kingdom, Canada and
Australia. Thirteen coalition part-
ners in Operation Enduring Freedom
allow lesbians, gays and bisexuals to
serve openly, as do eleven coalition
members fighting in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Service members have
been working side by side in the war
on terrorism with CIA, NSA, and
FBI agents all of whom cannot
only be openly gay, but are protected
from discrimination on the basis of
their sexual orientation.
161
Even inside the military, a change in
attitude toward gay service members
is evident. Gay troops are more
openly valued than ever before.
In 2001, the Army dropped its dis-
charge proceedings against openly
gay Lieutenant Steve May, an officer
skilled in bio-terrorism.
163
An April 2002 Marine Corps mem-
orandum at Twenty-Nine Palms stat-
Studies of the experiences of our
allies in the United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada and Israel have
all concluded that lifting the ban
was a non-event. Military service
by openly gay personnel in these
countries and others has resulted
in no detriment to morale, unit
cohesion, or readiness.
162
LCR 04618
ed, Homosexuals can and do make
some of the best Marines.
164
Letters to the editor in the Military
Times publications are increasingly
supportive of gay Americans serving
openly. A January 2004 Military
Times poll shows an increase in
acceptance of gays in the military
among its subscribers, who tend to
be senior military personnel and
careerists.
165
Gay service members
are becoming less willing to stay in
the closet as a condition of service.
High-ranking retired officers and
senior NCOs are increasingly speak-
ing out on the issue. In October
2003, retired Admiral John Hutson,
formerly the Navys top military
lawyer, wrote an article condemning
the ban and calling for repeal.
166
Democratic presidential nomination
candidate General Wesley Clark
spoke out repeatedly against the ban
during his campaign, arguing that
the policy is unworkable and calling
for a new law under which all
Americans may serve regardless of
sexual orientation.
167
In November 2003, three retired flag
officers denounced Dont Ask Dont
Tell and came out in a New York
Times article, becoming the highest
ranking gay military personnel ever
to come out publicly.
168
In
December 2003, fifteen retired sen-
ior military leaders signed an open
letter calling for an end to the ban.
169
The publics attitude has changed as
well. A December 2003 Gallup Poll
reported that 79% of Americans
believe that openly gay people
should serve in the U.S. military
170
a dramatic change from 1992 when

only 57% of Americans believed
homosexuals should be hired for the
armed forces.
171
Even the politically
conservative Fox News Networks
polling in August 2003 indicated
that 64% of the public supports
allowing gay people to serve in the
military.
172
The political landscape and dis-
course is shifting as well. From the
halls of Congress to the editorial
pages there was outrage at the dis-
charge of thirty-seven linguists from
the Defense Language Institute.
The senselessness of losing Arabic
linguists during a time of war for
something as irrelevant as their sexu-
al orientation was clear - particularly
when there is a severe shortage of
qualified linguists.
173
By the end of
2003, nearly every major newspaper
in the country, including the New
York Times, the Washington Post,
USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune
had issued editorials calling for an
end to the ban.
174
Members of Congress
are speaking out
against the ban. Sen.
Mark Dayton (D-
MN) made a lengthy
speech on the floor of
the Senate during the
consideration of
Major General Clark
for promotion in
which he called for an
end to the ban.
175
In
the same debate, Sen.
Jeff Sessions (R-AL), one of the most
conservative voices in the Senate
acknowledged gay service members
have a right to be treated fairly.
176
Such a statement from as conserva-
tive a voice as Sen. Sessions would
have been unthinkable ten years ago.
In the presidential campaigns of
2000 and 2004, the shift in thinking
on this issue is apparent. President
Bush announced his support of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell
177
in contra-
diction to the GOP platform which
still states that homosexuality is
incompatible with military serv-
ice.
178
Every contender for the
Democratic nomination from the
2000 election forward has supported
gay military service, including
Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry
and retired General Wesley Clark.
And former President Clinton issued
a letter in October 2003 acknowl-
edging for the first time that there is
no evidence to support the ban,
marking a major retreat from his ini-
tial statements that the policy was a
step forward.
179
23
V
LCR 04619
CONCLUSION: DONT ASK, DONT
TELL WAS BAD LAW WHEN IT WAS
PASSED, AND IT IS BAD LAW TODAY
Dont Ask, Dont Tell has proven
itself over the course of the last ten
years to be an unworkable policy in
which nobody wins. Dont Ask,
Dont Tell provides no greater priva-
cy for gay service members than its
predecessor regulatory bans. The
rules that implement the law are
convoluted and strained. The wasted
lives and resources behind the statis-
tics of Dont Ask, Dont Tell are
becoming less tolerable to Americans
in a wartime environment and a cul-
tural environment in which the clos-
et has become, in many segments of
American society, a thing of the past.
A sea change has resulted with
respect to public support for the
ban, stemming from a growing
recognition that a policy which
deprives the nation of skilled mili-
tary service members has no place in
our federal law. Dont Ask, Dont
Tell will undoubtedly take its place
in the history books as a failed poli-
cy experiment that did a great dis-
service to thousands of Americans
discharged under the law, and to the
country deprived of their service.
The future of the law is uncertain.
The Supreme Courts decision in
Lawrence v. Texas
180
acknowledging a
constitutional right to engage in
intimate sexual relationships may
provide a new basis for a constitu-
tional challenge to Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. The Courts pronouncement
in that case has already led to chal-
lenges to the constitutional validity
of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice sodomy provision, Article
125, a provision often used to sup-
port the argument that gays should
not serve.
181
The political landscape
is shifting towards repeal. The time
for change is upon us, and the only
question remaining is when not
whether the ban will cease to be
the law of the land.
24
LCR 04620
In FY2003, Army
discharges under Dont
Ask, Dont Tell continued
the downward trend that
began with the start of
the war on terrorism in
the Middle East and
Afghanistan, dropping
to 378.
183
This repre-
sents a 23%
decrease from FY2002, and a
remarkable 42% decrease from
FY2001. As SLDN speculated in
the Ninth Annual Report, this con-
tinued decrease in gay discharges is
likely due to a combination of fac-
tors, including the war in Iraq, con-
tinued military operations in
Afghanistan, and a growing recogni-
tion by commanders that sexual ori-
entation is irrelevant to unit cohe-
sion and mission readiness.
The Armys implementation of the
(AHAP) stagnated in 2003, with the
exception of one improvement in
anti-gay harassment training, and lit-
tle progress was achieved in other
areas of the policy.
25
2003 ARMY REPORT
[E]ven as some gay men and lesbians
are being tolerated temporarily while they
help liberate Iraq, others are being kicked
out of military language training. This is an
enormous waste of human resources, at
once self-destructive and unjust. The military
cannot afford to brand as unfit for service
qualified men and women who wish to put
their talents whether those lie in combat
roles or languages in the service of their
country.
Washington Post Editorial
182
US Army Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
136
184
199 197
312
271
573
638
429
378
VI
ARMY HOLDS ITS GROUND ON DONT ASK,
DONT TELL, BUT DOES NOT ADVANCE
AHAP IMPLEMENTATION: ARMY
TAKES ONE STEP FORWARD
The Army made some progress in
2003 with the implementation of
AHAP. The Army
continues to lead the
other services in
AHAP implementa-
tion, though the bar
remains low given
that the other services have virtually
ignored AHAP for the last three
years. AHAP training and report-
ing continue to be problematic, and
accountability for and measurement
of anti-gay harassment in the Army
continue to be inadequate.
Harassment of soldiers for any reason, to include
race, religion, national origin, sex, and perceived
sexual orientation, will not be tolerated.
AR 350-1 paragraph 1-7(c)(1)
184
LCR 04621
ARMY TRAINING: A STEP FORWARD
The Army made modest improve-
ments in anti-gay harassment train-
ing in 2003. The good news is that
in October 2003 new training mate-
rials were issued by the Sergeants
Major Academy, which promises
better anti-harassment training for
the Armys senior non-commissioned
officers (NCOs). The bad news is
that the April 2003 revision of Army
Regulation 350-1 failed to include a
mandate for annual AHAP training
as directed by DoD.
The new training issued by the
Sergeants Major Academy in
October, 2003 for use in the
Advanced Non-commissioned
Officers Course (ANCOC) is a posi-
tive development.
186
This hour-long
training emphasizes NCOs responsi-
bilities to care for soldiers includ-
ing those perceived to be gay and
the tone of the training materials is
respectful and professional. Using
practical exercises, NCOs are
coached through situations in which
they are faced with rumors regarding
the sexual orientation of a soldier,
statements of homosexual orienta-
tion, lesbian-baiting, and anti-gay
vandalism. Throughout the training
packet, the emphasis is on the limits
to appropriate investigations, and on
ensuring that soldiers reporting
harassment are not targeted for
investigation.
SLDN welcomes this step forward,
having long argued that training of
NCOs is key to ensuring that the
message that anti-gay harassment
will not be tolerated is communicat-
ed to the field. SLDN encourages
the Army to ensure through moni-
toring and evaluation mechanisms
that these trainings are given in the
respectful tone in which they are
intended by the Sergeants Major
Academy.
A major disappointment in 2003
was the failure of the Army to
include any reference to AHAP
training in its April revision of AR
350-1, the Army Training regula-
tion. The regulation has still not
been updated to reflect mandatory
annual training on AHAP more
than three years after the issuance of
the Chief of Staff s directive requir-
ing the update.
187
Annual training
on the Homosexual Conduct Policy
(HCP) is mandated by the regula-
tion, as is annual training on sexual
harassment and fraternization poli-
cies. The regulation,
however, continues to
omit a requirement for
annual training to pre-
vent anti-gay harassment
as required by DoD.
Despite the failure to
direct annual training on
AHAP, training materials
on the HCP are available
online
188
and include
four slides devoted to
anti-gay harassment. These slides
explain the prohibition on anti-gay
harassment, define what constitutes
26
As a noncommissioned officer your
duty is to take care of soldiers. If
other soldiers perceive a soldier to be
homosexual, and they are threatening
or harassing him, your duty is to
correct the problem. If you violate
the trust of any soldier, you violate
the trust of all.
U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy (ANCOC) L434
October 2003, The Army Homosexual Policy [sic],
Training Support Package, page 13.
185
LCR 04622
anti-gay harassment, and identify
reporting channels.
189
Commanders can use these slides as
a basis for annual training on the
AHAP within the larger training on
the HCP, even though they lack the
dedicated AHAP training materials
mandated by DoD. Unfortunately,
most commands with whom SLDN
has had contact are not using these
training materials with any consis-
tency, and most SLDN clients con-
tinue to report never having received
any training on Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, or anti-gay harassment, in
basic training or in their units.
ARMY REPORTING, ENFORCEMENT,
MEASUREMENT MECHANISMS FOR
ANTI-GAY HARASSMENT: MARKING
TIME
Reporting mechanisms for anti-gay
harassment continue to be problem-
atic in the Army. The new NCO
training and the Army-wide training
materials contain information
designed to ensure that leaders under-
stand that reports of anti-gay harass-
ment should not be used as a basis
for an investigation into whether the
soldier suffering the harassment actu-
ally is gay. Both trainings also
include information about confiden-
tial reporting channels. However,
neither message is being effectively
communicated to the field, as soldiers
continue to express confusion about
to whom they can confidentially
report harassment, and commanders
continue to inappropriately target sol-
diers reporting harassment for investi-
gation. According to the Army
Inspector General (IG), 70% of sol-
diers are unaware of the designation
of defense attorneys and chaplains as
confidential resources.
190
The Army has made little progress in
implementing the accountability
prong of AHAP. SLDN knows of no
case in which a soldier committing
anti-gay harassment was held account-
able for his or her actions. In case
after case, SLDN has provided the
Army with specific, detailed account-
ings of anti-gay misconduct, asking
that those responsible be held
accountable. Yet, time and again, the
Armys response is to accept the excus-
es of those accused of the misconduct.
The Army is also not measuring the
effectiveness of its AHAP training
program. The Army IG recently
conducted a special interest item
review of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
training. The review, however, did
not attempt to measure whether the
training is actually making a differ-
ence. For example, the IG used a
brief survey for soldiers that asked,
what can a soldier do if threatened,
harassed or accused of being homo-
sexual? The survey does not, how-
ever, ask any questions about the
occurrence of harassment. Asking
these types of questions is clearly
important, given the contrast
between the Army IG survey and
the DoD IG survey conducted in
2000, which revealed significant sta-
tistics on the reality of anti-gay
harassment within the services.
Measuring the effectiveness of the
anti-gay harassment measures is key
to the implementation of AHAP and
ensuring the safety of soldiers.
27
ANTI-GAY DEATH THREAT ENDS
CAREER: AHAP FAILURES CONTINUE
DISSERVICE TO SOLDIERS AND TO
THE ARMY
Specialist (SPC) Tommy Cook loved
the Army and loved being a soldier.
The battalion representative to the
Better Opportunities for Single
Soldiers (BOSS) program, Cook
knew everyone in his battalion and
was well-liked. Cooks positive rela-
tionships did not help him, however,
when he came out in response to an
anti-gay death threat. An NCO in
Cooks company informed Cook, If
I ever found out someone on my
crew was gay, I would kill him.
Daunted by this threat but unwilling
and afraid to report it, Cook chose
to come out to his command and
face the discharge proceedings he
knew would follow.
In response to his statement, Cooks
battalion commander accused him
of making his statement to avoid
deployment, and threatened him
with a general discharge. When
Cook reminded his battalion com-
mander that he made his statement
in response to a death threat, the
battalion commander was unmoved
and forwarded a recommendation
for a general discharge to brigade
headquarters. With the help of
SLDN and his Army trial defense
attorney, however, Cook was honor-
ably discharged in January of 2004.
If anti-harassment training in Cooks
unit had been effective, the NCO
who cost the Army this bright young
soldier would
not have felt at
liberty to make
an overt threat
to gay personnel
with whom he
worked. If the
Army had prop-
erly disseminat-
ed information
about confiden-
tial reporting
channels, Cook
might have chosen to seek assistance
through those channels, rather than
risking discharge. Cooks story is yet
another example of why AHAP
implementation in the Army has a
long way to go.
The team leader said to me, If I
ever found out someone on my crew
was gay, I would kill him.
Specialist Tommy Cook
191
Cook
LCR 04623
ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS:
INAPPROPRIATE INVESTIGATIONS
PERSIST IN THE ARMY
In 2003, SLDN discovered a trou-
bling trend in the use of a form that
clearly violates regulatory limits on
investigations. At least two Army
installations, Fort Leonard Wood
and Fort Stewart, are using this
form. The form is a modified
Sworn Statement Form (DA Form
2823) apparently being used as a
standard investigatory tool in cases
where the soldier has made a state-
ment regarding his or her sexual ori-
entation. Questions on the form
include have you experienced
difficulties being around other mem-
bers of your own sex? Did you tell
your recruiter about your
Homosexual/Bisexual conduct prior
to entering the Army? and Did
you engage in Homosexual/Bisexual
acts as an experiment?
193
Such
questions are a flagrant violation of
the Dont Ask, and Dont Pursue
components of the law.
SLDN wrote the Fort Leonard
Wood Inspector Generals (IG)
Office regarding the use of this form
in the case of one client, Jennifer
McGinn. Fort Leonard Woods IGs
office investigated the use of this
form, and replied to SLDN that it
was approved by Fort Leonard
Woods Staff Judge Advocates office
for use in basic training companies.
At the time of writing this report,
SLDN has not received a response to
its written request for confirmation
of this approval by the Fort Leonard
Wood Staff Judge Advocates office.
SLDN continues to investigate how
widespread the use of this form is
within the Army, and is working to
ensure the Army discontinues its
use.
The use of standard forms or ques-
tionnaires in Dont Ask, Dont Tell
cases has been a recurring problem
across the services over the years.
194
DoD must ensure that commanders
and inquiry officers only ask ques-
tions that pertain to the particular
instances of alleged homosexual con-
duct, as required by the regulations.
195
28
After September 11th I enlisted to
become an MP officer to fight for
what I believe in. I lost my chance
to serve when drill sergeants accused
me of being gay and threatened to
put me in jail for who I am.
Former Army Private Jennifer McGinn, discharged
after inappropriate investigation at Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri.
192
LCR 04624
RECOMMENDATIONS:
MAINTAINING PROGRESS ON
AHAP IMPLEMENTATION MUST BE
A PRIORITY FOR THE ARMY
While the Army has come a long
way in protecting its gay or per-
ceived to be gay soldiers since the
murder of PFC Barry Winchell at
Fort Campbell in 1999, there is still
much to be done. Full implementa-
tion of the AHAP is essential to fair
treatment of gay soldiers, and the
Army must provide better and more
consistent training on Dont Ask,
Dont Tell. Specific recommenda-
tions for 2004 include:
Ensure anti-gay harassment
assessment mechanisms are
developed to ascertain the effec-
tiveness of training;
Train soldiers on how to report
harassment;
Ensure officers know how to
respond to reports of harass-
ment;
for their actions;
Utilize command channels and
Army publications to better
educate soldiers on AHAP, the
rules of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
and on principles of dignity and
respect for all soldiers;
Eliminate the use of standard
forms in limited investigations
of alleged violations of the
homosexual conduct policy.
Questions must be tailored to
the particular circumstances of
each case in order to avoid
unnecessary intrusion into the
personal lives of service mem-
bers and their families; and
Form a committee to review
AHAP implementation, encom-
passing Army experts from the
Personnel, Equal Opportunity,
Inspector General, Chaplain,
and Staff Judge Advocate
realms, as well as senior NCO
representation.
29
He can go over there and he can
fight for his country but he cant
say goodbye to me in public without
the threat of court martial.
Partner of gay soldier in the 82nd Airborne.
196
LCR 04625
30
LCR 04626
Air Force Dont Ask,
Dont Tell discharges
increased slightly in
FY2003 to 142, higher
than the 121 reported in
FY2002, but still dramati-
cally lower than the 217
reported in FY2001. The
continued trend of lower discharge
numbers may be attributed to the
Air Forces signifi-
cant involvement in
Operation Enduring
Freedom and
Operation Iraqi
Freedom, as well as
the Air Forces
growing tendency to
selectively apply
Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. During
FY2003, the Air
Force largely ignored implementa-
tion of the Anti-Harassment Action
Plan (AHAP).
31
2003 AI R FORCE REPORT
The Air Force is mission-oriented... . The rank
and file falls in line to protect one another.
Secretary of the Air Force James Roche, Air Force Times
197
US Air Force Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
187
235
284
309
352
177
217
121
142
415
VII
AIR FORCE SLIDES BACK ON DONT
ASK, DONT TELL IMPLEMENTATION
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT IN ACTION:
LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE (AFB)
Several years ago, Lackland AFB,
home of the Air Forces basic train-
ing, had alarmingly high Dont Ask,
Dont Tell discharges. This past
year, in an interesting turn, the Air
Force publicly acknowledged that
Lackland AFBs discharge rates have
decreased dramatically since 1998
due to a softening in its implemen-
tation of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
While pleased with the reduction in
discharges, SLDN is concerned with
how the numbers are now being
reduced.
In 1999, after a DoD review
revealed the skyrocketing rate of dis-
Entry-level discharges for homosexuality dropped from 326 in 1998
to 19 in 2002... . What happened? Basic-training officials set up a
system to make sure recruits really understand all the implications of
a discharge for homosexuality, such as having to convince officials
they are homosexual.
Air Force Times
198
Once they recant their statements, as far as were concerned, they
never made [the statement]
Colonel Sharon Dunbar, commander of the 737th training group at Lackland AFB, Air Force Times
199
LCR 04627
charges at Lackland AFB, the Air
Force invited SLDN to visit the base
and assist in a review of the imple-
mentation of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
in an effort to reduce discharges.
SLDN proposed multiple changes
and was pleased to see the discharge
numbers decrease over the last few
years.
Now, however, it appears the Air
Force may be lowering the numbers
by requiring service members to
prove their sexual orientation. Air
Force officials stated to the Air Force
Times that airmen are required to
convince officials of their sexual ori-
entation.
200
This requirement of
proof is not only contrary to law and
policy, it potentially exposes airmen
to discharge as well as to disciplinary
or criminal charges. Air Force offi-
cials also stated that they are ignor-
ing statements of sexual orientation
made by airmen while in training.
201
While SLDN applauds the retention
of gay airmen, the Air Forces selec-
tive application of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell is troubling.
32
TOLERANCE TUMBLES BACKWARDS:
AHAP IMPLEMENTATION CLOUDED
BY PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES OF AIR
FORCE MEMBERS
The increased demands on the Air
Force during FY2002 and FY2003
due to Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Iraqi Freedom appear
to have negatively impacted its com-
pliance with the AHAP. The over-
whelming trend during FY2003 was
a fall back from the already inade-
quate compliance efforts in FY2002,
resulting in the Air Force falling far
short of meeting the training,
reporting, enforcement, and meas-
urement requirements of AHAP.
The Air Force claims to conduct
annual training on the Homosexual
Conduct Policy (HCP), which con-
tains some information about the
Air Forces anti-harassment meas-
ures. This training, however, is woe-
fully inadequate and may be con-
trary to the goal of ensuring that air-
men will be comfortable in reporting
harassment based on actual or per-
ceived sexual orientation. The HCP
training contains only two Power
Point slides addressing anti-gay
harassment.
202
Neither slide identi-
fies to whom airmen may report
harassment nor what avenues within
the Air Force are confidential, as
required by the AHAP.
203
Furthermore, one slide specifically
states that an airmans sexual orienta-
tion may be investigated following a
report of harassment if credible evi-
dence of conduct arises during the
course of an inquiry into the harass-
ment report.
204
During our officer training
program in 2003, we were
instructed that Air Force health
care professionals are to report
statements of sexual orientation
to the airmans command.
Report by anonymous active duty Air
Force Major to SLDN
205
SLDN is concerned about
reports that the Air Force is
telling its members during train-
ing that they have a duty to
report gay service members.
SLDN was dismayed to discover
from an Air Force officer who
attended an officer training pro-
gram in 2003 that the attendees
were instructed that Air Force
health care professionals, includ-
ing doctors and therapists, and
chaplains should report state-
ments of sexual orientation to
the service members command.
DoD has stated there is no
requirement that military health
care professionals turn in service
members.
206
SLDN has received
at least one other report this
year of similar guidance.
In addition, while the Air Force has
prepared separate training materials
tailoring some of the information for
different target audiences (general
audiences and commanders, judge
advocates and law enforcement per-
sonnel), it appears that these train-
ing materials contain identical slides
addressing harassment. This fails to
meet the AHAP requirement that
training be tailored to the grade and
responsibility level of the audience.
The Air Force appears not to have
taken steps to enforce anti-harass-
ment provisions. There is no infor-
mation in the Air Force materials
about accountability for those who
engage in anti-gay harassment. The
training materials for supervisors,
Staff Judge Advocates (SJA), and
commanders should detail that
appropriate action must be taken
against anyone who condones or
ignores harassment or mistreatment
based on an airmans actual or per-
ceived sexual orientation.
207
The
current training, however, contains
no guidance on what action should
be taken to hold harassers account-
able.
The Air Force has taken some small
steps towards implementing the
measurement provisions of the
AHAP. Specifically, Air Force
Instruction 90-201 requires the Air
Force Inspector General to evaluate
the training of all those charged with
implementing the homosexual con-
duct policy, and to assess com-
mander, staff judge advocate, and
investigator training on the DoD
homosexual conduct policy.
208
Regrettably, this instruction does not
mention anti-harassment training
specifically, as the AHAP orders.
Furthermore, no remedy is indicated
LCR 04628
if a unit is found not to be in com-
pliance with requirements.
It is imperative that the Air Force
take the AHAP requirements seri-
ously. Air Force members need to
be clear that harassment based on
actual or perceived sexual orientation
is prohibited in the Air Force, and
that they can confidentially report
such harassment and harassers will
be held accountable for their actions.
33
UNNECESSARY LOSSES:
A SENIOR ENLISTED AIRMAN FIGHTS
FOR HIS RETIREMENT
After more than twenty years of out-
standing service in the Air Force, the
last thing that Master Sergeant David
A. Cooper expected was to have to
fight for his retirement.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what
Cooper was required to do following
allegations that he engaged in homo-
sexual conduct at the on-base enlist-
ed club. Despite the fact that
Coopers wife, who was with him at
the club that night, and seven other
witnesses stated that Cooper did not
engage in any type of homosexual
conduct that night, Coopers com-
mand chose to believe the statements
of two civilians
making vague
allegations
against Cooper.
Following the
accusation,
Coopers com-
mand initially
recommended
that he submit
a request to
retire.
Incredulous that the Air Force was
choosing to believe vague allegations
over multiple witness statements to
the contrary, and fearing what it
might mean to fight his commands
recommendation, Cooper submitted
his retirement request. Shortly after-
ward, Coopers command
informed him they were
withdrawing their retirement
recommendation and he was
being processed for discharge
for homosexual conduct.
During the months that fol-
lowed, Cooper fought to save
the retirement he worked so
hard for. Coopers retirement
request and discharge paper-
work were submitted to the
Secretary of the Air Force at
the same time. Fortunately for
Cooper, the Secretary of the Air
Force granted his request for retire-
ment. Unfortunately for Cooper,
his separation paperwork from the
Air Force is flagged so that he is pro-
hibited from reentering the service.
Cooper
MORE UNNECESSARY LOSSES: AIR
FORCE RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING
CORPS CADET CHOOSES HONESTY
OVER A SCHOLARSHIP
Dont Ask, Dont Tell often
requires service members to choose
between honesty and service. Mara
Boyd, like many, felt that service
without honesty was too high a price
to pay. Boyd entered the University
of Colorado as an Air Force ROTC
cadet in 1999. Excited by the lead-
ership possibilities the military offers
and the money that enabled her to
go to college, Boyd confidently
signed her AFROTC contract, pre-
pared to live the Air Forces core val-
ues of honesty and integri-
ty, and acknowledging that
homosexual conduct was
grounds for dismissal. She
had no concerns at the
time because she had had
the same boyfriend for
three years in high school.
Boyd, however, would later
be forced to confront the
meaning
of honor
and
integrity as she
came to discover
she is a lesbian.
After coming out
to herself as a les-
bian in the summer
before her junior
year, Boyd soon
realized just how difficult it was to
keep her sexuality a secret. Even
innocent questions by other cadets
became potential minefields. What
did you do over the summer? Are
you dating anyone? Can I fix you
up with my friends? Boyd quickly
came to realize that every half truth
she told chipped away at her sense of
honor and integrity. This was no
way to be the officer she knew she
could be. So, with complete under-
standing that her honesty would
likely mean disenrollment from
ROTC and a hefty bill
from the Air Force, Boyd
chose to remain true to
herself and revealed to
her ROTC command
that she is a lesbian.
Despite a very under-
standing and supportive
command, the Air Force
honorably discharged
Boyd and is now seeking
But I dont get the impression these kids are
in it just for the money. Theres something
else going on here.
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Martinelli, AFROTC at Miami
University, Air Force Times
209
The dont ask, dont tell law is a torturous
double standard for people ingrained with a
sense of honesty.
Former AFROTC Cadet Mara Boyd, Air Force Times
210
Boyd
LCR 04629
repayment of her scholarship.
Currently, Boyd has left school and
is working to save enough money to
finish her last year of college and
repay the Air Force for her ROTC
scholarship. Boyd would gladly
serve her country if she was allowed
to do so openly. In the meantime,
Boyd is sharing her story with as
many people as she can in an effort
to end the ban on gays serving in
the military.
34
AIR FORCE COMMANDS IN
TEXAS CONTINUE OLD
PROHIBITIONS:
IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF
DONT ASK, DONT TELL,
TEXAS COMMANDS MAKE GAY
BARS OFF LIMITS
For the last nine years of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell, it has been
clear that simply going to a bar
or club catering primarily to les-
bians and gays is not a violation
of the law. Under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, the services were
supposed to end any prohibi-
tions against service members
from going to these types of
bars. The Air Force bases in
and around San Antonio, Texas,
however, are still violating this
rule and have been instructing
their airmen and officers that
five area bars are off-limits to
service members solely because
they are considered to be gay
bars.
This past year, SLDN obtained
a Power Point slide presentation
from Randolph AFB listing
these off limits establish-
ments.
211
The slides show pic-
tures of the five bars and state
that they are off limits because
of illicit homosexual activity.
The slides indicate the bars have
been off limits since 1990,
before Dont Ask, Dont Tell
became law. The presentation
also notes, however, that [e]ach
of these facilities were reviewed
and inspected July and Aug
2002 timeframe. We found
credible evidence that warrants
leaving these facilities on the
off-limits list.
212
Prohibiting
service members from frequent-
ing a bar simply because it
caters to a gay or alternative
crowd is a direct violation of
213
SLDN has reported this viola-
tion to the Air Force and is
awaiting a response.
214
RECOMMENDATIONS: THE AIR
FORCE MUST COMPLY WITH DONT
ASK, DONT TELL AND MOVE
FORWARD TO IMPLEMENT AHAP
Tension, confusion, and a return to
a few old ways marked the Air Force
environment last year with respect to
Dont Ask, Dont Tell and the
AHAP. The Air Force members who
contacted SLDN during 2003
expressed uncertainty about where
the Air Force stands in its imple-
mentation of both, and a renewed
fear that they will be discharged or
otherwise punished if the Air Force
perceives them to be lesbian, gay or
bisexual. Therefore, SLDN proposes
recommendations very similar to
those made last year:
the AHAP;
Fully implement all prongs of
the AHAP;
Alter tailored training to address
different audience levels (com-
mand, judge advocates, senior
NCOs, Inspectors General and
enlisted ranks);
Clearly identify how and to
whom Air Force members can
safely report harassment based
on perceived sexual orientation;
Clearly identify confidential
resources for Air Force members
who are, or are perceived to be,
lesbian, gay or bisexual;
sexual orientation;
for their actions;
Provide more specific training
on credible evidence and lim-
its to investigations under
Dont Ask, Dont Tell; and
Re-emphasize that associational
behavior, such as going to bars
and clubs frequented by lesbians
and gays, is not evidence of
someones sexual orientation
and should not be a punishable
offense in the military.
LCR 04630
2003 NAVY REPORT
Discharges of lesbian, gay
and bisexual sailors con-
tinued to drop in
FY2003. This trend is not sur-
prising. The Navy needs good
sailors and has shown reluctance to
discharge sailors while they are
deployed. A significant percentage
of the Navy was deployed in 2003.
Deployments in support of the
Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan engaged over half of the
Navys surface
vessels and sub-
marines during
FY2003.
216
The Navy also
appears to be fur-
ther de-emphasiz-
ing its Homosexual Conduct Policy
(HCP) and Anti-Harassment Action
Plan (AHAP) training during this
time of amplified deployment. This
reduction in training is troubling.
There remains confusion in the
Navy about how the HCP should be
implemented and Navy commands
are still pursuing service members
based on non-credible evidence, or
evidence provided based on retalia-
tory motives.
35
Now Im the type whos bought into the whole
conservative mindset. I believe in a strong mili-
tary... . [And] virtually anything Charlton Heston
has to say. Still, I cant tell you how much I dont
care about someones sexual orientation.
Kenneth Lynch, aviation operations limited-duty officer, Navy Times
215
US Navy Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
258
269
315
413
345
314
358
314
218
186
VIII
NAVYS DONT ASK, DONT TELL
UNCERTAINTY CONTINUES
EFFICIENCY TAKES ITS TOLL ON
SAFETY: NAVYS IMPLEMENTATION
OF AHAP WEAKENS
The Navy made no progress on its
implementation of AHAP in
FY2003. Instead, the Navy actually
reduced its
training from
the minimal
and inade-
quate training
that existed in
FY2002.
This reduc-
tion was part
of a larger trend by the Navy in
FY2003 to cut down on its person-
nel training programs.
The only vehicle the Navy uses for
training on HCP and AHAP is its
general military training (GMT) for
equal opportunity, sexual harassment
prevention, and grievance proce-
dures. In 2002, the Navys GMT
contained just three slides out of
twenty-five addressing Dont Ask,
Every hour a sailor doesnt have to sit in training is an
hour theyre working.
Commander Craig Anderson, executive officer of the personnel development center,
Navy Times
217
GMT [general military training] is sometimes viewed as
a negative because we do repeat it over and over again
Master Chief Electronics Technician Lyman Watts, Navy Times
218
LCR 04631
COMMAND SANCTIONED
REVENGE SUCCEEDS:
CHAPLAIN RESIGNS AFTER HER
COMMAND RECOMMENDS
DISCHARGE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS
MADE IN RETALIATION
Since its passage in 1993, Dont
Ask, Dont Tell has been seen as a
perfect vehicle for revenge. Spurned
men and women use the law to ruin
the careers of those who reject sexual
advances; supervisors use the law to
frighten subordinates seeking to
report them for improprieties; ex-
spouses use the law to try and gain
an edge in divorce or custody pro-
ceedings. Unfortunately, the services
contributed to the popularity of this
avenue for revenge by freely accept-
ing allegations of wronged persons
without considering how motive
might affect their credibility.
Revenge appears to be the motive
that ended the ten year career of
Navy Chaplain, Lieutenant
Commander Karen Soria.
In late 2002, early 2003, Soria real-
ized her Navy ministry was in dan-
ger when the husband of a close
friend alleged Soria was having an
affair with his wife. Newly divorced,
but on very good terms with her
own husband, Soria provided sup-
port and counsel as her friend pro-
Dont Tell and anti-harassment
measures. In our 2002 report,
SLDN reported deficiencies in this
training. Unfortunately, in its desire
to cut down on the time spent in
training, the Navys 2003 revision of
the GMT has further reduced the
training and now provides only one
slide addressing the HCP and AHAP.
The one remaining slide briefly
addresses three major issues. First, it
instructs sailors that homosexuals
and bisexuals will be separated from
the Navy if they state their sexual
orientation, engage in sexual acts
with someone of the same gender, or
marry or attempt to marry someone
of the same gender. Second, it states
that sailors who are perceived to be
gay should not be harassed. Lastly,
the slide instructs that investigations
into a sailors sexual orientation by
their command should be based on
credible evidence. These subjects are
much too broad to be addressed in
one training slide. Therefore, this
slide, the full extent of the Navys
training, completely fails the train-
ing requirements of AHAP by pro-
viding no details on how anti-gay
harassment will be addressed. This
failure is reflected in reports from
sailors to SLDN that the GMT
trainings they have received provided
very little information about the
Dont Ask, Dont Tell or about
anti-harassment measures.
The Navy claims to specifically pro-
vide Navy leaders and legal profes-
sionals with more in-depth training
on the prevention of anti-gay harass-
ment and Dont Ask, Dont Tell, as
required by the AHAP. However,
SLDN has been unable to find any
training materials to support this
claim.
The Navy has utterly failed to meet
the reporting requirement of AHAP
that mandates that sailors be provid-
ed with information on how and to
whom to report harassment based
on actual or perceived sexual orien-
tation. The Navy training materials
state that [i]ndividuals must be able
to report crimes and harassment free
from fear from harm, reprisal, or
inappropriate or inadequate com-
mand response.
219
The training
materials do not discuss how or to
whom harassment can be reported,
nor do they indicate what avenues
for reporting may be confidential.
Enforcement of AHAP and account-
ability for those who harass is virtu-
ally non-existent. The Navy GMT
materials say little about what will
happen to sailors who harass other
sailors, or commands who violate
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. SLDN is
unaware of any directives or orders
specifically addressing the issue of
enforcement and accounta-
bility. Furthermore, SLDN
has found little proof that
the Navy is holding
accountable its members for
harassing or condoning
harassment of its sailors.
AHAPs final requirement is
measurement of the effec-
tiveness of anti-harassment
programs. It is unclear
what, if any steps, the Navy
is taking to comply with
this requirement. The Navy claims
that its Inspector Generals include
specific interest items in their
inspections on the question of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell training,
application and enforcement. There
is no indication that the Inspector
Generals seek information about
anti-gay harassment, nor has the
Navy explained what it does with
the information collected.
The Navys desire to make sure that
sailors time is used efficiently during
this time of war is understandable.
This desire for efficiency should not
come at the expense of training that is
geared towards ensuring the safety of
sailors and improving unit cohesion.
36
LCR 04632
37
ceeded through her own divorce.
Unhappy with his impending
divorce, Sorias friends husband
threatened to hurt Soria and his wife
by alleging they were involved in an
intimate relationship. The husband
followed through on his threat and
reported to Sorias command that
she was in a relationship with his
wife. Attempting to ensure his alle-
gations had the correct result, he
turned over two personal and private
documents to Sorias command.
The first document was a friendship
card sent by Soria to his wife
expressing caring and gratitude for
their friendship during a difficult
time in both their lives; the second
document was an entry he had
ripped from his wifes private journal
detailing an erotic dream she had
about Soria.
Sorias command first stated that they
would not pursue the allegations.
Ultimately, the Navy chose to disre-
gard Sorias outstanding ten year
Naval career and initiated discharge
proceedings. Disgusted by the
Navys pursuit of allegations made by
a man motivated by revenge with his
only evidence a friendship card and a
dream, Soria decided to resign her
commission and leave the Navy to
minister in the civilian world. In the
summer of 2003, Soria was honor-
ably discharged and the Navy lost an
experienced, caring and compassion-
ate spiritual advisor for its sailors.
COMMAND SANCTIONED
RETALIATION STOPPED BY
SEPARATION BOARD:
DOING THE RIGHT THING
LEADS SAILOR TO BRINK OF
LOSING CAREER
During the spring of 2003, a
senior enlisted sailor learned
first hand how Dont Ask,
Dont Tell can be a dangerous
weapon of retaliation. This
sailor found herself facing alle-
gations that she had engaged in
misconduct and homosexual
conduct shortly after she
reported another sailor engag-
ing in fraud.
In April of 2002, the senior
enlisted sailor reported an inci-
dent in which she witnessed
another sailor engaging in fraud
by misusing her government
purchasing card. As a result of
this report, the sailor engaged
in the fraudulent activity was
investigated, found guilty of
fraudulent acts and ultimately
demoted.
Shortly after the demotion of
this sailor, the reporting senior
enlisted sailors command con-
fronted her stating they were
unhappy because her fraud
report had caused embarrass-
ment to the entire command.
Rather than supporting a sailor
MIXED REVIEWS OF
A VERY PUBLIC EVENT:
BOY MEETS BOY
I was giving up a lot to be there
my job. I would do it again, but
I wish Id fought the policy.
Former Fire Control Technician 1st Class
Michael J. Tiner, Navy Times
220
There are a lot of homosexuals in the
military, and there will be a lot of
homosexuals in the military no mat-
ter what the policy is. The guy who
went on the show didnt do anything
wrong, and there was no inappropri-
ate behavior.
IT3(SW) Joseph M. Schnettler, Navy
Times
221
Fire Control Technician 1st Class
Michael Jason Tiner, a combat sys-
tems instructor based in San Diego
who taught at the Navys Submarine
Learning Center, made headlines last
year when he was outed on national
television. In the spring of 2003
Tiner found himself at a proverbial
fork in the road. Down one road
was his continued successful career
in the Navy, down the other road
was the freedom to live a fuller life.
With few regrets, Tiner, 26, chose to
live his life openly and became a
contestant on the Bravo television
series Boy Meets Boy. The program
was a gay dating show in which
men, both gay and straight, vied for
the affections of a gay bachelor. The
show later revealed the sexual orien-
tation of the con-
testants once they
were dismissed.
Tiner, eliminated
in the first
episode, was
identified as gay.
Prior to the air-
ing of the show,
Tiners command
confronted him
about his appear-
ance on the series. Some members
of his command had recognized
Tiner in promotional advertisements
for the show. Within weeks of the
show airing, and Tiner admitting he
is gay on the show, the Navy honor-
ably discharged him. Tiner decided
at that time not to fight his discharge
when his command agreed not to
conduct an intrusive investigation
into his private life and recommend-
ed he receive an honorable discharge.
Although he lost his Navy career
through discharge, Tiner received
support directly from sailors he
served with, and others with whom
he had not served. The private and
public support he has enjoyed, have
made Tiner even more committed
to advocating for the end of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell.
Tiner
LCR 04633
RECOMMENDATIONS:
CLEAR AND CONSISTENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AHAP AND
DONT ASK, DONT TELL WITHIN
THE NAVY MUST BE A PRIORITY
The Navy must lead by example.
The Navy cannot sacrifice clarity
and consistency in training intended
to promote the safety of its sailors
and unit cohesion in the name of
time saving measures. SLDN con-
tinues to hear reports from sailors
and naval officers that anti-gay
harassment is an everyday occur-
rence in the Navy. When harass-
ment is reported, no one is held
accountable for engaging in or con-
doning that harassment.
Furthermore, sailors report to SLDN
that they feel even less is being done
to stop harassment and retaliation
than has been done in previous
years. While SLDN understands
that the Navy is under great pressure
to perform in the current military
operations, the Navy cannot neglect
its sailors nor ignore DoD directives.
SLDN makes recommendations
identical to last year. SLDN chal-
lenges Navy leaders to:
AHAP;
Update the GMT training to
more clearly explain how and to
whom sailors can safely report
38
for properly reporting illegal activity,
the senior enlisted sailors command
appears to have engaged in deliberate
retaliatory action against her. First,
her performance evaluations dropped
dramatically. Then, the senior enlist-
ed sailors command reprimanded her
for referring to a civilian friend as her
sister. During that reprimand meet-
ing, the sailor reported that her new
Executive Officer (XO) initially
expressed her disapproval with the
sister reference; however, the XO
soon expressed her displeasure instead
with the sailor for reporting the fraud.
The sailors command then attempt-
ed to separate her from the Navy for
allegedly providing a false official
statement and for homosexual con-
duct. Despite an outstanding record,
including evaluations consistently
praising her efforts and demeanor,
and receiving the award of Senior
Sailor of the Year for FY2002, the
sailors command chose to pursue
allegations made against her by the
very same sailor she had reported for
defrauding the government.
Determined to fight this retaliation,
the senior enlisted sailor presented her
case before an administrative separa-
tion board and filed an official com-
plaint against her command. The
separation board voted unanimously
to reject the commands allegations
and retain this sailor in the Navy.
Unfortunately for the Navy, this sen-
ior enlisted sailor chose not to reenlist
in large part because of her experience
NAVAL ACADEMY
ALUMNI COME OUT:
FORMER MIDSHIPMEN APPLY
FOR LESBIAN AND GAY ALUMNI
CHAPTER
We want gay and lesbian offi-
cers and midshipmen to know we
have gone before them, and they
can serve with honor and pride.
Former Lieutenant Junior Grade Jeff
Petrie, Navy Times
222
[John Sewell, Class of 1990]
said the pressure caused by not
being honest about who he was
caused him to leave the Navy. A
submariner, Sewell loved being at
sea, but resigned after five years.
Navy Times
223
On Veterans Day of 2003, a
group of former naval officers
and United States Naval
Academy graduates applied to
the academy for recognition of a
lesbian and gay alumni chapter.
The officers and graduates creat-
ed USNA Out, as it is called, to
provide positive openly lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender
role models for active duty offi-
cers and midshipmen forced to
serve in silence. USNA Out
also allows gay Naval Academy
Alumni, who may not feel com-
fortable in joining traditional
alumni chapters, a way to con-
nect with their peers.
Although the Academy rejected
USNA Outs application, the
intent behind the application
received support. An editorial
in the November 24, 2003 edi-
tion of the Navy Times stated,
[w]hat the Heck, if the Fab
Five on Queer Eye for the
Straight Guy can remake the
doofusses they deal with, the
far-less-flamboyant gay alumni
ought to be able to rearrange
the thinking of some retired
naval officers.
224
For this training to be as effective
as it can, sailors need to see their
leadership participating, too.
Commander Craig Anderson, Navy Times
225
LCR 04634
39
sexual orientation;
Create accountability measures
for those who violate Dont
Ask, Dont Tell, or who partici-
pate in or condone anti-gay
harassment, and instruct all
Navy leaders on those measures;
Provide in-depth training on
the credible evidence standard
and limits to investigations
under Dont Ask, Dont Tell;
Create training tailored to dif-
ferent audiences (command,
judge advocates, senior NCOs,
and inspectors general vs. junior
enlisted ranks);
and anti-harassment training;
Alter training as necessary when
its effectiveness is found to be
lacking; and
Raise improving command cli-
mates and working environ-
ments to a higher priority.
LCR 04635
40
LCR 04636
2003 MARI NE CORPS REPORT
Discharge numbers of
lesbian, gay and bisexual
Marines dropped again in
FY2003 a remarkable
43% from FY2002. Despite
the exemption of gay discharges
from the January 9th, 2003 stop loss
covering the entire Marine Corps
and Marine Reserves, it appears that
in practice
gay
Marines
are being
retained.
It is likely
that this is
attributa-
ble to the Corps need for good
Marines in wartime. In 2003, the
Marine Corps also failed to follow
up on its progress made in 2002
regarding the implementation of
(AHAP).
41
The nongay soldiers who do not wish to
shower with gay soldiers are ideological
descendants of those white soldiers who
did not wish to live with in the same bar-
racks, eat at the same table, or swim in the
same swimming pool with black soldiers
Col. R.M. Balzhiser (Ret.), Army Times
226
US Marine Corps Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
36
69
60
78 77
97
114
115
109
63
IX
MARINE CORPS MARKING TIME ON
DONT ASK, DONT TELL IMPLEMENTATION
MARINE CORPS FAILS TO FOLLOW
THROUGH: AHAP IMPLEMENTATION
STILL LACKING
The Marine Corps failed to follow
through on progress made in 2002
on AHAP implementation. AHAP
implementation in the Marine
Corps continues to miss the mark in
all respects.
In FY2002, the Marine Corps con-
ducted a review of its training and
implementation of the Homosexual
Conduct Policy (HCP) and AHAP
and issued revised training guidance
applicable to the entire Marine
Corps in May.
227
The May 2002
guidance also indicated that specific
taskings and responsibilities to fur-
ther improve training and the
Marine Corps execution of the
HCP will be provided under sepa-
rate MARADMIN.
228
Revised
training materials were then pub-
lished in August of 2002.
While the review and issuance of
revised training guidance in 2002
was a positive step, follow up in
2003 has been minimal. The May
2002 guidance mandated that the
next annual review of training be
conducted in January of 2003.
229
SLDN has found no evidence that
the Marine Corps conducted such a
In concert with our core values,
all Marines will be treated with
dignity and respect.
MARADMIN 259/02 Homosexual Conduct Policy
LCR 04637
FORCED EXPOSURE TO HATE:
ANTI-GAY CARTOONS
DISTRIBUTED AT BRIG
We take your concerns very seri-
ously and have conducted an inves-
tigation into the matter.Once it
was discovered that one of the vol-
unteers brought the material into
the Brig, he was instructed as to
the inappropriateness of the mate-
rial, and corrective action was
taken.
Colonel R.H. Zales, Assistant Chief of
Staff, Camp Pendelton Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate.
231
A gay Marine incarcerated in
the Camp Pendleton Brig
reported distribution through
the Brig Chaplain of anti-gay
religious materials, including
those pictured here. In
response to a letter from SLDN,
the Marine Corps investigated
and determined the materials
were distributed by a civilian
volunteer, rather than a chap-
lain. Once advised by SLDN
of the distribution of the car-
toons, the Marine Corps took
corrective actions, according to
a response from the Camp
Pendleton Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate.
42
Harassment reporting mechanisms
in the Marine Corps continue to be
insufficient. The reporting compo-
nent of AHAP entails encouraging
those with concerns to report them
and providing confidential avenues
for reporting. Marine Corps leaders,
however, have not established confi-
dential avenues for reporting mis-
treatment, harassment, and inappro-
priate comments or gestures.
Marine Corps policy states that
reporting harassment through the
chain of command is the preferred
method, although Marines may
also make reports to Chaplains and
IGs. Lesbian, gay and bisexual
Marines who report harassment,
however, face the risk of investiga-
tion and discharge if they inadver-
tently discuss their sexual orientation
during the reporting process.
Therefore, Marines are understand-
ably hesitant to report anti-gay mis-
treatment at all. Marine clients of
SLDN continue to report anti-gay
harassment as a significant problem
within the Marine Corps, and the
lack of channels for confidentially
reporting such harassment is a key
contributing factor in this problem.
There is little evidence that the
Marine Corps is enforcing AHAP.
Reports to SLDN indicate that the
Marine Corps continues to tolerate
mistreatment, harassment and
derogatory comments about les-
bians, gays and bisexuals. Reports of
those engaging in the misconduct
being held accountable are scarce,
indicating that Marine leaders are
not taking the AHAP enforcement
requirement seriously.
Lastly, the Marine Corps appears to
have taken some steps to address
measuring the effectiveness of their
implementation of the AHAP.
However, despite the inclusion of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell training as a
special interest for the Marine Corps
Inspector General, neither the IG
nor any other Marine Corps agency
review or that any revised training
materials have been issued. Despite
issuance of new training materials in
August 2002, specific taskings to
improve training have failed to
appear as promised in the May 2002
guidance.
Further, while the 2002 training
plans still in use by the Marine
Corps provide a good overview of
the HCP and limits on investiga-
tions, they give short shrift to the
Dont Harass component of the
policy. The training provides virtual-
ly no information about harassment,
and while it identifies reporting
channels, the training materials do
not indicate which channels are con-
fidential. There is also only one set
of training guidance on the HCP
available to Marines, instead of sev-
eral sets of training materials suitable
for different audiences as required by
the AHAP.
230
Finally, despite the
Marine Corps policy that HCP
training will be provided to every
Marine within 14 days of enlistment
or accession into active duty, after 6
months on active duty, or, in the
case of Reservists, after the Marine
has completed recruit training, and
again at reenlistment, most SLDN
Marine clients report not having
received any training on the HCP or
the AHAP.
LCR 04638
appears to be taking a serious look at
the substance of the anti-harassment
training or the trainings effective-
ness. SLDN welcomes the
Commandants order that Dont
Ask, Dont Tell training be included
in the Marine Corps Common Skills
Handbook, the Marine Corps man-
ual of basic skills all Marines must
master, regardless of military occupa-
tional specialty. SLDN encourages
the Marine Corps to measure the
effectiveness of including HCP relat-
ed information in the Common
Skills Manual.
43
ANOTHER CAUSALITY TO
DONT ASK, DONT TELL:
GAY IRAQ VETERAN COMES OUT
IN RESPONSE TO THREATS
The case of a Marine Lance
Corporal we will refer to only as
Joaquin speaks volumes about the
tragic loss of talent and motivation
inflicted by the ban in todays
Marine Corps.
Joaquin has wanted to be a Marine
for as long as he can remember.
Years after he and his family immi-
grated to the United States from
Mexico, Joaquin made himself a leg-
end among recruiters in his small
home town when he started showing
up at recruiting events at the age of
fifteen. During high school,
Joaquin came to terms with the fact
that he was gay, but did not want his
sexual orientation to get in the way
of his dreams of wearing the Marine
uniform. He had been out to his
friends in high school without inci-
dent, and did not appreciate the
complexity of the double life he
would have to lead as a gay Marine.
Joaquin realized his dream and
became a Marine in 2002. He served
as an infantryman and spent seven
months in Iraq doing humanitarian
assistance missions and security
patrols. A native Spanish speaker,
Joaquins command selected him to
serve as an interpreter for US forces
working with coalition forces from
Spanish speaking countries. His lan-
guage skills made him an especially
valuable Marine, and he took pride in
the additional contributions he made
to the mission as an interpreter.
Shortly after his return from the war,
however, Joaquin determined that
pursuing his dream of a life in the
Marine Corps came at too great a
cost. The stress of hiding his sexual
orientation was worse than the stress
of deployment or any other stresses
he had endured as a Marine, and
fear of being discovered and scorned
by his fellow Marines became too
much for him. Joaquin told his
command he was gay, as a matter of
integrity and in response to anti-gay
threats he endured from people in
his unit who interpreted his discre-
tion about his private life to mean
he was gay. At the time of this
publication, Joaquin awaits a deci-
sion from his command as to
whether he will be discharged or
allowed to continue to live his
dream as a United States Marine.
All I ever wanted to do was
become a Marine. I have wanted
to be a Marine for as long as I can
remember.
Joaquin, Marine Lance Corporal
232
RECOMMENDATIONS:
TAKE CARE OF MARINES
The Marine Corps needs to do
much more to satisfy the letter and
the spirit of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
and the AHAP. Marine leaders have
a professional and moral duty to
take care of all of their Marines,
and bisexual. During 2004, the
Marine Corps should:
AHAP;
Update training to adequately
address anti-gay harassment;
Designate confidential
resources for reporting anti-gay
harassment;
Hold accountable leaders who
tolerate anti-gay harassment;
and
and anti-harassment training.
Some years ago, I would have
agreed with the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and then-Sen. Sam Nunn, R-Ga.,
as chairman of the Senate Armed
Service Committee. But I no
longer feel that way... .Its time to
remove this ban and stop wasting
valuable resources on investigating
and kicking out otherwise fully
competent personnel.
Marine Lieutenant Colonel H. Thomas, Army Times
233
LCR 04639
44
LCR 04640
The Coast Guard saw a
38% decrease in gay dis-
charges during FY2003 as
the demands on its per-
sonnel and resources
increased. This past year the
Coast Guard was required to expand
beyond its duty of guarding home-
land shores to engaging in security
duties overseas in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. More Coast Guard per-
sonnel and equipment are deployed
abroad now than at any other time
since the Vietnam War. This over-
seas
deploy-
ment,
combined
with the
high vol-
ume of
ships com-
ing in and
out of
United States ports, has pushed the
Coast Guard to its limits.
Acknowledging the increased
demands on the Coast Guard this
past year, it is still disappointing that
the Coast Guards promised Dont
Ask, Dont Tell training revisions
have not yet been completed.
Further, there are indications that
delays in completing the training
revisions have resulted in continuing
command violations of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell.
45
From the Mediterranean Sea to the
Persian Gulf, the homeland-focused Coast
Guard is engaged in its largest overseas
deployment since the Vietnam War.
Navy Times
234
US Coast Guard Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges 1994-2003
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
15
12
10
14
12
19
14
29
18
X
2003 COAST GUARD REPORT
THE NEW COAST GUARD STRUGGLES
WITH DONT ASK, DONT TELL UNDER
HEIGHTENED DEMANDS ON PERSONNEL
SECURITY AND SAFETY CONFLICT:
ANOTHER YEAR PASSES WITHOUT
THE COAST GUARD COMPLETING
ANTI-HARASSMENT TRAINING
Individual Coast Guard commands
struggled this year with implement-
ing Dont Ask, Dont Tell and the
(AHAP) without clear guidance
from above. The Coast Guard has
taken some steps towards revamping
its execution of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell and its compliance with the
AHAP. Specifically, the Coast
Guard added Dont Pursue and
Dont Harass language to its
Personnel Manual section addressing
236
Importantly, the addition included
the statement that, [h]arassment
can take different forms, ranging
from innocent comments and jokes
Safety and security are both sides of
the same coin, and we cant ignore
safety at the expense of security.
Rear Admiral Paul J. Pluta, Navy Times
235
LCR 04641
causing a hostile climate, to direct
verbal or physical abuse.
237
Unfortunately, any additional
progress on AHAP implementation
has slowed significantly. The Coast
Guard still has not completed the
training modifications on anti-
harassment and Dont Ask, Dont
Tell promised in 2001. Therefore,
SLDN finds that the Coast Guard
has yet to meet any of the require-
ments outlined in the four compo-
nents of the AHAP.
The Coast Guard has assured SLDN
that it plans to fulfill its commit-
ment and provide additional guid-
ance regarding anti-gay harassment
in the Equal Opportunity curricu-
lum it is currently revising.
Currently, SLDNs understanding is
that the Equal Opportunity officer
for each command has been tasked
with temporarily altering their train-
ing material to reflect the changes to
the personnel manual. This tempo-
rary measure is intended to fill the
gap until the permanent changes to
the Equal Opportunity curriculum
are finished. The Coast Guard has
informed SLDN that completion of
its changes to the Equal
Opportunity curriculum is targeted
for the spring of 2004.
As of the publication date for this
report, SLDN had received,
reviewed, and offered recommenda-
tions to the Coast Guard regarding
their draft Equal Opportunity cur-
riculum alterations. SLDN urges
the Coast Guard to make AHAP
implementation a priority. The safe-
ty of Coast Guard members, in their
person and in their jobs, helps to
ensure the security of our ports and
of our other service members
abroad.
46
FACT AND RUMOR CLASH:
IN VIOLATION OF DONT ASK,
DONT TELL, COAST GUARDSMAN
JUSTIN PEACOCK IS INVESTIGATED
BASED ON RUMOR AND CONJECTURE
Delays in
revising
Coast
Guard
training,
combined
with
incomplete
implemen-
tation of
the AHAP,
has cost
the Coast
Guard and its members dearly.
Individual guardsmen pay through
the loss of their careers; the Coast
Guard pays through losing valuable
personnel at a time when it can least
afford it. One example is Seaman
Justin Peacock.
When Peacock joined the Coast
Guard he never imagined he would
spend almost a year of his enlistment
fighting to keep his job. A good
guardsman, Peacock never thought
his command would begin an inves-
tigation, and move to discharge him,
based on rumors and an offhand
comment made in response to
harassment. Unfortunately, this is
exactly what happened to Peacock
this last year.
Shortly after reporting for duty at
Cape Disappointment, Peacock
became the subject of rumors that
he was gay. Peacock endured jokes
and comments for months until dur-
ing the summer of 2002 Peacock
reported to his Executive Officer
that another guardsman, Seaman
Bilby, was repeatedly harassing him
calling him a faggot. Following
Peacocks report, it appears that the
Executive Officer admonished Bilby
for the comment but then asked
Bilby if he had any evidence that
Peacock is gay. This was clearly an
inappropriate response by the com-
mand to a report of harassment.
238
Even more disturbingly, it appears
Peacocks Executive Officer and
Chief then began an inappropriate
investigation by questioning other
guardsmen about their knowledge of
Peacocks sexual orientation. An
investigation based on rumors, spec-
ulation and the allegation of a dis-
gruntled witness violates the require-
ment that credible evidence from a
reliable source be presented prior to
initiating an investigation.
239
Peacocks Executive Officer and
Chief further violated Dont Ask,
Dont Tell by apparently conduct-
ing this investigation without prior
approval by Peacocks Commanding
Officer.
240
In the fall of 2002, Peacock was
notified that he was under investiga-
tion and immediately contacted
SLDN. Determined to remain in
the Coast Guard, Peacock fought
fiercely for retention by requesting
to appear before an administrative
discharge board. At the board, evi-
dence revealed that Peacocks com-
mand had violated Dont Ask,
Dont Tell repeatedly. Interviews
with fellow guardsman showed that
the workplace was rife with direct
and indirect anti-gay harassment.
Peacock had faced numerous rumors
about his perceived sexual orienta-
tion and was not the only guards-
man at the command to face such
rumors. Furthermore, Peacocks was
not the only inappropriate investiga-
tion within the command. At
Peacocks discharge board, it was
revealed that another guardsman in
the same command was also investi-
gated regarding his sexual orienta-
tion apparently based on rumor
alone.
Ultimately, Peacock lost his case
before the discharge board which
recommended his dismissal based
Peacock
LCR 04642
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THE COAST GUARD IN 2004
SHOULD FULFILL ITS PROMISES
Following a year that saw tremen-
dous demands placed on the Coast
Guard to protect the homeland and
our troops abroad, SLDN remains
cautiously optimistic that the Coast
Guard will fulfill its promises of
improving training and implementa-
tion of Dont Ask, Dont Tell and
the AHAP. Similar to our recom-
mendations of last year, SLDN
hopes the Coast Guards revised
training is completed this year and
that the Coast Guard:
Maintain a dialogue with
SLDN on training and imple-
mentation of Dont Ask, Dont
Tell and the AHAP;
Ensure that anti-harassment
specifically addresses harassment
based on perceived sexual orien-
tation;
Clearly identify to whom, and
how Coast Guard members can
safely report anti-gay harass-
ment;
Clearly identify safe spaces for
Coast Guard members to
receive confidential counseling;
Provide examples of harassment,
including name-calling and
jokes, using anti-gay language;
and
Provide clear guidance to Coast
Guard commands on credible
evidence and investigative lim-
its under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell.
The new training should use blunt,
specific language to clarify to all
members of the Coast Guard that
anti-gay harassment is unacceptable
and that those using anti-gay epi-
thets, or otherwise engaging in anti-
gay harassment, will be held
accountable.
Safety and security of Coast
Guardsmen should remain as high a
priority as the inspection of ships
entering and leaving our harbors.
SLDN challenges the Coast Guard
to complete the work it started on
revamping its training in an effort to
ensure the safety of it members and
move it closer to compliance with
the AHAP.
largely on an off-hand comment
Peacock made to co-workers after
other guardsmen repeatedly teased
him about being gay. Almost every
witness to this alleged statement tes-
tified that Peacock was frustrated
with the incessant ridicule and
rumors he was enduring and when
he was once again harassed and
asked if he was gay while on watch
duty, he responded by saying Yeah,
whatever. One witness even testi-
fied that she felt Peacock made the
statement to get the harasser off his
back. Despite this testimony, the
board ruled to honorably discharge
Peacock.
SLDN appealed to the Coast Guard
Assistant Commandant for Personnel
and requested the Commandant
reject the boards decision and allow
Peacock to remain in the Coast
Guard. Unfortunately, the
Commandant confirmed the dis-
charge boards decision and dis-
charged Peacock. Adding insult to
injury, the Coast Guard then tried to
improperly recoup against Peacock
for his enlistment bonus. SLDN was
forced to intercede on Peacocks
behalf and was successful in stopping
the attempt to recoup the bonus.
It is also troubling that while
Peacocks career in the Coast Guard
is over, there is no indication that
any steps have been taken to repri-
mand the guardsmen who were
harassing Peacock and other guards-
men in the command. There is also
no evidence that the command has
held Peacocks Chief and Executive
Officer accountable for conducting
improper investigations.
47
LCR 04643
END NOTES
1
Editorial, No Gays Except . . ., WASH. POST,
March 26, 2003 at A16.
2
Tom Oliphant, Gays In Military See An Easing Of
Discrimination, BOSTON GLOBE, April 8, 2003
at A23.
3
Whenever gay is used throughout this report, it
is used as an all-inclusive term for lesbian, gay and
bisexual.
4
For documentation on the decrease in discharges
of lesbians, gays and bisexuals during World War II,
the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War see
RANDY SHILTS, CONDUCT UNBECOMING (St.
Martins Press, 1993) 70-71,163,210,355-
57,387,569-570,575,741,745-6.
5
Eleven allied counties with troops in Operation
Iraqi Freedom allow open service: Australia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Spain and Great
Britain. Thirteen coalition partners in Operation
Enduring Freedom allow lesbian, gay and bisexual
troops to serve openly: Australia, Belgium, Canada,
Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Spain.
6
Exec. Order No. 13087, 63 Fed. Reg. 30097 (Jun.
2, 1998).
7
John Files, Gay Ex-Officers Say Dont Ask Doesnt
Work, N.Y. TIMES, December 10, 2003 at A18.
8
Those endorsing the statement include: BG Keith
H. Kerr, CSMR (Ret.), BG Virgil A. Richard, USA
(Ret.) and RADM Alan M. Steinman, USCG
(Ret.). The three were joined by COL Robert V.
Barnes, Jr., USA (Ret.); COL Graham E. Beard,
USA (Ret.); COL Margarethe Cammermeyer, USA
(Ret.); MG Vance Coleman, USA (Ret.); COL Paul
W. Dodd, USA (Ret.); BG Evelyn P. Foote, USA
(Ret.); former Assistant Secretary of Defense
Lawrence Korb; COL Eugene A. Andy Leonard,
USA (Ret.); MCPOCG Vincent W. Patton III,
USCG (Ret.); CAPT Mike Rankin, USNR (Ret.);
and MG Charles Starr, Jr., USAR (Ret.).
9
Letter from William Jefferson Clinton to
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, [here-
inafter Clinton Letter], (Aug. 12, 2003) (on file at
http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTI-
CLES/pdf_file/1163.pdf ).
10
Gallup Poll, Public OK with Gays, Women in the
Military, December 23, 2003.
11
See Dana Blanton, Majority Opposes Same-Sex
Marriage, FOX NEWS, August 26, 2003, available at
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,35
66,95753,00.html, describing the National Poll con-
ducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation where
question 5 Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly
in the military? resulted in 64% in favor.
12
Gallup Poll, Do You Think Homosexuals Should
Or Should Not Be Hired For Each Of The Following
Occupations?, June 1992.
13
Editorial, Law Schools, Gays And The Military,
N.Y. TIMES, October 5, 2003 sec. 4 p12;
Editorial, No Gays Except . . ., WASH. POST, March
26, 2003 at A16; Editorial, Still No Gay Linguists,
WASH. POST., April 16, 2003 at A26; Editorial,
Unhappy Anniversary, WASH. POST, November 30,
2003 at B6; Robin Gerber, End Decade-Old Dont
Ask Policy, USA TODAY, November 26, 2003 at
A25; Editorial, A Self-Inflicted Military Wound,
CHIC. TRIB., December 5, 2003 at C24;
Editorial, Let Gays Serve, NEW ORLEANS TIMES-
PICAYUNE, March 28, 2003; Editorial, The Price
of Not Telling, LA TIMES, December 21, 2003 at
M4.
14
See Lisa Neff, Presidential Candidates Attack
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, CHICAGO FREE PRESS,
November 12, 2003.; see also, Gay Today,
Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Support Gays In The
Military, GAY TODAY.COM, November 5, 2003.
15
Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003).
16
See George Cahlink, Army May Temporarily Boost
Troop Size, GOV. EXEC., January 28, 2004, available at
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0104/012804g1.htm.
17
Id.
18
Gary Gates, Gay Veterans Top One Million,
URBAN INSTITUTE, July 9, 2003.
19
SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK,
CONDUCT UNBECOMING THE 9TH ANNUAL
REPORT ON DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT
PURSUE, DONT HARASS 23-24 (2003) [hereinafter
SLDN 9TH ANNUAL REPORT].
20
Department of the Army Inspector General
(DAIG), DAIG Special Assessment / Investigation Of
Allegations Of Violations Of The DOD Homosexual
Conduct Policy At Fort Campbell, July 2000
21
Michael Radutzky, The War At Home,
[Transcript], CBS 60 MINUTES, January 17, 1999.
22
Tom Brokaw, Mother Tries To Prevent Promotion
Of General Who Commanded A Base Where Her Son
Was Killed For Being Gay, NBC Nightly News, June
17, 2003.
23
CONG. REC. S15030, Executive Session (daily
ed. November 18, 2003) (statement of Sen.
Kennedy).
24
Id.
25
CONG. REC. S15040, Executive Session (daily
ed. November 18, 2003) (statement of Sen.
Dayton).
26
CONG. REC. S15029, Executive Session, (daily
ed. November 18, 2003) (statement of Sen. Akaka).
27
Letter from 22 Members of Congress to Donald
Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, July 23, 2003.
e
28
See Letter from David S. Chu, Under Secretary
of Defense, to James Langevin, House of
Representative, September 25, 2003, responding to
the letter from the 22 Members of Congress.
e
29
Robin Gerber, USA Today: End Decade-Old
Dont Ask Policy, USA TODAY, November 26,
2003 at A25.
30
Editorial, Unhappy Anniversary, WASH. POST,
November 30, 2003 at B6.
31
Lawrence, supra note 15.
32
Id., at 2484
33
See Highest Ranking Military Officers To Date
Come Out, N.Y. TIMES, December 10, 2003.
34
See Clinton Letter, supra note 9.
35
Estimate based on conservative estimate that 5% of
the American population is gay. (See Gay and Lesbian
Families in the United States, David M. Smith and Gary
Gates, Urban Institute available at
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=1000491). Over
200,000 service members have been deployed over seas in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom. (See http://www.defenselink.mil).
36
Email from Austin Rooke to SLDN (February 5,
2004).
37
Phone Communication from Lance Corporal
Joaquin to SLDN (October 29, 2003).
38
Email from anonymous service member to
SLDN (February 5, 2004).
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Email from Vince Patton to SLDN (February 5,
2004).
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Id.
46
Patricia Ward Biederman, For Gays, Secrecy In
Love, War, LA TIMES, April 17, 2003 at A1.
47
Id.
48
C. Dixon Osburn, Symposium: Dont Ask, Dont
Tell: Gays in the Military A Policy in Desperate Search
of a Rationale: The Militarys Policy on Lesbians, Gays
and Bisexuals, 64 UMKC L. REV. 199 (1995).
49
Enlisted Administrative Separations [hereinafter
DODD 1332.14] at E3.A4.1.4.3; DEPT OF
DEFENSE INSTRUCTION 1332.40, Separation
Procedures for Regular and Reserve Commissioned
Officers [hereinafter DODI 1332.40] at E8.4.3.
50
E3.A1.1.8.1.1; DODI 1332.40, supra note 49, at
E2.3.
51
E2.3.
52
E3.A4.1.1.1; DODI 1332.40, supra note 49, at
E8.1.1.
53
See Id.
54
E.8.3.3.4.
55
See Memorandum from Rudy de Leon, Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel &Readiness), to the
Secretaries of the Military Departments, Guidelines
for Investigating Threats Against or Harassment of
Service Members Based on Alleged Homosexuality
(Aug. 12, 1999) [hereinafter de Leon 1999
Implementation Memo].
e
56
E8.1.3.
57
See Report to the Secretary of Defense from
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel &
Readiness), Review Of The Effectiveness Of The
Application And Enforcement Of The Departments
Policy On Homosexual Conduct In The Military, April
1998 [hereinafter Under Secretary of Defense
(P&R) 1998 Report]; see also de Leon 1999
58
59
See generally, DEPT OF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION
48
LCR 04644
5505.8, Investigations of Sexual Misconduct by the
Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations and
Other DoD Law Enforcement Organizations (2000)
[hereinafter DODI 5505.8].
60
E8.1.3.; see also, Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)
1998 Report, supra note 57, at 11,12; see also, de
Leon 1999 Implementation Memo, supra note 55.
61
62
See DoDD 1332.14, supra note 49, at
E3.A4.1.3.1.
63
See de Leon 1999 Implementation Memo, supra
note 55.
64
65
Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment,
and Induction: Applicant Briefing Item on Separation
Policy, addendum (1993) [hereinafter DoDD
1304.26 addendum]. The Armed Forces do not
tolerate harassment or violence against any service
member, for any reason. Id.
66
Cheryl Lavin, Strange Case of a Dead Sailor, Was
Allen Schindler Killed Because He Was Gay?, CHI.
TRIB., Dec. 21, 1992, at C1.
67
See JANET E. HALLEY, DONT: A READERS GUIDE
TO THE MILITARYS ANTI-GAY POLICY 20-22 (1999).
68
139 Cong. Rec. S11157 (daily ed. Sep. 9, 1993)
(statement of Sen. Kennedy).
69
Thomas W. Lippman, Pentagon Studies Conflict
on Effect of Gays in the Military, WASH. POST, Aug.
27, 1993, at A10.
70
Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed
Forces: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on the
Armed Services, 103d Cong., 707 (1993) (statment
of Gen. Colin Powell) [hereinafter Powell
Statement].
71
Id., [H]omosexuals have privately served well in
the past and are continuing to serve well today. Id.
72
DODD 1332.14, supra note 49 at E3.A1.1.8.1.1;
DODI 1332.40, supra note 49, at E2.3. A members
sexual orientation is considered a personal and pri-
vate matter, and is not a bar to continued service . . .
unless manifested by homosexual conduct . . . . Id.
73
Powell Statement, supra note 70, at 709. We
will not ask, we will not witch hunt, we will not
seek to learn orientation. Id.
74
DoDD 1304.26 addendum, supra note 65.
The Armed Forces do not tolerate harassment or
violence against any service member, for any rea-
son. Id.
75
Memorandum from Les Aspin, Secretary of
Defense, to the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, Implementation of the DoD Policy on
Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces (Dec. 21,
1993) [hereinafter Les Aspin Memo].
e
[The new
policy] provides that investigations into sexual mis-
conduct will be conducted in an evenhanded manner,
without regard to whether the alleged misconduct
involves homosexual or heterosexual conduct. Id.
76
See PUB. PAPERS William J. Clinton, 1993, vol.
1, p. 1111. President Clinton pledged that the poli-
cy would provide for a decent regard for the legiti-
mate privacy and associational rights of all service
members. Id. Then Senator William Cohen
understood that the small amount of privacy under
the current policy was intended to prevent the mili-
tary from prying into peoples private lives. See,
Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces:
Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Armed Services,
103d Cong. 787 (statement of Sen. William
Cohen).
77
Opposition in Congress to the idea of liberalizing
the policy on gays in the military did not end when
President Clinton signed the bill into law on
November 30, 1993. On July 31, 1996,
Congressmen Dornan, Hunter, Chambliss, Stearns
and Crane introduced a bill to reinstate the pre-
Dont Ask, Dont Tell regulations allowing the
services to ask about sexual orientation and pursue
personnel perceived to be gay. The bill passed the
House of Representatives, but ultimately failed to
become law.
78
Report of the Board of Appointed to Prepare and
Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy
for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives
Dealing with Homosexuality (Mar. 15, 1957)
Crittenden Report.
79
Theodore R. Sarbin, Ph.D. & Kenneth E.
Karols, M.D., Ph.D., Defense Personnel Security
Research and Education Center, Nonconforming
Sexual Orientation and Military Suitability (Dec.
1988); M. McDaniel, Defense Personnel Security
Research and Education Center, Preservice Adjustment
of Homosexual and Heterosexual Military Accessions:
Implications for Security Clearance Suitability (1999).
80
RAND Corp., Sexual Orientation and U.S.
Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment,
National Defense Research Institute (1993).
81
The DoD Working Groups findings foreshad-
owed this dynamic. Lifting the ban on homosexu-
als serving in the military would be perceived by
many service members as the imposition of a politi-
cal agenda by a small group - an agenda which is
seen as having no military necessity and as being, in
fact, destructive to the finest fighting force in the
world. Morale would suffer accordingly. DoD
MWG report at 5. Gary Lehring describes the anti-
gay harassment sparked by President Clintons new
policy. Following a period in which the military
fought long and hard to keep gay and lesbian servi-
cepersons out of the armed forces, the increased
attention directed new waves of hatred at anyone in
the military who was suspected of being gay or les-
bian. Seen as political rather than military, the
national debate over lifting the ban against gays in
the armed forces had the long-lasting effect of mak-
ing any service member who was suspected of being
gay or lesbian an even greater target than before.
[G]ay men and lesbians were increasingly considered
fair game by fellow soldiers. [H]aving more than
failed to create real change, the Clinton policy had
seemingly created a more dangerous environment
for gay men and lesbians in the military. GARY
LEHRING, OFFICIALLY GAY: THE POLITICAL
CONSTRUCTION OF SEXUALITY BY THE U.S.
MILITARY 141-142 (2003). SLDNs First Annual
Report also provides insight into the anti-Clinton
sentiment in the military during this time, and its
effect on gay service members. An alarming num-
ber of command violations documented by SLDN
result from outright insubordination, not lack of
information or inadequate training. These viola-
tions are fueled, in part, by a climate of backlash in
many units. The controversy over President
Clintons proposal to lift the ban charged the atmos-
phere in the military and focused unprecedented
attention on the private lives of servicemembers...
.In this climate, many commanders and others have
taken the Congressional vote against lifting the ban
as a license to go after those whom they suspect are
gay. As Lawrence J. Korb, former Assistance
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
under President Reagan stated, I think the mili-
tary feels they have beaten Clinton back on this
issue, and theyre not going to change. As a result,
many servicemembers are actually worse off than
before. SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE
NETWORK, CONDUCT UNBECOMING THE FIRST
ANNUAL REPORT ON DONT ASK, DONT TELL,
DONT PURSUE 17 (1994) [hereinafter SLDN 1ST
ANNUAL REPORT].
82
The controversy over President Clintons pro-
posal to lift the ban charged the atmosphere in the
military and focused unprecedented attention on the
private lives of servicemembers. Since that time,
everyone from private to general officer has speculat-
ed about who in the ranks might be gay. As a
result, many servicemembers are actually worse off
than before. SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra
note 81, at 17.
83
See generally SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE
NETWORK, CONDUCT UNBECOMING THE 2ND
DONT PURSUE 5-7 (1995) [hereinafter SLDN 2ND
ANNUAL REPORT].
84
See SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK,
CONDUCT UNBECOMING THE 3RD ANNUAL
PURSUE5-6 (1996) [hereinafter SLDN 3RD ANNUAL
REPORT].
85
Navy Manpower Analysis Center, Homosexual
Administrative Discharge Board / Show Cause
Hearings, June 1994 memo at 4.
e
86
DEPTT OF THE NAVY, NAVMED P-5134,
GENERAL MEDICAL OFFICER (GMO) MANUAL (May
1996 ed.).
87
See, the case of Marine Lance Corporal Blaesing,
discharged for asking questions about sexual orienta-
tion to a military psychologist, described in SLDN
1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81, at 22; see also
SLDN 3RD ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 84, at 6-7.
88
See SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81,
at 20; see also Memorandum from Richard A.
Peterson, to All Staff Judge Advocates and Military
Judges, Commander Inquiries on Members Stating
They are Homosexual (Nov. 3, 1994) [hereinafter
Peterson Memo].
e
89
Memorandum from Judith A. Miller, General
Counsel for the Department of Defense, to the
General Counsels of the Military Departments, Re:
Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces
(Aug. 18 1995) [hereinafter Miller Memo].
e
49
LCR 04645
90
Janet Zich, Living in Limbo with Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, 70 Stan. Bus no. 4 (Aug. 2002)., available at
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/community/bmag/sbsm
0208/viewpoint.html.
91
Id.
92
Miller Memo, supra note 89.
93
Janet Halley, supra note 67, at 24.
94
See generally Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d
1235, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). See also MARGARETHE
CAMMERMEYER, SERVING IN SILENCE 1-5 (1994).
95
SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81, at 1.
96
Id.
97
SLDN 3RD ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 84, at
24-25.
98
SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81, at 1.
99
24.
100
C. Dixon Osburn, supra note 48 at 218.
101
SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81, at
16.
102
Id. at 17-18.
103
Id. at 11; see also, SLDN 2ND ANNUAL REPORT,
supra note 83, at 11-12
104
SLDN 2ND ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 83, at
12.
105
Id.
106
See SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81,
at 11-12, 23-24; SLDN 2ND ANNUAL REPORT,
supra note 83, at 21-26; SLDN 3RD ANNUAL
REPORT, supra note 84, at 16-25.
107
SLDN 1ST ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 81, at
12.
108
17-18.
109
Id., at 18.
110
Id.
111
Id., at 19.
112
Id.
113
Id., at 21.
114
22-25; SLDN 3RD ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 84,
at 21-24.
115
24; SLDN 3RD ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 84, at
21.
116
A number of cases were brought during the
mid 1990s challenging the new ban on First
Amendment free speech grounds. The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals in Able v. U.S., 155 F.3d
628 (2d Cir. 1998) found that Dont Ask, Dont
Tell and the prohibition on homosexual acts did
not violate gay, lesbian and bisexual service mem-
bers right to free speech because the prohibitions on
speech furthered the governments interest in pre-
venting homosexual conduct in the military. In
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996) and
Philips v. Perry, 106 F. 3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1997) the
Fourth and Ninth Circuits, respectively, analyzed the
statements prong of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell
statute and found that discharges based on state-
ments did not violate the First Amendment, because
the statements themselves were evidence of a
propensity to act and the discharges were based on
the propensity demonstrated by the statements, not
the statements themselves. Equal protection argu-
ments were also central to the constitutional chal-
lenges to Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Both the acts
component of the policy and the statements com-
ponent were unsuccessfully challenged on Fifth
Amendment Equal Protection grounds. In Philips v.
Perry, 106 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1997), the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the
acts component, finding the Navys justifications
for the policy the maintenance of unit cohesion,
preservation of personal privacy, and the reduction
of sexual tension, among others were legitimate
government interests rationally related to the policy
of discharging persons who engaged in homosexual
acts. Equal protection challenges to the statements
component of the law also failed in Holmes v.
California Army National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126
(9th Cir. 1997), Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F. 3d 256
(8th Cir. 1996), and Philips v. Perry, 106 F.3d 1420
(9th Cir. 1997). The rebuttable presumption of an
intent to act implied in a statement of homosexual
orientation was found to be rationally related to the
legitimate government interest of preventing homo-
sexual conduct in the ranks.
117
DODD 1304.26, supra note 65; DoDD
1332.14, supra note 49; DoDD 1332.30, supra note
49; DoDI 5505.3 Initiation of Investigations by
Military Investigative Organizations (July 11,
1986); DoDI 5505.8, supra note 59. For a brief
summary of the changes, see Les Aspin
Memorandum, Implementation of DoD Policy on
Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces 21 Dec.
1993. Each branchs implementation as follows:
Army Regulation 165-1; Army Command Policy
600-20, Ch. 4 Para. 19; NAVADMIN 033/94
CNO Washington DC 110300Z (Mar 94); ALMAR
64/94 CMC Washington DC 281600Z (Feb 94);
USCG Personnel Manual 12.E
118
CONDUCT UNBECOMING-THE 4TH ANNUAL
PURSUE, DONT HARASS, 63, (1997) [hereinafter
119
New ways of pursuing gay service members
developed during this period as well. Among the new
rules and regulations was guidance from a memoran-
dum from John M. Deutch, Deputy Secretary of
Defense to the Secretaries of the Military
Departments regarding when service members dis-
charged under Dont Ask, Dont Tell would have to
repay educational assistance or enlistment bonuses.
The 1996 Deutch memo prohibited recoupment
except in cases where the service member was found
to have made his or her statement for the purpose of
avoiding service. With the notable exception of the
Air Force, the services generally complied with this
memorandum, until a federal judge validated the Air
Forces more aggressive interpretation of the law.
Now recoupment is common throughout the services
in statements cases. Memorandum from John M.
Deutch, Deputy Secretary of Defense to the
Secretaries of the Military Departments, Recoupment
of Education Assistance Funds, Bonuses and Special Pay
from Persons Disenrolled or Separated on the Basis of
Homosexual Conduct (May 17, 1994) [hereinafter
Deutch Memorandum].
e
; see also, Hensala v.
Department of the Air Force, et al., 343 F.3d 951 (9th
Cir. Cal. Ct. App., 2002).
120
Secretary of Defense (P&R) 1998 Report, supra
note 57.
121
Id.
122
Id.
123
Memorandum from Deputy Secretary of
Defense to Secretaries of the Military Departments,
Implementation of Policy Guidelines on Homosexual
Conduct in the Armed Forces in Personnel Security
Investigation and Adjudication, available at
http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/
SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/990.pdf.
124
Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 4, 1995).
125
See generally, DoDI 5505.8, supra note 59.
126
SLDN 4TH ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 118, at
42-43.
127
SLDN 3RD ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 84.
128
28.
129
See Id., explaining how this incident was among
those motivating the 1998 Reports recommendation
for a review of the use of pretrial agreements to
obtain information about service members sexual
orientation.
130
In addition to instances of improper pursuits, as
late as 2002 SLDN discovered that some Air Force
recruiting offices were still using outdated forms
containing questions about recruits sexual orienta-
tion notwithstanding Defense Secretary Cohens
1997 order to the services to replace the forms with
updated ones. SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE
NETWORK, CONDUCT UNBECOMING THE 7TH
DONT PURSUE, DONT HARASS, 12-13 (2001)
[hereinafter SLDN 7TH ANNUAL REPORT].
131
SLDN 7TH ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 130.
132
McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.D.C.
1998)
133
Id.
134
135
22-23.
136
Id.
137
PURSUE, DONT HARASS 10 (1998) [hereinafter
138
SLDN 5TH ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 137.
139
The lack of familiarity with the closet that charac-
terized this new generation of service members also
resulted in a decreased willingness on the part of gay
service members to remain in the closet. Many service
members were out to their colleagues and friends. At
Lackland Air Base in San Antonio, discharges for state-
ments soared so high that the Air Force invited SLDN
to investigate the reason for the soaring discharges.
After SLDNs visit, which included training on the
50
LCR 04646
policy for Lackland personnel, discharges dropped
from 200 in FY1997 to fewer than 50 in FY2000.
SLDN 8TH ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 134, at 27.
140
Memorandum from Edwin Dorn,
Undersecretary of Defense to Secretaries of the
Military Departments, Guidelines for Investigating
Threats Against Service Members Based on Alleged
Homosexuality, (Mar. 24, 1997).
141
64.
142
74.
143
Id.
144
Id..
145
11.
146
48-49.
147
148
51-54.
149
SLDN 9TH ANNUAL REPORT, Supra note 19, at
22.
150
Due to the hate crime death of a homo in the
Army, we now have to take extra steps to ensure the
safety of the queer who has told (not keep his part
of the DOD dont ask dont tell policy).
Commanders now bear the responsibility if someone
decides to assault the young backside ranger. And
remember, little ears are everywhere. Statement of
Lt. Col. Melton, SLDN 6TH ANNUAL REPORT,
supra note 147, at 55.
151
57.
152
Elaine Sciolino, Army Exonerates Officers In
Slaying Of Gay Private Soldiers Mother Calls Report
A Cover-Up, NY TIMES, July 19, 2000 at A16.
153
Letter from David S. Chu to Sen. Mark
Dayton, Unites States Senate, October 24, 2003.
e
154
Report, supra note 57.
155
de Leon 1999 Implementation Memo, supra
note 55.
156
Appendix C. Homosexual Conduct Policy
Survey, DOD INSPECTOR GENERALS DONT ASK,
DONT TELL, DONT PURSUE POLICY SURVEY
(undated).
e
157
Id.
158
Exec. Order No. 13140, 64 Fed. Reg. 55115
(Oct. 6, 1999).
159
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network,
General Accounting Office, Defense Force
Management: Statistics Related to DoDs Policy on
Homosexuality (1992); George Cahlink, supra note
16.
160
R.L. Evans, U.S. Military Policies Concerning
Homosexuals: Development, Implementation and
Outcomes, 11 Law & Sex 113, 133-38 (2002).
161
Exec. Order No. 13087, supra note 6.
162
Aaron Belkin & R.L. Evans, The Effects of
Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British
Armed Forces: Appraising the Evidence, Center for
Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (Nov.
2000); Aaron Belkin & Jason McNichol, The Effects
of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the
Australian Defence Forces: Appraising the Evidence,
Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the
Military (Sep. 2000); Aaron Belkin & Jason
McNichol, Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions
on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces:
Appraising the Evidence, Center for Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military (Apr. 2000); Aaron Belkin
& Melissa Levitt, Effects of Lifting of Restrictions on
Gay and Lesbian Service in the Israeli Forces:
Appraising the Evidence, Center for Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military (June 2000). All are
available at
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/Public
ationsHome.htm.
163
See Website of Steve May, About Steve May,
available at http://www.stevemay.org/about.htm.
164
Letter from Capt. Darrell V. Allen, MCCES
Adjutant, 29 Palms, Subj: Homosexual Conduct
Discharge Potential, (Apr. 4, 2002). [hereinafter 29
Palms Memorandum].
e
165
Gordon Trowbridge, 2003 Military Times Poll:
Social Issues: How Troops View Gays, Women,
Harassment, ARMY TIMES, Jan. 5, 2004 at 15.
Those polled differ from the military as a whole in
important ways. They tended to be older, higher in
rank and longer in the service than the overall military.
166
John D. Hutson, Retire a Bad Military Policy,
Natl Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 47, at 30 (Aug. 11,
2003).
167
General Wesley Clark Website, available at
http://clark04.com/issues/glbt.
168
John Files, Gay Ex-Officers Say Dont Ask
Doesnt Work, N.Y. Times, Dec. 10, 2003, at A18,
supra note 7.
169
Highest Ranking Military Officers To Date Come
Out, N.Y. TIMES, December 10, 2003, supra note 33.
170
Darren K. Karlson, Public OK with Gays,
Women in Military, Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing,
Dec. 23, 2003.
171
Hugick, Public Opinion Divided on Gay Rights,
Gallup Poll Monthly, June 1992, at 3.
172
Dana Blanton, Majority Opposes Same-Sex
Marriage, FOX News Poll, Aug. 26, 2003, available at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95753,00.html.
173
General Accounting Office, Foreign Languages:
Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing
and Proficiency Shortfalls 7, Report to Congressional
Requesters GAO-02-375 (Jan. 2002).
174
Editorial, Why We Need Gays in the Military,
N.Y. TIMES, November 28, 2003, at A43;
Editorial, Still No Gay Linguists, WASH POST, April
16, 2003, at A26; Robin Gerber, End Decade-Old
Dont Ask Policy, USA TODAY, November 26,
2003, at A25; Nathaniel Frank, Editorial, Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, Dont Act, CHIC. TRIB., March 27,
2002, at N16.
175
CONG. REC. S15029, Executive Session,
(daily ed. November 18, 2003) (statement of Sen.
Dayton). But I have also visited parents of young
men and women who are not recovering, who are
not coming home because they paid the ultimate
price for their service. I am on the Armed Services
Committee, and when I look at the reports and the
casualty figures of the brave young Americans who
are being injured or wounded or maimed or who
died in combat, I dont see categories of heterosexu-
al or gay or lesbian and I dont see women or
men. I see American soldiers, with the same kind
of blood and bodies. All they are asking is an equal
opportunity to serve their country, to risk their lives
in the service of their country even to die in the
service of their country. Id.
176
CONG. REC. S15029, Executive Session, (daily
ed. Nov. 18, 2003) (statement of Sen. Sessions). Sen.
Sessions stated, This investigation of the command
climate found that Major General Clark was not cul-
pable of any dereliction or failure of leadership, as
has been alleged by the Service Members Legal
Defense NetworkSLDNwhich is an advocacy
group that works to protect and ensure that homo-
sexual soldiers are treated fairly in the military, as
they have every right to be treated. They have a right
to insist that they be treated fairly. Id.
177
Excerpts from the Debate Among G.O.P.
Candidates, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 7, 2000, at A15.
178
Republican Party Platform, available at
http://www.gop.com/About/PartyPlatform/default.as
px?Section=8.
179
Clinton Letter, supra note 9.
180
Lawrence, supra note 15.
181
U.S. v. Marcum, No. 02-0944/AF (C.A.A.F.
filed Sep. 23, 2002). Additional cases are pending
before the courts of criminal appeals for the individ-
ual services, and before the Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces. These cases are on hold pending a
decision in Marcum.
182
Editorial, Still No Gay Linguists, WASH. POST,
April 16, 2003 at A26.
183
United States Army Discharges, Source
Unofficial Source, Outside the Army.
184
Army Regulations 350-1, Army Training And
Education, at 1-7.c.1.
185
US Army Sergeants Major Academy (ANCOC),
L434: The Army Homosexual Policy Training Support
Package, October 2003, at 13.
186
See generally Id.
187
See generally Army Regulation 350-1, supra note
184.
188
See Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel
Management (DCSPER/G1) Website, available at
http://www.usarc.army.mil/95thdiv/dcsper.htm.
e
189
See Id.
190
Memorandum from Office of the Inspector
General, Department of the Army, to the Army
Chief of Staff, Subj: Special Interest Item
Implementation of Homosexual Conduct Policy
Training ACTION MEMORANDUM (Apr. 11,
2002) [hereinafter IG Letter].
e
191
Phone Communication from Specialist Tommy
Cook to SLDN (December 2, 2003).
192
Email from Jennifer McGinn to SLDN, January
15, 2004, in response to Email From SLDN to
Jennifer McGinn, January 12, 2004.
e
193
See Sworn Statement from Jennifer McGinn at
1.
e
See also Sworn Statement from anonymous serv-
ice member.
e
51
LCR 04647
194
For example, in 1998 SLDN documented the
Navys use of a standard form known as the homo-
sexual/bisexual questionnaire containing fifty ques-
tions designed to determine a sailors sexual orienta-
tion. The form was used to discharge at least two
sailors that year. See SLDN 5TH ANNUAL REPORT,
supra note 137, at 10.
195
E8.1.3.
196
See News Story, Dont Ask, Dont Tell on the
Frontlines in Iraq, KGO-TV, San Francisco, April
16, 2003, available at http://www.sldn.org/tem-
plates/press/record.html?section=5&record-883.
197
Laura M. Colarusso, Sexual Assault In The Air
Force: How Bad Is The Problem? AIR FORCE
TIMES, August 4, 2003, at 8.
198
Rod Hafemeister, Claiming Homosexuality Not
An Easy Out In Basic Training, AIR FORCE TIMES,
September 22, 2003.
199
Id.
200
Id.
201
Id.
202
United States Air Force, Homosexual Policy
Training for Supervisors, Power Point Presentation,
available at http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/ja/doc-
uments/hspbasicfinal.ppt.
e
203
Id., at slides 15 16.
e
204
Id., at slide 16.
e
205
Confidential Phone Conversation from service
member to SLDN (December 23, 2003).
206
See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(P&R), Report to the Secretary of Defense: Review
of the Effectiveness of the Application and Enforcement
of the Departments Policy on Homosexual Conduct in
the Military [hereinafter Under Secretary of Defense
(P&R) 1998 Report], at 10 (Apr. 1998), (stating
that the Department of Defense has found that
none of the Services require health care professionals
or chaplains to report if a service member reveals his
sexual orientation.)
207
Department of Defense Working Group, Anti-
Harassment Action Plan (July 21, 2000) [hereinafter
AHAP].
208
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 90-201, Inspector
General Activities, paras. A6.2.5.1, A6.2.5.2 (Oct. 1,
2002).
209
Gannett News Service, Rising College Costs
Spark Growth In ROTC Enrollment, AIR FORCE
TIMES, January 13, 2003.
210
News Briefs, Lesbian Cadet Gets The Boot, AIR
FORCE TIMES, September 22, 2003, at 4.
211
Power Point Presentation from Randolph Air
Force Base, Off-Limits Establishments AETC, sent to
SLDN by anonymous service member.
e
212
Id., Slide 1.
e
213
E3.A4.3.3.4; See also, DODI 1332.40, supra note
49, at E8.3.3.4, stating that A members sexual ori-
entation is considered a personal and private matter,
and is not a bar to continued service . . . unless
manifested by homosexual conduct . . . . and
DODD 1332.14, supra note 49 at E3.A4.1.3.3.4
(stating [credible information of homosexual con-
duct does not exist when] the only information
known is an associational activity such as going to a
gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publica-
tions, associating with known homosexuals . . . .).
214
See Letter from Kathi Westcott, Esq, SLDN to
General Donald G. Cook, Commander, Air
Education and Training Command, Re: Off Limits
Designation of Gay Bars and Nightclubs in San
Antonio Area, (January 14, 2004).
e
215
Kenneth Lynch, Old Sailor Gives His Last
Reflections Before He Moves On And Overseas, NAVY
TIMES, July 7, 2003, at 62.
216
United States Navy, Status Of The Navy as of
March 27, 2003, available at
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/.www/sta-
tus.html.
217
Mark D. Faram, Get Credit For What You
Already Know: Now Sailors Can Test Out Of GMT,
NAVY TIMES, October 20, 2003, at 22.
218
Id.
219
United States Navy, Discussion Points Relating to
Slide 22 Of The Navy General Military Training
available at
http://www.cnet.navy.mil/cnet/gmt/gmt03/3-1.pdf.
220
Christopher Munsey, Dont Ask, Dont Televise:
Sailor Doesnt Regret Coming Out On TV, NAVY
TIMES, September 1, 2003, at 29.
221
Joseph M. Schnettler, IT3(SW), Letters: Gay
Sailor Did Nothing, NAVY TIMES, September 29,
2003, at 46.
222
Christopher Munsey, Former Mids Apply For
Gay And Lesbian Alumni Chapter: Group May Be
Pioneers In Seeking Official Standing, NAVY TIMES,
November 24, 2003, at 27.
223
Id.
224
Editorial, Seek Change From Within, NAVY
TIMES, November 24, 2003, at 52.
225
Mark D. Faram, supra note 217, at 22.
226
Col. R. M. Balzhiser (ret.), letter to the editor,
ARMY TIMES, December 20, 2003.
227
See Electronic Message MARADMIN 259/02,
CMC Washington DC / / MP, 081015Z May 02,
Subj: Homosexual Conduct Policy [hereinafter
MARADMIN 259/02].
228
Id., at para. 11.
229
Id., at para. 12.
230
231
Letter from R.H. Zales, Colonel, USMC, to
Jeffery Cleghorn, SLDN, (May 29, 2003) [here-
inafter Zales Memo].
e
232
Phone Communication from Lance Corporal
Joaquin to SLDN (October 29, 2003).
233
Marine Lt. Col. H Thomas, letter to the editor,
ARMY TIMES, December 20, 2003.
234
Patricia Kime, Coasties Take Fight To The Enemy
Half A World Away, NAVY TIMES, April 7, 2003.
235
Ledyard King, Admiral Wants More Active-Duty
Coasties, NAVY TIMES, June 30, 2003 at 30.
236
Commandment Instruction M1000.6, Coast
Guard Personnel Manual, para. 12.E.1 (Nov. 12,
2002).
237
Id. at para. 12.E.1.4.
238
See de Leon 1999 Implementation Memo, supra
note 55, stating that a report of harassment to a
service members command should result in prompt
investigation of the threat or harassment itself.
Investigators should not solicit allegations concern-
ing the sexual orientation or homosexual conduct of
the threatened or harassed person.
239
E8.1.1.
240
E8.1.1; see also, DoDI 5505.8, supra note 59, at para
6.3.
I. Total Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges
1994-2003, Source - Department of Defense,
United States Army, United States Air Force, United
States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United
States Coast Guard, and Unofficial Congressional
Sources.
II. Costs of Dont Ask, Dont Tell 1994-2003,
Source - Servicemembers Legal Defense Network,
General Accounting Office, Defense Force
Management: Statistics Related to DoDs Policy on
Homosexuality (1992).
III. DoD IG Findings Source - Appendix C.
Homosexual Conduct Policy Survey, DoD Inspector
Generals Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue
Policy Survey (undated).
IV. Disproportionate Impact on Women Source
- Department of Defense, United States Army,
United States Air Force, United States Navy, United
States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard and
Unofficial Congressional Sources.
V. Gallup Poll: Americans Who Support Gays
Serving in the Military Source - Hugick, Public
Opinion Divided on Gay Rights, Gallup Poll
Monthly, June 1992, at 3; Darren K. Karlson,
Public OK with Gays, Women in Military, Gallup
Poll Tuesday Briefing, Dec. 23, 2003.
VI. US Army Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges
1994-2003, Source Department of Defense,
United States Army, and Unofficial Congressional
Sources.
VII. US Air Force Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Discharges 1994-2003, Source Department of
Defense, United States Air Force and Unofficial
Congressional Sources.
VIII. US Navy Dont Ask, Dont Tell Discharges
1994-2003, Source Department of Defense,
United States Navy.
IX. US Marine Corps Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Discharges 1994-2003, Source Department of
Defense, United States Marine Corps and Unofficial
Congressional Sources.
X. US Coast Guard Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Discharges 1994-2002, Source United States
Coast Guard.
52
LCR 04648
Hello Visitor! | Log In or Register Subscribe Place An Ad LAT Store J obs Cars Real Estate Rentals More Classifieds
IN THE NEWS: FREEWAY SERIES J OHN FORSYTHE IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM IPAD KOBE BRYANT
Unless Congress objects, the policy could go into effect by April. Submarines are the only class
of ship that bars female service members.
Sailors on the submarine Portsmouth in 2004. The prohibition on women has stood since the U.S. submarine force
began in 1900. Lawmakers have 30 working days to respond, but are not expected to oppose the change, officials said.
(Petty Officer 1st Class David A. Levy / U.S. Navy / August 21, 2004)
By J ulian E. Barnes
Febr uar y 24, 2010
U.S. & WORLD
MORE OPINION TRAVEL LIVING HEALTH ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS BUSINESS U.S. & WORLD LOCAL
WASHINGTON NATION AFGHANISTAN MIDDLE EAST LATIN AMERICA ASIA SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT OBITUARIES

Search GO
Navy moves to allow women on submarines
ADS BY GOOGLE
04.04.10: The Exper i ence
Live the Moments of Pride
Experience on 4/ 4/ 10.
nationalguard.com/ momentsofpride
Si ngl e Ukr ai ne Ladi es
Ukrainian girls and women are
looking for dating with foreign men
www.online-dating-ukraine.com
Text Si ze Shar e Pr i nt E-mai l
Reporting from Washington - The Navy plans to allow women
to serve for the first time on submarines, the only class of ship
from which they are barred, military and congressional
officials said Tuesday.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates notified Congress on
Monday that the Navy intended to change its policy. Congress
has 30 working days to object. Unless the House or Senate moves to block the shift, the policy could
go into effect as soon as mid-April.
Allowing women to serve as regular crew members would shatter a gender barrier that has stood since
the U.S. submarine force was created in 1900. The new policy would allow women to serve in cramped
quarters while at sea for months at time, a prospect that for years has managed to forestall
Easter
Brunch spots | Macarons | Candy | Flowers
The Lat est | NEWS AS IT HAPPENS
Lakers eying San Antonio as possible playoff
opponent, Luke Walton eyes return - Laker s Blog
04/ 03/ 2010, 3: 47 p.m.
advert i sement
ADS BY GOOGLE
Si ngl e Ukr ai ne Ladi es
Ukrainian girls and women are looking for dating with foreign men
www.online-dating-ukraine.com
Navy Asbest os Set t l ement s
National Claims Assistance. Free Online Case Evaluation. Learn More.
Asbestos-Cancer-Lawyers.com
consideration of such a change.
But lawmakers are unlikely to challenge the shift, congressional officials said. Many Republicans, who
would be the most likely opponents, are working to preserve the ban on gays serving openly in the
military and would probably not expend time and effort on the issue of female service members in
submarines.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that
the House intended to conduct an assessment of the change "following its implementation."
The Defense Department's "decision to allow women to serve on submarines will present challenges,
but these challenges should not be insurmountable for the Navy," Skelton said.
In the letter to Congress, Gates said the Navy would begin a "phased approach" to allowing women to
serve on submarines. Women will probably be allowed first on larger subs.
Women have been able to serve on the military's surface ships since 1993. The following year, the
Navy cited high costs of accommodating women on submarines as the reason for not allowing them.
However, today's fleet includes larger vessels with diverse missions that could more easily
accommodate women. Larger subs have multiple bathrooms, allowing for gender-specific use, and
sleeping areas that could be cordoned off for women.
Congressional officials said they had not been given cost estimates for the shift.
The policy change has been pushed by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the J oint Chiefs of Staff
and a former Navy chief of operations. As the Navy chief, Mullen oversaw research on whether women
could be accommodated on subs. Last fall, while up for a second term as chairman, Mullen told
Congress he supported the change.
Few sailors have voiced objections to changing the rule. Serving on nuclear submarines is considered
especially demanding, and the Navy has struggled to attract qualified officers. Many thought that
barring women needlessly reduced the pool of qualified prospects.
On a related issue, top Army officials said Tuesday they might reevaluate combat roles for women.
Women are restricted from serving in infantry units, but belong to units that have regularly been
involved in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I believe that it's time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and look at our policies," said Gen. George W. Casey, the Army chief of staff, appearing before
senators.
julian.barnes@latimes.com
Copyright 2010, The Los Angeles Times
E-mail Print Digg Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon
Share
Comments (0)
Add comments
Currently there are no comments. Be the first to comment!
Virginia man sues PetSmart, claims he slipped
after stepping in feces at the store - L.A. Unleashed
04/ 03/ 2010, 3: 42 p.m.
Recession forces art world to get creative - L.A.
Ti mes - Nati onal News 04/ 03/ 2010, 12: 00 a.m.
Californians take generally positive view of
healthcare reform - L.A. Ti mes - Cali for ni a | Local News
04/ 03/ 2010, 3: 26 p.m.
South Korea suffers another tragedy in naval
disaster - L.A. Ti mes - Wor ld News 04/ 03/ 2010, 3: 19
p.m.
MOSTVIEWED MOSTE-MAILED
South Korea suffers another tragedy in naval
disaster
For Obama, too soon for another partisan battle
Kim Clijsters routs Venus Williams in Sony
Ericsson final
Apple's much-anticipated iPad goes on sale
Men in Iraqi army uniforms kill 24 in Sunni area
Kobe Bryant's $84-million extension has him
talking about being a Laker for life
Muslim insurgency in Thailand grinds on
Rival parties toast 20 years at the Dinah
Bearing witness to Nazi horror
L.A. County officials say laws hinder child
welfare reform
I f you ar e under 13 year s of age you may r ead thi s message boar d, but you may not
par ti ci pate. Comments ar e fi lter ed for language and r egi str ati on i s r equi r ed. Reader s may
r epor t comments by cli cki ng r epor t abuse. Once a comment has been flagged, a Los Angeles
Ti mes staffer wi ll i nvesti gate. Reader s ar e r emi nded to post comments that ar e ger mane to
the ar ti cle and wr i te i n a common language that steer s clear of per sonal attacks and/ or
vulgar i ti es. Note: Comments ar e moder ated and wi l l not appear unti l they have been
r evi ewed by Ti mes staff. Her e ar e the full legal ter ms you agr ee to by usi ng thi s comment
for m.
Santa Anas a particular threat
in some areas
Phot os: 10 time-travel
movies
Scientific proof that greasy
breakfasts are good for us!
Salvation Army is a real estate
powerhouse
Fur: In vogue and in the line
of fire
More spotlights...
Discussion FAQ
Running Spots
13 great places to run in Los Angeles.
Popsicle Furniture
David Hrobowski makes furniture out of popsicle
sticks -- thousands of them, glued together one by
one.
Enj oy mor e st or i es l i ke t hi s f or onl y 50 a day. Cl i ck her e t o or der The Ti mes.
News
Local
U.S. & World
Business
Technology
Sports
Opinion
Columnists
Obituaries
Entertainment
Television
Movies
Music
Arts & Culture
Celebrity
The Envelope
Calendar
Company Town
TV Listings
Movie Listings
Tickets
Living
Travel
Health
Food
Home
Image
Magazine
Books
Autos
Hot List
Horoscopes
Crosswords
Multimedia
Video
Photos
Data Desk
Your Scene
Times on Twitter
RSS
Newsletters
Archives
Kindle
E-edition
Top Blogs
L. A. Now
Fabulous Forum
Ministry of Gossip
TV Show Tracker
Company Town
Politics
Music
Hero Complex
Technology
Movies
More
Corrections
Readers' Rep
Contact Us | Help
About Us
Events
LATMG Media Kit
Print Edition
Subscribe
Manage My Account
Site Map
Coastline Pilot Daily Pilot Huntington Beach Independent Valley Sun Burbank Leader News Press KTLA Hoy Brand X LA, Los Angeles Times Magazine ZAP2it
Baltimore Sun Chicago Tribune Daily Press Hartford Courant Los Angeles Times Orlando Sentinel Sun Sentinel The Morning Call
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Los Angeles Times, 202 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012 | Copyright 2010
A Tr i bune Web si te
FORSCOMREGULATION500-3-3
FORSCOMMOBILIZATIONAND
DEPLOYMENTPLANNINGSYSTEM
(FORMDEPS)
VOLUMEIII
RESERVECOMPONENT
UNITCOMMANDERSHANDBOOK
(RCUCH)
FORCESCOMMAND
FORTMcPHERSON,GEORGIA
151ULY1999
DepartmentoftheArmy `FORSCOMRegulation500-3-3
Headquarters,UnitedStatesArmyForcesCommand
1777HardeeAvenue,SW.
FortMcPherson,Georgia30330-1062
151uly1999
EmergencyEmploymentofArmyandOtherResources
RESERVECOMPONENTUNITCOMMANDERSHANDBOOK(RCUCH)
*ThisregulationsupersedesFORSCOMRegulation500-3-3, dated31March1998.
Summary. This regulation is the Reserve
ComponentUnitCommander'sHandbook(RCUCH).
It provides inIormation and guidance to Reserve
Component unit commanders to enable them to plan
Ior mobilization, to mobilize and move to assigned
mobilization stations, and to prepare their
postmobilizationtrainingplans.
Applicability. This regulation applies to the Active
Army, the Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army
Reserve.
Supplementation. Local supplementation oI this
regulation is prohibited without prior approval Irom
the Deputy ChieI oI StaII, Operations, FORSCOM.
Requests Ior exceptions, with iustiIication, will be
sent to CDR, FORSCOM, ATTN: AFOP-OCM,
1777 Hardee Avenue, SW., Fort McPherson, GA
30330-1062.
Changes. Changes to this regulation are not oIIicial
unless authenticated by the Deputy ChieI oI StaII Ior
Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers,DCSC4,FORSCOM. Users will destroy
changes on their expiration date unless sooner
supersededorrescinded.
Suggested improvements. The proponent agency
Ior this regulation is the Deputy ChieI oI StaII,
Operations, FORSCOM. Users are invited to send
comments and suggested improvements to CDR,
FORSCOM, ATTN: AFOP-OCM, 1777 Hardee
Avenue,SW.,FortMcPherson,GA30330-1062.
Restrictions. Approved Ior public release:
distributionlimited.
FORTHECOMMANDER:
OFFICIAL: JOHNM.PICKLER
LieutenantGeneral,USA
ChieIoIStaII
Signed
DALEE.PEYTON
Colonel,GS
AssistantDeputyChieIoIStaIIIor
Command,Control,Communications
andComputers
Distribution is Special, intended Ior command levels A, B, C, D and E Ior CONUSA, USAR, FORSCOM
installations, FORSCOM units on non-FORSCOM installations, ARNG, and HQ FORSCOM. This publication is
notstockedIorresupply.ItisavailableIordownloadIromtheIntranetathttp://Ireddie.Iorscom.army.mil/mob.
CopiesFurnished:
HQFORSCOM(AFCI-A)(recordcopy)
FORSCOMRegulation500-3-3
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................. 5
GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................... 5
PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................................................... 5
SCOPE........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
APPLICABILITY........................................................................................................................................................... 5
HOWTO USE THISREGULATION................................................................................................................................ 5
THEMOBILIZATIONSPECTRUM.................................................................................................................................. 5
CONCEPTOFOPERATIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 9
MOBILIZATIONAUTHORITY ..................................................................................................................................... 11
EMERGENCYAUTHORITY ........................................................................................................................................ 12
FUTUREOPERATIONS............................................................................................................................................... 12
RCRESIDUALMISSION............................................................................................................................................ 12
TAILOREDFORCE/DERIVATIVEUNITIDENTIFICATIONCODES(UICS) ..................................................................... 12
HOMESTATIONMOBILIZATION................................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTERTWO: PERSONNELANDADMINISTRATION........................ 13
GENERAL. ................................................................................................................................................................ 13
CONDITION:PHASEI-PLANNING(PEACETIMETO ALERT) .................................................................................... 13
CONDITION:PHASEII-ALERT................................................................................................................................. 20
CONDITION:PHASEIII-HOMESTATION ................................................................................................................ 24
CHAPTERTHREE: OPERATIONSANDTRAINING...................................... 39
CONDITION:PHASEI-PLANNING........................................................................................................................... 39
CONDITIONS:PHASEII-ALERT............................................................................................................................... 41
CONDITION:PHASEIII-HOMESTATION ................................................................................................................ 41
CHAPTERFOUR: LOGISTICS......................................................................... 47
CONDITION:PHASEI-PLANNING............................................................................................................................ 47
CONDITION:PHASEII-ALERT................................................................................................................................. 49
CONDITION:PHASEIII-HOMESTATION ................................................................................................................. 51
CHAPTERFIVE:TASKS,CONDITIONS,ANDSTANDARDSBYPHASE(INMISSIONTRAINING
PLANFORMAT)...................................................................................................................................................... 54
PLANNINGPHASE(PHASEI)..................................................................................................................................... 54
ALERTPHASE(PHASEII) ......................................................................................................................................... 68
HOMESTATIONPHASE(PHASEIII).......................................................................................................................... 78
Annex A:(AlertAndAssemblyPlan)ToRCUnitCommander'sHandbook..................................................85
Appendix 1: (Example Alert And Assembly Plan) To Annex A (Alert And Assembly Plan) ........88
Appendix 2: (Example Alert Notification Roster) To Annex A (Alert And Assembly Plan) ..........90
Appendix 3: (Example Physical Security Plan) to Annex A (Alert and Assembly Plan)...............91
AnnexBMobilizationFundingGuidancetoRCUnitCommandersHandbook...................................................93
Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................93
General..................................................................................................................................................................93
Executionl .............................................................................................................. Error!Bookmarknotdefined.
PurchasingAgent..................................................................................................................................................94
Annex C:PersonnelMobilizationGuidetoRCUnitCommandersHandbook ..............................................98
General.................................................................................................................................................................98
NotificationandAlert .........................................................................................................................................98
PersonalRecordsChecklist ..............................................................................................................................105
InstructionsforObtainingFamilyMemberIdentificationCards.................................................................110
Deployment/EmploymentPolicy ......................................................................................................................111
RedeploymentandDemobilization ..................................................................................................................111
Summary............................................................................................................................................................113
3
Annex D:(PostmobilizationTraining)toRCUnitCommandersHandbook................................................114
Appendix 1 to Annex D (PTSR)..................................................................................................................116
Annex E:(MobilizationChecklistforUnitCommanders)toRCUnitCommandersHandbook ................118
PLANNINGPHASE(PHASE1) .....................................................................................................................118
ALERTPHASE(PHASEII) ...........................................................................................................................120
HOMESTATIONPHASE(PHASEIII) ........................................................................................................122
Annex F:(GuidelinesforDeterminingSecurityClearanceRequirements)toRCUnitCommanders
Handbook124
Annex G:(RequiredDocumentsChecklist)toRCUnitCommandersHandbook.........................................126
Annex H:(References)toRCUnitCommandersHandbook .........................................................................130
PUBLICATIONS. ..........................................................................................................................................130
BLANKFORMS............................................................................................................................................133
DAFORMS:...................................................................................................................................................133
DDFORM......................................................................................................................................................134
FORSCOMFORMS ......................................................................................................................................134
SFFORM.......................................................................................................................................................134
NGBFORMS.................................................................................................................................................134
SGLVFORMS...............................................................................................................................................134
IRSFORM.....................................................................................................................................................135
FBIFORMS...................................................................................................................................................135
Annex X:(Glossary)toRCUnitCommandersHandbook.............................................................................136
SECTIONI:ABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS .............................................................................136
SECTIONII:TERMS ................................................................................................................................140
4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE2-1:CRITERIAFORPERSONNEL ACTION....................................................................................27
TABLE2-2:PSRCUNITS..........................................................................................................................38
TABLE2-3:PREMOBILIZATIONLEGAL PREPARATION .........................................................................38
TABLE3-1:INITIAL MOBILIZATIONSTATION ACTIVITIESCHECKLIST...............................................43
5
Chapter One: Introduction
General
a. TherapidexpansionorcommitmentoIAmerican
military Iorces to meet maior national military
strategy requirements will require the use oI Reserve
Component (RC) units. The RC units readiness to
perIorm wartime missions and the ability to rapidly
and eIIiciently mobilize is oI vital importance to our
nation.
b. The Secretary oI the Army, with approval oI the
President or Congress, may order RC units to active
duty with no advance warning iI military conditions
require. Considering the numerous threats to peace,
the speed with which crises escalate, the current
weapons technology and the diIIiculty oI predicting
Iuture emergencies, all RC members must be
inIormedthattheyaresubiecttoactivationwithlittle
notice.Unitswillbegivenasmuchtimeaspossible,
but notiIication timeIrames will be extremely short.
RC members should arrange their personal aIIairs
accordingly, and RC unit commanders must
periodicallyreviewandinspectthesepreparations.
c. Throughout the document the term Regional
Support Command (RSC) is intended to include
responsibilitiesoIallmaiorsubordinatecommandsoI
the United States Army Reserve Command
(USARC).
d. Thetermmobilizationstation(MS)encompasses
both the Power Proiection PlatIorms and Power
SupportPlatIorms.
Purpose
This handbook provides standardized RC unit
mobilization requirements and procedures Ior Phases
I,IIandIIIoImobilization,aswellasinIormationon
procedures at the mobilization station, and general
proceduresIorredeploymentanddemobilization.
Scope
This is FORSCOM Regulation 500-3-3, Volume III
oI the FORSCOM Mobilization and Deployment
Planning System (FORMDEPS). Where subiect
complexity and detail prevent Iull coverage, other
related Army publications are reIerenced. It is
designed to assist RC unit commanders, their
staII/key personnel, and RC commands providing
peacetime support in accomplishing planning Ior
mobilization, transition to active duty and return to
thehomestation(HS)Iollowingdemobilization.
Applicability
This regulation is applicable to all U.S. Army
CONUS-based RC units (MTOE and TDA),
including Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. It is
directive in nature. Unit commanders will appoint a
Mobilization OIIicer or NCO to maintain
mobilization Iiles IAW this regulation, as well as
guidance Irom the peacetime chain oI command
|State Area Command (STARC) and Regional
Support Command (RSC)|. Small units/detachments
that cannot qualiIy to provide the support and meet
the requirements oI this handbook due to rank
structure or organization (i.e., limited technician
support, etc.) will be supported by their peacetime
higher commands until arrival at the MS, at which
timetheMSwillassumetheresponsibility.
How To Use This Regulation
a. This document is divided into chapters
corresponding to Iunctional areas (Personnel,
Operations, and Logistics), with speciIic actions
Iurther divided by phases. Each phase is listed
separately to allow Ilexibility Ior reorganization by
phase, iI desired. (Because oI this organization,
acronymsarenotalwaysexplainedwhentheyareIirst
introduced. Users may reIer to the glossary (Annex
X) Ior deIinitions). Chapters Iurther identiIy tasks
andcorrespondingstandards,requiredIoreachphase.
The annexes and appendices provide detailed
guidance. ReIerences within various parts oI this
document, especially in the mobilization checklist at
Annex E, will indicate chapter, phase, task, and
standard(e.g.,2-III-4a).AnnexeswillbereIerenced
bytheirletterdesignation.
b. Mobilization planning and execution, as tasks
organized in this regulation, are the overall
responsibilitiesoItheRCUnitCommander.Inorder
to gain and maintain mobilization readiness, it is
recommended that unit commanders assign the
completionoIpreparatoryandexecutionmobilization
tasks by Iunctional area. Coordination oI this eIIort
in the Iunctional areas is the responsibility oI the
additional duty mobilization planner, typically the
unitsexecutiveoIIicer.
The Mobilization Spectrum
MOBILIZATIONistheprocessoIpreparingIorwaror
other emergencies by assembling and organizing
personnel and materiel Ior active military Iorces,
6
activating or Iederalizing the RC, extending terms oI
service,surgingorexpandingtheindustrialbase,and
bringingtheUSArmedForcestoastateoIreadiness
Ior war or other national emergency. Involuntary
activationoItheRCincludestheIollowingcategories
oIIorceactivation:
Selectivemobilizationisthemobilization,bythe
Congress or the President, oI RC units, Individual
ReadyReservists(IRR),andtheresourcesneededIor
their support to meet the requirements oI a domestic
emergency(e.g.,postalstrike,Ilood,earthquake,etc.)
thatdoesnotinvolveathreattothenationalsecurity.
Presidential Selective Reserve Call-Up (PSRC),
the so-called 200K Callup is used to augment the
active Iorce oI all services with up to 200,000
soldiers oI the Selected Reserve Ior up to 270 days,
Ior an operational mission including Weapons oI
MassDestructionwithintheUnitedStates.
Partialmobilizationinvolvesthemobilizationby
thePresidentorCongressoInotmorethan1,000,000
ReadyReservists(unitsandindividualreservists),Ior
not longer than 24 months, along with the resources
needed Ior their support, to meet the requirements oI
warorothernationalemergencyinvolvinganexternal
threattothenationalsecurity.
Full mobilization is the mobilization by the
Congress oI all RC units in the existing Iorce
structure, all individual, standby, and retired
reservists: retired military personnel: and the
resourcesneededIortheirsupportIorthedurationoI
a declared emergency, plus six months, to meet the
requirements oI a war or other national emergency
involvinganexternalthreattothenationalsecurity.
1otalmobilizationistheexpansionoItheArmed
ForcesbytheCongressandthePresidenttoorganize
or generate additional units or personnel beyond the
existing Iorce structure, and the resources needed Ior
theirsupport, to meet the total requirements oI a war
or other national emergency involving an external
FurtherdetailispresentedintheIollowingtable:
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
T
h
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
H
O
W
M
A
N
Y
?
W
H
O
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
Z
E
S
?
S
T
A
T
U
T
O
R
Y
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
O
R
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
S
O
L
D
I
E
R
S
O
R
U
N
I
T
S
S
E
L
E
C
T
I
V
E
F
o
r
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
,
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
R
C
u
n
i
t
s
o
r
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
l
i
I
e
,
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
I
e
d
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
o
I
I
e
d
e
r
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
o
r
i
n
c
a
s
e
o
I
a
n
i
n
s
u
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
n
y
s
t
a
t
e
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
i
t
s
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
.
I
n
s
u
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
1
0
U
S
C
3
3
1
3
3
5
U
n
i
t
s
o
I
S
t
a
t
e
M
i
l
i
t
i
a
.
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
G
u
a
r
d
U
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
.
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
G
u
a
r
d
i
n
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
i
I
U
.
S
.
i
n
v
a
d
e
d
o
r
i
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
r
e
b
e
l
l
i
o
n
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
U
S
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
u
n
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
I
o
r
c
e
s
t
o
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
U
S
l
a
w
s
A
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
4
0
6
C
i
v
i
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
A
i
r
F
l
e
e
t
S
t
a
g
e
I
A
M
C
1
0
U
S
C
9
5
1
1
C
J
C
S
I
3
1
1
0
.
1
1
A
P
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
o
r
L
o
w
-
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
I
l
i
c
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
i
d
-
L
e
v
e
l
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
I
l
i
c
t
S
E
L
E
C
T
E
D
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
C
A
L
L
-
U
P
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
T
h
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
m
a
y
a
u
g
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
A
c
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
c
e
s
b
y
c
a
l
l
-
u
p
o
I
t
h
e
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
I
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
N
o
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
I
o
r
n
o
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
2
7
0
d
a
y
s
.
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
/
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
4
(
C
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
u
s
e
d
I
o
r
i
n
s
u
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
.
)
U
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
o
I
t
h
e
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
o
n
l
y
.
S
t
o
p
L
o
s
s
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
m
a
y
s
u
s
p
e
n
d
a
n
y
l
a
w
r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
o
r
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
5
C
i
v
i
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
A
i
r
F
l
e
e
t
,
S
t
a
g
e
I
I
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
1
0
U
S
C
9
5
1
1
C
J
C
S
I
3
1
1
0
.
1
1
A
P
A
R
T
I
A
L
F
o
r
M
a
i
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
O
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
R
C
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
1
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
4
R
e
a
d
y
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
I
n
c
a
s
e
o
I
w
a
r
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
,
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
m
a
y
o
r
d
e
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
u
p
t
o
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
R
e
a
d
y
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
I
o
r
u
p
t
o
2
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
.
T
h
e
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
c
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
U
p
t
o
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
(
A
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
I
o
r
u
p
t
o
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
.
C
a
n
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
b
y
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
r
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
2
(
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
I
a
r
m
e
d
I
o
r
c
e
s
.
)
R
e
a
d
y
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
.
R
e
t
i
r
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
c
a
l
l
o
I
R
e
t
i
r
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
s
A
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
7
(
R
e
c
a
l
l
o
I
R
e
t
i
r
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
)
1
0
U
S
C
6
8
8
(
R
e
c
a
l
l
o
I
R
e
t
i
r
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
s
)
1
0
U
S
C
6
4
8
5
(
R
e
c
a
l
l
o
I
F
l
e
e
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
F
l
e
e
t
M
a
r
i
n
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
)
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
.
S
t
o
p
L
o
s
s
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
5
C
i
v
i
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
A
i
r
F
l
e
e
t
,
S
t
a
g
e
I
I
I
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
r
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
h
a
s
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
.
1
0
U
S
C
9
5
1
1
C
J
C
S
I
3
1
1
0
.
1
1
A
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
2
9
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
8
T
h
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
(
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
H
O
W
M
A
N
Y
?
W
H
O
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
Z
E
S
?
S
T
A
T
U
T
O
R
Y
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
O
R
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
S
O
L
D
I
E
R
S
O
R
U
N
I
T
S
F
U
L
L
F
o
r
G
l
o
b
a
l
C
o
n
I
l
i
c
t
M
O
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
R
C
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
1
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
4
R
e
a
d
y
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
2
F
u
l
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
p
a
s
s
a
g
e
b
y
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
o
I
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
w
o
r
i
o
i
n
t
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
d
e
c
l
a
r
i
n
g
w
a
r
o
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
.
I
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
a
l
l
R
C
u
n
i
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
I
o
r
c
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
a
l
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
s
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
I
o
r
t
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
I
o
r
c
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
T
e
r
m
:
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
u
s
s
i
x
m
o
n
t
h
s
.
U
p
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
o
I
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
I
o
r
c
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
I
t
h
e
A
r
m
e
d
F
o
r
c
e
s
.
P
u
b
l
i
c
l
a
w
o
r
i
o
i
n
t
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
b
y
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
d
e
c
l
a
r
i
n
g
w
a
r
o
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
.
A
l
l
o
I
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
,
p
l
u
s
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
.
S
t
a
n
d
b
y
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
e
n
o
u
g
h
u
n
i
t
s
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
R
e
a
d
y
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
.
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
6
S
t
o
p
L
o
s
s
.
1
0
U
S
C
1
2
3
0
5
C
o
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
.
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
5
0
U
S
C
A
p
p
4
5
1
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
e
n
a
b
l
i
n
g
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
O
T
A
L
F
o
r
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
G
l
o
b
a
l
C
o
n
I
l
i
c
t
M
O
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
A
l
l
o
I
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
T
o
t
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
A
r
m
e
d
F
o
r
c
e
s
b
y
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
n
g
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
r
o
o
p
b
a
s
i
s
t
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
I
t
h
e
t
r
o
o
p
b
a
s
i
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
a
l
l
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
,
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
t
o
a
u
g
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
s
u
c
h
I
o
r
c
e
s
.
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
l
e
v
e
l
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
I
u
l
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
.
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
A
s
a
b
o
v
e
.
A
s
a
b
o
v
e
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
3
0
9
Concept of Operations
a. The mobilization process is divided into Iive
phasesasIollows:
(1) Phase I - Planning. This phase includes the
normal day-to-day eIIorts oI each unit at its HS.
During this phase, units plan, train and prepare to
accomplish assigned mobilization missions. They
prepare mobilization plans and Iiles as directed by
STARCs, RSCs and FORMDEPS, attend
mobilization coordination conIerences, provide
required planning data to the MS, conduct
mobilization training and develop postmobilization
trainingplansasdirected.Eachunitwillcompleteas
many administrative processing actions as possible
beIorebeingorderedtoIederalactiveduty. Inherent
withintheplanningphaseisprovidingunitpersonnel,
logistics, and training data electronically to a units
respective PPP/PSP. Unit data must be provided at
least annually. The annual requirement can be
accomplished during the participation in an
OPTIMAL FOCUS or CALL FORWARD exercise.
Plans Ior movement to the MS must be completed
during this phase, in accordance with FORSCOM
Regulation 55-1, and automated inIormation systems
identiIied Ior deployment and must be accredited as
speciIied in Chapter 3, AR 380-19. Phase I ends
whentheunitreceivesitsoIIicialalertnotiIication.
(2) Phase II - Alert. This phase includes all
those actions taken by a unit Iollowing receipt oI the
oIIicial alert. SpeciIic tasks and standards are listed
in this regulation. The unit takes speciIic actions to
prepare Ior transition Irom RC to active status.
Actions such as screening and cross leveling are
essential during the alert phase. Unit commander
should attempt to contact gaining unit commander
(especially iI gaining command is already deployed)
todeterminemissionrequirementsinordertomodiIy
the units METL. Upon alert, unit commanders will
provide unit data Iiles to the mobilization station
eIIective M-Day. This phase ends with the eIIective
dateoImobilizationoItheunitatHS.
(3)PhaseIII-HomeStation.Thisphasebegins
on the eIIective date oI the unit mobilization. Once
mobilized,unitshave72hourstobereadytomoveto
their MS. Actions taken at this point include
inventoryandloadingoIunitpropertyanddispatchoI
the advance party to the MS. During this phase, the
unit takes action to speed its transition to active
status. SpeciIic tasks and standards are listed in the
Iollowing chapters and annexes oI this regulation.
Movement Irom HS to MS will be by the most
expeditiousandpracticalmeansavailable.Detailed
unit movement planning will be in accordance with
FORSCOM Regulation 55-1. The unit will
coordinate directly with the MS prior to the unit
departing HS, and keep peacetime higher
headquarters inIormed. At the beginning oI this
phase, command passes Irom the peacetime chain oI
commandtothe CONUSA in whose geographic area
the unit is located. Mobilizing units are encouraged
to continue to request assistance and support Irom
their peacetime chain oI command until directed
otherwise.ThisphaseendswitharrivaloItheunitat
itsMS.
(4)PhaseIV-MobilizationStation.Thisphase
begins with arrival oI the unit at its MS and
encompasses all the actions necessary to meet
required deployment criteria. Command oI the unit
passes Irom the CONUSA to the MS (or to gaining
MACOM Ior CONUS base support units) at the
beginning oI Phase IV. Actions at MS include the
processingoIpersonnelandequipmentandtheactual
accessioningoItheunitintotheactivestructure.The
goal oI the unit during this phase is to attain
operational readiness status in the shortest possible
time, consistent with its planned deployment or
operational mission. This phase also includes any
necessary individual or collective training as well as
appropriate cross-leveling actions, Soldier Readiness
Processing (SRP)/Preparation Ior Overseas
Movement (POM) and validation Ior deployment.
Phase IV ends with arrival oI the unit at the point oI
embarkation (POE). Phase IV and Phase V may
overlap since equipment moving by surIace
transportation begins Phase V earlier than with
personnel.
(5) Phase V - Port oI Embarkation. This phase
begins with arrival oI the unit at its POE. It
encompasses all activities at the SeaPort oI
Embarkation(SPOE)andtheAirPortoIEmbarkation
(APOE). These activities include both maniIesting
and loading oI personnel. This phase ends with
departureoIpersonnelandequipmentIromthePOE.
b. This document is designed as a how to
handbooktoassisttheunitcommanderduringPhases
I,II,andIIIoImobilization.Oncetheunitarrivesat
the MS, it Ialls under the command oI the MS
commander, unless the unit is commanded by a
General OIIicer or is a separate brigade, TAACOM,
COSCOM, etc., in which cases it remains under the
command oI the CONUSA or oI the AC aIIiliate
10
division(iIthelatterisnotalreadydeployed).Inthe
Iormer case, the unit should take direction Irom the
MS Commander and his staII. Because unit
requirements and MS operations vary, it is
impractical to attempt to speciIy the tasks and
standards required in Phase IV and Phase V. The
commander must take the initiative to make the
necessary coordination and arrangements with the
appropriate MS agencies to provide Ior housing,
training, logistics and other support to bring his unit
to a combat ready status as soon as possible. These
actions begin in Phase I with planning and
coordination with the MS, and continue through
PhasesII,IIIandIV.However,thecommandermay
be assisted by the Mobilization Checklist Ior Unit
Commanders (Annex E), Initial Mobilization Station
ActivitiesChecklist(Table3-1)and the Mobilization
Station Requirements Checklist (Annex G) as a
startingpoint.
c. FORSCOMs intent is to automate the
mobilization and deployment process to the Iullest
extentpossible.Inthisregard:
(1) Maximum utilization oI the available
automationoIunitandindividualpersonnel,training,
and logistics inIormation, and electronically
transIerringthemostcurrentdatatoaPPPorPSP,is
thecornerstoneautomationinitiative.
(2) Automation provides the capability to
subsequently transIer the data to installation systems,
whichareusedtomanageandaccountIorindividuals
andunits.
(3) Unit data (Individual, logistic and training)
willbetransIerredintheIollowingmanner:
(a) MobilizationLevelAutomation
SoItwareMOBLAShardwareandsoItwareisusedto
IilltheneedIoramobilizationautomationsystem
visibletobothActiveandReserveComponents.
MOBLASimprovestheabilityoIunitsand
installationstoplanIorandexecutemobilizationand
deploymentoperations.
(b)TheFORSCOM-developedMOBLAS
usesdataprovidedbythestatesIormobilizing
ARNGunitsanddataprovidedviatheCenterLevel
ApplicationSoItware(CLAS)|Conversionison-
goingtousetheRegionalLevelApplicationSoItware
(RLAS)|IormobilizingUSARunits.DatatransIer
includesunit,personnel,trainingandlogistics
inIormation.TheMOBLASapplicationallows
manipulationoIthedataintoIormatsandreportsthat
supportrequiredmobilizationIunctionsonthe
installation.
(c)MOBLASinterIaceswiththe
InstallationSupportModules(ISM).
(d)MOBLASinthemobilizationrolewill:
FacilitaterapidprocessingoIunitand
SoldierReadinessProcessing(SRP)data.
ProvidevisibilityoIthepersonnel,
trainingandlogisticstatusoImobilizingunitspriorto
theirarrivalatthePPP/PSP.
ProvidestandardizedsoItwareatall
PPPs/PSPs.
ProvidethecapabilitytomanipulateRC
datatransIerredviaCLAS/RLAS,ARNG
scripts/disks,andultimatelyIromtheReserve
ComponentAutomationSystem(RCAS).
(4) It is FORSCOMs intent to provide data on
mobilized and deploying individuals and units to
gainingcommandsIortheiruse.
(5) MOBLAS is currently being adapted to
support management oI all multi-component units.
This is the only vehicle that will currently support
consolidation and roll-up oI data when the
organizations are composed oI members Irom more
thanonecomponent.
d. Preparedness is the basic concept in
premobilization processing. Units must complete
personnel actions and maintain current and accurate
records to ensure their completeness and availability
atthemobilizationstation.
e.BetweenalertanddepartureIromHS,theunitwill
continue personnel processing actions required Ior
movement to the MS. AIter administrative, logistic
and training needs have been determined, the
commander must prioritize and integrate the
requirements into a realistic activity list based on the
time available. As many actions as possible will be
scheduledandaccomplishedatHS.
I. FORSCOM Form 319-R (PTSR), command
readiness inspection reports, compliance evaluation,
TrainingAssessmentModel(TAM),AnnualTraining
(AT) evaluation reports, the unit commanders
Mission Essential Task List (METL), Army Training
and Evaluation Program (ARTEP), Unit Status
Report(USR),BattleFocusTrainingAssessmentand
Evaluation Program (Ior USASOC units), and
inIormal evaluations and observations provide an
overviewoItheunitstrainingstatus.
11
g. Intensive, coordinated logistic planning by all
levels eases the transition Irom peacetime to
mobilization. Logistical support Ior mobilized RC
units at HS is provided to the maximum extent
possiblethroughthemobilizingunitsnormallogistic
supportsystem.ArmyNationalGuard(ARNG)units
and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) units should
continue to request logistic support Irom their
peacetime channels. Command Logistic Review
Team (CLRT) reports, USR and Command Supply
Discipline Program (CSDP) evaluations provide an
indicationoIunitlogisticstatus.
h. Movement requirements are determined in
accordance with FORSCOM Regulation 55-1. The
total movement requirement may be Iragmented into
twoormoreincrements(i.e.,aportionmaybemoved
by organic transportation Irom the HS and one or
more storage sites, and the remainder may be moved
by commercial means Irom any one or all locations).
The State Area Command (STARC) and USPFO Ior
the ARNG, and the U.S Army Reserve Command
(USARC) and RSC in coniunction with supporting
installation(SI/CI)IortheUSAR,areresponsibleIor
arrangingandprovidingthetransportation.
i. The Computerized Movement Planning and
Status System (COMPASS) and Automated Unit
Equipment List (AUEL) are the reporting systems
used to identiIy movement requirements to the
transportationmanagersIAWFORSCOMRegulation
55-2.
i. The order to active duty serves as the units
oIIicialtravelorderstomoveIromHStotheMS.
k. Movement oI dependents and shipment oI
household goods to the MS is not authorized.
However, Headquarters, Department oI the Army
(HQDA)mayauthorizedependentmovementIorMS
permanentpartypersonnelatalaterdate.Deploying
units personnel are prohibited Irom bringing
Privately Owned Vehicles (POV) to the MS without
coordinationwithandpriorapprovaloItheMS.
l. CommandersandmembersoIunitsarealertedto
the impending order to active duty through oIIicial
command channels (see Annex A). NotiIication is
providedaccordingtotheIollowingtimeschedule:
(1) F-Hour. SECDEF directs military
departments to order reservists to active duty and
makes general public announcements oI numbers oI
reservists, by service, and the duration oI service.
Unit designations will not be indicated at this time.
F-Hourwillbestatedinthealertmessage.
(2) F-Hour to F12 Hours. HQDA issues
alertnotiIicationtotheChieI,NationalGuardBureau
(NGB), CG FORSCOM, and other appropriate
addressees (e.g., USAREUR, USARPAC and
USASOC). The ChieI, NGB transmits the
notiIication by the most expeditious means available
to the state governors, through the state adiutants
general(TAG).FORSCOMtransmitsthenotiIication
by the most expeditious means available to the
USARC,withinIormationcopytoeachCONUSA.It
is then disseminated through peacetime command
channelstoaIIectedUSARandARNGunits.
(3) F12 to F18 Hours. Unit
commandersandadvisorsoIallaIIectedRCunitsare
notiIied by message (Annex A). Messages will be
unclassiIied:however,theywillcontaintheprotective
marking,FOROFFICIALUSEONLY,whichwillbe
applicableuntilF19hours.
(4) PriortoF19Hour.Unitcommanders
alert unit members. They will employ a
communicationsmeansthatprecludesreleaseoIalert
inIormationtonewsmedia.
(5) Due to the rapid communications
capabilities oI the news media, it may be impossible
to accomplish the time-phased procedures beIore the
media becomes aware oI speciIic units alerted.
Commanders and members oI units at all echelons
should be aware oI this possibility. II this should
occur, the unit commander must immediately notiIy
higher headquarters. Unit members should be
instructedtonotprovideanyinIormationormakeany
commentstothenewsmediapriortoF19.
(6) F19 Hours. CONUSAs and state
adiutants general may notiIy the news media oI
detailsoImobilization.
Mobilization Authority
The authority to order mobilization resides with the
President and/or the Congress. The Secretary oI
DeIense (SECDEF), with the advice and
recommendation oI the Service Secretaries and the
Joint ChieIs oI StaII (JCS), recommends to the
President and the Congress the level oI mobilization
required to support a given contingency, OPLAN, or
national emergency. The SECDEF directs
12
mobilization oI the RC units and manpower through
thevariousmilitarydepartments.
Emergency Authority
In the event oI a surprise attack on the U.S.
(conventional or nuclear), the Iormal notiIication oI
RCunitsmaynotbepossible.RCunitcommanders,
upon becoming aware oI an attack through the
National Warning System, the Emergency Broadcast
System, or physical evidence (actually in the area oI
the attack), will assemble and mobilize their units as
soon as possible: establish communications with
higher, lower and lateral units and civil authorities,
and take actions to protect the unit, repel attackers,
andrestorethemilitarycapabilityoItheU.S.
Future Operations
TheadventoIthe21
st
century(andForceXXI,which
is the Armys overall program to meet new
challenges), a strategic Iocus on power proiection
Irom CONUS, and the increased likelihood oI
participation in Small Scale Contingency Operations
(SSCO), require Army planners to address in detail
several operational requirements which are
unprecedented.
RC Residual Mission
The traditional mobilization concept oI sending an
entire unit to the MS and closing Iacilities is no
longer the norm. RC mobilization planners must
include guidance Ior management oI non-mobilized
soldiers, continued management oI Iacilities,
coordination Ior Iamily support and other missions
requiredbytheoperation.Plansshouldrecognizeall
potential missions but not address any speciIic
resourcetosupporttherequirementuntilexecution.
Tailored Force/Derivative Unit
Identification Codes (UICs)
Power proiection concepts and support requirements
IorlimitedcontingencieshavecreatedanewIocuson
tailoring the Iorce Ior speciIic missions prior to
deployment. The need to successIully manage and
account Ior RC elements, can lead to thee
establishment oI derivative UICs in command and
control,personnel,andlogisticssystems.
Home Station Mobilization
During Small Scale Contingency Operations, the
FORSCOM commander may designate RC units to
mobilize, be validated and deploy Irom Home
Station.Lodging,Ieeding,equipmentmodernization,
all TAT, Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP),
Preparation Ior Overseas Movement (POM) will be
perIormed by the units peacetime headquarters
(STARC/RSC). The CONUSA will supervise and
interpret the established standards Ior minimum
deployment criteria (C-ratings) and validate the unit.
The units designated SI will provide all support
requiredIoraccessionanddeploymentIromthehome
stationtothetheateroIoperations.ThedesignatedSI
also assists in unit demobilization as required.
Instructions Ior the conduct oI Home Station
Mobilization will be published by FORSCOM and
the supporting CONUSA, and will be developed to
meetspeciIiccontingencyoperations.
13
Chapter Two: Personnel and
Administration
General.
Asageneralrule,allmembersassignedtoaunit,on
receipt oI an alert order, will be mobilized with that
unit unless otherwise directed by regulation,
Secretary oI the Army guidance, or operational-
unique guidance. Standard exceptions Ior
mobilization are soldiers who have not completed
initial entry training, high school students, and
soldiers who have received reassignment or transIer
orders. Unit commanders need to be aware (and
brieI unit members) that upon mobilization date at
home station, all personnel management actions Iall
under active army regulations, except Ior pay and
promotions. The tasks and standards noted below
and the inIormation in tables 2-1 through 2-2 are
designedtoprovideguidanceandinIormation which
will support a seamless transition to active duty,
whether it is a limited call under PSRC or Full
Mobilization.
The administrative tasks listed Irom Phase I
through Phase III are all those tasks necessary to
complete the mobilization oI RC units (both TO&E
and TDA) and accession them into the active
component personnel systems and other standard
systems. Peacetime support roles, limited Iull time
support (FTS) personnel and unit administrative
support, very short alert and home station phases
(primarily Ior PSRC units), and other mobilization
Iactors may impact the timing oI tasks and whether
theyareaccomplishedbytheunitorothersupporting
agencies (e.g. STARC, RSC, training support
element, or Supporting Installation). A prime
example is STARC management oI ARNG unit
records.Sometasks indicated in the alert and home
station phases may, iI necessary, be delayed until
arrivalattheMS(coordinationshouldbe made with
theinstallationduringthealertphasetovalidatetheir
capability oI supporting additional tasks). The
STARC or RSC may execute other tasks aIter
departure oI the unit (e.g., processing oI transIer
orders Ior high school students). Commanders
throughouttheRCchainmustbeawareoIthe status
oI their units, and must ensure that units identiIy
support requirements to the appropriate
headquarters/agency.
Throughout the administrative processes in the
planning,alertandhomestationphases,commanders
and administrative personnel need to ensure that
record updates include updates to appropriate
automated systems and Iiles (e.g. CLAS, SIDPERS
|ARNG AND USAR|) The administrative process
includes the electronic unit data transIers to
MOBLAS.
Condition: Phase I - Planning
(Peacetime To Alert)
2-I-1.TASK:ProvidepersonnelinIormation.
STANDARD
a. Present individual letters to unit personnel
during unit in processing that provides general
inIormation and guidance to assist them in
understandingtheirroleinthereservesystem.
b. For personnel readiness planning, present
each individual with a copy oI Annex C oI this
volume oI FORMDEPS (ensure that the Annex is
annotated with unit speciIic inIormation where
appropriate). Additionally, order copies oI any
current Iamily assistance support pamphlets or
publications, identiIied by the unit Iamily program
coordinator, Ior each unit member to provide to
his/herIamily.
c. Conduct welcome and annual brieIing to
soldiersusingAnnexC.
d. Conduct Military Medical beneIits and
DentalbrieIingsIorIamilymembersannually.
e. Obtain copies oI current pamphlets
explaining reemployment rights and responsibilities
Irom you Local State Committee Ior Employer
Support oI the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)
representative Ior each unit member to provide to
his/her employer. II local ESGR representative is
unknown, contact the National Committee Ior
Employer Support oI the Guard and Reserve
(NCESGR)at1-800-336-4590.
I.ProvidecopyoITC21-7 (Personal Financial
ReadinessandDeployabilityHandbook)toeachunit
member.
2-I-2. TASK: Prioritize the conduct oI Soldier
Readiness Processing (SRP) checks and conduct
SRPactions.
14
STANDARD
a. Prioritize SRP Checks. Based on priorities,
only one SRP check (other than Ior actual
mobilization and deployment) will be made on an
annualbasis.Allotherinspectionsorcheckswilluse
dataIromtheprimarycheck.
(1) SRP checks are done through several
processesthroughouttheyear.
(a) Selecteddataisrequiredtosupportunit
statusreporting.
(b) Annual records checks to ensure that
Iormsandadministrativedatarequiredtosupportthe
soldierandhis/herIamilyareuptodate.
(c) Inspections and readiness evaluations
are conducted by command agencies throughout the
year.
(d) Soldier readiness is evaluated during
exercisessuchasCALLFORWARD.
(e) Soldier readiness is required in
preparationIorOverseasDeploymentIorTraining.
(2) CommandersmustreviewschedulesIor
the training year and annotate the training schedule
Ior the primary SRP check, to reduce the multiple
SRPchecks.
b.ConductSRP.
(1) Guidance is in AR 600-8-101.
Supplemental guidance will be provided as required
to meet changing policy in SRP management and
operationalrequirements.
(2) Those administrative actions that are
requiredIortheday-to-daysupportoIthesoldierand
his/her Iamily will ensure that most oI the SRP
requirements are current (i.e., maintenance oI DD
Form 93 and pre-enrollment in DEERS). Selected
items, such as immunizations and issuance oI ID
cards, cannot be accomplished until mobilization
execution.
(3) Thetasksinthisphasenotedbelowthat
supportSRPactionsaregroupedinthesamepattern
astheSRPchecklist(600-8-101 TEST) provided by
DA DCSPER on their home page and the electronic
IormavailableintheMobilizationLevelApplication
System (MOBLAS) at all PPPs and PSPs and the
Installation Support Modules (ISMs) at FORSCOM
Installations.Tasksareneitherall-inclusiveIorSRP
noraretheynecessarilyinsequentialorder.
(4) Those tasks that do not align with SRP
but are critical to unit and soldier mobilization are
categorizedandaddedastheIinalsections.
FOLLOWING TASKS SUPPORT SRP
ACTIONS FOR PERSONNEL
REQUIREMENTS
2-I-3.TASK:MaintainMPRJ(DAForm201).
STANDARD
UpdateasrequiredIAWAR600-8-104.
2-I-4. TASK: Update and maintain unit data bases
and personnel SIDPERS data (ARNG or USAR).
(SRPSectionI)
STANDARD
Commanders will ensure that unit's data bases and
RC SIDPERS data is timely and accurate. Data is
used in automated systems which identiIy and
earmark Iillers and support development oI training
base expansion requirements. VeriIy accuracy oI
AOC/MOSdataonSIDPERS.
2-I-5.TASK: Screen personnel Ior members not
availableIormobilizationordeployment.
STANDARD
a. Commanders will screen members oI their
unit annually IAW AR 135-133 and NGR 600-2.
ThosewhoareidentiIiedaskeyemployees,ministry
students, medically disqualiIied Ior deployment or
whosemobilizationwillresultinextremepersonalor
communityhardshipwillbedischargedortransIerred
asappropriate.
b. Screening should identiIy all soldiers who
are non-deployable, to include reason. Unit
commanders will take actions to resolve the non-
deployable condition. Soldiers determined to have
permanent non-deployable conditions will be
transIerredordischargedasappropriate.
c. AR 614-30 (Table 3-1), AR 220-1 and
Table 2-1, this regulation, should be used as
reIerencestoidentiIynon-deployablecategories.
2-I-6.TASK: Complete Family Care Plans
(FCP). Standards identiIying soldiers who require a
Iamily care plan can be Iound in AR 600-20. An
15
FCP is required Ior both members oI a dual-service
couple,andsoldierswho:
havenospouse
aredivorced,widowedorseparated
reside without the spouse when the soldier
becomes pregnant, or have ioint or Iull legal
and physical custody oI one or more children
undertheageoI19years
have adult, non-spouse, dependent Iamily
membersincapableoIselI-care.
HavespousewhoisincapableoIselI-care.
STANDARD
Documents required by paragraph 5-5, AR 600-20
mustbecurrentandonIileIoreachsoldierrequiring
aplan.
2-I-7.TASK: Ensure that all unit members have
appropriateidentiIicationdocuments.
STANDARD
a. Issue a serviceable U.S. Armed Forces
IdentiIication Card DD Form 2A (Green). (AR 600-
8-14)NOTE: II soldier has a DD Form 2 (Red)
replace it with DD Form 2 (Green) Ior Reserves as
Iormsaremadeavailable.
b. Initiate, Ior non-combatants, application Ior
Geneva Convention Identity Card (DD Form 1934),
iIapplicable.(AR600-8-14)
c. IssueIDTagsIAWAR600-8-14.
2-I-8. TASK: IdentiIy and process soldiers with
permanentmedicalproIilesoIP3orworse.
STANDARD
Individuals who have a P3 proIile or worse must be
processed Ior retention, reclassiIication,
reassignment, retirement or discharge as appropriate
(AR 40-501, AR 135-178 and AR 635-40). See
Criterion19,Table2-1.
FOLLOWINGTASKSSUPPORTSRP
ACTIONSFORSECURITYREQUIREMENTS
2-I-9.TASK: Ensure personnel have a security
clearancerequiredbytheirdutyposition.
STANDARD
a. IdentiIy personnel requiring security
clearances IAW unit structure document (e.g.
MTOE) and other requirements (Annex G).
Document the positions requiring a security
clearanceonacopyoItheunit-manningroster.
b. Security managers submit requests Ior
securityclearancesIAWAR380-67.
ACTIONSFORLEGALREQUIREMENTS
2-I-10.TASK: Provide premobilization legal
preparationincluding:
a. The Premobilization Legal Counseling
Program(PLCP).
b. Premobilizationlegalservices(PLS).
STANDARDS:
a. PLCP/PLS will be provided by RC Judge
Advocates IAW Annex Q FORSCOM Mobilization
Plan(FORSCOMREGULATION500-3-1,FMP).
b. SeeTable2-3Iordetailedguidance.
ACTIONSFORFINANCEREQUIREMENTS
2-I-11. TASK: Maintain individual soldiers
MasterMilitaryPayAccount(MMPA).
STANDARD
a. MaintainindividualsoldiersMMPAinunit
Iile.
b. Review MMPA Ior accuracy during annual
iointreviewoIsoldierspersonnelrecords.
c. Update the soldiers MMPA on receipt oI
documentation.
ACTIONSFORMEDICALANDDENTAL
REQUIREMENTS
NOTE:Recentlegislationimposesnewmedicaland
dentalcarerequirementsIormembersoItheselected
reserve.Theyinclude:
16
a. AnannualmedicalscreeningIorallsoldiers
b. For FAD 3 or higher deploying units, a Iull
physical examination not less than once every two
yearsIormemberswhoareover40yearsoIage:and,
anannualdentalscreenanddentalcaretoensurethat
soldiers meet the dental class 2 standards required
IordeploymentintheeventoImobilization.
2-I-12.TASK:MaintainHealthRecord (DA Form
3444Series).
STANDARD
UpdateasrequiredIAWAR40-66andAR40-501.
2-I-13. TASK: Ensure medical examinations are
current and that required medical warning tags are
issued.
STARCs/RSCs and mobilization installations will
coordinatetheprocesssetIorthbelow.
STANDARD
a. ScheduleandIollow-uponunitmembersto
ensure periodic physical examinations are
accomplishedbyappropriatemedicalpersonnelIAW
AR40-501.
(1) Periodic physicals Ior all soldiers. For
most unit members this requirement occurs every
Iive years (on a quinquennial basis). Lack oI a
currentphysicalexamwillnotpreventmobilization.
(2) Soldiers over 40, and are assigned to
early-deploying units, will receive physical
examinationseverytwoyears.
(3) Soldiers over 40 must receive
additional cardiovascular screening at their next
regularlyscheduledexam.
b. Medical personnel conducting periodic
examinations will identiIy members requiring
medical warning tags IAW AR 40-15, prepare DA
Form 3365, coordinate to have the tags issued, and
aIIixDALabel162tothehealthrecord.
2-I-14.TASK:Ensuredentalexaminations.
STARCs/RSCs and mobilization installations will
coordinatetheprocessnoted.
STANDARD
a. Allsoldiersarerequiredtohaveacomplete
dental health record. AR 40-501 provides guidance
onhowtosatisIythedentalexaminationrequirement
Ioradentalhealthrecord.
b. All soldiers are required to have in the
dental record a panographic x-ray, which provides
IorensicidentiIication(AR40-66).
c. Lack oI a complete dental record will not
precludemobilization.
d. For early deploying units, an annual dental
screenanddentalcareisrequiredtobringsoldiersto
dental class 2 standards. The TRICARE Selected
ReserveDentalProgramwillbeusedasthebasisIor
meetingthesestandards.
2-I-15. TASK: Ensure Deoxyribonucleic Acid
(DNA)specimeniscompleted.
STANDARD
AllsoldiersarerequiredtohaveoneDNAspecimen
drawnandnotedonanSF600.Thereisnolongera
requirement Ior a DNA sample to be placed in the
medicalrecord.Thesetwillbestoredinahumidity
barrierpouchandwillbe sent to the DNA specimen
repository in the mailer provided with the kits. The
only accepted documentation is iI the repository
enters the receipt in DEERS. Each oI the reserve
componentsisinvolvedinspecimencollectionoIRC
soldiers who have been accessed to active duty.
Specimensareroutinelycollectedonallsoldierswho
are new accessions Ior the Army (in all
components).
2-I-16. TASK: Ensure unit members are tested
periodicallyIorHIV.
STANDARD
RC unit members must be screened Ior HIV every
Iive years. For all RC soldiers entering active duty
Ior 30 days or more, the HIV test must have been
completedwithintheprevious6months.Individuals
who are conIirmed HIV antibody positive must be
transIerredtoanon-deployingunit,transIerredtothe
IRRorseparated(theindividualmustselectoption).
2-I-17.TASK:Ensureimmunizationsarecurrent.
STANDARD
17
a.Individualimmunizationrecordsmustbe
reviewedtoensuresoldiersmeettherequirementsoI
AR40-562plusanyadditionalimmunizations
requiredbytheimmediatemobilizationscenario.
RoutineimmunizationsarerequiredIor:
IMMUNIZATION*BasicRequirement BOOSTERFREQUENCY
TetanusandDiphtheria EveryTen(10)years
YellowFever* EveryTen(10)years
Typhoid-BasicSeriesEitherOralorbyIniection(NOT
BOTH)
Oral(Four-Doseseries,taken
ondays0,2,4,and6.Donot
giveonsamedayasmeIloquine
orwithantibiotics.)
EveryFive(5)years
IniectionBoostersvarydependent
ontype:
-Wyeth-AyerstTwo-doseprimary
weeks0&4
-TyphimViOneIniection
primary
EveryThree(3)years
EveryTwo(2)years
InIluenza-AnnuallyIorAC,
UponMobilizationIorRC
orderedtoADIor30days
ormore
AnnualVoluntary
RequireduponMobilization
Anthrax-BasicSeries**PERDAANTHRAXVaccine
ImmunizationProgram.RecommendedScheduleSeries
oI6dosesgivenatday0,week2,week4,6months,12
months,&18months
Everyyear
HepatitisABasicSeriesTwoshotseries6/12month
period
NoboostersaIterbasic
HepatitisB-***(ForAMEDDpersonnel)Three(3)shot
seriesatmonths0,1,and6
NoboostersaIterbasic
*EXERCUSECAUTIONWHENCONSIDERING
ANYIMMUNIZATIONDURINGPREGNANCY.
AVOIDALLLIVEVIRUSVACCINES(E.G.,
YELLOWFEVER,MEASLES)DURING
PREGNANCY.
**COMMANDERSMUSTENSURETHAT
ANTHRAXSERIESISRECORDEDINTOTHE
MEDPROSSYSTEM.
***FORALLMEDICALPERSONNELAND
THOSEATHIGHRISKFORCONTACTWITH
BLOODANDBODYFLUIDS
b.Allotherimmunizationswillbe
determinedbythetheateroIoperationsand
administeredduringalertorhomestationphasesor
atthemobilizationstation.
c.AppropriatemedicalunitsorIacilities
IAWAR40-562willadministerrequired
immunizations.CommandersareresponsibleIor
membersreceivingscheduledimmunizationsand
updatingoIinIormationinappropriatepersonnelor
medicaldatabases.
18
d.Medicalpersonnelwilldocument
immunizationsonSF601(RecordoIImmunizations)
andPHSForm731(YellowShotRecord).
2-I-18. TASK: IdentiIy personnel who wear
spectaclesand/orhearingaids.
STANDARD
Require each soldier to provide copy oI latest
civilian prescription Ior spectacles/hearing aid and
Iileinthemember'smedicalrecord.
2-I-19. TASK: IdentiIy personnel requiring lens
insertsIorprotectivemask.
STANDARD
Personnel with visual acuity oI 20/70 or worse and
drivers oI military vehicles with visual acuity oI
20/40orworsemusthavelensinserts,IAWAR600-
55. A
requisition with copy oI prescription Ior spectacles
attached will be submitted to the STARC/RSC IAW
AR40-63.
ACTIONSFORFAMILYASSISTANCE
REQUIREMENTS
2-I-20. TASK: VeriIy application Ior UniIormed
ServicesIdentiIicationCardDEERSEnrollment(DD
Form1172),IorIamilymembers,asappropriate.
STANDARD
a. Required Ior each member with Iamily
members. Member must provide documents to
veriIy Iamily status and must notiIy unit as changes
occur.
b. Member completes and signs DD Form
1172.UnitveriIiesinIormationbasedonrecordsand
documentationprovidedandissuesDDForm1173-1
to Iamily members. DEERS enrollment should be
accomplished whenever the DD Form 1173-1 is
issued/reissued. However, iI the unit does not have
the capability to issue ID cards, provide Iamily
member with veriIied copy and instruct member to
take Iamily to nearest Reserve Center/Armory or ID
Iacility (all services can provide this support) Ior
issue.
c. Enrollment will be either on-line or with
DEERS Floppy Disk. Current version oI DEERS
Floppy Disk can be requested through command
channels.
d. Anytime there is a change in Iamily status,
e.g.,gain/lossoIIdependents,changeoIaddress,the
member must also change inIormation in DEERS
throughtheunit.
2-I-21. TASK: Establish a Family Support Group
(FSG).
STANDARD
EstablishaFSGIAWAR600-20andDAPAM608-
47 and coordinate liaison with supporting activities.
Minimumproceduresinclude:
a. Appoint an oIIicer or senior NCO as the
unitFamilyAssistanceCoordinator.
19
b. Support preparation oI a telephone tree Ior
FSGmembers.
c. Maintain communication between Iamily
support group leader and STARC/RSC Family
SupportCoordinator.
d. Post location (and telephone number iI
available)oIsupportingFamilyAssistanceCenters.
e. ConductannualbrieIingstoIamilymembers
IAWAnnexC.
FOLLOWINGTASKSARENOTSRP-
RELATEDBUTAREREQUIREDTO
SUPPORTUNITREADINESSFOR
DEPLOYMENT
2-I-22.TASK:ForunitswithassignedHealthCare
Providers,screenPractitionerCredentialsFile(PCF)
Ior update and veriIication requirements. PCF
custodian requests necessary veriIications and
documents updates IAW AR 40-66 and AR 40-68.
Reviewannually.
STANDARD
Prepare roster oI individual practitioner PCF status.
II PCF is deIicient, list deIiciencies that require
correction. PCF custodian will correct deIiciencies
and, at mobilization, Iorward current rosters to
STARC (ARNG) and RSC (USAR) Ior inIormation.
Send roster inIormation copy to MS Director oI
Health Services (DHS) Ior physicians, nurses, and
physician assistants, and an inIormation copy to MS
Director oI Dental Services (DDS) Ior dentists.
Review with MS DHS/DDS at biennial mobilization
visit. Units without PCF custodian capability will
seekassistancethroughchainoIcommand.
FOLLOWINGTASKSARENOTSRP
RELATEDBUTAREREQUIREDTO
SUPPORTUNITADMINISTRATIONFOR
DEPLOYMENT
2-I-23. TASK: Familiarize administrative
personnelinSIDPERS.
STANDARD
Ensure appropriate administrative personnel are
Iamiliar with SIDPERS-AC system, IAW DA Pam
600-8-23 (this applies primarily to personnel with a
the 75-series PMOS, or who are training in that
Iield). Training assistance is available (Training
SupportElement,SupportInstallation,MS).
20
2-I-24.TASK:Appointment/Signaturecards,asapplicable,preparedIor:
DUTY STANDARD
ClassiIiedCourier DAForm2501,AR25-11
MoraleSupportFundRepresentative AppointmentMemo,AR215-1
CustodianoIClassiIiedDocuments AppointmentMemo,AR380-5
MilitaryPostalOIIicer DDForm285,AR600-8-3
MailClerk&Alternate DDForm285,AR600-8-3
MailOrderly DDForm285,AR600-8-3
InIormationManagementOIIicer(IMO)/TerminalArea
SecurityOIIicer(TASO)
AppointmentMemoFORSCOMRegulation500-3-3
FamilyAssistanceCoordinator AppointmentMemoFORSCOMRegulation500-3-3
InIormationSystemsSecurityManager(ISM) AppointmentMemo,AR380-19
2-I-25.TASK:AssembleandmaintainunitMorale,
WelIareAndRecreation(MWR)kits.
STANDARD
Assemble and maintain unit MWR supplies and
equipmentIAWChapter7andAnnexE,FM12-6.
2-I-26. TASK: IdentiIy personnel requiring waiver
oIbeneIits.
STANDARD
a. Screen personnel and records to identiIy
personnel receiving retirement pay, disability
allowance,andcompensation.
b. Prepare and submit Declaration oI Retired
Pay BeneIits and Waivers (DA Form 3053)
IAW AR 37-104-4 (DRAFT) and 37-104-
10.
2-I-27. TASK: IdentiIy personnel incurring
problemswiththeiremployer.
STANDARD
ReIer all personnel incurring problems with their
employer to the local ESGR representative. II local
ESGR representative is unknown, reIer to NCESGR
at1-800-336-4590.
Condition: Phase II- Alert
Tasks in this phase are not presented in SRP
sequence,butarenotedbytheannotationoItheSRP
task and the appropriate section in parenthesis aIter
the task. Commanders are reminded that capabilities
toaccomplishtaskswillvarydependentonthelength
oIalertandcapabilitiesoIboththeRCchainandthe
AC support elements to provide assistance. During
small scale contingency operations with lengthy alert
(or alert Ior training), commanders will continue to
executephaseItasksaswellasexecutingthetasksin
thealertphaseandsometasks Irom the home station
phase. Operational unique guidance will dictate any
deviationsIromthetasksnotedbelow:
Implementation oI Strength Ceiling Limitations.
ThisIorceddecisionstoprohibitthemobilization
oInon-deployablesoldiers.
NouseoIACtoIixRC.Thisrequiredexpanded
coordination oI home station cross-leveling and
use oI multiple units to bring selected units to
appropriatedeploymentlevels
Use RC to sustain RC and meet individual
requirements. This action required coordination
oIvolunteerstobeassignedtoandmobilizewith
derivative UICs and deploy as unit/individual
Iillers.
2-II-1.TASK:Coordinatemission-relatedtravel.
STANDARD
IdentiIy individuals whose duties during Phase II or
III will require them to travel beyond the HS local
commuting area as determined by STARC/RSC
policy (i.e., unit retrieval teams). Request travel
arrangements Irom appropriate USPFO (Ior ARNG)
orRSC(IorUSAR).
2-II-2. TASK: Review and validate receipt oI unit
orders.
21
STANDARD
Unit should receive an AD/Federalization order
which includes movement authorization and
establishesanyoperation-uniquestructureorstrength
requirements. The CONUSA will process orders Ior
CONUS-basedunitsandunitsinPuertoRicoandthe
Virgin Islands (less USASOCOM units :
USASOCOMwillprocess mobilization orders Ior its
RC units).. Similarly, OCONUS MACOMs will
processmobilizationordersIortheirRCunits.
2-II-3. TASK: Review, coordinate and validate
actionsrequiringindividualorders.
STANDARD
Units will normally have soldiers on AT, IET,
ADSW,ADT,orTTAD.Unitsshouldreceiveorders
transIerring non-mobilizing soldiers Irom their units.
They will also receive guidance to coordinate the
return oI soldiers on ADSW, ADT or TTAD, when
appropriate. In addition, they should receive orders
assigning new members to the unit through cross
levelingactions.Theymustreviewandvalidatethese
orders and request additional orders or changes Irom
theSTARC/RSC,iInecessary.
a. Some categories oI personnel requiring
transIerIromtheunitare:
(1)SoldiersonADSW,ADTorTTADthat
cannotreturntotheunit(Criterion1,Table2-1).
(2) Untrained Soldiers (Criterion 2, Table
2-1).
(3) AMEDDOIIicersinTraining(Criterion
35,Table2-1).
(4) Simultaneous Membership Program
(SMP)Participants(Criterion4,Table2-1).
(5) High School Students (Criterion 6,
Table2-1).
(6) SelectedOCSCandidates(Criterion 31,
Table2-1).
(7) OthertransIeractionsasrequired.
b. Soldiers on AT, IET, ADSW, ADT or
TTAD who can return to the unit will require
amendment or revocation oI orders (Criterion 1,
Table2-1).
c. The unit should receive a copy oI
assignment orders on all personnel gains, based on
homestationcross-levelingactions.
2-II-4. TASK: Release attached personnel and
recover unit personnel attached to another unit.
Soldiers will mobilize only with their unit oI
assignment,nottheirunitoIattachment.
STANDARD
Request orders Irom the headquarters that originally
published the attachment order IAW
Criterion8,Table2-1.
2-II-5.TASK:Screenpromotioneligiblepersonnel.
STANDARD
Both oIIicer and enlisted personnel promotions will
remain under RC component policies unless
otherwisedirectedbyDA.
2-II-6. TASK: IdentiIy personnel who require
evaluationreports.
STANDARD
a. IdentiIy all soldiers who will have a change
oI rater or change oI duty upon mobilization. AR
623-105,AR623-205.
b. Review DA/FORSCOM guidance on
evaluation requirements Ior the proiected
mobilization.MobilizationinitselIisnotareasonIor
anevaluation.
2-II-7. TASK: Order unit members to active duty.
(ForPSRCunitsseeTable2-2.)
STANDARD
a. UponreceiptoItheunit'sAD/Federalization
order,RCunitcommanderswillpublish orders using
FORMAT153,AR600-8-105(ARNGunitsmayuse
FORMAT800NGR310-10).INGpersonnelwillbe
included on the unit order except Ior PSRC
activations,wheretheyareexemptIromcall.
b.ARNGunitswillsubmitrequestIorordersto
STARCIor return oI ING to active status concurrent
withtheunit'sM-Date.
22
c. Annotate a copy oI the unit manning roster
or DA 1379, indicating the status oI unit members,
i.e.,
(1) AdvanceParty.
(2) MainBody.
(3) Personnelauthorizeddelayedentry.
(4) Convoy.
(5) TTADtootherunits.
(6) Othercategoriesasdeemednecessary.
d. Prepare separate mobilization orders Ior
each unit member using FORMAT 165, AR 600-8-
105.
e. Distributeindividualmobilizationordersand
unitorders(withauthenticationrosters)asIollows:
INDIVIDUAL ORDERS: Must be separate
mobilizationorderwithonlyonestandardnameline.
(1) Ten copies to the individual member.
(EmphasizeneedtopassacopytoIamilymemberIor
beneIits and ID Card applications and a copy to the
employer).
(2) One copy to members MPRJ (Each
memberisrequiredtosignanddatethiscopy).
(3) OnecopytoMMPAIile.
(4) TwocopiestounitIile.
UNIT ORDERS: The primary unit order with
annotatedrosterslistingunitmembersbycategory.
(1) One copy to each higher headquarters
withinparentcommand.
(2) One copy each to the appropriate
STARC (ARNG)/RSC (USAR) and to the CONUSA
headquarters.
(3) One copy to the DFAS (RC) input
stationontransmittalletter.
(4) FourcopiestotheMS(deliveredbythe
advancepartyiIpossible).
(5) TwocopiestotheSI,iIrequired.
(6) Two copies to the Family Assistance
Center.
(7) One copy to gaining MACOM (Units
withCONUSsustainingmission).
I. Provide individual orders (Format 165) to
each member by the most expeditious means. II the
member cannot be presented with the order
personally, dispatch it by certiIied mail, restricted
delivery,withareturnreceiptrequested.
2-II-8.TASK:NotiIyIinanceinputstationoIunits
mobilization.(SRPChecklist-SectionV,Finance)
STANDARD:
NotiIy USPFO Ior ARNG and RSC Ior USAR to
initiate actions to assist and/or complete mobilizing
soldierIinancialreadinessprocessing.
2-II-9.TASK:Processdelayedarrivalpersonnel.
STANDARD
a. IdentiIy by individual application and
Criteria1,14,17,18,19,22,32,and34,oITable2-1
oIthisdocument,andprocessIAWAR601-25.
b. Issue delay letter using Iormat contained in
AR601-25.
2-II-10.TASK:Reviewappointmentmemoranda.
STANDARD
Review appointment memoranda (e.g., Morale
Support Fund Representative) and issue new
memorandum,iIappropriate.
2-II-11. TASK: Increase update oI unit and
personneldatabases.
STANDARD
Ensure that databases (e.g., SIDPERS, CLAS, or
RLAS as appropriate ARNG unit databases) are
updatedonadailybasis.
2-II-12. TASK: Activate the unit Iamily support
network.
STANDARD
a. Request that the unit Iamily support group
leader activate the telephone tree contact roster by
contactingallIamilymembers.
b. Unit Iamily assistance liaison coordinator
should provide the STARC Family Program
Coordinator Iamily support group inIormation and
potentialsupportrequirementstoassistinsettingupa
23
FAC. USAR unit commanders should provide
inIormationthroughtheRSC.
c.ProvidenamesoInon-mobilizingsoldierswho
could participate in Iamily assistance programs to the
STARC/RSC,asappropriate.
2-II-13. TASK: Update or veriIy soldier Iinancial
readiness.(SRPChecklist-SectionV,Finance)
STANDARD
a. Ensure that the most recent MMPA is
availableIoreachalertedunitmember.
b. Obtain most recent MMPA Ior each soldier
transIerredIromotherunitstoIillunitvacancies.
c. NotiIy alerted soldiers to report on the Iirst
day oI mobilization with documentation to support
anychangestotheirMMPA.
2-II-14.TASK.NotiIylocalESGRrepresentativeoI
impendingmobilization.
STANDARD
Request that the local ESGR representative provide
inIormation and liaison about services available to
recognize employers and oIIer assistance with
employerconIlicts.
2-II-15. TASK. Coordinate orders Ior Active
Guard/Reserve(AGR)soldiers.
STANDARD
a. For ARNG AGR soldiers serving under Title
32, there are minimal actions. These soldiers will be
released Irom their Title 32 status by the STARC.
The will mobilize and deploy on unit and individual
ordersasaddressedintask2-II-7above.
b. For USAR AGR soldiers serving under Title
10,actionsarediIIerent.ThePCSorderthatanAGR
soldier receives Irom FTSMD 'attaches' him or her to
a TPU. The special instruction portion oI that order
contains the statement that upon mobilization oI the
unit the attachment status changes to that oI being
"assigned"totheunit.TheUSARC,throughit'sRSCs
then cut a TCS order using Iormat 401 that takes the
soldier to the appropriate mobilization station. The
mobilizationstation will endorse or process new TCS
orders moving the soldier to theater with the USAR
unit.
24
Condition: Phase III - Home Station
TasksinthisphasearenotpresentedinSRPsequence,
but are noted by the annotation oI the SRP task and
theappropriatesectioninparenthesisaIterthetask.
2-III-1. TASK: VeriIy arrival status oI personnel at
theassemblysite.
STANDARD
a. Documentthearrival.
b. Processthosepersonnelwhodonotreportas
orderedIAWcriterion33,table2-1.
2-III-2.TASK.InitiateSRPcheckIormobilization.
STANDARD.
Follow guidance in AR 600-8-101 and any detailed
guidance provided in support oI the operation Ior
whichtheunitisbeingmobilized.
2-III-3. TASK: IdentiIy medically disqualiIied
personnel and screen Ior medical problems. (SRP
Checklist-SectionVI,Medical)
STANDARD
Process personnel IAW criteria 13, 14, 18, 19 or 34,
table 2-1 oI this document. Soldiers are interviewed
(by a military doctor, physicians assistant, or nurse
practitioner) regarding medical problems or history
whichwould delay movement or prevent deployment.
SoldierswillupdateStandardForm93,initiateReport
oI Medical History, DA Form 8007, and retain
updated DD 93 and DA Form 8007 Ior review by
medicalin-processingatMS.
2-III-4. TASK: VeriIy soldier Iinancial readiness.
(SRPChecklist-SectionV,Finance)
STANDARD
a. Using the MMPA as the Iinancial SRP
checklist, veriIy all Iinance data Ior accuracy with
eachmobilizedsoldier.
b. Add any other MMPA change documentation
to the MMPA Ior processing by the USPFO or RSC.
Forward those requiring change with supporting
documentation to the servicing USPFO or RSC.
RetainacopyoItheannotatedMMPA.
2-III-5. TASK: Review and update those
personnel,medical,dental,andhealthcare provider
Practitioner Credentials Files not individually
identiIiedinthissection.
STANDARD
a. Complete all document requirements IAW
applicableregulations.
b. Forward updated PCF roster to
STARC/RSCIorinIormation.
2-III-6. TASK: Process record oI emergency data
(DDForm93),iIupdateisrequired.(SRPChecklist
-SectionI,Personnel)
STANDARD
a. ScreenIoraccuracyandcompletenessIAW
AR600-8-1.
b. Prepare new Iorms as required. Distribute
copiesasIollows:
(1) Original -- Consolidate with other
originalsandIorwardIAWAR600-8-1
(2) FirstcopytoMPRJ(DAForm201)
(3) Secondcopytomember.
c. ForIormsnotrequiringupdate,theoriginal,
which is stored in the MPRJ, will be extracted and
IorwardedIAWAR600-8-1.
2-III-7.TASK:Prepareevaluationreports.
STANDARD
MobilizationisnotareasonIorareport.Evaluation
reportsarerequiredonlyIorchangesindutyorrater.
Complete OER as required IAW AR 600-8-18.
CompleteNCOERasrequiredIAWAR623-205.
NOTE: SpeciIic guidance will be provided by
HQDA Ior diIIerent stages oI mobilization. II
DA/FORSCOM guidance directs evaluation reports
upon completion oI mobilization, then departure
reportswillbeprepared.
2-III-8.TASK:CompletechangeoIaddresscards.
STANDARD
25
Complete three Change oI Address and Directory
Cards (DA Form 3955) Ior each member IAW DOD
PostalManual4525.6-M,VolumeIIandAR600-8-3.
Provide to the post locator upon unit arrival at MS.
(Requirement may be eliminated iI the mobilization
station is using the PERSLOC application. Unit
commanders should coordinate this action with the
MS.
2-III-9. TASK: Process Iamily member ID cards.
(SRPChecklist-SectionXII,FamilyAssistance)
STANDARD
a. When DEERS pre-enrollment has been
completed. Provide inIormation noting that Iamily
members may take a copy oI the individual
mobilizationordersandtheirDDForm1173-1toany
DEERS/Rapidssite.
b. When DEERS pre-enrollment has not been
completed,aDDForm1172mustbeissued.
(1) Provide veriIied copy oI Application Ior
UniIormed Services IdentiIication Card DEERS
Enrollment (DD Form 1172) to sponsor or Iamily
memberalongwithacopyoIsectionIV,annexD.
(2) Family members may secure ID Card
(DD Form 1173) and be activated in DEERS
(transIerred Irom pre-eligible to eligible Iile) by
presenting the veriIied DD Form 1172 and copy oI
sponsor's mobilization order to any DEERS/RAPIDS
site.
2-III-10. TASK: VeriIy ID Cards and Tags. (SRP
Checklist-SectionI,Personnel)
STANDARD
a. VeriIy that each soldier has a valid ID card
(Red or Green). Issue DD Form 2 (Green) Active iI
Iorms are available. Develop a roster oI those
requiring issue oI Active ID cards upon arrival at the
mobilizationstation.
b. VeriIyIDTagsandMedicalAlertTags.
2-III-11. TASK: Process Geneva Convention
Identity Card, iI required and not previously issued.
(SRPChecklist-SectionI,Personnel)
STANDARD
Initiate,Iornon-combatants,applicationsIorGeneva
Convention Identity Card (DD Form 1934) iI time
andblankIormsareavailable.Otherwise process at
MS.(AR600-8-14)
2-III-12. TASK: Security clearance rosters. (SRP
Checklist-SectionIII,Security)
STANDARD
a. Reviewsecurityclearancerequirements.
b. Determine which soldiers do not have the
requiredclearance.
c. Initiate required security clearance requests
throughMSsecuritydivision.
2-III-13. TASK: Prepare claims Ior travel Irom
hometoassemblysiteandadvancepartypay.
STANDARD
a. Prepare travel voucher (DD Form 1351-2)
IAW AR 37-106 Ior travel Irom home to unit
assembly site. Submit to Iinance station during in
processing.
b. Prepare vouchers Ior Iinal pay Ior unit
members ordered to AT/ADT in the alert phase to
supportmobilizationactivities.
2-III-14.TASK:ArrangeIorlegal services. (SRP
Checklist-SectionIV,Legal)
STANDARD
a. Coordinate JAG support to prepare legal
documents (wills, power oI attorney) and provide
legaladviceasnecessary.
b. SeeTable2-3Iordetailedguidance.
2-III-15. TASK: Provide health, MMPA, and
personnelrecordstoMS.
STANDARD
Soldier health records, MMPA, and personnel
records must be provided to MS in time to be
availableIorunitpersonnelin-processing.However,
records will not be hand carried by the soldier or
transportedinthesamevehicle.Healthrecordsmust
bemarkedandsealedIAWAR40-66.
26
2-III-16. TASK: Conduct Records Processing Ior
DirectDeployingUnits.
STANDARD
The SI and the unit must coordinate to ensure that
appropriaterecordsareprovidedtotheSI.
2-III-17. TASK: Account Ior medical emergencies,
perIormcasualtyreporting,andcompleteLODs.
STANDARD
PerAR600-8-1.
2-III-18.TASK:VeriIyincentivesandentitlements.
STANDARD
Ensure adequate documentation to support Iuture
soldier claims in RC incentives and entitlements
(SLRP, MGIB, SRIP). Provide rosters oI reassigned
incentiverecipienttothesupportingSTARC/RSC.
2-III-19.TASK:ProvideIinalpersonnelreport.
STANDARD
Close out DA Form 1379 and provide personnel
status report to STARC/RSC and Mobilization
Station documenting personnel cross-leveling, status
oI non-deployable, untrained personnel and other
requirementsaddressedinexecutionorders.
NOTE: SpeciIic requirements will be provided with
execution orders, and will depend on the level oI
mobilization, and data required by HQDA and other
authorities.
2-III-20.TASK.CoordinatetransIeroIdatato the
STANDARD
a. USAR units should validate transIer oI
data required to support MOBLAS processes to the
PPPorPSPviaCLASorRLAS.
b.ARNGunitsshouldcoordinatewiththeir
state to ensure that data required to support
MOBLAS processes is provided by electronic Iile
transIer or by downloading data to a disk that is
mailedorsentbycouriertothePPP/PSP.
27
Table2-1:CriteriaforPersonnelAction
TheIollowingcriterianecessitatepersonnelactionsduringthemobilizationprocess,andestablishtheappropriatepersonnel
actionprocedures.Whereappropriate,proceduralchangesbasedonSmallScaleContingencyOperations(SSCO),PSRC,and
selectivemobilizationarealsoidentiIied.NumerousadministrativeresponsibilitiesareidentiIiedIortheunitcommander
throughouttheIollowingparagraphs:asageneralrule,theunitcommandershouldattempttosolveasmanypersonnel
administrativeproblemslocallyaspossible.However,astheincreasingmobilizationburdenobviateslocalsolution,these
actionsshouldbeturnedover,throughchannels,totheSTARC/RSCorMS,witharecordoIactionstakenattheunitlevel.The
unitcommander'smainconcernsshouldbeinassemblingtheunit,preparingtomovetotheMS,andidentiIyingthosepersonnel
whodidnotreport,sothatIollow-upactionscanbetakenbySTARC/RSCorMSpersonnel.
INDEXOFCRITERIA.
1 MemberonIET,ADSW,ADTorTTAD
2 AwaitingIETorAITPhaseoISplit-OptionTraining
3 CivilianAcquiredSkillProgram(CASP)personnelnotyetawardedMOS
4 SMPparticipant
5 ApplicantsIorSMPnotyetenrolledinAdvancedROTC
6 HighSchoolStudent
7 Attachmenttomobilizingunitasindividualoraugmentationteam
8 AGRpersonnelservinginaFTUSstatus
9 Excess/surpluspersonnel
10 PromotableoIIicer
11 Federalrecognitioninhighergradenotreceived
12 Promotableenlistedmember
13 Sickness,iniuryordisabilityexistingpriortoAD
14 SicknessoriniuryoccurringonoraIterM-date
15 INGmember
16 DeIectiveenlistment
17 Dependency(4ormore)
18 Pregnancy
19 ProIile
20 PendingtransIerorreassignment
21 HomosexualConduct
22 Overageoroverweight
23 Pendingretirement,separationordischargeaction
24 Non-deployablepersonnel
25 Individualdoesnotpossessrequiredspecialskills
26 Conscientiousobiector
27 DeathoImember
28 Keyemployee
29 Ministerortheologicalstudent
30 Personal/communityhardship
31 OIIicercandidate
32 CivilconIinement
33 FailuretoreporttoAD
34 Hasorthodonticappliancesrequiringactivemaintenance
35 AMEDDOIIicerintrainingandparticipantinmedicalciviliancontracttraining
28
CRITERION ACTIONS(S)
1. MemberonIET,ADSW,ADTorTTAD. Unit commander may request release and return to unit
Ior those members on ADSW, ADT or TTAD but not
IET(BT/AIT,OBC).
a. Limited operations in an SSCO environment
maynotrequiretherecalloIallunitmembersservingon
ADSW, ADT or TTAD. Examples include units which
Iall into the selective mobilization category, and
operations supported by a limited PSRC in which units
are being task-organized, unit commanders should only
coordinaterecalloIsoldiersonADSWorADTwhoare
critical to the unit mission. Additionally, These
operationswillnotnormallyrequireretentiononADIor
soldierscompletingIET.
b. For those on tours not terminated early, iI
IET/ADSW/ADT/TTAD tour is scheduled to end in
suIIicient time to allow the soldier to travel to the MS
and complete SRP processing prior to the unit's
scheduledOCONUSdeploymentdate:
(1) The member will remain assigned to the
unitandwillbegivenadelayedentryonAD,whichwill
terminate upon completion oI the period oI
IET/ADSW/ADT/TTAD. Upon completion oI the
period,thememberwillreportIorADwithhisassigned
unit. The absence oI the member does not create a
vacancyintheunit.
(2) Unit commander will authorize or request
delayedentryonAD.DelayletterwillbepreparedIAW
AR 601-25 and will speciIy the date and location at
whichthememberistoreporttohisunit.IIthemilitary
situation permits, up to 10 days delay in reporting aIter
completion oI IET/ADSW/ADT/TTAD may be granted
Ior member to return home to settle personal aIIairs.
The delay letter will be sent to the member with a copy
to the supervisor/commander oI the
IET/ADSW/ADT/TTAD location and copy Ior the
member's personnel records which will be given to the
MSPSCduringunitin-processing.
c. During a PSRC or limited Partial Mobilization
withoutSTOPLOSS.IIIET/ADSW/ADT/TTADtouris
scheduled to end aIter the unit's scheduled deployment
date, soldier will be reassigned to the STARC/RSC Ior
accountabilityandcommandcontroluponcompletionoI
thetour.TheSTARC/RSCwillcoordinatereassignment
backtotheunituponitsreleaseIromactiveduty.
d. During Partial or Full Mobilization with
STOPLOSS. II IET/ADSW/ADT/TTAD tour is
29
scheduled to end aIter the unit's scheduled deployment
date:
(1) Individual will be accessed into AD status
at the installation at which serving and will be cleared
Irom the rolls oI the mobilizing unit as oI the eIIective
dateoItheunit'sordertoAD.
(2) STARC/RSC will notiIy directly, by letter,
the commanding oIIicer oI the installation where the
memberisservingonIET/ADSW/ADT/TTAD,advising
thatthememberistobeaccessedintoactivedutystatus
at the installation at which serving eIIective the date oI
theunit'sordertoADandisnottoreturntotheoriginal
unit oI assignment. The member will be reassigned
according to the needs oI the Army. Member's records
will be shipped to the member's location along with the
letter.
(3) II the level oI mobilization is such that a
deployment date is not initially deIined Ior a unit, all
personnel are expected to return to the unit. II a
deploymentdateislaterassigned,asecondlettermustbe
sentIorthosewhohavenotyetreturnedtotheunit.
2. Awaiting IET or AIT Phase oI Split-Option
Training
a. PSRC,SelectiveorPartialMobilization.
(1) Member will not mobilize with unit but
willprocessIortrainingunderexistingorders.
(2) MemberwillbereassignedtoSTARC/RSC
ordesignatedunitIoradministrativesupport.
(3) STARC/RSC will coordinate with
USARECIormovementtothetrainingbase.
(4) Upon declaration oI Full or Total
Mobilization,acceleratedtrainingwillbecoordinatedby
USAREC.
b. FullorTotalMobilization.
(1) Member will be ordered to AD with the
unitandaccompanytheunittoMSunlesstheMSarrival
date Ior the unit is seven or more days aIter the unit M-
date, in which case the individual will accompany the
advance party to MS. Records will be shipped
separatelyorinasecondvehicle.
(2) AtMS,thememberwillbeaccessedtoAD
withtheunitandthenbetransIerredIromtheunittothe
MS reception center/garrison Ior reassignment to
appropriate training. MS will request new training
30
reservation quota IAW existing enlistment contract or
theneedsoItheArmyasdeIinedbyHQDA.
(3) Personnel will be processed through the
reception center/garrison IAW AR 612-201. DA Form
201 (to include DA Forms 3444 and 3716) will be sent
tothetrainingcentersIAWAR600-8-104.
3. CASPPersonnelnotyetawardedMOS Member will be ordered to AD with the unit. MS
commander will determine iI reassignment is required
IAWAR601-201.
a. Members who have not yet attended Basic
TrainingwillbeprocessedIAWCriterion2.
b. Members who have completed Basic Training
but have not yet been awarded an MOS based on
completion oI the 48 hours oI proIiciency training
required by Chapter 7, AR 601-210 will be ordered to
AD with the unit. MS commander will determine iI
reassignment to complete proIiciency training is
required.
4. SMP Participant. (PSRC or limited Partial Mob -
SEETABLE2-2)
TransIer ROTC SMP participants (MOS 09R2O) to
USAR Control Group (ROTC) IAW AR 145-1.
EIIective date oI orders will be the day beIore the M-
date oI the unit. Orders should be provided Irom the
STARC/RSC automatically with unit orders. Unit
should report exceptions (additions or deletions to the
STARC/RSC). ROTC cadets will be ordered to AD by
theirROTCregionwhenappropriate.
5. Applicants Ior SMP not yet enrolled in Advanced
ROTC.
Applicants (MOS 09R1O) will be ordered to AD with
theunitinenlistedstatus.
6. HighSchoolStudent.(PSRC:SEETABLE2-2) TransIer to USAR Control Group (Standby Ineligible)
IAW AR 601-25. EIIective date oI orders will be the
day beIore the M-date oI the unit. Orders should be
providedIromtheSTARC/RSCautomaticallywithunit
orders. Unit should report exceptions (additions or
deletions) to the STARC/RSC. Upon graduation or age
20,whicheveroccursIirst,theindividualwillbeordered
toADbyARPERCOMIAWtheneedsoItheservice.
7. Attachment to Mobilizing Unit as Individual or
AugmentationTeam.
TerminatetheattachmentoIindividualsIromtheIRRto
unitsIorIDT and retirement points when the unit enters
on AD. Members attached to another unit will be
recovered to mobilize with the unit. Members attached
Iromotherunitswillbereleasedtotheirassignedunit.
8. AGRpersonnelservinginaFTUSstatus. a. AGRservingunderTitle10mobilizewiththeir
unit(oIattachmentorassignment).Title10AGRdonot
getaDDForm214upondemobilization.Thesesoldiers
are controlled by orders that move/reassign them
between locations and units. These soldiers remain on
DJMS-ACpaysystemthroughoutanoperation.
b. AGRservingunderTitle32FullTimeNational
GuardDuty(FTNGD)willbereleasedIromFTNGDthe
31
daybeIoreunitIederalizationandorderedtoactiveduty
withtheirunit,underTitle10.TheappropriateSTARC
mustissueaDDForm214coveringtheperiodoIactive
duty under Title 32. These AGR will be issued a DD
Form 214 upon demobilization, and must receive new
orderstoFTNGDunderTitle32.Thesesoldiersremain
onDJMS-ACpaysystemthroughoutanoperation.
9. Excess/SurplusPersonnel. Members will be ordered to AD with the unit and
accompanytheunit to the MS where they will be cross-
leveled or reassigned as appropriate by the MS
commander. MS commander will report the Iollowing
specialbranchoIIicerstoHQDAIorassignment:
a. ChaplainOIIicers.HQDA(DACH-PER)Wash,
DC20310.
b. JAGC OIIicers. HQDA (DAJA-PT) Wash, DC
20319.
c. AMEDDOIIicers.HQDA(DASG-PTZ)Wash,
DC20319.
10. PromotableOIIicer. Promote in accordance with Reserve Component
GuidanceunlessotherwisedirectedbyDA.
11. FederalRecognitioninHigherGradenotreceived. ARNG oIIicers (not including general oIIicers) and
warrant oIIicers who have appeared beIore a Iederal
recognition board and have been recommended Ior
Iederal recognition will be ordered to AD in the current
grade.
12. PromotableEnlistedMember. Promote in accordance with Reserve Component
GuidanceunlessotherwisedirectedbyDA.
13. Sickness,IniuryorDisabilityExistingPriortoAD. Allunitmemberswhoarenotunderpreviouslyinitiated
removal actions Ior reasons oI medical proIile or
disability will be ordered to AD with the unit. II a
member subsequently claims an inability to report as
ordered due to sickness or iniury, the unit commander
will immediately obtain a determination Irom the
attending physician which includes medical diagnosis,
date oI illness/iniury, prognosis oI recovery, and
anticipateddateoIreleaseorimprovement.
a. II the sickness/iniury is suIIiciently minor and
temporarythatthemembercantravelwithoutdiscomIort
ordangertohealth,thememberwillenterADandmove
withtheunittotheMS.
b. II local commander is unable to make a
determinationbasedoninIormationpresented:theentire
case should be reIerred to TAG/RSC Surgeon to
determineiIsoldiershouldmobilizewiththeunit.
c. IIthesickness/iniuryissuchthatthememberis
hospitalized or that travel would be a signiIicant
discomIort or danger to health, but the individual is
expectedtoIullyrecover,adelayedentryonADmaybe
authorized IAW AR 601-25 and Paragraph 4-8g, AR
32
135-210. Personnel records Ior all members granted a
delay will be taken to the MS. II the unit deploys prior
to member's arrival at MS, member's records will be
transIerredtoMS.
d. Under PSRC or Partial MOB, soldiers with
medical conditions that restrict mobilization or
deployment should be deIerred or reassigned until
reviewbyTAG/RSCSurgeon.
14. SicknessorIniuryOccurringonoraIterM-date. a. Sickness or iniury occurring aIter entry on AD
at HS or while enrobe to MS will be handled and
reportedIAWAR40-3.
b. Commanders must ensure that line oI duty
(LOD)documentsarecompleted,whereappropriate.
15. INGMember. Member is ordered to AD with the unit to which
assignedIAWNGR614-1andaccompaniesunittoMS.
ARNG unit will request orders Irom STARC Ior
assignmentoIINGmemberseIIectiveonunit'sM-date.
16. DeIectiveEnlistment. a. IIIinaldeterminationhasbeenreceivedpriorto
the eIIective date oI AD, member will be released Irom
enlistmentIAWChapter9,AR135-178.
b. II Iinal determination has not been received,
delayedentrywillberequestedIAWAR601-25pending
Iinaldetermination.
17. Dependency. a. II discharge by reason oI dependency has been
requestedandapprovedpriortotheunit'sreceiptoIalert
notiIication, the member will be discharged prior to the
unit's eIIective date oI AD IAW AR 135-133 and 135-
178.
b. II discharge has been requested but not yet
approved,delayedentrywillberequestedIAWAR601-
25pendingIinaldetermination.
c. II discharge is not requested prior to the unit's
receipt oI alert notiIication, discharge is not authorized.
MemberwillenterADwiththeunit.
18. Pregnancy. Based on medical veriIication oI pregnancy, member
maybedelayedinentryonAD, reassigned or separated
(atsoldiersrequest).SpeciIicguidancewillbeprovided
inoperationexecuteordersorDAmessage.
19. ProIile Reassignment or discharge due to physical proIile is
IAWAR140-10,AR135-91,AR135-175,andAR135-
178 Ior USAR soldiers. ARNG members are processed
IAWNGR600-200andNGR635-100.IIreassignment
ordischargeisnotrequestedpriortotheunit'sreceiptoI
alert notiIication, reassignment or discharge is not
authorized. Member will enter AD with the unit.
Soldiers with a permanent P3 or higher proIile will be
reported to the installation Ior board action UP AR 40-
501.
33
20. PendingTransIerorReassignmentIromtheunit. IIordershavebeenissuedwithaneIIectivedatepriorto
the unit's receipt oI the alert notiIication, the transIer or
reassignment action will remain valid unless DA issues
STOPLOSS or STOP MOVEMENT orders. Unit
members who have moved out oI the unit's geographic
areaandarelookingIoranewunitassignmentbut have
not reported one to the original unit remain the
responsibility oI the original unit commander to locate
andmobilize.
21. HomosexualConduct a. II discharge has been requested and approved
prior to the unit's receipt oI alert notiIication, the
member will be discharged prior to the unit's eIIective
dateoIADIAWChapter10,AR135-178orChapter2,
AR135-175.
receipt oI alert notiIication, discharge is not authorized.
MemberwillenterADwiththeunit.
22. Overageoroverweight. Members who have not been discharged Ior overweight
prior to the unit's receipt oI alert notiIication will enter
ADwiththeunit.
23. Pending Retirement, Resignation, Separation or
DischargeAction.
a. II retirement, separation, resignation, or
discharge action is required or is requested prior to the
unit's receipt oI the alert notiIication, member's action
willbeeIIectedpriortotheunit'sM-dateunlessDAhas
issuedSTOPLOSS.
b. II retirement, separation, resignation, or
discharge action is requested aIter receipt oI the alert
notiIication, the action will not be processed and the
soldierwillenterADwiththeunit.
c. Upon receipt oI STOPLOSS, iI retirement,
separationordischargeisrequiredbuttheeIIectivedate
is aIter the receipt oI the alert notiIication, removal will
be suspended and the member will enter AD with the
unit unless exemption is authorized in the alert
announcement. II separation orders have already been
publishedwithaseparationdateaItertheunit'seIIective
dateoIactiveduty,theywillberevoked.
24. Non-deployablePersonnel a. Members who are ineligible Ior overseas
service IAW Table 3-1, AR 614-30, will be ordered to
AD with the unit. MS commander will resolve non-
deployable conditions, reassign soldiers to non-
deployingunits,ortakeappropriateseparationactions.
b. Exceptions during a PSRC or partial
mobilization are addressed throughout Chapter 2, this
tableandtable2-2.
34
c. Unit commanders should screen soldiers on a
continuing basis, at least annually. Soldiers who are
determined to have a permanent non-deployable
condition should be reclassiIied, transIerred to a reserve
component unit with a CONUS sustaining mission,
transIerred to the IRR, retired or separated as
appropriate.
25. Individual Does Not Possess Required Special
Skills.
MemberswhoarenotqualiIiedinspecialskillsrequired
Ior their AOC/MOS or duty position (Ilight, iump,
ranger, etc) IAW AR 600-200 will be ordered to AD
with the unit. MS commander will initiate action to
acquireskillsorreassignthemembertoanotherunit.
26. ConscientiousObiector(CO). MemberwillbeorderedtoADwiththeunit.Thosewith
applications Ior classiIication as 1-0 or 1-A-0 which
were pending prior to the unit's receipt oI alert
notiIicationandthosepreviouslyclassiIied1-A-0willbe
transIerred to a non-combatant unit iI necessary by the
MScommanderIAWAR600-43.
27. DeathoIMember. Members who die at anytime aIter departing home to
report to the unit assembly site based on unit order to
ADwillbereported/processedIAWAR600-8-1.
28. KeyEmployee. RemovaloIkeyemployeesIromtheSelectedReserveis
a mandatory peacetime requirement under AR 135-133
andAR690-11.IIremovalhasnotbeenrequestedprior
totheunit'sreceiptoIalertnotiIication,thememberwill
beorderedtoADwiththeunit.
29. MinisterorTheologicalStudent. TransIerordischargeoIministersortheologicalstudents
is a peacetime requirement under AR 135-133. II
transIer or discharge has not been requested prior to the
unit's receipt oI alert notiIication, the member will be
orderedtoADwiththeunit.Ordersshouldbeprovided
Irom the STARC/RSC with unit orders. Unit should
report exceptions (additions/deletions) to the
STARC/RSC.
30. Personal/CommunityHardship. a. II discharge by reason oI hardship has been
requestedandapprovedpriortotheunit'sreceiptoIalert
notiIication, the member will be discharged prior to the
unit's eIIective date oI AD IAW AR 135-133, AR 135-
175and135-178.
receiptoIalertnotiIicationorrequested discharge is not
approved, discharge is not authorized. Member will
enter AD with the unit unless granted delayed entry Ior
otherreasons.
31. OIIicerCandidate.(PSRC:SEETABLE2-2) a. OIIicer candidates attending an AC OCS
programwillbeprocessedIAWCriterion1.
35
b. Members enrolled as cadets in state operated
OCS programs will be oIIered one oI the Iollowing
optionsuponmobilizationoItheirunit:
(1) WithdrawIromthestateOCSprogramand
enterADwithassignedunitasenlistedmember.
(2) Remain enrolled in the state OCS program
until commissioned or such time as it terminates, and
thenbedesignatedtoattendBranchImmaterialOCS.
c. During a PSRC and the early stages oI partial
mobilization,thenon-IederalizedSTARC will retain the
capability to continue Regional Training Institution
courses. Depending on available time, STARC may
consolidate and accelerate state programs in
coordination with NGB. Under the above conditions,
members who elect to remain enrolled in the state OCS
programwillbetransIerredoutoItheiruniteIIectivethe
day prior to the unit's eIIective date oI AD. ARNG
members will be transIerred to the STARC. USAR
members will be transIerred to the appropriate RSC.
UpongraduationorreleaseIromthestateOCSprogram,
members will be transIerred to a non-mobilized
ARNG/USARunit,iIavailable,ortotheUSARControl
Group.
Commissioned graduates transIerred to the USAR
Control Group will be processed Ior quotas by
ARPERCOM. Those members who are not
commissioned and were transIerred to units or Control
Group will be subiect to mobilization as enlisted
members with their unit or as individuals by
ARPERCOMIAWtheneedsoItheArmy.
d. Upon mobilization and Iederalization oI the
STARC, no policy or procedures are currently in place
toprovideIortheterminationoIstatemilitaryacademies
andtransitionoIcadetsintoACschools.Recommended
policy currently being staIIed will have all Regional
TrainingInstituteactivityterminated,withacademystaII
personnel entering AD with the STARC and being
processed under Criterion 9, Excess/Surplus Personnel,
unless separate assignment instructions are issued by
HQDA.Studentswillreturntotheirassignedunits.
(1) Cadets assigned to mobilized units will be
ordered to AD with the unit. Upon availability oI seats
inBranchImmaterialOCS,supportingMSwillmovethe
membertotheappropriatelocation.
(2) Cadetsreturnedtonon-mobilizedunitswill
train with their unit in preparation Ior its later
36
mobilization.Uponmobilization,theywillbeprocessed
as described in paragraph d(1) above. Prior to their
unit'salert,theymayapplyIoractivedutyOCSbasedon
accessioningrequirementsinIorceatthattime.
32. CivilConIinement. a. II the member is scheduled Ior release prior to
the unit's scheduled deployment date, delayed entry on
ADisauthorizedIAWAR601-25.
b. IIthememberisnotscheduledIorreleaseIrom
conIinement until aIter the unit's scheduled deployment
date, the member will be processed Ior transIer to the
USAR Control Group (Standby-Ineligible) IAW AR
601-25. Request Ior transIer will include court or
conIinementrecordsindicatingexpectedreleasedateand
the member's personnel records. Member's transIer will
beeIIectiveadaypriortotheunit'sentryonAD.Upon
release Irom conIinement, ARPERCOM will order the
individualtoADaccordingtotheneedsoItheArmy.
c. DeterminationoIsecurity clearance actions must be
made,iIsoldierisinadutypositionrequiringasecurity
clearance.
33. FailuretoReporttoAD. a. Upon notice oI alert and mobilization, unit
commanders will notiIy unit members and provide them
withcopiesoItheunit'smobilizationorder.EveryeIIort
willbemadetoassurenotiIicationanddeliveryoIorders
in suIIicient time to allow the member to Iinalize
personal aIIairs and report to the assembly site on the
establishedreportingdate.
b. RC absentees upon mobilization are processed
IAW Chapter 6, AR 630-10. A member who Iails to
reportontheestablishedreportingdate will be accessed
to AD as assigned-not-ioined aIter the unit commander
has determined that the member has received or has
knowledge oI the mobilization order. The unit
commander will then immediately report the member
AWOLunlessadelayinentryonADisrequestedIAW
AR601-25.
c. II the member Iails to report Ior active duty
during the 7 days immediately Iollowing the established
report date, the unit commander will report the member
as a deserter Ior apprehension purposes. The member
will be dropped Irom the roles (DFR) oI the unit. The
unit is responsible Ior completing all necessary
documentation Ior AWOL and DFR status in
coordinationwiththeMSPSC.
d. Deserters returned to military control will be
sent to the nearest Army installation Ior appropriate
administrativeandiudicialactionandwillbe reassigned
accordingtotheneedsoItheArmy.
37
34. Soldier has orthodontic appliance, which was in
place prior to receipt oI alert notiIication and
requiresactivemaintenance.
a. Soldier is non-deployable in support oI combat
orcontingencyoperations.
b. II orthodontic appliance is inactivated, soldier
candeploy.
35. AMEDD OIIicers in Training and Participant in
MedicalCivilianContractTraining
AMEDDOIIicersintrainingandParticipantsinMedical
Civilian Contract Training will not be considered Ior
mobilization or deployment until Full Mobilization
unless approved by The Surgeon General (TSG). They
will be considered Ior delayed entry on active duty
accordingtoCriteria1and2.Includes:
(1) ResidentsandFellows.
(2) Interns.
(3) AMEDD OIIicers attending Long Courses
(Morethan20weeks).
(4) AMEDD oIIicers engaged in specialized
trainingincriticalwartimeskillsidentiIiedbyTSG.
38
Table2-2:PSRCUnits
The Iollowing criteria noted in Chapter 2 and/or
Table2-1aremodiIiedIorPSRCunits.
PHASEIPLANNING-None
PHASEIIALERT
TASK2-II-3(IncludesCriteria4,6and31 in Table
2-1)
PSRC units will transIer personnel in special
categories(e.g.SMP,HighSchoolStudent,etc.)to a
unit or a derivative UIC established by the
STARC/RSC. FORSCOM will provide any
operational unique guidance that would support
mobilizationoIthesesoldiersatalaterdate.
PHASEIIIHOMESTATION
TASK2-III-4
PSRC units should emphasize enrollment in SURE
PAYduringpreparatoryphase.Withonlya72-hour
deployment criterion, coupled with the possibility oI
executing on a weekend, it may not always be
possible to coordinate with a local banking
establishment. Additionally, early deployment may
limit time at the MS and Iailure to have SURE PAY
willnotstopdeployment.
TASK2-III-1717
ShipmentoIrecordswouldapplytoallunitmembers
except the special cases noted above. Those records
shouldbeshippedtotheappropriateSTARC/RSC.
Table2-3:PremobilizationLegal
Preparation
Premobilization legal preparation starts at the
planning phase oI mobilization and Iollows through
mobilization station processing Ior overseas
deployment. Actions Irom planning through the
homestationphasemustbeaccomplishedbyReserve
Component Judge Advocate (JA) General OIIicers
within the constraints oI resources available.
Detailed JAG support actions are described in
Appendix Q oI the FORSCOM Mobilization Plan
(FMP).
a.PLCPwillinclude:
(1) OrganizationoIlegalaIIairs.
(2) EstatePlanning.
(3) Wills.
(4) GuardianshipoIminorchildren.
(5) PowersoIAttorney.
(6) Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil RelieI Act
protections.
(7) Veteran'sreemploymentrights.
b. PLS is the provision oI individual legal
advice and preparation oI legal documents such as
willsandpowersoIattorney.
(1) PLSisprovidedtoRCsoldiersandtheir
IamiliesbyRCAssubiecttoavailableresources.
(2) PLSwillnotdetractIromsupportedunit
mission essential task list (METL) training
requirements.
(3) PLS is primarily a RC initiative
supportedbyRCAsandRCresources.
(4) Commanders will ensure that word
processingcentersupport is available Ior preparation
oIlegaldocuments.
c. This is a proactive program. Commanders
must ensure that PLCP and PLS are scheduled and
accomplished. Soldiers must be made aware that
Iailure to have proper legal documents at the
implementation oI mobilization will not stop
deployment.
39
Chapter Three: Operations And
Training
3-I-1.TASK.MaintainaunitmobilizationIile.RC
MTMC units will maintain a battle book as
prescribed by HQ, MTMC, in lieu oI a mobilization
Iile. The battle book will include the mobilization
Iile planning requirements oI alert and movement
plans.
STANDARD
a. File will be clearly labeled, logically
organizedindexedandtabbed.
b. AllAAlevelunitsmusthavecompleteMOB
Iilecontaining:
(1) Documents required by STARCs and
RSCs,including the planning requirements telephone
numberoIthealertandmovementheadquartersIAW
AnnexA,App1.
(2) The alert and assembly plan and
documentation oI the result oI the last annual
test/exerciseoItheplan.
(3) AlistoIkeypersonnelbypositiontobe
orderedtodutypriortounitactivation,IAWTask3-
I-7.
(4) Mobilization purchasing authority
packet,IAWAnnexB.
(5) Unit commanders mobilization
checklist with Phase I tasks annotated as completed
(IAWAnnexE)andHSunitactivityplan(3-I-4).
(6) Mission Guidance Letter (may be
maintained in separate location iI classiIied) and
other mission guidance provided by unit's
WARTRACEchainoIcommand.
(7) MS inIormation packet, initial MS
activities checklist (completed with available
inIormation) (Table 3-1) and documentation oI last
MSliaisonvisit(3-I-6).
(8) A copy oI the unit's postmobilization
trainingplanandlatestPTSR.
(9) LogisticsdataIile.(seeChapter4)
(10) A copy oI the MS requirements
checklist.(AnnexG).
(11) ResultsoIlastchainoIcommandreview
inspectionandapprovaloIunit'smobIile.(3-I-2).
(12) HSunitactivityplan.
c. Organic units with derivative UICs which
are not collocated with the parent unit must, as a
minimum, maintain an alert and assembly plan, load
plan, movement plan Ior ioining with parent, and
otherdataasrequiredbyparentcommand.
3-I-2. TASK. Conduct annual review oI the
mobilizationIilebythechainoIcommand.
STANDARD
The units chain oI command (STARC/RSC and
below, down to AA-UIC unit) is responsible to
review/inspect and approve the unit's mobilization
Iileonanannualbasis.ArecordoItheresultsoIthis
reviewwillbemaintainedinthemobilizationIile.
3-I-3.TASK.Developthepostmobilizationtraining
planandsupportrequirements.
STANDARD
a. OI those tasks selected Ior training prior to
mobilization, determine which tasks require
additionaltrainingtoachievestandard.
b. Add those tasks to the list oI tasks deIerred
to postmobilization and determine the time required
toachievestandardinalltasks.
c. IdentiIy the resources needed to train those
tasksanddeveloptheplantobeexecutedattheMS.
c. Update the plan annually or any time a
signiIicant change takes place in training
proIiciency.
3-I-4.TASK.DevelopHSunitactivityplan.
STANDARD
40
Includes critical activities to be accomplished at HS
during Phases II/III. (This plan should include
administrative and logistical activities. Individual
and collective training may be included, iI time
permits.) Use Annex E (Mobilization checklist Ior
unitcommanders)toassistindevelopingtheplan.
3-I-5. TASK. Test/exercise the alert notiIication
planannually.
STANDARD
a. Exercise the alert roster annually IAW
STARC/ RSCdirection.
b. Document the annual test/exercise alert and
retainthedocumentationinthemobilizationIile.
c. Report and assemble only iI directed by
higherheadquarters.
3-I-6.TASK.MaintainliaisonwithMS.
STANDARD
a. Establish and maintain liaison with the MS,
triennially at a minimum. Coordinate all PTSR
requirementsatthistime.
b. New commanders oI MOB entities (units
withUICsendinginAA)orunitsmobilizingataMS
other than the parent units will visit the MS within
ninemonthsaIterassumingcommand.
c. Complete initial MS activities checklist
(Table3-1).
3-I-7. TASK. IdentiIy key personnel to be ordered
todutyinadvanceoItheunit.
STANDARD
a. Establish a list oI required key personnel
capableoIperIormingthecriticalactivitiesidentiIied
inTask3-I-5.(KeypersonnelmayvaryIromunitto
unitbaseduponthetaskstobeaccomplished).
b. Each person on the list must initial by his
name indicating awareness oI the possibility oI an
earlycalltoduty.
3-I-8.TASK.ConductapremobilizationbrieIing.
STANDARD
IAWwithAnnexC.
3-I-9.TASK.EstablishCOMSECAccount.
STANDARD
a. Units authorized COMSEC material must
either establish a separate COMSEC account or be
servicedasasubaccountorhandreceiptholder.
b. Coordinate with next higher WARTRACE
headquarters Ior determination oI type account
(separate or sub) prior to submitting a COMSEC
request.
c. Prepare and submit IAW TB 380-41 series,
AR380-40(C)andFORSCOMRegulation380-41.
d. Forecast adequate COMSEC storage
requirements at MS to store Emergency Action
Procedures (EAP) and other COMSEC material in a
secureenvironment.
e. Ensure Controlled Cryptographic Items
(CCI)equipmentandkeyIorCOMSECpurposes are
requisitionedbyandreceivedIromstandardlogistical
service Iacilities and is handled and governed IAW
DAPAM25-380-2and380-41Series.
I. Ensure proper packaging and handling
procedures IAW TB 380-41 series, AR 380-40, FR
380-41andDAPAM25-380-2.
g. AppointCOMSECcustodiansandcommand
COMSEC inspectors IAW AR 380-40 and TB 380-
41Series.
3-I-10.TASK.IdentiIyAdvancePartypositionsand
theirmission.
STANDARD
IdentiIy members oI the advance party by position
and list the Iunctions each are to perIorm at the MS.
These should be key unit personnel capable oI
coordinating speciIic activities Ior the unit (see
AnnexG).
3-I-11 TASK. Establish liaison with CI/SI (when
diIIerentIromMS).
STANDARD
41
Establish and maintain liaison with the CI/SI, as a
minimumtriennially,whenCI/SIisdiIIerentIromthe
MS. Maintain a list oI points oI contact to provide
supportuntiltheunitarrivesattheMS.
Conditions: Phase II - Alert
3-II-1. TASK. Review and update HS activities
planandprepareHSactivitiesschedule.
STANDARD
ReIer to 3-I-4 and Annex E, as a minimum, activity
schedule should show day, time required, location
andresponsibilityIoraccomplishment.
3-II-2.TASK.Respondtopressinquiries.
STANDARD
RespondIAWwithSTARC/RSCPAOguidance.
3-II-3. TASK. Take actions outlined in the
mobilizationchecklistIorunitcommanders.
STANDARD
Use the mobilization checklist Ior Unit Commanders
atAnnexEtoensurerequiredtasksareaccomplished
duringeachmobilizationphase.
3-II-4. TASK. Review and Iinalize
PostmobilizationTrainingPlanandPTSR.
STANDARD
Update all areas oI the Postmobilization Training
PlanandthePTSRIAWAnnexD.
3-II-5.TASK.IdentiIyadvancepartymembersand
brieIadvancepartyIormovementtoMS.
STANDARD
Instructadvancepartyontheirduties.
a. Assign members oI the advance party by
name. Ensure that they are knowledgeable and
understandwhattheyaretodoattheMS.
b. Ensure the advance party is prepared to
providetheMSitemsidentiIiedinAnnexG.
c. Ensure that members carrying classiIied
documentshavecourierorders or a courier card, DD
Form2501,IortransportingclassiIiedmaterial.
3-II-6. TASK. IdentiIy adequate storage Ior
classiIieddocumentsand/orequipment.
STANDARD
Coordinate secure storage requirements. Advance
partywillIinalizeuponarrivalatMS.
3-II-7.TASK.ReviewUnitStatusReport(USR).
STANDARD
ReviewtheUSR(DAForm2715)andbeginupdating
to ensure that it will be completed Ior advance party
totaketoMS.
3-II-8. TASK. Coordinate arrival oI Iiller
personnelasappropriate.
STANDARD
EnsurethatIillerpersonnelcross-leveledintotheunit
are provided with appropriate arrival and
accommodationconditions.
3-III-1. TASK. Coordinate with MS on unit's date
andtimetoreport.
STANDARD
Make coordination with MS on scheduled date, time
andgateIorarrivaloIadvancepartyandmainbody.
3-III-2 TASK. Execute HS activities plan, with
activitiesschedule.
STANDARD
Execute HS activities plan with accompanying
activities schedule. Schedule must be posted in a
locationaccessibletounitmembers.
3-III-3 TASK. Dispatch advance party to
STANDARD
42
a. DispatchadvancepartytoarriveatMS24to
48hourspriortothemainbodyorasdirectedbyMS.
b. Upon arrival, begin the process oI
converting the Postmobilization Training Plan into a
unittrainingschedule.
c. Provide MS items IAW Annex G and any
additional requirements Irom the MS inIormation
packet.
3-III-4. TASK.Conductanoperational/inIormation
statusbrieIing.
STANDARD
a. BrieI unit personnel on the current situation
andthescheduleIormovetoMSanddeployment.
b. Provide other inIormation iI available (e.g.,
unit mailing address at MS, nearest Iamily assistance
center).
c. Advise members oI what they can and can
notsayabouttheoperation.
d. Conduct/coordinate an ESGR/USERRA
brieIing.
3-III-5. TASK.UpdateUSR.
STANDARD
Complete the update oI DA Form 2715, Unit Status
Report,andsendtoMSwithadvanceparty.
3-III-6. TASK. Prepare classiIied material Ior
movement.
STANDARD
Coordinate Ior transportation and ensure proper
packagingIAW,ChapVIII,AR380-5.
43
Table3-1:InitialMobilizationStationActivitiesChecklist
SECTIONI.ADMINISTRATIVECOORDINATION.
1.Determinelocation,POCandPhoneNumber(whereappropriate)oItheIollowingMSagencies,Iacilities,and
services:
AGENCY/FACILITY LOCATION/BLDG# POC PHONE
DPCA
AG
FINANCE
DOL
DEH/DPW
PAO
IG
CPO
ITO
TSC.
PUB/BLANKFORMS
DIST.POINT
DISPENSARY
DENTALCLINIC
REDCROSS
CHAPLAINSOFFICE
POSTOFFICE
SERVICECENTER
POSTEXCHANGE
AER
JAG
PROVOSTMARSHAL
MAT/VALIDATIONTEAM
EMPLOYERSUPPORTTO
GUARDANDRESERVE
SECTIONI.ADMINISTRATIVECOORDINATION(Contd)
2.Whendoesmyunitin-process?
3.WhenwillImeettheSIDPERSInterIaceBranch
(SIB)todiscusstheaccessioningoImyunit?
4.WhatissickcallscheduleIormyunitandwhere?
5.Whatadditionaldutyassignmentsmustbemade
withintheunit:i.e.,mailclerk,saIetyoIIicer?
6.Wheredoesmyunitpickupmail?
7.Doesmyunithaveadequatephone,FAXand
DSN/WATSservice?IInot,howdowegetit?
8.HowwillADPsupportbeprovided(hardwareand
soItware)?
44
SECTIONII.OPERATIONSCOORDINATION.
1.Whereisthemobilizationcoordinationcenter
locatedthattheadvancepartyreportsto?
Building#Phone#
POC
2.Towhomismyunitattached/assigned?
a.Wherearetheylocated?
b.Isthereaunitsponsorprogram?
3.Whencanmyunitbegintraining?
4.Wherecanunittrainingaidsbeobtained?
5.Whendoesmyunitdeploy?
6.WhendoesmyunitbeginSRP/POMprocessing
andwhere?
7.WhatadditionalSOPswillmyunitneedand
wherecanIacquirethem?
8.WhereisthestorageIacilityIorCOMSEC
equipmentandkeyingmaterial?
9.Whereismyunitstatusreport(DAFORM2715)
submitted?
10.Wheredoesmyunitsubmititsmateriel
readinessreport,DAForm2406?(Requiredwithin
72hoursaIterarrival)
11.Whatkindandhowmuchtrainingammunition
areavailableIormyunit?
a.Wheredoesmyunitdrawtraining
ammunition?
12.WheredoesmyunitstoreitsclassiIied
materials?(documentsorequipment)
13.WhereisMATand/orCONUSAValidation
Teamlocated?
45
SECTIONIII.LOGISTICCOORDINATION.
1.Whereismyunit'shigherheadquarterslogistics
oIIiceandwhatisitsphonenumber?
2.Wherearemyunit'sbilletsanddiningIacility?
a.OIIicer/Male
b.OIIicer/Female
c.Enlisted/Male
d.Enlisted/Female
3.Whereismyunit'smotorpool/vehicleparkingarea?
4.Whereismyunit'sDSmaintenancesupportIacility?
5.Wheredoesmyunitturninexcessorunserviceable
property?
UnitBldgPhone
a.GeneralProperty
b.Vehicles
c.CommunicationsEquipment
d.Weapons
6.Wheredoesmyunitpickuprequisitioneditems?
7.WhereandwhendoIreviewmyunit'sproperty
book?
8.Whereis: ActivityBldgPhone
a.CentralIssueFacility
b.ClothingSalesStore
c.FoodServiceOIIicer/TISA
d.AmmunitionSupplyPoint(ASP)
9.WhereandwhencanIsetupmyunit'saccountsIor:
Class Bldg#Phone
a.I
b.II
c.III
d.IV
e.V
I.VII
g.VIII
h.IX
i.OIIiceSupplies
i.SelI-Help
10.Wheredoesmyunitsubmitworkorderrequests?
11.IImyunitistobebivouackedintents:
a.Wheredoweacquiretents,cotsandheaters?
b.Whereandhowdowegetwater?
c.Whereandwhendowegetshowers?
d.WhatarrangementsaremadeIortrashpickup?
e.DoIestablishIieldlatrineIacilitiesIormyunit
orarecommercialportabletoiletsavailable?
12.WheredoIcoordinateon-posttransportation
requirementsIormyunit?
12a.WheredoIupdatemyDeploymentEquipment
List?
46
13.Ismyunit'sbasicloadoIsmallarmsammunition,
ToAccompanyTroops(TAT),available?WhereamI
issuedTAT?
14.Whatislaundryturn-inscheduleandwheredoes
myunitturnitin?
15.Wheredoesmyunitgetcalibrationsupport?
WheredoesmyunitsubmitAOAPsamples?
16.WheredoesmyunitpickupBBPCT?
47
Chapter Four: Logistics
ThischaptercontainsguidanceontheconstructionoI
thelogisticsdataIile,whichwillbeanimportantpart
oI the complete unit mobilization Iile. This Iile will
contain all documentation speciIically identiIied in
this chapter, as well as those additional documents
identiIiedinAnnexG.
Tasks in Phase I are those additional logistical
missions necessary to eIIectively mobilize, move to
the MS, and deploy. Units will accomplish the
normallogisticaltasksrequiredinpeacetimethatwill
maximize equipment on hand and serviceability
readiness.
Phase II and III tasks are a logical progression to
update records, cross-level equipment, enhance
serviceability and move to the MS in an eIIicient
manner with all equipment, personnel, and the
documentationrequiredIortheadvanceparty.
4-I-1. TASK:DeveloplodgingplanIorHS.
STANDARD:
a.DevelopaplanIorthelodgingoIappropriate
unit members. Unit should estimate the number oI
soldiers who will require lodging during HS Phase.
Normally, this applies to personnel more than 50
milesIromHS.
b. Plan should address shower, sanitation, and
sleepingquartersoridentiIycommercialIacilities.II
unitplanstousecommercialIacility,unitwillinclude
a coordination letter with the Iacility manager. Plan
should address lodging Ior those personnel called to
active duty early. II the mobilization convoy or
advance party departs early, unit may plan Ior those
personneltosleepatHSpriortodeparture.
4-I-2. TASK:DevelopsubsistenceplanIorHS.
STANDARD:
a. Develop a subsistence plan Ior unit at HS.
Plan should address the Iollowing: identiIy how and
whererationswillbeobtainedandorserved,howthe
unitwilltransitionIromHStoMSwithadequatetime
to load mess equipment, ensure coordination with
units using the same Iacility, identiIy Iirst and last
mealandplannedmealhours.
b. II unit plans to use a commercial Iacility,
unit will include a coordination letter with the
manager. This plan will cover all meals at HS and
the mobilization movement plan will address all
mealsenroutetotheMS.
c. RetainplaninlogisticsdataIile.
4-I-3. TASK:IdentiIycontractingrequirementsto
SIorUSPFOcontractingoIIice.
STANDARD:
a. IdentiIy requirements (who, what, where,
when, how) to the servicing contract oIIicer. Unit
should list supplies required, i.e. lodging, bulk POL,
and maintenance, etc. Ior Phases II and III, and the
possible source oI supply. Example: 10 rooms Ior 2
nights.Unitswillnotnegotiatecontracts.
b. Units will annually veriIy with their
supporting contract oIIice that all requirements are
addressed by some means (ordering oIIicer, blanket
purchase requirement, on-the-shelI contract, or
mobilizationclause).
c. Retain copy oI the memorandum to the
supporting contract oIIice and their reply in the
logisticsdataIile.
d. Procedures must be established to ensure
purchase card (IMPAC) billing statements (invoices)
arereceivedbytheappropriate(primaryoralternate)
approving oIIicial and processed timely Ior payment
priortodeployment.
4-I-4. TASKIdentiIyClassVABLrequirement.
STANDARD:
a. Annually review ABL listing or prepare
FORSCOM Form 149-R IAW FORSCOM
Regulation700-3andprepareupdatedDAForm 581
IorABL.
b. ForwardthecompletedDAForm581tothe
MSammunitionsupplypoint(ASP).
c. Coordinate with the MS during triennial
mobilization conIerence and obtain MS ASP SOP
proceduresIorissueandturn-in.
d. Retain a duplicate oI the document register
Iilecopy(DAForm581)andacknowledgmentoIthe
receipt oI the complete DA Form 581 by the MS in
the logistics data Iile with a copy oI the ABL
authorizationlisting.
4-I-5. TASK: IdentiIy Class VIII, post-
mobilizationmedicalsupplies
STANDARD:
48
a. PreparealistoIClassVIIIrequirementsand
maintain in logistics data Iile. Annually review and
update.
b. All units will identiIy medical material
required, but not authorized, during premobilization
IAW AR 40-61 and AR 725-50. CTA 8-100, Army
Medical Department Expendable/Durable Items, and
FORSCOM Regulation 700-2, FORSCOM Standing
Logistics Instructions, should be reviewed Ior
assistance in identiIying these requirements. Items
such as Iield sanitation team requirements
(FORSCOM Regulation 700-2) chap stick, earplugs,
camouIlage sticks, sunscreen, combat liIesaver kits,
andwetbulbtemperaturekitsareauthorizedbyCTA.
ReviewMedicalEquipmentSetComponentList/Unit
AssemblagesIorrequirements.
4-I-6. TASK:PrepareaUnitMovementPlan.
STANDARD:
a. Prepareamobilizationmovement plan IAW
FORSCOM/ARNGRegulation55-1.
b. Prepare a deployment movement plan IAW,
FORSCOM/ARNG Regulation 55-1 iI required by
theMS.
c. Appoint a UMO in writing IAW
FORSCOM/ARNG Regulation 55-1. Retain
document in movement plan and Iorward copy to
SI/USPFO.
d. Ensure enroute support requirements are
identiIiedtotheSI/USPFO.
e. Retain plan in logistics data Iile or speciIy
locationiIIiledseparately.
4-I-7. TASK:PrepareandtestUnitLoadPlan.
STANDARD:
a. Prepare, test and evaluate unit load plan
IAWFORSCOM/ARNGRegulation55-1.
b. Annotate test date and evaluation in pencil
onloadcard.Filewithmobilizationmovementplan.
4-I-8. TASK: Maintain COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCISUELdocumentation.
STANDARD:
a. Ensure COMPASS AUEL/TC ACCIS UEL
data is current and accurate IAW FORSCOM
Regulation 55-2. Update annually, or as signiIicant
changesoccur.
b. Retain updated COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCISUELprintoutwithunitmovementplan.
c. IdentiIy commercial transportation
requirementIAW FORSCOM/ARNG Regulation 55-
1.
4-I-9. TASK: Develop and coordinate Unit
RetrievalPlan.
STANDARD:
a. Developandcoordinateaunitretrievalplan,
which addresses responsibilities Ior pickup, list oI
equipment and locations, material handling
equipment, commercial transportation requirements
andotherareasoIconcern.
b. Equipment includes not only vehicles and
other maior end items but also consolidated
shipments (conex inserts, pallets, etc.) containing
chemical protective equipment, cold weather
clothing, tentage, tools, PLL and other
supplies/equipment in storage or long-term hand
receiptnotatHS.
c. PossiblelocationsincludeASF,AMSA,and
ECS Ior USAR units and UTES, OMS, CSMS,
MATES,andAASFIorARNG.
d. Retainplanwithunitmovementplan.
4-I-10. TASK:IdentiIy property not to be taken to
MS.
STANDARD:
AllRCunitorganizationalproperty(includingexcess
propertybookitemsunlesstransIerredbydirectionoI
the RSC/STARC during the Alert Phase) will be
taken to the MS unless mobilization directives
indicateotherwise.
RetainalistinthemobilizationIileoridentiIywhere
list is kept oI property that will not be taken to the
MS.TheIollowingpropertywillnotbetaken:
a. Installation property (desk, chairs,
computers, STU III, etc.) except units with a MS
mission and based on coordination with MS and the
RSC/STARC.
b. Stateproperty(ARNGOnly).
c. Private property (TV, coolers, POV,
weapons).
d. Unit Iund property other than recreational
equipment.
e. Training aids Irom supporting TSC (unless
the account is located at the units MS). Ensure a
copy oI the written TSC emergency turn-in plan has
49
been received and reviewed. Retain this plan in the
logisticdataIile.
I. Leased/rentedequipment.
g. Items Iurnished on an installed per training
centerbasis.
4-I-11. TASK:PlantotransIerIacility.
STANDARD:
a. Armory/Reserve Center commanders, in
coordinationwithSTARC/RSCPlan, must develop a
Iile oI actions to be taken iI the center is vacated or
transIerredtoareardetachment.
b. RetainplaninlogisticsdataIile.
Condition: Phase II - Alert
4-II-1. TASK: Make Iinal coordination Ior HS
LogisticsSupportPlans.
STANDARD:
a. Review, modiIy as required and make Iinal
coordination on lodging and subsistence plans
developedinPhaseI.
4-II-2. TASK: Update contracting requirements
andcoordinatewithsupportingcontractoIIice.
STANDARD:
a. Unit will review current plans to mobilize
the unit and update any contracting requirements to
supporttheunitatHS.
b. Coordinate this inIormation with supporting
contract oIIice and negotiate the most eIIective
method oI providing these supplies and services to
theunit.
c. Ensure purchase card (IMPAC) billing
statements (invoices) are received by the appropriate
(primary or alternate) approving oIIicial and
processedIorpaymentpriortodeployment.
4-II-3. TASK: Coordinate requirement Ior
signature cards and delegation authority with
STANDARD:
a. CoordinatethroughthechainoIcommandto
theMSandidentiIythediIIerentrequirementsIorDD
Form 577, Signature Cards, and DA Form 1687,
Notice oI Delegation oI Authority - Receipt oI
Supplies.
b. Begin preparing updated Iorms with
appropriatesignatures.
4-II-4. TASK:PreparememorandumtoMSTroop
IssueSubsistenceActivitytoestablishaccount.
STANDARD:
a. Prepare a memorandum Ior subsistence
support to the MS TISA IAW AR 30-21. Unit will
include the Iollowing inIormation in the
memorandum: unit name, UIC, DODAAC, Unit
Commander, Food Service OIIicer, Food Operations
OIIicerandphonenumber, expected present Ior duty
strength, start date and meal, and proposed menu Ior
Iieldtraining.
b. Coordinate through the chain oI command
withtheMSIoradditionalinIormation.
4-II-5. TASK Prepare to conduct a showdown
inspectionoIOCIEandpersonaluniIorms.
STANDARD:
a. Review and update personal clothing
records. UniIorm requirements Ior mobilization are
identiIied in CTA 50-900, Table 1 (Male) and Table
2 (Female) under Active Army - Mobilization (AA-
M)allowance.OCIErequirementsareinFORSCOM
Regulation700-2andoperationalmissionguidance.
b. IdentiIy shortages by size. Cross level
where possible. Prepare requisitions Ior remaining
shortages.
4-II-6. TASK: IdentiIy and procure POL packaged
productbasicload.
STANDARD:
a. Usingmissionguidanceonoperationalarea,
historical records and FORSCOM Regulation 700-2,
calculateunitpackagedPOLbasicload.
b. RemainingshortagesIromoperationalstocks
willberequisitionedorcross-leveled.
4-II-7. TASK: Review and update ABL
documentation.
STANDARD:
a. Review and update ABL Recap Listing
based on weapon modernization, mission guidance,
and cross leveling oI equipment. Use FORSCOM
50
Regulation 700-3 Ior authorization Ior new weapons
systemsandmanuallyupdatelisting.
b. Review and update DA 581, Request Ior
Ammunition, based on any changes to the ABL
RecapListing.
4-II-8. TASK: Prepare records and begin to
conductinventoryoIunitproperty.
STANDARD:
a. Review and update the property book and
handreceiptsoIMTOE/CTA/TDAitems.
b. In the interest oI time and eIIiciency, plan
Ior the inventory inspection to be conducted at the
lowestpossiblehandreceiptorsupervisorylevel.
c. Inventory will include liIe support
equipment as authorized by CTA 50-909 such as
tents, stoves, Iield desks/tables, water/Iuel cans.
Unless otherwise speciIied in mission guidance, all
units must be prepared to operate in an austere
environment.
d. Based on mission guidance on threat, units
will inventory chemical deIensive equipment against
contingencyrequirementsinFR700-3.
e. VeriIy all assets subiect to unique item
tracking(DODSASP,CCISP,DODRATTS,IAWAR
710-3,Chapter4).
I. Units that maintain Standard Property Book
System - Revised (SPBS-R) accountability Ior
subordinate units will coordinate with RSC/STARC
on procedures Ior transIerring records and
responsibilitiestoanon-mobilizingunit/activity.
g. Begin cross-leveling and taking other
appropriate supply actions once mission guidance is
providedandshortagesidentiIied.
4-II-9. TASK: Review medical item requirements
andpreparerequisitionsIorClassVIII.
STANDARD:
a. Prepare requisitions based on listing
developedinPhaseI.
b. DeveloplistoIpersonnelneedingspectacles,
optical inserts and hearing aids. Hold requisitions
untilPhaseIII.
4-II-10. TASK: Review PLL listing, identiIy
shortagesandcrosslevel.
STANDARD:
a. Unit will review PLL based on peacetime
demand supported requirements. IdentiIy shortages
Irom current stocks and cross level with supporting
organizationalmaintenanceactivity.
b. Remaining shortages will be Iorwarded
throughthechainoIcommandtotheRSC/STARCto
either cross level or requisition Irom the wholesale
system.
4-II-11. TASK: Coordinate Ior the transIer oI
propertynottobetakentoMStoappropriateactivity.
STANDARD:
Coordinate with the center/armory custodian to
transIer any property currently accountable Irom
mobilizing unit. II no one is available, contact the
next higher command to resolve accountability
conIlict. Begin ioint inventory oI property prior to
transIer.
4-II-12. TASK: Coordinate with supporting
maintenanceactivitiestoprovidepriorityservice.
STANDARD:
a. Coordinate with Area Maintenance Support
Activity or Organizational Maintenance Shop to
prioritizetherequiredmaintenancesupporttoinclude
technical inspections, services, application oI
materialworkordersandreadinessimprovement.
b. Begin updating Material Condition Status
Reporting.
4-II-13. TASK: Retrieve operational, historical
andothermaintenancerecords.
STANDARD:
a. Coordinate retrieval with the supporting
organizational maintenance activity and any
equipmentstorageactivitythatmaintainsoperational,
historicalorothermaintenancerecords.
b. Coordinate with the supporting Army Oil
Analysis (AOAP) Laboratory and obtain completed
oil analysis records Ior all deploying equipment
includinganyitemscross-leveled.
c. IdentiIy any printing or MWO requirements
thatcannotbeaccomplishedpriortoM-Day.
d. Retrieve and review these records Ior
accuracyandcompleteness.
4-II-14. TASK:Updatecalibrationrecords.
STANDARD:
51
a. Coordinate with the supporting AMC
TMDE/CSMSIacilityandupdateallcalibrateditems.
b. Obtain a current copy oI the TMDE
Instrument Master Record File printout and Iile on
computerdisk.
4-II-15. TASK: Review and coordinate unit
MobilizationMovementPlan.
STANDARD:
a. Review mobilization movement plans.
Makeanynecessaryadiustments.Begincoordination
Ior support (MHE, subsistence and POL en route)
withSI/CI/STARC/RSC.
b. II commercial transportation is required
makeinitialcoordinationwithRSC/USPFO.
c. VeriIy BBPCT requirements and pass
inIormationtoMPA/OrderingOIIicer.
d. Ensure supervisor veriIies load cards and
makeadiustmentsasnecessary.
e. EnsureadequatetimeisallocatedontheHS
unitactivityschedule.
I. CoordinateadvancepartymovementtoMS.
g. Prepare a DD Form 1265, Request Ior
Convoy Clearance, and coordinate with the State
DMC.
h. Ensure plan adequately addresses security
andaccountabilityoIweapons,COMSECequipment,
and sensitive items during transportation to the MS
IAWChap7,8,AppAthroughE,AR190-11,DOD
Regulation 4500.9-R, Volume II, Cargo Movements,
andFORSCOM/ARNGRegulation55-1.
4-II-16. TASK: Update COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCIS UEL based on cross-leveling actions and
coordinatewithsupportingTCACCISoIIice.
STANDARD:
a. Review current COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCIS UEL and update any outdated inIormation
Iromlastannualupdate.
b. IdentiIy any additional cross- leveling
actions, both personnel and equipment, and make
appropriate changes to the COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCISUEL.
c. Coordinate with supporting TC ACCIS
oIIicetoupdateCOMPASSAUEL/TC ACCIS UEL.
II oIIice is not the units MS, coordinate the
generation oI a diskette/cartage with the units
electronic data and Iorward to the MS either by the
advancepartyormail.
4-II-17. TASK: Make Iinal coordination and
executeequipmentretrievalplans.
STANDARD:
a. Review plans developed in Phase I and
execute.
b. Make Iinal coordination with supporting
maintenanceandstorageIacilityto:
(1) ReIine speciIic unit personnel and/or
equipment requirements necessary to support the
plan.
(2) ReIine speciIic support required Irom
Iacilitymanager.
(3) Request support beyond the units or
IacilitycapabilityIromtheSI/USPFO.
c. Executeequipmentretrievalplansassoonas
personnel and equipment assets become available.
Ensure adequate time is available on the HS unit
activityplan.
4-II-18. TASK: Storage oI personal property and
householdgoods.
STANDARD:
a. IdentiIy soldiers who require storage oI
personalpropertyincludingPOVIAWAR55-71and
DOD4500.34R.
b. Coordinate with nearest Transportation
OIIicer to determine appropriate military installation
responsible Ior storage oI personal property. The
Personnel Property Consignment Instructions Guide
(PPCIG)VolumeIgovernsthissupport.
4-III-1. TASK:ProvideHSsupport/services.
STANDARD:
a. Implement HS lodging and subsistence
plans.
b. Maintain close coordination with USPFO/SI
duringHSoperations.KeeptheUSPFO/SIinIormed
oI all changes in support required as the operation
transitionsthrougheachphaseoImobilization.
c. NotiIy the USPFO/SI as soon as possible
whenHSoperationsarescheduledIortermination.
4-III-2. TASK: Execute contracts or Mobilization
PurchasingAuthority.
STANDARD:
52
a. Initiate agreements/purchases Ior identiIied
material through MPA/Ordering OIIicer or DA Form
3953throughSI/USPFO.
b. Ensure purchase card (IMPAC) billing
statements (invoices) are received by the appropriate
(primary or alternate) approving oIIicial and
processedIorpaymentpriortodeployment.
4-III-3. TASK: Complete signature cards and
delegationauthority.
STANDARD:
a. Prepare appropriate DA Form 1687,
Delegation oI Authority, Ior receipt oI Supplies, and
DDForm577,SignatureCards.
b. Provide to logistical representative oI the
advanceparty.
4-III-4. TASK: Prepare memo to establish Dining
Facilityaccount.
STANDARD:
a. Submit memo to MS TISA based on
mobilization Present Ior Duty Strength, MS arrival
timeandplannedtraining.
advanceparty.
4-III-5. TASK: Conduct a showdown
inspectionoIOCIEandPersonalUniIorms.
STANDARD:
a. Conduct a showdown inspection oI OCIE
and Personal UniIorms and identiIy any remaining
shortages aIter cross leveling and other supply
actions. Ensure serviceability and Iit during
inspection.
b. Provide shortage listing and requisitions to
logisticalrepresentativeoItheadvanceparty.
4-III-6. TASK:PreparerequisitionsIorshortagesoI
packagedPOL.
STANDARD:
a. Prepare requisitions Ior shortages oI
Packaged POL basic load aIter computation oI basic
load and Iill Irom operational stocks and cross
levelingIromsupportingmaintenanceactivity.
b. Provide requisitions to the logistical
representativeoItheadvanceparty.
4-III-7. TASK:FinalizeDAForm581IorABL.
STANDARD:
a. Finalize the DA Form 581 with the
commanders signature based on any updated
requirements.
advanceparty.
4-III-8. TASK: Finalize reconciliation oI Property
BookandidentiIyshortagesaItercrossleveling.
STANDARD:
a. Update Property Book and equipment on
hand based on inventories, cross-leveling and other
supply actions. Update EOH rating Ior USR
reporting.
b. Provide property book or printout to
logisticsrepresentativesoItheadvanceparty.
4-III-9. TASK:FinalizeClassVIIIrequisitionsand
Iorward to the Installation Medical Supply Account
(IMSA).
STANDARD:
a. CompleteClassVIIIrequisitions.
b. IItheIMSAislocatedattheMS,handcarry
requisitionsandlistingwiththeadvanceparty.
c. II the IMSA is not located at the MS,
Iorward requisitions and listing by the most
expeditiousmeansavailable.
4-III-10. TASK: Finalize PLL/ASL Listing and
preparerequisitionsIorremainingshortages.
STANDARD:
a. On hand PLL/ASL items organic to
mobilizing units will accompany units to the MS
unlessotherwisedirected.
b. Requisitions Ior shortages to complete the
15-dayPLLand30-dayASLwillbebasedonmakes
andmodelsoIequipmentonhand.
c. Requisitions Ior shortages should be Iirst
screened against ASF/OMS/AMSA/USPFO stocks.
II the parts are not available, the advance party will
submit requisitions to the MS. Additionally, a copy
oIthePLL/ASLIororganicunitswillbeIurnishedto
theMS.
53
4-III-11. TASK: Complete transIer oI property not
tobetakentotheMS.
STANDARD: TransIer property identiIied as
remaining at home station to the appropriate non-
deployingunitoractivity.
4-III-12. TASK: Finalize material condition status
report.
STANDARD:
a. Finalize, as appropriate, an as oI material
condition status report (DA Form 2406, DA Form
1352,and/orDAForm3266-1)Iorsubmissiontothe
MS.
b. A DA Form 2407/5504 will be taken to the
MS Ior equipment that could not be retrieved Irom
generalsupportmaintenance.
4-III-13. TASK: Execute Mobilization Movement
Plan.
STANDARD: Move IAW the unit movement plan
andconvoymovementorder.
4-III-14. TASK: Finalize COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCISUEL.
STANDARD:
a. Complete COMPASS AUEL/TC
ACCIS UEL based on cross leveling and updated
loadplan.
b. Provide to logistical representative in
theadvanceparty.
4-III-15. TASK:CompletetransIeroIIacilitiesand
non-organizationalequipment.
STANDARD:
a. ARNG units transIer responsibility Ior
custodyandsecurityoIarmoryIAWStatePlan.
b. USAR units transIer responsibility Ior
custodian and security oI USAR center IAW RSC
Plan.
c. NotiIy local law enIorcement agencies and
utilitycompaniestochangethestatusoItheIacility.
4-III-16. TASK: Complete storage oI personal
property.
STANDARD: Complete actions with supporting
military installation to store personal property oI
authorizedindividuals.
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
5
4
C
h
a
p
t
e
r

F
i
v
e
:

T
a
s
k
s
,

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

B
y

P
h
a
s
e

(
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

P
l
a
n

F
o
r
m
a
t
)
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

P
h
a
s
e

(
P
h
a
s
e

I
)
T
A
S
K
:
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
t
o
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
.
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
:
T
h
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
U
n
i
t
i
s
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
)
a
n
d
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
t
o
t
h
a
t
M
S
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
.
C
o
m
b
a
t
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
o
l
o
w
e
r
t
h
a
n
B
a
t
t
a
l
i
o
n
l
e
v
e
l
.
C
S
/
C
S
S
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
a
t
A
A
l
e
v
e
l
,
o
r
a
t
l
e
v
e
l
a
t
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
i
s
m
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
.
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
l
y
u
s
i
n
g
i
t
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
.
U
p
o
n
n
o
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
a
l
e
r
t
,
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
I
o
r
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
b
y
a
l
e
r
t
i
n
g
k
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
I
o
r
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
u
n
i
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
P
l
a
n
I
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
c
k
e
t
.
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
+
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
T
a
s
k
T
r
a
i
n
e
d
:
(
T
)
A
l
l
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
a
n
d
s
u
b
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
N
e
e
d
s
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
:
(
P
)
A
l
l
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
e
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
,
b
u
t
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
n
o
n
-
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
u
b
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
e
d
u
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
.
U
n
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
:
(
U
)
O
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
u
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
7
6
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
5
5
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
.
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
d
u
r
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
i
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
t
h
e
m
i
n
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
r
o
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
n
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
.
b
.
F
o
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
w
i
t
h
c
o
p
y
o
I
A
n
n
e
x
o
I
t
h
i
s
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
I
F
O
R
M
D
E
P
S
(
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
A
n
n
e
x
i
s
a
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
u
n
i
t
s
p
e
c
i
I
i
c
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
)
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
o
r
d
e
r
c
o
p
i
e
s
o
I
a
n
y
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
a
m
p
h
l
e
t
s
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
,
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
h
i
s
/
h
e
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
.
c
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
b
r
i
e
I
i
n
g
t
o
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
,
u
s
i
n
g
A
n
n
e
x
a
s
g
u
i
d
e
.
d
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
b
e
n
e
I
i
t
s
a
n
d
D
e
n
t
a
l
b
r
i
e
I
i
n
g
s
I
o
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
.
+
(
2
)
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
f
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
(
S
R
P
)
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
S
R
P
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
.
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
s
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
(
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
I
o
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
)
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
a
d
e
o
n
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
a
s
i
s
.
A
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
h
e
c
k
s
w
i
l
l
u
s
e
d
a
t
a
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
c
h
e
c
k
.
(
1
)
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
r
e
d
o
n
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
.
(
a
)
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
d
a
t
a
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
s
t
a
t
u
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
.
(
b
)
A
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
c
h
e
c
k
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
I
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
a
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
a
n
d
h
i
s
/
h
e
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
a
r
e
u
p
t
o
d
a
t
e
.
(
c
)
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
.
(
d
)
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
i
s
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
C
A
L
L
F
O
R
W
A
R
D
.
(
e
)
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
O
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
D
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
I
o
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
(
2
)
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
m
u
s
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
I
o
r
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
y
e
a
r
a
n
d
a
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
I
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
,
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
s
.
b
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
S
R
P
.
(
1
)
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
i
n
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
0
1
.
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
p
o
l
i
c
y
i
n
S
R
P
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
(
2
)
T
h
o
s
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
o
r
t
h
e
d
a
y
-
t
o
-
d
a
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
I
t
h
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
a
n
d
h
i
s
/
h
e
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
w
i
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
m
o
s
t
o
I
t
h
e
S
R
P
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
7
7
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
5
6
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
(
i
.
e
.
,
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
I
D
D
F
o
r
m
9
3
a
n
d
p
r
e
-
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
i
n
D
E
E
R
S
)
.
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
i
t
e
m
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
I
I
D
c
a
r
d
s
,
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
.
(
3
)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
n
o
t
e
d
i
n
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
w
i
l
l
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
t
h
o
s
e
i
t
e
m
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
w
h
i
c
h
i
t
e
m
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
s
t
a
t
u
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
I
o
r
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
/
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
.
M
a
n
y
o
I
t
h
e
t
a
s
k
s
n
o
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
a
l
e
r
t
a
n
d
h
o
m
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
s
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
R
P
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(
4
)
T
h
e
t
a
s
k
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
h
a
s
e
n
o
t
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
R
P
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
g
r
o
u
p
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
a
s
t
h
e
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
I
o
r
m
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
(
M
O
B
L
A
S
)
a
t
a
l
l
P
P
P
s
a
n
d
P
S
P
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
M
o
d
u
l
e
s
(
I
S
M
)
a
t
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
a
s
k
s
a
r
e
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
l
l
-
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
I
o
r
S
R
P
,
n
o
r
a
r
e
t
h
e
y
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
y
i
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
r
d
e
r
.
(
5
)
T
h
o
s
e
t
a
s
k
s
t
h
a
t
d
o
n
o
t
a
l
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
S
R
P
b
u
t
a
r
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
u
n
i
t
a
n
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
e
d
a
n
d
a
d
d
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
I
i
n
a
l
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(
3
)
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
M
P
R
J
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
0
1
)
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
0
4
.
(
4
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
u
n
i
t
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
S
I
D
P
E
R
S
d
a
t
a
(
A
R
N
G
o
r
U
S
A
R
)
.
(
S
R
P
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
)
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
u
n
i
t
'
s
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
s
a
n
d
R
C
S
I
D
P
E
R
S
d
a
t
a
i
s
t
i
m
e
l
y
a
n
d
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
.
D
a
t
a
i
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
e
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
w
h
i
c
h
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
n
d
e
a
r
m
a
r
k
I
i
l
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
I
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
b
a
s
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
V
e
r
i
I
y
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
o
I
A
O
C
/
M
O
S
d
a
t
a
o
n
S
I
D
P
E
R
S
.
(
5
)
S
c
r
e
e
n
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
I
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
n
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
I
o
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
a
.
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
s
c
r
e
e
n
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
I
t
h
e
i
r
u
n
i
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
I
A
W
A
R
1
3
5
-
1
3
3
a
n
d
N
G
R
6
0
0
-
2
.
T
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
a
s
k
e
y
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
,
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
q
u
a
l
i
I
i
e
d
I
o
r
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
o
r
w
h
o
s
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
h
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
,
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
b
.
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
a
b
l
e
,
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
.
U
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
a
b
l
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
a
b
l
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
o
r
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
c
.
A
R
6
1
4
-
3
0
(
T
a
b
l
e
3
-
1
)
,
A
R
2
2
0
-
1
a
n
d
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
,
t
h
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
s
r
e
I
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
a
b
l
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
.
(
6
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
C
a
r
e
P
l
a
n
s
(
F
C
P
)
.
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
i
n
g
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
5
-
5
,
A
R
6
0
0
-
2
0
m
u
s
t
b
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
n
I
i
l
e
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
7
8
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
5
7
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
w
h
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
I
a
m
i
l
y
c
a
r
e
p
l
a
n
c
a
n
b
e
I
o
u
n
d
i
n
A
R
6
0
0
-
2
0
.
A
n
F
C
P
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
o
r
b
o
t
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
I
d
u
a
l
-
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
o
u
p
l
e
,
a
n
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
:
h
a
v
e
n
o
s
p
o
u
s
e
a
r
e
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
d
,
w
i
d
o
w
e
d
o
r
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
p
o
u
s
e
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
p
r
e
g
n
a
n
t
,
o
r
h
a
v
e
i
o
i
n
t
o
r
I
u
l
l
l
e
g
a
l
a
n
d
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
d
y
o
I
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
a
g
e
o
I
1
9
y
e
a
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
d
u
l
t
,
n
o
n
-
s
p
o
u
s
e
,
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
i
n
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
I
s
e
l
I
-
c
a
r
e
(
7
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
.
a
.
I
s
s
u
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
b
l
e
U
.
S
.
A
r
m
e
d
F
o
r
c
e
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
d
D
D
F
o
r
m
2
A
(
R
e
d
)
.
(
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
4
)
b
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
,
I
o
r
n
o
n
-
c
o
m
b
a
t
a
n
t
s
,
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
G
e
n
e
v
a
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
I
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
C
a
r
d
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
9
3
4
)
,
i
I
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
4
)
c
I
s
s
u
e
I
D
T
a
g
s
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
4
.
(
8
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
I
i
l
e
s
o
I
P
3
o
r
w
o
r
s
e
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
P
3
p
r
o
I
i
l
e
o
r
w
o
r
s
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
I
o
r
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
(
A
R
4
0
-
5
0
1
,
A
R
1
3
5
-
1
7
8
a
n
d
A
R
6
3
5
-
4
0
)
.
S
e
e
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
1
9
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
.
(
9
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
h
a
v
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
d
u
t
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
a
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
I
A
W
u
n
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
(
e
.
g
.
M
T
O
E
)
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
A
n
n
e
x
G
)
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
n
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
-
m
a
n
n
i
n
g
r
o
s
t
e
r
.
b
.
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
I
o
r
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
I
A
W
A
R
3
8
0
-
6
7
.
(
1
0
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
g
a
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
:
a
.
T
h
e
P
r
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
g
a
l
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
P
L
C
P
)
.
a
.
P
L
C
P
/
P
L
S
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
R
C
J
u
d
g
e
A
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
s
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
Q
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
5
0
0
-
3
-
1
,
F
M
P
)
.
b
.
S
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
3
I
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
7
9
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
5
8
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
b
.
P
r
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
g
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
P
L
S
)
.
(
1
1
)
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
P
a
y
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
(
M
M
P
A
)
.
a
.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
M
M
P
A
i
n
u
n
i
t
I
i
l
e
.
b
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
M
M
P
A
I
o
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
o
i
n
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
I
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
c
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
M
M
P
A
o
n
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
I
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
1
2
)
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
H
e
a
l
t
h
R
e
c
o
r
d
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
3
4
4
4
S
e
r
i
e
s
)
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
6
6
a
n
d
A
R
4
0
-
5
0
1
.
(
1
3
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
a
g
s
a
r
e
i
s
s
u
e
d
.
S
T
A
R
C
s
/
R
S
C
s
a
n
d
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
s
e
t
I
o
r
t
h
b
e
l
o
w
.
a
.
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
a
n
d
I
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p
o
n
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
5
0
1
.
(
1
)
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
s
I
o
r
a
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
.
F
o
r
m
o
s
t
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
t
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
e
v
e
r
y
I
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
(
o
n
q
u
i
n
q
u
e
n
n
i
a
l
b
a
s
i
s
)
.
L
a
c
k
o
I
a
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
e
x
a
m
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
2
)
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
o
v
e
r
4
0
a
n
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
e
a
r
l
y
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
v
e
r
y
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
.
(
3
)
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
o
v
e
r
4
0
m
u
s
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
r
d
i
o
v
a
s
c
u
l
a
r
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
n
e
x
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
e
x
a
m
.
b
.
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
a
g
s
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
1
5
,
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
D
A
F
o
r
m
3
3
6
5
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
o
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
t
a
g
s
i
s
s
u
e
d
,
a
n
d
a
I
I
i
x
D
A
L
a
b
e
l
1
6
2
t
o
t
h
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
c
o
r
d
.
(
1
4
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
d
e
n
t
a
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
T
A
R
C
s
/
R
S
C
s
a
n
d
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
.
a
.
A
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
c
o
r
d
.
A
R
4
0
-
5
0
1
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
n
h
o
w
t
o
s
a
t
i
s
I
y
t
h
e
d
e
n
t
a
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
I
o
r
d
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
c
o
r
d
.
b
.
A
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
p
a
n
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
x
-
r
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
I
o
r
e
n
s
i
c
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
R
4
0
-
6
6
)
.
c
.
L
a
c
k
o
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
p
r
e
c
l
u
d
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
d
.
F
o
r
e
a
r
l
y
d
e
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
,
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
d
e
n
t
a
l
s
c
r
e
e
n
a
n
d
d
e
n
t
a
l
c
a
r
e
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
t
o
d
e
n
t
a
l
c
l
a
s
s
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
(
1
5
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
D
e
o
x
y
r
i
b
o
n
u
c
l
e
i
c
A
c
i
d
A
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
o
n
e
D
N
A
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
d
r
a
w
n
a
n
d
n
o
t
e
d
o
n
a
n
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
0
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
5
9
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
D
N
A
)
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
S
F
6
0
0
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
I
o
r
D
N
A
s
a
m
p
l
e
t
o
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
.
T
h
e
s
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
i
n
h
u
m
i
d
i
t
y
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
p
o
u
c
h
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
D
N
A
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
r
e
p
o
s
i
t
o
r
y
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
i
l
e
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
k
i
t
s
.
T
h
e
o
n
l
y
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
i
I
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
s
i
t
o
r
y
e
n
t
e
r
s
t
h
e
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
i
n
D
E
E
R
S
.
E
a
c
h
o
I
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
i
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
I
R
C
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
d
t
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
t
y
.
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
a
r
e
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
l
y
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
o
n
a
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
n
e
w
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
t
h
e
A
r
m
y
(
i
n
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)
.
(
1
6
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
I
o
r
H
I
V
.
R
C
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d
I
o
r
H
I
V
e
v
e
r
y
I
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
F
o
r
a
l
l
R
C
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
t
y
I
o
r
3
0
d
a
y
s
o
r
m
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
H
I
V
t
e
s
t
m
u
s
t
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
m
o
n
t
h
s
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
c
o
n
I
i
r
m
e
d
H
I
V
a
n
t
i
b
o
d
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
,
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
I
R
R
o
r
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
(
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
m
u
s
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
)
.
(
1
7
)
E
n
s
u
r
e
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
.
a
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
I
A
R
4
0
-
5
6
2
p
l
u
s
a
n
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
T
h
e
o
n
l
y
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
I
o
r
T
e
t
a
n
u
s
(
e
v
e
r
y
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
)
.
A
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
t
h
e
a
t
e
r
o
I
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
l
e
r
t
o
r
h
o
m
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
s
o
r
a
t
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
b
.
H
e
p
a
t
i
t
i
s
B
-
b
a
s
i
c
s
e
r
i
e
s
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
o
r
a
l
l
R
C
A
M
E
D
D
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
.
c
.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
b
y
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
o
r
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
5
6
2
.
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
a
r
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
I
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
d
.
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
w
i
l
l
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
S
F
6
0
1
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
'
s
h
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
c
o
r
d
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
'
s
P
H
S
F
o
r
m
7
3
1
.
e
.
L
a
c
k
o
I
i
m
m
u
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
.
(
1
8
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
w
h
o
w
e
a
r
s
p
e
c
t
a
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
a
i
d
s
.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
e
a
c
h
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
p
y
o
I
l
a
t
e
s
t
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
s
p
e
c
t
a
c
l
e
s
/
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
a
i
d
a
n
d
I
i
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
'
s
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
.
(
1
9
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
l
e
n
s
i
n
s
e
r
t
s
I
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
s
k
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
w
i
t
h
v
i
s
u
a
l
a
c
u
i
t
y
o
I
2
0
/
7
0
o
r
w
o
r
s
e
a
n
d
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
o
I
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
i
s
u
a
l
a
c
u
i
t
y
o
I
2
0
/
4
0
o
r
w
o
r
s
e
m
u
s
t
h
a
v
e
l
e
n
s
i
n
s
e
r
t
s
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
5
5
.
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
c
o
p
y
o
I
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
s
p
e
c
t
a
c
l
e
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
6
3
.
(
2
0
)
V
e
r
i
I
y
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
U
n
i
I
o
r
m
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
d
D
E
E
R
S
V
e
r
i
I
y
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
U
n
i
I
o
r
m
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
d
D
E
E
R
S
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
2
)
,
I
o
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
1
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
0
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
2
)
,
I
o
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
a
.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
w
i
t
h
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
M
e
m
b
e
r
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
v
e
r
i
I
y
I
a
m
i
l
y
s
t
a
t
u
s
a
n
d
m
u
s
t
n
o
t
i
I
y
u
n
i
t
a
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
.
b
.
M
e
m
b
e
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
s
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
2
.
U
n
i
t
v
e
r
i
I
i
e
s
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
3
-
1
t
o
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
D
E
E
R
S
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
w
h
e
n
e
v
e
r
t
h
e
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
3
-
1
i
s
i
s
s
u
e
d
/
r
e
i
s
s
u
e
d
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
i
s
s
u
e
I
D
c
a
r
d
s
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
w
i
t
h
v
e
r
i
I
i
e
d
c
o
p
y
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
t
o
t
a
k
e
I
a
m
i
l
y
t
o
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
A
r
m
o
r
y
o
r
I
D
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
(
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
c
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
i
s
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
)
I
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
.
c
.
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
n
-
l
i
n
e
o
r
w
i
t
h
D
E
E
R
S
F
l
o
p
p
y
D
i
s
k
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
I
D
E
E
R
S
F
l
o
p
p
y
D
i
s
k
c
a
n
b
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
.
d
.
A
n
y
t
i
m
e
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
a
m
i
l
y
s
t
a
t
u
s
,
e
.
g
.
,
g
a
i
n
/
l
o
s
s
o
I
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
,
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
I
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
,
m
e
m
b
e
r
m
u
s
t
a
l
s
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
D
E
E
R
S
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
.
+
(
2
1
)
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
F
a
m
i
l
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
G
r
o
u
p
(
F
S
G
)
.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
F
S
G
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
2
0
a
n
d
D
A
P
A
M
6
0
8
-
4
7
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
a
.
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
a
n
o
I
I
i
c
e
r
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
N
C
O
a
s
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
F
a
m
i
l
y
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
.
b
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
t
r
e
e
I
o
r
F
S
G
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
c
.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
a
m
i
l
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
g
r
o
u
p
l
e
a
d
e
r
a
n
d
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
F
a
m
i
l
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
.
d
.
P
o
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
a
n
d
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
i
I
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
)
o
I
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
F
a
m
i
l
y
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
.
e
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
r
i
e
I
i
n
g
s
t
o
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
C
.
(
2
2
)
F
o
r
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
a
r
e
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
,
s
c
r
e
e
n
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
C
r
e
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
F
i
l
e
(
P
C
F
)
I
o
r
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
v
e
r
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
P
C
F
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
v
e
r
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
6
6
a
n
d
A
R
4
0
-
6
8
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
o
s
t
e
r
o
I
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
P
C
F
s
t
a
t
u
s
.
I
I
P
C
F
i
s
d
e
I
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
l
i
s
t
d
e
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
P
C
F
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
w
i
l
l
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
d
e
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
,
a
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
o
s
t
e
r
s
t
o
S
T
A
R
C
(
A
R
N
G
)
a
n
d
R
S
C
(
U
S
A
R
)
I
o
r
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
S
e
n
d
r
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
p
y
t
o
M
S
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
I
H
e
a
l
t
h
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
D
H
S
)
I
o
r
p
h
y
s
i
c
i
a
n
s
,
n
u
r
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
h
y
s
i
c
i
a
n
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
a
n
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
p
y
t
o
M
S
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
I
D
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
D
D
S
)
I
o
r
d
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
M
S
D
H
S
/
D
D
S
a
t
b
i
e
n
n
i
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
v
i
s
i
t
.
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
C
F
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
s
e
e
k
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
.
(
2
3
)
F
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
i
z
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
n
S
I
D
P
E
R
S
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
r
e
I
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
w
i
t
h
S
I
D
P
E
R
S
A
C
s
y
s
t
e
m
I
A
W
D
A
P
a
m
6
0
0
-
8
-
2
3
(
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
t
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
n
t
h
e
7
5
s
e
r
i
e
s
P
M
O
S
,
o
r
w
h
o
a
r
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
a
t
I
i
e
l
d
)
.
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
s
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
2
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
1
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
(
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
S
)
.
(
2
4
)
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
/
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
c
a
r
d
s
,
a
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
I
o
r
:
C
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
C
o
u
r
i
e
r
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
5
0
1
,
A
R
2
5
-
1
1
M
o
r
a
l
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
F
u
n
d
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
,
A
R
2
1
5
-
1
C
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
o
I
C
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
,
A
R
3
8
0
-
5
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
P
o
s
t
a
l
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
D
D
F
o
r
m
2
8
5
,
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
3
M
a
i
l
C
l
e
r
k
&
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
D
D
F
o
r
m
2
8
5
,
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
3
M
a
i
l
O
r
d
e
r
l
y
D
D
F
o
r
m
2
8
5
,
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
3
I
M
O
/
T
A
S
O
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
F
a
m
i
l
y
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
(
2
5
)
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
u
n
i
t
m
o
r
a
l
e
w
e
l
I
a
r
e
a
n
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
W
R
)
k
i
t
s
.
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
u
n
i
t
M
W
R
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
I
A
W
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
7
,
a
n
d
A
n
n
e
x
E
,
F
M
1
2
-
6
.
(
2
6
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
w
a
i
v
e
r
o
I
b
e
n
e
I
i
t
s
.
a
.
S
c
r
e
e
n
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
p
a
y
,
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
.
b
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
D
e
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
R
e
t
i
r
e
d
P
a
y
B
e
n
e
I
i
t
s
a
n
d
W
a
i
v
e
r
s
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
3
0
5
3
)
I
A
W
A
R
3
7
-
1
0
4
-
4
(
D
R
A
F
T
)
a
n
d
3
7
-
1
0
4
-
1
0
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
3
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
2
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
+
(
1
)
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
u
n
i
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
i
l
e
.
R
C
M
T
M
C
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
b
a
t
t
l
e
b
o
o
k
a
s
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
b
y
H
Q
,
M
T
M
C
i
n
l
i
e
u
o
f
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
i
l
e
.
T
h
e
b
a
t
t
l
e
b
o
o
k
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
i
l
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
a
l
e
r
t
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
.
a
.
F
i
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
,
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
,
i
n
d
e
x
e
d
a
n
d
t
a
b
b
e
d
.
b
.
A
l
l
A
A
l
e
v
e
l
u
n
i
t
s
m
u
s
t
h
a
v
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
M
O
B
I
i
l
e
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
:
(
1
)
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
S
T
A
R
C
s
a
n
d
R
S
C
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
I
t
h
e
a
l
e
r
t
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
A
,
A
p
p
1
.
(
2
)
T
h
e
a
l
e
r
t
a
n
d
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
I
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
t
e
s
t
/
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
o
I
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
(
3
)
l
i
s
t
o
I
k
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
b
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
d
u
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
I
A
W
T
a
s
k
3
-
I
-
9
.
(
4
)
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
p
a
c
k
e
t
,
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
B
.
(
5
)
U
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
w
i
t
h
P
h
a
s
e
t
a
s
k
s
a
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
d
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
(
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
E
)
a
n
d
H
S
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
(
3
-
I
-
6
)
.
(
6
)
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
m
a
y
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
I
c
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
)
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
u
n
i
t
'
s
W
A
R
T
R
A
C
E
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
.
(
7
)
M
S
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
c
k
e
t
,
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
M
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
(
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
(
T
a
b
l
e
3
-
1
)
a
n
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
l
a
s
t
M
S
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
v
i
s
i
t
(
3
-
I
-
)
.
(
8
)
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
'
s
p
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
l
a
t
e
s
t
P
T
S
R
.
(
9
)
L
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
.
(
s
e
e
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
)
(
1
0
)
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
M
S
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
.
(
A
n
n
e
x
G
)
.
(
1
1
)
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
I
l
a
s
t
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
I
u
n
i
t
'
s
m
o
b
I
i
l
e
.
(
3
-
I
-
2
)
.
(
1
2
)
H
S
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
.
c
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
U
I
C
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
u
n
i
t
m
u
s
t
,
a
s
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
a
l
e
r
t
a
n
d
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
p
l
a
n
,
l
o
a
d
p
l
a
n
,
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
i
o
i
n
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
d
a
t
a
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
p
a
r
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
.
(
2
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
I
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
i
l
e
b
y
t
h
e
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
(
M
O
F
I
R
E
)
.
T
h
e
u
n
i
t
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
(
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
a
n
d
b
e
l
o
w
,
d
o
w
n
t
o
A
A
-
U
I
C
u
n
i
t
i
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
/
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
'
s
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
i
l
e
o
n
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
a
s
i
s
.
r
e
c
o
r
d
o
I
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
I
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
/
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
i
l
e
.
+
(
3
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
p
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
.
O
I
t
h
o
s
e
t
a
s
k
s
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
I
o
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
t
a
s
k
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
4
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
3
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
b
.
A
d
d
t
h
o
s
e
t
a
s
k
s
t
o
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
o
I
t
a
s
k
s
d
e
I
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
p
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
n
a
l
l
t
a
s
k
s
.
c
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
t
h
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
t
r
a
i
n
t
h
o
s
e
t
a
s
k
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
t
o
b
e
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
.
d
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
o
r
a
n
y
t
i
m
e
s
i
g
n
i
I
i
c
a
n
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
a
k
e
s
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
+
(
4
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
H
S
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
t
H
S
d
u
r
i
n
g
P
h
a
s
e
s
I
I
/
I
I
I
.
(
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
,
i
I
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
)
U
s
e
A
n
n
e
x
E
(
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
I
o
r
u
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
)
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
(
5
)
T
e
s
t
/
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
t
h
e
a
l
e
r
t
n
o
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
.
a
.
E
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
t
h
e
a
l
e
r
t
r
o
s
t
e
r
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
I
A
W
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
b
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
t
e
s
t
/
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
a
l
e
r
t
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
i
l
e
.
c
.
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
o
n
l
y
i
I
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
h
i
g
h
e
r
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
.
(
6
)
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
M
S
.
a
.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
M
S
,
t
r
i
e
n
n
i
a
l
l
y
a
s
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
l
l
P
T
S
R
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
.
b
.
N
e
w
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
o
I
M
O
B
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
(
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
U
I
C
s
e
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
A
A
)
o
r
u
n
i
t
s
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
a
t
M
S
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
u
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
v
i
s
i
t
t
h
e
M
S
w
i
t
h
i
n
n
i
n
e
m
o
n
t
h
s
a
I
t
e
r
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
.
c
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
M
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
(
T
a
b
l
e
3
-
1
)
.
(
7
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
k
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
t
o
b
e
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
d
u
t
y
i
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
.
a
.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
l
i
s
t
o
I
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
k
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
I
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
s
k
3
-
I
-
5
.
(
K
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
I
r
o
m
u
n
i
t
t
o
u
n
i
t
b
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
t
a
s
k
s
t
o
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
)
.
b
.
E
a
c
h
p
e
r
s
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
m
u
s
t
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
b
y
h
i
s
n
a
m
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
o
I
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
I
a
n
e
a
r
l
y
c
a
l
l
t
o
d
u
t
y
.
(
8
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
p
r
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
b
r
i
e
I
i
n
g
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
I
A
W
w
i
t
h
A
n
n
e
x
C
.
(
9
)
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
C
O
M
S
E
C
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
.
a
.
U
n
i
t
s
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
C
O
M
S
E
C
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
m
u
s
t
e
i
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
C
O
M
S
E
C
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
o
r
b
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
a
s
s
u
b
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
o
r
h
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
h
o
l
d
e
r
.
b
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
n
e
x
t
h
i
g
h
e
r
W
A
R
T
R
A
C
E
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
I
o
r
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
y
p
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
(
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
o
r
s
u
b
)
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
C
O
M
S
E
C
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
.
c
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
I
A
W
T
B
3
8
0
-
4
1
s
e
r
i
e
s
,
A
R
3
8
0
-
4
0
(
C
)
a
n
d
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
3
8
0
-
4
1
.
d
.
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
C
O
M
S
E
C
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
M
S
t
o
s
t
o
r
e
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
5
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
4
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
(
E
A
P
)
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
C
O
M
S
E
C
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
a
s
e
c
u
r
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
e
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
C
r
y
p
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
I
t
e
m
s
(
C
C
I
)
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
k
e
y
I
o
r
C
O
M
S
E
C
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
b
y
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
I
r
o
m
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
i
s
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
a
n
d
g
o
v
e
r
n
e
d
I
A
W
D
A
P
A
M
2
5
-
3
8
0
-
2
a
n
d
3
8
0
-
4
1
S
e
r
i
e
s
.
I
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
A
W
T
B
3
8
0
-
4
1
s
e
r
i
e
s
,
A
R
3
8
0
-
4
0
,
F
R
3
8
0
-
4
1
a
n
d
D
A
P
A
M
2
5
-
3
8
0
-
2
.
g
.
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
C
O
M
S
E
C
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
C
O
M
S
E
C
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
I
A
W
A
R
3
8
0
-
4
0
a
n
d
T
B
3
8
0
-
4
1
S
e
r
i
e
s
.
(
1
0
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
b
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
i
s
t
t
h
e
I
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
t
o
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
k
e
y
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
I
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
i
I
i
c
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
I
o
r
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
(
s
e
e
A
n
n
e
x
G
)
.
(
1
1
)
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
C
I
/
S
I
(
w
h
e
n
d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t
I
r
o
m
M
S
)
.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
I
/
S
I
,
a
s
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
t
r
i
e
n
n
i
a
l
l
y
,
w
h
e
n
C
I
/
S
I
i
s
d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
M
S
.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
l
i
s
t
o
I
p
o
i
n
t
s
o
I
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
a
r
r
i
v
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
6
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
5
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
H
S
.
a
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
o
I
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
U
n
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
I
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
H
S
P
h
a
s
e
.
N
o
r
m
a
l
l
y
,
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
s
i
d
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
0
m
i
l
e
s
I
r
o
m
H
S
.
b
.
P
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
h
o
w
e
r
,
s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
o
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
I
I
u
n
i
t
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
u
s
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
u
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
t
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
.
P
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
I
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
a
l
l
e
d
t
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
t
y
e
a
r
l
y
.
I
I
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
v
o
y
o
r
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
d
e
p
a
r
t
s
e
a
r
l
y
,
u
n
i
t
m
a
y
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
t
o
s
l
e
e
p
a
t
H
S
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
.
(
2
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
H
S
.
a
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
u
n
i
t
a
t
H
S
.
P
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
I
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
h
o
w
a
n
d
w
h
e
r
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
o
r
s
e
r
v
e
d
,
h
o
w
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
I
r
o
m
H
S
t
o
M
S
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
l
o
a
d
m
e
s
s
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
u
n
i
t
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
I
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
l
a
s
t
m
e
a
l
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
m
e
a
l
h
o
u
r
s
.
b
.
I
I
u
n
i
t
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
u
s
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
u
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
t
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
.
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
c
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
m
e
a
l
s
a
t
H
S
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
l
s
e
n
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
.
c
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
p
l
a
n
i
n
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
.
(
3
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
S
I
o
r
U
S
P
F
O
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
o
I
I
i
c
e
.
Y
e
s
a
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
w
h
o
,
w
h
a
t
,
w
h
e
r
e
,
w
h
e
n
,
h
o
w
)
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
I
I
i
c
e
r
.
U
n
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
l
i
s
t
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
i
.
e
.
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
,
b
u
l
k
P
O
L
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
e
t
c
.
I
o
r
P
h
a
s
e
s
I
I
a
n
d
I
I
I
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
I
s
u
p
p
l
y
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
:
1
0
r
o
o
m
s
I
o
r
n
i
g
h
t
s
.
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
.
b
.
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
v
e
r
i
I
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
I
I
i
c
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
b
y
s
o
m
e
m
e
a
n
s
(
o
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
o
I
I
i
c
e
r
,
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
o
n
-
t
h
e
-
s
h
e
l
I
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
,
o
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
l
a
u
s
e
)
.
c
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
I
I
i
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
r
e
p
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
.
(
4
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
C
l
a
s
s
A
B
L
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
A
B
L
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
F
o
r
m
1
4
9
-
R
I
A
W
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
0
0
-
3
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
D
A
F
o
r
m
5
8
1
I
o
r
A
B
L
.
b
.
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
D
A
F
o
r
m
5
8
1
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
a
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
u
p
p
l
y
p
o
i
n
t
(
A
S
P
)
.
c
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
M
S
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
r
i
e
n
n
i
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
I
e
r
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
o
b
t
a
i
n
M
S
A
S
P
S
O
P
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
a
n
d
t
u
r
n
-
i
n
.
d
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
o
I
t
h
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
I
i
l
e
c
o
p
y
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
5
8
1
)
a
n
d
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
7
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
6
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
m
e
n
t
o
I
t
h
e
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
I
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
D
A
F
o
r
m
5
8
1
b
y
t
h
e
M
S
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
w
i
t
h
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
A
B
L
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
.
(
5
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
C
l
a
s
s
V
I
I
I
,
p
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Y
e
s
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
l
i
s
t
o
I
C
l
a
s
s
V
I
I
I
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
.
b
.
A
l
l
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
6
1
a
n
d
A
R
7
2
5
-
5
0
.
C
T
A
8
-
1
0
0
,
A
r
m
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
E
x
p
e
n
d
a
b
l
e
/
D
u
r
a
b
l
e
I
t
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
0
0
-
2
,
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
L
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
I
o
r
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
I
t
e
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
I
i
e
l
d
s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
a
m
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
0
0
-
2
)
c
h
a
p
s
t
i
c
k
,
e
a
r
p
l
u
g
s
,
c
a
m
o
u
I
l
a
g
e
s
t
i
c
k
s
,
s
u
n
s
c
r
e
e
n
,
c
o
m
b
a
t
l
i
I
e
s
a
v
e
r
k
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
w
e
t
b
u
l
b
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
k
i
t
s
a
r
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
C
T
A
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
S
e
t
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
L
i
s
t
/
U
n
i
t
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
a
g
e
s
I
o
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
+
(
6
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
U
n
i
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
.
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
I
A
W
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
/
A
R
N
G
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
-
1
.
b
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
I
A
W
,
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
/
A
R
N
G
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
-
1
i
I
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
S
.
c
.
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
U
M
O
i
n
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
I
A
W
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
/
A
R
N
G
5
5
-
1
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
c
o
p
y
t
o
S
I
/
U
S
P
F
O
.
d
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
e
n
r
o
u
t
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
S
I
/
U
S
P
F
O
.
e
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
p
l
a
n
i
n
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
I
y
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
I
I
i
l
e
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
.
(
7
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
U
n
i
t
L
o
a
d
P
l
a
n
.
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
,
t
e
s
t
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
l
o
a
d
p
l
a
n
I
A
W
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
/
A
R
N
G
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
-
1
.
b
.
A
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
t
e
s
t
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
p
e
n
c
i
l
o
n
l
o
a
d
c
a
r
d
.
F
i
l
e
w
i
t
h
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
.
+
(
8
)
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Y
e
s
a
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
d
a
t
a
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
I
A
W
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
-
2
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
o
r
a
s
s
i
g
n
i
I
i
c
a
n
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
.
b
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
p
r
i
n
t
o
u
t
w
i
t
h
u
n
i
t
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
.
c
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
I
A
W
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
/
A
R
N
G
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
-
1
.
(
9
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
P
l
a
n
.
a
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
p
l
a
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
I
o
r
p
i
c
k
u
p
,
l
i
s
t
o
I
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
o
I
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
8
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
7
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
b
.
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
i
o
r
e
n
d
i
t
e
m
s
b
u
t
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
s
h
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
(
c
o
n
e
x
i
n
s
e
r
t
s
,
p
a
l
l
e
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
l
d
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
c
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
,
t
e
n
t
a
g
e
,
t
o
o
l
s
,
P
L
L
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
/
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
r
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
h
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
n
o
t
a
t
H
S
.
c
.
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
A
S
F
,
A
M
S
A
,
a
n
d
E
C
S
I
o
r
U
S
A
R
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
U
T
E
S
,
O
M
S
,
C
S
M
S
,
M
A
T
E
S
,
a
n
d
A
A
S
F
I
o
r
A
R
N
G
.
d
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
p
l
a
n
w
i
t
h
u
n
i
t
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
.
(
1
0
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
M
S
.
A
l
l
R
C
u
n
i
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
x
c
e
s
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
b
o
o
k
i
t
e
m
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
b
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
R
S
C
/
S
T
A
R
C
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
l
e
r
t
P
h
a
s
e
)
w
i
l
l
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
u
n
l
e
s
s
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
l
i
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
i
l
e
o
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
w
h
e
r
e
l
i
s
t
i
s
k
e
p
t
o
I
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
.
T
h
e
I
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
.
a
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
d
e
s
k
,
c
h
a
i
r
s
,
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
,
S
T
U
I
I
I
,
e
t
c
.
)
e
x
c
e
p
t
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
M
S
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
M
S
a
n
d
t
h
e
R
S
C
/
S
T
A
R
C
.
b
.
S
t
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
A
R
N
G
O
n
l
y
)
.
c
.
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
T
V
,
c
o
o
l
e
r
s
,
P
O
V
,
w
e
a
p
o
n
s
)
d
.
U
n
i
t
I
u
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
e
.
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
i
d
s
I
r
o
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
T
S
C
(
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
M
S
)
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
T
S
C
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
t
u
r
n
-
i
n
p
l
a
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
.
I
.
L
e
a
s
e
d
/
r
e
n
t
e
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
g
.
I
t
e
m
s
I
u
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
o
n
a
n
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
p
e
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
s
(
1
1
)
P
l
a
n
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
a
.
A
r
m
o
r
y
/
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
,
i
n
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
P
l
a
n
,
m
u
s
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
I
i
l
e
o
I
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
i
I
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
i
s
v
a
c
a
t
e
d
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
r
e
a
r
d
e
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
.
b
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
p
l
a
n
i
n
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
d
a
t
a
I
i
l
e
.
(
1
2
)
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
o
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
c
a
r
d
(
I
M
P
A
C
)
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
c
a
r
d
(
I
M
P
A
C
)
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
v
o
i
c
e
s
)
a
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
(
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
)
a
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
o
I
I
i
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
t
i
m
e
l
y
I
o
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
8
9
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
8
A
l
e
r
t

P
h
a
s
e

(
P
h
a
s
e

I
I
)
T
A
S
K
:
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
I
o
r
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
e
n
t
r
y
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
t
y
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
p
o
r
t
o
I
e
m
b
a
r
k
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
:
T
h
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
U
n
i
t
i
s
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
t
o
t
h
a
t
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
.
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
:
U
p
o
n
n
o
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
a
l
e
r
t
,
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
I
o
r
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
b
y
a
l
e
r
t
i
n
g
k
e
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
e
a
r
l
y
.
P
l
a
n
I
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
,
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
h
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
c
k
e
t
.
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
+
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
T
a
s
k
T
r
a
i
n
e
d
:
(
T
)
A
l
l
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
a
n
d
s
u
b
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
N
e
e
d
s
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
:
(
P
)
A
l
l
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
e
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
,
b
u
t
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
n
o
n
-
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
u
b
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
e
d
u
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
.
U
n
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
:
(
U
)
O
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
u
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
0
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
6
9
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
h
o
s
e
d
u
t
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
o
r
I
I
I
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
m
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
H
S
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
p
o
l
i
c
y
(
i
.
e
.
,
u
n
i
t
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
t
e
a
m
s
)
.
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
t
r
a
v
e
l
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
I
r
o
m
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
U
S
P
F
O
(
I
o
r
A
R
N
G
)
o
r
R
S
C
(
I
o
r
U
S
A
R
)
.
(
2
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
I
u
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
r
s
.
U
n
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
n
A
c
t
i
v
e
D
u
t
y
/
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
s
a
n
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
u
n
i
q
u
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
r
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
C
O
N
U
S
A
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
d
e
r
s
I
o
r
C
O
N
U
S
b
a
s
e
d
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
i
n
P
u
e
r
t
o
R
i
c
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
V
i
r
g
i
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
s
(
l
e
s
s
U
S
A
S
O
C
O
M
u
n
i
t
s
:
U
S
A
S
O
C
O
M
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
I
o
r
i
t
s
R
C
u
n
i
t
s
)
.
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,
O
C
O
N
U
S
M
A
C
O
M
s
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
I
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
R
C
u
n
i
t
s
.
(
3
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
n
d
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
o
r
d
e
r
s
.
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
r
m
a
l
l
y
h
a
v
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
o
n
A
T
,
I
E
T
,
A
D
S
W
,
A
D
T
,
o
r
T
T
A
D
.
U
n
i
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
o
r
d
e
r
s
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
i
n
g
n
o
n
-
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
r
u
n
i
t
s
.
T
h
e
y
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
r
e
t
u
r
n
o
I
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
o
n
A
D
S
W
,
A
D
T
o
r
T
T
A
D
,
w
h
e
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
o
r
d
e
r
s
a
s
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
n
e
w
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
y
m
u
s
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
r
d
e
r
s
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
,
i
I
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
a
.
S
o
m
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
a
r
e
:
(
1
)
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
o
n
A
D
S
W
,
A
D
T
o
r
T
T
A
D
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
n
o
t
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
1
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
(
2
)
U
n
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
2
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
(
3
)
A
M
E
D
D
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
s
i
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
3
5
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
(
4
)
S
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
S
M
P
)
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
4
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
(
5
)
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
6
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
(
6
)
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
O
C
S
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
s
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
3
1
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
(
7
)
O
t
h
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
b
.
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
o
n
A
T
,
I
E
T
,
A
D
S
W
,
A
D
T
o
r
T
T
A
D
w
h
o
c
a
n
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
o
r
r
e
v
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
o
r
d
e
r
s
(
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
1
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
)
.
c
.
T
h
e
u
n
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
c
o
p
y
o
I
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
r
d
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
g
a
i
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
h
o
m
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(
4
)
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
u
n
i
t
.
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
e
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
o
r
d
e
r
s
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
h
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
,
o
r
d
e
r
I
A
W
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
8
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
1
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
0
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
o
n
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
u
n
i
t
o
I
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
n
o
t
t
h
e
i
r
u
n
i
t
o
I
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
.
(
5
)
S
c
r
e
e
n
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
.
B
o
t
h
o
I
I
i
c
e
r
a
n
d
e
n
l
i
s
t
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
u
n
d
e
r
R
C
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
D
A
.
(
6
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
w
h
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
a
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
l
l
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
I
r
a
t
e
r
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
I
d
u
t
y
u
p
o
n
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
R
6
2
3
-
1
0
5
,
A
R
6
2
3
-
2
0
5
.
b
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
D
A
/
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
I
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
i
e
c
t
e
d
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
i
t
s
e
l
I
i
s
n
o
t
r
e
a
s
o
n
I
o
r
a
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
7
)
O
r
d
e
r
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
t
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
t
y
.
(
F
o
r
P
S
R
C
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
2
)
.
.
a
.
U
p
o
n
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
'
s
A
D
/
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
,
R
C
u
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
o
r
d
e
r
s
u
s
i
n
g
F
O
R
M
A
T
1
5
3
,
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
0
5
(
A
R
N
G
u
n
i
t
s
m
a
y
u
s
e
F
O
R
M
A
T
8
0
0
N
G
R
3
1
0
-
1
0
)
.
I
N
G
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
r
e
x
c
e
p
t
I
o
r
P
S
R
C
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
e
x
e
m
p
t
I
r
o
m
c
a
l
l
.
b
.
A
R
N
G
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
I
o
r
o
r
d
e
r
s
t
o
S
T
A
R
C
I
o
r
r
e
t
u
r
n
o
I
I
N
G
t
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
'
s
M
-
D
a
t
e
.
c
.
A
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
m
a
n
n
i
n
g
r
o
s
t
e
r
o
r
D
A
1
3
7
9
,
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
I
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
i
.
e
.
,
(
1
)
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
.
(
2
)
M
a
i
n
B
o
d
y
.
(
3
)
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
e
n
t
r
y
.
(
4
)
C
o
n
v
o
y
.
(
5
)
T
T
A
D
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
u
n
i
t
s
.
(
6
)
O
t
h
e
r
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
a
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
d
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
u
s
i
n
g
F
O
R
M
A
T
1
6
5
,
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
0
5
.
e
.
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
u
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
r
s
(
w
i
t
h
a
u
t
h
e
n
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
r
o
s
t
e
r
s
)
a
s
I
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
O
R
D
E
R
S
:
M
u
s
t
b
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
w
i
t
h
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
n
a
m
e
l
i
n
e
.
(
1
)
T
e
n
c
o
p
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
.
(
E
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
n
e
e
d
t
o
p
a
s
s
c
o
p
y
t
o
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
I
o
r
b
e
n
e
I
i
t
s
a
n
d
I
D
C
a
r
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
c
o
p
y
t
o
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
)
.
(
2
)
O
n
e
c
o
p
y
t
o
m
e
m
b
e
r
M
P
R
J
(
E
a
c
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
d
a
t
e
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
2
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
1
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
t
h
i
s
c
o
p
y
)
.
(
3
)
O
n
e
c
o
p
y
t
o
M
M
P
A
I
i
l
e
.
(
4
)
T
w
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
t
o
u
n
i
t
I
i
l
e
.
U
N
I
T
O
R
D
E
R
S
:
T
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
u
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
d
r
o
s
t
e
r
s
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
b
y
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
.
(
1
)
O
n
e
c
o
p
y
t
o
e
a
c
h
h
i
g
h
e
r
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
.
(
2
)
O
n
e
c
o
p
y
e
a
c
h
t
o
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
S
T
A
R
C
(
A
R
N
G
)
/
R
S
C
(
U
S
A
R
)
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
O
N
U
S
A
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
.
(
3
)
O
n
e
c
o
p
y
t
o
t
h
e
D
F
A
S
(
R
C
)
i
n
p
u
t
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
l
e
t
t
e
r
.
(
4
)
F
o
u
r
c
o
p
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
(
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
i
I
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
)
.
(
5
)
T
w
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
S
I
,
i
I
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
(
6
)
T
w
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
(
7
)
O
n
e
c
o
p
y
t
o
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
M
A
C
O
M
(
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
C
O
N
U
S
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
)
.
I
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
o
r
d
e
r
s
(
F
o
r
m
a
t
1
6
5
)
t
o
e
a
c
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
b
y
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
i
o
u
s
m
e
a
n
s
.
I
I
t
h
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
d
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
i
t
b
y
c
e
r
t
i
I
i
e
d
m
a
i
l
,
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
,
w
i
t
h
r
e
t
u
r
n
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
(
8
)
N
o
t
i
I
y
I
i
n
a
n
c
e
-
i
n
p
u
t
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
u
n
i
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
V
,
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
.
N
o
t
i
I
y
U
S
P
F
O
I
o
r
A
R
N
G
a
n
d
R
S
C
I
o
r
U
S
A
R
t
o
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
I
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
.
(
9
)
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
.
a
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
b
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
1
,
1
4
,
1
7
,
1
8
,
1
9
,
2
2
,
3
2
,
a
n
d
3
4
,
o
I
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
o
I
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
1
-
2
5
.
b
.
I
s
s
u
e
d
e
l
a
y
l
e
t
t
e
r
u
s
i
n
g
I
o
r
m
a
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
A
R
6
0
1
-
2
5
.
(
1
0
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
a
(
e
.
g
.
,
M
o
r
a
l
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
F
u
n
d
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
,
e
t
c
.
)
a
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
n
e
w
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
,
i
I
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
(
1
1
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
s
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
S
I
D
P
E
R
S
,
C
L
A
S
,
A
R
N
G
u
n
i
t
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
s
)
a
r
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
o
n
d
a
i
l
y
b
a
s
i
s
.
(
1
2
)
A
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
.
a
.
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
g
r
o
u
p
l
e
a
d
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
t
h
e
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
t
r
e
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
r
o
s
t
e
r
b
y
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
i
n
g
a
l
l
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
b
.
U
n
i
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
l
i
a
i
s
o
n
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
S
T
A
R
C
F
a
m
i
l
y
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
g
r
o
u
p
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
u
p
F
A
C
.
U
S
A
R
u
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
i
r
R
S
C
.
c
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
a
m
e
s
o
I
n
o
n
-
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
c
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
I
a
m
i
l
y
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
3
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
2
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
t
h
e
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
,
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
(
1
3
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
/
V
e
r
i
I
y
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
I
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
V
,
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
.
a
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
M
M
P
A
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
l
e
r
t
e
d
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
.
b
.
O
b
t
a
i
n
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
M
M
P
A
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
I
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
I
i
l
l
u
n
i
t
v
a
c
a
n
c
i
e
s
.
c
.
N
o
t
i
I
y
a
l
e
r
t
e
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
t
o
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
t
h
e
I
i
r
s
t
d
a
y
o
I
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
M
M
P
A
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
4
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
3
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
+
(
1
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
H
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
H
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
R
e
I
e
r
t
o
3
-
I
-
6
a
n
d
A
n
n
e
x
F
,
a
s
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
s
h
o
w
d
a
y
,
t
i
m
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
o
r
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
.
(
2
)
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
q
u
i
r
i
e
s
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
I
A
W
w
i
t
h
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
P
A
O
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
.
(
3
)
T
a
k
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
I
o
r
u
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
.
U
s
e
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
I
o
r
U
n
i
t
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
a
t
A
n
n
e
x
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
a
s
k
s
a
r
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
e
a
c
h
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
s
e
.
+
(
4
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
P
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
T
S
R
.
Y
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
o
I
t
h
e
P
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
P
T
S
R
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
D
.
(
5
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
b
r
i
e
I
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
I
o
r
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
M
S
.
a
.
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
b
y
n
a
m
e
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
t
o
d
o
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
.
b
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
i
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
M
S
i
t
e
m
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
i
n
A
n
n
e
x
G
.
c
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g
c
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
v
e
c
o
u
r
i
e
r
o
r
d
e
r
s
o
r
a
c
o
u
r
i
e
r
c
a
r
d
,
D
D
F
o
r
m
2
5
0
1
,
I
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
(
6
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
I
o
r
c
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
Y
e
s
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
w
i
l
l
I
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
u
p
o
n
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
a
t
M
S
.
(
7
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
U
n
i
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
U
S
R
)
.
Y
e
s
R
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
U
S
R
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
7
1
5
)
a
n
d
b
e
g
i
n
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
I
o
r
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
t
o
t
a
k
e
t
o
M
S
.
(
8
)
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
o
I
I
i
l
l
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
I
i
l
l
e
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
a
n
d
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
5
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
4
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
M
a
k
e
I
i
n
a
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
H
S
L
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
n
s
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
,
m
o
d
i
I
y
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
I
i
n
a
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
.
(
2
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
I
I
i
c
e
.
a
.
U
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
e
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
n
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
a
t
H
S
.
b
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
i
s
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
I
I
i
c
e
a
n
d
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
e
I
I
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
I
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
.
c
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
c
a
r
d
(
I
M
P
A
C
)
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
v
o
i
c
e
s
)
a
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
(
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
)
a
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
o
I
I
i
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
I
o
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
(
3
)
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
I
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
c
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
d
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
a
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
t
h
e
d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
I
o
r
D
D
F
o
r
m
5
7
7
,
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
C
a
r
d
s
,
a
n
d
D
A
F
o
r
m
1
6
8
7
,
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
I
D
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
I
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
.
b
.
B
e
g
i
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
I
o
r
m
s
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
(
4
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
t
o
M
S
T
r
o
o
p
I
s
s
u
e
S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
.
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
I
o
r
s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
T
I
S
A
I
A
W
A
R
3
0
-
2
1
.
U
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
I
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
:
u
n
i
t
n
a
m
e
,
U
I
C
,
D
O
D
A
A
C
,
U
n
i
t
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
,
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
,
F
o
o
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
a
n
d
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
,
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
I
o
r
d
u
t
y
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,
s
t
a
r
t
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
m
e
a
l
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
n
u
I
o
r
I
i
e
l
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
b
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
M
S
I
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
5
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
s
h
o
w
d
o
w
n
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
I
O
C
I
E
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
n
i
I
o
r
m
s
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
c
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
U
n
i
I
o
r
m
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
I
o
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
i
n
C
T
A
5
0
-
9
0
0
,
T
a
b
l
e
(
M
a
l
e
)
a
n
d
T
a
b
l
e
2
(
F
e
m
a
l
e
)
u
n
d
e
r
A
c
t
i
v
e
A
r
m
y
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
A
-
M
)
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
.
O
C
I
E
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
0
0
-
2
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
.
b
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
b
y
s
i
z
e
.
C
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
w
h
e
r
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
.
(
6
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
u
r
e
P
O
L
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
b
a
s
i
c
l
o
a
d
.
a
.
U
s
i
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
0
0
-
2
,
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
d
P
O
L
b
a
s
i
c
l
o
a
d
.
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
I
r
o
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
o
c
k
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
o
r
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
e
d
.
(
7
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
A
B
L
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
A
B
L
R
e
c
a
p
L
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
w
e
a
p
o
n
m
o
d
e
r
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
o
I
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
U
s
e
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
6
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
5
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
0
0
-
3
I
o
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
n
e
w
w
e
a
p
o
n
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
u
a
l
l
y
u
p
d
a
t
e
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
.
b
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
D
A
5
8
1
,
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
I
o
r
A
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
o
n
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
A
B
L
R
e
c
a
p
L
i
s
t
i
n
g
.
(
8
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
b
e
g
i
n
t
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
I
u
n
i
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
b
o
o
k
a
n
d
h
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
o
I
M
T
O
E
/
C
T
A
/
T
D
A
i
t
e
m
s
.
b
.
I
n
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
I
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
p
l
a
n
I
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
s
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
h
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
y
l
e
v
e
l
.
c
.
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
l
i
I
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
C
T
A
5
0
-
9
0
9
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
e
n
t
s
,
s
t
o
v
e
s
,
I
i
e
l
d
d
e
s
k
s
/
t
a
b
l
e
s
,
w
a
t
e
r
/
I
u
e
l
c
a
n
s
.
U
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
I
i
e
d
i
n
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
a
l
l
u
n
i
t
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
a
n
a
u
s
t
e
r
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
d
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
r
e
a
t
,
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
d
e
I
e
n
s
i
v
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
F
R
7
0
0
-
3
.
e
.
V
e
r
i
I
y
a
l
l
a
s
s
e
t
s
s
u
b
i
e
c
t
t
o
u
n
i
q
u
e
i
t
e
m
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
(
D
O
D
S
A
S
P
,
C
C
I
S
P
,
D
O
D
R
A
T
T
S
,
I
A
W
A
R
7
1
0
-
3
,
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
)
.
I
.
U
n
i
t
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
o
o
k
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
S
P
B
S
-
R
)
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
o
r
s
u
b
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
R
S
C
/
S
T
A
R
C
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
n
o
n
-
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
/
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
g
.
B
e
g
i
n
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
a
k
i
n
g
o
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
u
p
p
l
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
c
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
.
(
9
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
i
t
e
m
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
C
l
a
s
s
V
I
I
I
.
Y
e
s
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
.
b
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
l
i
s
t
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
n
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
t
a
c
l
e
s
,
o
p
t
i
c
a
l
i
n
s
e
r
t
s
a
n
d
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
a
i
d
s
.
H
o
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
u
n
t
i
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
.
(
1
0
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
L
L
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
a
n
d
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
.
a
.
U
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
P
L
L
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
e
a
c
e
t
i
m
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
I
r
o
m
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
t
o
c
k
s
a
n
d
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
b
.
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
i
n
o
I
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
R
S
C
/
S
T
A
R
C
t
o
e
i
t
h
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
o
r
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
w
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
(
1
1
)
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
I
o
r
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
o
I
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
M
S
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
/
a
r
m
o
r
y
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
a
n
y
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
l
e
I
r
o
m
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
.
I
I
n
o
o
n
e
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
,
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
h
i
g
h
e
r
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
t
o
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
I
l
i
c
t
.
B
e
g
i
n
i
o
i
n
t
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
I
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
.
(
1
2
)
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
A
r
e
a
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
r
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
7
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
6
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
S
h
o
p
t
o
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
w
o
r
k
o
r
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
b
.
B
e
g
i
n
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
u
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
.
(
1
3
)
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
a
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
n
y
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
b
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
A
r
m
y
O
i
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
A
O
A
P
)
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
o
b
t
a
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
o
i
l
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
I
o
r
a
l
l
d
e
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
n
y
i
t
e
m
s
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
e
d
.
c
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
n
y
p
r
i
n
t
i
n
g
o
r
M
W
O
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
M
-
D
a
y
.
d
.
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
e
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
I
o
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
s
s
.
(
1
4
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
c
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
a
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
A
M
C
T
M
D
E
/
C
S
M
S
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
l
l
c
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
e
d
i
t
e
m
s
.
b
.
O
b
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
T
M
D
E
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
R
e
c
o
r
d
F
i
l
e
p
r
i
n
t
o
u
t
a
n
d
I
i
l
e
o
n
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
d
i
s
k
.
+
(
1
5
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
.
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
.
M
a
k
e
a
n
y
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
a
d
i
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
B
e
g
i
n
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
(
M
H
E
,
s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
P
O
L
e
n
r
o
u
t
e
)
w
i
t
h
S
I
/
C
I
/
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
.
b
.
I
I
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
m
a
k
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
R
S
C
/
U
S
P
F
O
.
c
.
V
e
r
i
I
y
B
B
P
C
T
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
a
s
s
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
M
P
A
/
O
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
.
d
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
v
e
r
i
I
i
e
s
l
o
a
d
c
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
a
d
i
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
e
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
t
i
m
e
i
s
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
H
S
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
I
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
M
S
.
g
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
2
6
5
,
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
I
o
r
C
o
n
v
o
y
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
D
M
C
.
h
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
p
l
a
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
I
w
e
a
p
o
n
s
,
C
O
M
S
E
C
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
i
t
e
m
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
I
A
W
C
h
a
p
7
,
8
,
A
p
p
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
E
,
A
R
1
9
0
-
1
1
,
D
O
D
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
4
5
0
0
.
9
-
R
,
V
o
l
u
m
e
I
I
,
C
a
r
g
o
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
/
A
R
N
G
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
-
1
.
(
1
6
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
n
y
o
u
t
d
a
t
e
d
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
I
r
o
m
l
a
s
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
8
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
7
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
o
I
I
i
c
e
.
b
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
n
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
b
o
t
h
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
.
c
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
o
I
I
i
c
e
t
o
u
p
d
a
t
e
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
.
I
I
o
I
I
i
c
e
i
s
n
o
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
M
S
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
d
i
s
k
e
t
t
e
/
c
a
r
t
a
g
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
d
a
t
a
a
n
d
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
e
i
t
h
e
r
b
y
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
o
r
m
a
i
l
.
(
1
7
)
M
a
k
e
I
i
n
a
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
p
l
a
n
s
.
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
p
l
a
n
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
P
h
a
s
e
a
n
d
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
.
b
.
M
a
k
e
I
i
n
a
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
:
(
1
)
R
e
I
i
n
e
s
p
e
c
i
I
i
c
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
(
2
)
R
e
I
i
n
e
s
p
e
c
i
I
i
c
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
r
o
m
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
.
(
3
)
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
o
r
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
S
I
/
U
S
P
F
O
.
c
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
p
l
a
n
a
s
s
o
o
n
a
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
s
e
t
s
b
e
c
o
m
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
t
i
m
e
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
t
h
e
H
S
u
n
i
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
(
1
8
)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
g
o
o
d
s
.
a
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
h
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
P
O
V
I
A
W
A
R
5
5
-
7
1
a
n
d
D
O
D
4
5
0
0
.
3
4
R
.
b
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
I
o
r
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
T
h
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
o
n
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
G
u
i
d
e
(
P
P
C
I
G
)
V
o
l
u
m
e
I
g
o
v
e
r
n
s
t
h
i
s
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
6
9
9
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
8
H
o
m
e

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e

(
P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
:
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
I
o
r
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
e
n
t
r
y
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
t
y
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
p
o
r
t
o
I
e
m
b
a
r
k
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
:
T
h
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
U
n
i
t
i
s
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
t
o
t
h
a
t
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
.
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
:
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
I
o
r
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
u
n
i
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
P
l
a
n
I
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
h
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
c
k
e
t
.
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
+
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
T
a
s
k
T
r
a
i
n
e
d
:
(
T
)
A
l
l
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
a
n
d
s
u
b
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
N
e
e
d
s
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
:
(
P
)
A
l
l
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
e
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
,
b
u
t
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
n
o
n
-
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
u
b
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
e
d
u
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
.
U
n
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
:
(
U
)
O
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
a
s
k
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
u
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
u
l
l
y
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
0
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
7
9
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
V
e
r
i
I
y
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
t
t
h
e
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
s
i
t
e
.
a
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
.
b
.
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
h
o
s
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
w
h
o
d
o
n
o
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
s
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
I
A
W
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
3
3
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
.
(
2
)
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
I
o
r
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
F
o
l
l
o
w
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
i
n
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
0
1
a
n
d
a
n
y
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
I
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
i
s
b
e
i
n
g
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
.
(
3
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
q
u
a
l
i
I
i
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
I
o
r
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
V
I
,
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
)
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
I
A
W
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
1
3
,
1
4
,
1
8
,
1
9
o
r
3
4
,
t
a
b
l
e
2
-
1
o
I
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
a
r
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
d
(
b
y
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
d
o
c
t
o
r
,
p
h
y
s
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
,
o
r
n
u
r
s
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
)
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
r
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
l
a
y
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
F
o
r
m
9
3
,
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
I
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
,
D
A
F
o
r
m
8
0
0
7
,
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
D
D
9
3
a
n
d
D
A
F
o
r
m
8
0
0
7
I
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
b
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
i
n
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
a
t
M
S
.
+
(
4
)
V
e
r
i
f
y
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
V
,
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
a
.
U
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
M
P
A
a
s
t
h
e
I
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
S
R
P
c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
,
v
e
r
i
I
y
a
l
l
I
i
n
a
n
c
e
d
a
t
a
I
o
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
w
i
t
h
e
a
c
h
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
.
b
.
A
d
d
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
M
M
P
A
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
M
P
A
I
o
r
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
U
S
P
F
O
o
r
R
S
C
.
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
h
o
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
c
h
a
n
g
e
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
U
S
P
F
O
o
r
R
S
C
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
a
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
d
M
M
P
A
.
(
5
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
o
s
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
,
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
,
d
e
n
t
a
l
,
a
n
d
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
C
r
e
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
F
i
l
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
a
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
l
l
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
I
A
W
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
b
.
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
P
C
F
r
o
s
t
e
r
t
o
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
I
o
r
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
+
(
6
)
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
r
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
d
a
t
a
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
9
3
)
,
i
f
u
p
d
a
t
e
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
,
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
)
a
.
S
c
r
e
e
n
I
o
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
s
s
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
.
b
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
n
e
w
I
o
r
m
s
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
c
o
p
i
e
s
a
s
I
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
(
1
)
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
a
n
d
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
.
(
2
)
F
i
r
s
t
c
o
p
y
t
o
M
P
R
J
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
0
1
)
.
(
3
)
S
e
c
o
n
d
c
o
p
y
t
o
m
e
m
b
e
r
.
c
.
F
o
r
I
o
r
m
s
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
u
p
d
a
t
e
,
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
s
t
o
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
M
P
R
J
,
w
i
l
l
b
e
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
e
d
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
(
7
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
t
r
e
a
s
o
n
I
o
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
n
l
y
I
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
d
u
t
y
o
r
r
a
t
e
r
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
O
E
R
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
A
W
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
8
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
N
C
O
E
R
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
I
A
W
A
R
6
2
3
-
2
0
5
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
1
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
8
0
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
N
O
T
E
:
S
p
e
c
i
I
i
c
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
H
Q
D
A
I
o
r
d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t
s
t
a
g
e
s
o
I
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
I
D
A
/
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
s
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
u
p
o
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
I
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
.
(
8
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
I
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
c
a
r
d
s
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
r
e
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
o
I
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
y
C
a
r
d
s
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
3
9
5
5
)
I
o
r
e
a
c
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
I
A
W
D
O
D
P
o
s
t
a
l
M
a
n
u
a
l
4
5
2
5
.
6
-
M
,
V
o
l
u
m
e
I
I
a
n
d
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
3
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
o
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
o
r
u
p
o
n
u
n
i
t
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
a
t
M
S
.
(
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
y
b
e
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
i
I
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
E
R
S
L
O
C
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
U
n
i
t
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
i
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
M
S
)
.
(
9
)
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
I
D
c
a
r
d
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
X
I
I
,
F
a
m
i
l
y
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)
.
a
.
W
h
e
n
D
E
E
R
S
p
r
e
-
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
m
a
y
t
a
k
e
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
3
-
1
t
o
a
n
y
D
E
E
R
S
/
R
a
p
i
d
s
s
i
t
e
.
b
.
W
h
e
n
D
E
E
R
S
p
r
e
-
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
2
m
u
s
t
b
e
i
s
s
u
e
d
.
(
1
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
v
e
r
i
I
i
e
d
c
o
p
y
o
I
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
U
n
i
I
o
r
m
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
d
D
E
E
R
S
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
2
)
t
o
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
o
r
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
c
o
p
y
o
I
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
V
,
a
n
n
e
x
D
.
(
2
)
F
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
m
a
y
s
e
c
u
r
e
I
D
C
a
r
d
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
3
)
a
n
d
b
e
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
d
i
n
D
E
E
R
S
(
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
d
I
r
o
m
p
r
e
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
t
o
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
I
i
l
e
)
b
y
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
v
e
r
i
I
i
e
d
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
1
7
2
a
n
d
c
o
p
y
o
I
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
'
s
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
n
y
D
E
E
R
S
/
R
A
P
I
D
S
s
i
t
e
.
(
1
0
)
V
e
r
i
I
y
I
D
C
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
T
a
g
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
,
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
)
.
a
.
V
e
r
i
I
y
t
h
a
t
e
a
c
h
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
h
a
s
v
a
l
i
d
I
D
c
a
r
d
(
R
e
d
o
r
G
r
e
e
n
)
.
b
.
V
e
r
i
I
y
I
D
T
a
g
s
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
A
l
e
r
t
T
a
g
s
.
(
1
1
)
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
G
e
n
e
v
a
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
I
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
C
a
r
d
,
i
I
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
n
d
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
i
s
s
u
e
d
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
,
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
)
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
,
I
o
r
n
o
n
-
c
o
m
b
a
t
a
n
t
s
,
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
o
r
G
e
n
e
v
a
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
I
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
C
a
r
d
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
9
3
4
)
i
I
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
b
l
a
n
k
I
o
r
m
s
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
t
M
S
.
(
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
4
)
.
(
1
2
)
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
r
o
s
t
e
r
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
I
I
,
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
)
.
Y
e
s
a
.
R
e
v
i
e
w
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
b
.
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
s
d
o
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
.
c
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
S
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
(
1
3
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
c
l
a
i
m
s
I
o
r
t
r
a
v
e
l
I
r
o
m
h
o
m
e
t
o
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
p
a
y
.
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
(
D
D
F
o
r
m
1
3
5
1
-
2
)
I
A
W
A
R
3
7
-
1
0
6
I
o
r
t
r
a
v
e
l
I
r
o
m
h
o
m
e
t
o
u
n
i
t
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
s
i
t
e
.
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
o
I
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
i
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
.
b
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
I
o
r
I
i
n
a
l
p
a
y
I
o
r
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
A
T
/
A
D
T
i
n
t
h
e
a
l
e
r
t
p
h
a
s
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
2
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
8
1
P
E
R
S
O
N
N
E
L
A
N
D
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
4
)
A
r
r
a
n
g
e
I
o
r
l
e
g
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
(
S
R
P
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
V
,
L
e
g
a
l
)
a
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
J
A
G
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
l
e
g
a
l
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
(
w
i
l
l
s
,
p
o
w
e
r
o
I
a
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
)
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
l
e
g
a
l
a
d
v
i
c
e
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
b
.
S
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
2
-
3
I
o
r
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
.
(
1
5
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
,
M
M
P
A
,
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
t
o
M
S
.
Y
e
s
S
o
l
d
i
e
r
h
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
,
M
M
P
A
,
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
M
S
i
n
t
i
m
e
t
o
b
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
I
o
r
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
n
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
h
a
n
d
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
H
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
m
a
r
k
e
d
a
n
d
s
e
a
l
e
d
I
A
W
A
R
4
0
-
6
6
.
(
1
6
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
I
o
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
D
e
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
.
T
h
e
S
I
a
n
d
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
m
u
s
t
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
S
I
.
(
1
7
)
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
I
o
r
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
p
e
r
I
o
r
m
c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
L
O
D
s
.
P
e
r
A
R
6
0
0
-
8
-
1
.
(
1
8
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
e
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
u
t
u
r
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
c
l
a
i
m
s
i
n
R
C
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
e
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
S
L
R
P
,
M
G
I
B
,
S
R
I
P
)
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
o
s
t
e
r
s
o
I
r
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
.
(
1
9
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
I
i
n
a
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
C
l
o
s
e
o
u
t
D
A
F
o
r
m
1
3
7
9
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
S
T
A
R
C
/
R
S
C
a
n
d
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
,
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
I
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
a
b
l
e
,
u
n
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
.
N
O
T
E
:
S
p
e
c
i
I
i
c
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
I
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
a
t
a
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
H
Q
D
A
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
3
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
8
2
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
M
S
o
n
u
n
i
t
'
s
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
t
i
m
e
t
o
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
M
a
k
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
M
S
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
d
a
t
e
,
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
g
a
t
e
I
o
r
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
o
I
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
b
o
d
y
.
(
2
)
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
H
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
l
a
n
,
w
i
t
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
H
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
l
a
n
w
i
t
h
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
o
s
t
e
d
i
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
u
n
i
t
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
+
(
3
)
D
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Y
e
s
a
.
D
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
t
o
a
r
r
i
v
e
a
t
M
S
2
4
t
o
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
b
o
d
y
o
r
a
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
M
S
.
b
.
U
p
o
n
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
,
b
e
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
I
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
T
h
e
P
o
s
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
i
n
t
o
u
n
i
t
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
c
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
M
S
i
t
e
m
s
I
A
W
A
n
n
e
x
a
n
d
a
n
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
I
r
o
m
t
h
e
M
S
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
c
k
e
t
.
(
4
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
u
s
b
r
i
e
I
i
n
g
.
a
.
B
r
i
e
I
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
s
p
o
u
s
e
s
,
i
I
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
,
o
n
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
I
o
r
m
o
v
e
t
o
M
S
a
n
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
I
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
(
e
.
g
.
,
u
n
i
t
m
a
i
l
i
n
g
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
a
t
M
S
,
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
)
.
c
.
A
d
v
i
s
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
I
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
a
n
d
c
a
n
n
o
t
s
a
y
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
d
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
I
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
i
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
r
i
e
I
i
n
g
.
(
5
)
U
p
d
a
t
e
U
S
R
.
Y
e
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
I
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
7
1
5
,
U
n
i
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
,
a
n
d
s
e
n
d
t
o
M
S
w
i
t
h
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
6
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
I
i
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
I
o
r
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
I
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
n
s
u
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
I
A
W
,
C
h
a
p
V
I
I
I
,
A
R
3
8
0
-
5
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
4
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
8
3
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
(
1
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
H
S
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
a
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
H
S
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
s
.
b
.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
l
o
s
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
U
S
P
F
O
/
S
I
d
u
r
i
n
g
H
S
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
K
e
e
p
t
h
e
U
S
P
F
O
/
S
I
i
n
I
o
r
m
e
d
o
I
a
l
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
e
a
c
h
p
h
a
s
e
o
I
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
c
.
N
o
t
i
I
y
t
h
e
U
S
P
F
O
/
S
I
a
s
s
o
o
n
a
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
w
h
e
n
H
S
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
I
o
r
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
2
)
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
o
r
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
.
a
.
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
/
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
I
o
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
P
A
/
O
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
O
I
I
i
c
e
r
o
r
D
A
F
o
r
m
3
9
5
3
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
S
I
/
U
S
P
F
O
.
b
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
c
a
r
d
(
I
M
P
A
C
)
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
v
o
i
c
e
s
)
a
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
(
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
)
a
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
o
I
I
i
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
I
o
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
.
(
3
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
c
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
d
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
.
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
D
A
F
o
r
m
1
6
8
7
,
D
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
,
I
o
r
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
I
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
D
D
F
o
r
m
5
7
7
,
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
C
a
r
d
s
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
4
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
m
e
m
o
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
D
i
n
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
.
a
.
S
u
b
m
i
t
m
e
m
o
t
o
M
S
T
I
S
A
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
I
o
r
D
u
t
y
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,
M
S
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
+
(
5
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
s
h
o
w
d
o
w
n
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
C
I
E
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
.
a
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
s
h
o
w
d
o
w
n
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
I
O
C
I
E
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
U
n
i
I
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
a
n
y
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
a
I
t
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
I
i
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
6
)
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
o
I
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
d
P
O
L
.
a
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
o
I
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
d
P
O
L
b
a
s
i
c
l
o
a
d
a
I
t
e
r
c
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
b
a
s
i
c
l
o
a
d
a
n
d
I
i
l
l
I
r
o
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
o
c
k
s
a
n
d
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
I
r
o
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
7
)
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
D
A
F
o
r
m
5
8
1
I
o
r
A
B
L
.
a
.
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
e
D
A
F
o
r
m
5
8
1
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
e
r
s
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
y
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
8
)
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
I
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
o
o
k
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
y
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
a
I
t
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
.
a
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
o
o
k
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
h
a
n
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
c
r
o
s
s
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
E
O
H
r
a
t
i
n
g
I
o
r
U
S
R
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
b
o
o
k
o
r
p
r
i
n
t
o
u
t
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
I
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
9
)
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
C
l
a
s
s
V
I
I
I
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
Y
e
s
a
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
C
l
a
s
s
V
I
I
I
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
5
F
O
R
S
C
O
M
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
0
-
3
-
3
8
4
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
(
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
I
)
T
A
S
K
S
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
t
h
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
u
p
p
l
y
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
(
I
M
S
A
)
.
b
.
I
I
t
h
e
I
M
S
A
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
,
h
a
n
d
c
a
r
r
y
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
c
.
I
I
t
h
e
I
M
S
A
i
s
n
o
t
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
M
S
,
I
o
r
w
a
r
d
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
i
o
u
s
m
e
a
n
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
(
1
0
)
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
P
L
L
/
A
S
L
L
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
.
Y
e
s
a
.
O
n
h
a
n
d
P
L
L
/
A
S
L
i
t
e
m
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
u
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
.
b
.
R
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
1
5
-
d
a
y
P
L
L
a
n
d
3
0
-
d
a
y
A
S
L
w
i
l
l
b
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
a
k
e
s
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
l
s
o
I
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
h
a
n
d
.
c
.
R
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
o
r
s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
I
i
r
s
t
s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
A
S
F
/
O
M
S
/
A
M
S
A
/
U
S
P
F
O
s
t
o
c
k
s
.
I
I
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
w
i
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
c
o
p
y
o
I
t
h
e
P
L
L
/
A
S
L
I
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
I
u
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
.
(
1
1
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
o
I
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
.
T
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
I
i
e
d
a
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
t
h
o
m
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
o
n
-
d
e
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
o
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
(
1
2
)
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
u
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
Y
e
s
a
.
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
,
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
a
n
a
s
o
I
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
u
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
(
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
4
0
6
,
D
A
F
o
r
m
1
3
5
2
,
a
n
d
/
o
r
D
A
F
o
r
m
3
2
6
6
-
1
)
I
o
r
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
.
b
.
D
A
F
o
r
m
2
4
0
7
/
5
5
0
4
w
i
l
l
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
M
S
I
o
r
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
e
d
I
r
o
m
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.
(
1
3
)
E
x
e
c
u
t
e
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
.
M
o
v
e
I
A
W
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
o
y
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
d
e
r
.
(
1
4
)
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
.
a
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
C
O
M
P
A
S
S
A
U
E
L
/
T
C
A
C
C
I
S
U
E
L
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
l
o
a
d
p
l
a
n
.
b
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
y
.
(
1
5
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
o
I
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
a
.
A
R
N
G
u
n
i
t
s
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
o
r
c
u
s
t
o
d
y
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
o
I
a
r
m
o
r
y
I
A
W
S
t
a
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
b
.
U
S
A
R
u
n
i
t
s
t
r
a
n
s
I
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
o
r
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
n
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
o
I
U
S
A
R
c
e
n
t
e
r
I
A
W
R
S
C
P
l
a
n
.
c
.
N
o
t
i
I
y
l
o
c
a
l
l
a
w
e
n
I
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
I
t
h
e
I
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
(
1
6
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
I
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
t
o
r
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
I
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
.
L
C
R

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

P
a
g
e

2
7
0
6
85
Annex A: (Alert And Assembly Plan) To RC Unit Commander's Handbook
A-1.MASTERNOTIFICATIONROSTERS
Each unit will maintain a dated master alert notiIication roster. A statement saying, "THIS ROSTER IS FOR
OFFICIALUSEONLYINTHISUNIT,ANDEXCEPTASREQUIREDBYLAW,WILLNOTBEFURNISHED
TO ANY COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OR ANY ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY OUTSIDE THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE", will be included on each page oI the roster. Upon receipt oI new editions, all
previouseditionsbecomeobsoleteandwillbedestroyed.
A-2.ALERTORDER
a.ThealertwillnormallybetransmittedtounitsthroughthepeacetimechainoIcommand.
b.Telephonicalertmessagesshouldbeauthenticated.Authenticationwillnormallybebyreturncalltothe
issuing headquarters: however, implementation oI the notiIication plan will not be delayed iI authentication cannot
beobtainedimmediately.
A-3.PERSONNELNOTIFICATION
a. A prioritized list oI key personnel authorized to receive the alert order will be designated as shown in
Appendix1.IntheeventnoneoIthedesignatedpersonnelcanbecontacted,theseniorsoldierwillreceivethealert
orderandexecutealertnotiIication.
b.EachmemberoItheunitwillbelistedintheunitalertnotiIicationroster(includingINGsoItheARNG).
Individuals will report changes as they occur and relayed to the appropriate group leader. Changes to the
notiIication roster will be posted as they occur and will be veriIied quarterly. Pen and ink changes with a dated
signaturearesuIIicientIorupdatedveriIication.
c.QuarterlyveriIicationwillinclude:
(1) Deletion oI personnel who are no longer members oI the unit (A soldier continues to be a
memberoItheunituntiltheeIIectivedateoItransIerordischargeorders).
(2)AdditionoIpersonnelassignedtounitsincelastquarterlyveriIication.
(3)Changestoaddressesandtelephonenumbers.
d.AlertnotiIicationprocedurewillbetestedannuallytoupdateandcorrectinIormationonthealertroster.
AllinaccurateorincompleteinIormationwillbecorrected.Personnelnotcontactedduringthetestwillbecontacted
during the next assembly to veriIy phone and address inIormation. Results oI the test alert will be recorded and
maintainedinthemobilizationIile.
e. Upon assignment to the unit, each individual will be brieIed on his/her responsibilities in the alert
notiIicationsystem.
I.Stripmapswillbemaintainedwiththeunit'snotiIicationrosterIorpersonnelwhodonothaveaneasily
identiIiable street address. Strip maps are to be simple, practical and may begin Irom any prominent geographical
reIerencepoint.
g. Commercial radio and television will not be used as a primary means Ior Federal mobilization alert
notiIication.
86
A-4MOBILIZATIONEXECUTION/CALLTOACTIVEDUTY
a.ShortlyaIterreceivinganalertnotice/order,theunitwillnormallybeorderedtoactiveduty(thenormal
progressionisIorunitstobealertedandthenmobilizedhowever,circumstancesmaycausesomeunitstobealerted
andnotmobilized).ThiswillbeinitiatedbyanorderpublishedbyDepartmentoItheArmyidentiIyingunitstobe
mobilized/calledtoactiveduty.Basedonthisorder,CONUSAwillpublishmobilizationexecutionorderscallingto
activeFederalservicethoseCONUSbasedRCunitsidentiIiedintheDAorder.
b. Telephonic notiIication oI mobilization execution may precede the written order: authentication
procedures addressed in paragraph A-2b above will be Iollowed. Once the notiIication has been authenticated,
executionwillnotbedelayedpendingwrittennotiIication.
A-5NOTIFICATIONINSTRUCTIONS
a.AcurrentcopyoIeachgroupalertnotiIicationroster(explainedinAppendix2)willbereadilyavailable
toallmembersoIthealertgroupatalltimes.
b.UponreceiptoIanalertmessageoramobilizationexecutionmessage,eachgroupleader(oralternateiI
necessary)willberequiredtonotiIyeachmemberoIhis/hergroupandgiveinstructionsasdirected.
c.TheIollowingmessage,modiIiedasnecessarytoIitthecircumstances,willbedeliveredtoeachmember
oIthegroup:
(1) For test/practice alert notiIication: "This is (GROUP LEADER'S RANK AND NAME) with the
(Indicate unit designation). Comply with the Iollowing instructions: (Based on instructions provided by those
responsible Ior setting up the test, advise the unit member whether to report in and any other instructions such as
whatequipmenttobringiIheistoreportin).EndoImessage:doyouunderstand?Doyouhaveanyquestions?"
(2) For actual Alert: "This is (GROUP LEADER'S RANK AND NAME) with the (Indicate unit
designation).ComplywiththeIollowinginstructions:donotcomeintothearmory/centeratthis time. Standby
either your home phone or your work phone listed in the alert notiIication roster Ior Iurther instructions. Do not
inIorm anyone except your employer and immediate Iamily oI this notiIication. This is an oIIicial order. End oI
message:doyouunderstand?Doyouhaveanyquestions?"
(3) For Mobilization execution/call to active duty: "This is (GROUP LEADER'S RANK AND NAME).
(Indicate unit designation) has been ordered to active duty in connection with (speciIy cause/emergency iI
unclassiIied inIormation is available). I say again, "(Indicate unit designation) has been ordered to active duty".
ThisisanoIIicialorder.ComplywiththeIollowinginstructions:Youareorderedtoreportto(unitarmory/center)
at(date/time).Whenyoureport,bringallgovernmentpropertyissuedtoyouandwhateverpersonalarticlesyouwill
neediIwehavetostayIorseveraldays.DonotinIormanyoneexceptyouremployerandimmediateIamilyoIthis
notiIicationatthistime.EndoImessage:doyouunderstand?Doyouhaveanyquestions?"
d.Thegroupleader(oralternate)willreporttothecommander'sdesignatedrepresentativethenamesoIall
group members not contacted. Names oI individuals who cannot be contacted will be consolidated and additional
contactattemptswillbemadeIromtheassemblyarea.
e. In accordance with STARC/RSC guidance, group leaders and alternates are authorized to make alert
notiIicationcallsIromtheirhomes,chargeabletotheunittelephonenumber.
I. In the event any group member reports that he/she does not have transportation, the group leader will
attempttocoordinatetransportationwithanothergroupmember.IIthisisnotpossible,reportthisinIormationtothe
FirstSergeantorthecommander'sdesignatedrepresentative.
A-6ALERTANDASSEMBLYPLANDEVELOPMENT
87
a. Appendix 1, example alert and assembly plan, is provided to assist in the development oI alert and
assembly plan. Senior commanders in multi-unit armories/centers will coordinate all aspects oI the alert and
assemblyplan.
b. Appendix 2, example alert notiIication roster, is provided to assist in the development oI alert and
assemblyplan.
c. Appendix 3, example physical security plan, is provided to assist in the development oI alert and
assemblyplan.
88
Appendix 1: (Example Alert And Assembly Plan) To Annex A (Alert And
Assembly Plan)
Unit
City,State
Date
(Unit)ALERTANDASSEMBLYPLAN
1. REFERENCES
StateArmyNationalGuardMobilizationPlanorRSCMobilizationPlanasappropriate.
2. PURPOSE
a. This plan prescribes actions necessary to provide Ior the rapid notiIication oI all members oI this unit,
theassemblyandcareoIpersonnel,andtheoccupationandorganizationoIthedesignatedassemblyareaatthetime
oIcall-up.AlthoughprimarilydesignedIorusewhenorderedorcalledtoactiveFederalduty,applicableportionsoI
thisplanwillbeusedbyARNGunitsIoralertandmobilizationIorStateactiveduty.
b.ThisplansupplementsState/RSCmobilizationplans.
3. ALERTORCALLTOACTIVEDUTYORDER/NOTIFICATION
a.AuthenticationwillbeveriIiedbycalling(speciIyunitheadquarters,normallynexthigherheadquarters)
at(enterphonenumbertocall).
b. The alert or call to active duty order will be transmitted to the units by one or more oI the Iollowing
means:
(1) Telephone(Primary)
(2) Personalcontact
(3) Messenger
(4) Telegram
(5) Letter
(6) ElectronicMail
(7) Facsimile
c. The Iollowing personnel are authorized to receive the alert or call to active duty order, in the order oI
prioritylistedbelow:
(1) Commander
(2) ExecutiveOIIicer
(3) SeniorUnitTechnician/Iulltimemanningperson
(4) FirstSergeant
4. PERSONNELNOTIFICATION.EachmemberoItheunit(separatecompany,platoonordetachment)will
belistedintheunitalertnotiIicationroster(Section1).
5. DESIGNATIONOFASSEMBLYAREAS
Theassemblyarealocationis(normallytheunitarmory/centerwillbelistedhere).
89
6. TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONNEL TO ASSEMBLY AREA. The primary means oI transportation
willbe.
7. ASSEMBLYOFPERSONNEL.Explainwhowillbeincharge,actionsintheassemblyarea,(e.g.reportto
whom,securityetc.).
8. CLOTHINGAND EQUIPMENT. Explain what uniIorm to wear and what equipment and personal items
arerequired.
9. MEDICAL.Explainhowsickcallandemergencieswillbehandled.
10. COMMUNICATIONS.ExplainprimaryandalternatemeansoIcommunication.
11. SECURITY.PreparephysicalsecurityplansIoreacharea.
COMMANDER'S
SIGNATUREBLOCK
2Encls
1.AlertnotiIicationroster
2.Physicalsecurityplan
NOTE:Forunderlineddata,insertcorrectinIormation.
90
Appendix 2: (Example Alert Notification Roster) To Annex A (Alert And Assembly
Plan)
THISROSTERISFOROFFICIALUSEONLYWITHINTHISUNIT,ANDEXCEPTASREQUIRED
BY LAW, WILL NOT BE FURNISHED TO ANY COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, COMPANY OR
REPRESENTATIVE, NOR ANY ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE." Upon receipt oI new editions, all previous editions become obsolete and will be
destroyed.ProtectionwillbegiventhisinIormationasprovidedinAR340-17andAR340-21.
Unit Member
(Name And Rank)
Home Address
(Include Area Code)
Phone # Employer #
BUTLER,HARVEYK.
CPT
100ElmStreet
Atlanta,GA30330
404-234-5678 404-567-8901
DONNELL,EDW.
SSG
531OakLane
Marietta,GA30068
205-545-1918 NONE
PAYNE,ROBERTO.
1LT
214DrakeAvenue
Roswell,GA30075
904-678-9753 904-678-1980
ROGERS,DAVIDA
SPC
835YorkBlvd
Atlanta,GA30330
404-443-5150 404-467-2358
GREENE,PAULL.
SGT
503LaneDrive
Smyrna,GA30066
404-766-4329 404-656-8643
NOTES:
1.FirstindividualisIurtheridentiIiedasgroupleader,secondisidentiIiedasalternate.
2.IImemberhasnohomeoremployerphones,listarelativeorneighbor'sphonenumberthatcanbe
usedtolocatethemember.
3.IIyouareunabletonotiIythegroupleader,thealternategroupleadershouldbenotiIiedandinIormed
totakeovertheresponsibilitiesoInotiIication.
4.EachsoldiershouldbepersonallynotiIied.IIasoldiercannotbecontacteddirectly,leaveaname,
phonenumberandamessagewiththethirdpartyIorthesoldiertocallbackassoonaspossible.
91
Appendix 3: (Example Physical Security Plan) to Annex A (Alert and Assembly
Plan)
(ThisexampleshouldbeadiustedtotheneedsandrequirementsoItheunit.)Appendixto477th
PersonnelServiceCompanyAlertandAssemblyPlan.
PHYSICALSECURITYPLAN
l. PURPOSE.StatepurposeoItheplan.
2. AREASECURITY.DeIinetheareas,buildingsandotherstructuresconsideredcriticaland
establishprioritiesIortheirprotection.
3. CONTROLMEASURES.DeIineandestablishrestrictionsonaccessandmovementintothe
PrimaryAssemblyArea(PAA)andAlternateAssemblyAreas(AAA).
a. PersonnelAccess:
(1) EstablishpersonnelaccesscontrolspertinenttobothPAAandAAA.The
commandermustlistwhatheconsidershiscriticalaccessareas(armsroom,motorpool,etc.)and
determineareaspeciIicaccesscontrols.
(a) AuthorityIoraccess.
(b) AccesscriteriaIor:
1. Unitpersonnel
2. Visitors
3. Maintenancepersonnel
4. Contractorpersonnel
5. Familymembers
6. Mediapersonnel
(2) IdentiIicationprocedures.DeterminewhatconstitutesproperidentiIication,sign
inandoutprocedures,etc.
(3) EstablishguidelinesandproceduresIoruseoIIorce.
b. MaterielControl.
(1) Incomingmateriel-shouldvehiclesandcargobesearchedIorsabotagehazards?
(2) Outgoingmateriel-whatdocumentationisrequired?Whohasauthorityto
releasemateriel?
c.VehicleControl.
(1) Whatvehicleswillbeallowedwhere?
(2) WhatisthesearchpolicyonPOVs?
(3) ConsideruseoIbarrierstoassistinvehiclecontrol.
92
d. IssueandcontroloIweaponsandammunition.
(1) EstablishproceduresIorweaponsandammunitionissue.
(2) EstablishproceduresIordailycontrolandaccountabilityoIweapons,
ammunitionandothersensitiveitems.
4. AIDSTOSECURITY.Whatphysicalaidsarenecessarytoenhanceyoursecuritypostureupon
mobilization(lighting,securingaccessdoorstorestrictentry,etc.)?
5. SECURITYFORCES.Detailedinstructionssuchasspecialorders,SOPs,anduseoIIorce
shouldbeattachedasenclosurestothisplanasappropriate.Theycanbegiventotheguardswhen
posted.IndicatetheguardpostsonthemapoIthePAA/AAAs.
6. COORDINATION.
a. SecurityplansshouldbecoordinatedwiththelocalpoliceandsheriII'sdepartment.
Uponmobilization,theseagenciesareexcellentsourcesonthelocalthreatandcanbeoIassistancein
handlingproblemswiththepublic.TheunitPhysicalSecurityOIIicer/NCOshouldincludethePhysical
SecurityThreatStatementandRiskAnalysisaspartoIthiscoordination,andinthepreparationoIthe
PhysicalSecurityPlan.
b. Coordinatewithotherunitsusingthesamearmory/reservecenter.
c. CoordinatewithhigherheadquartersonTHREATCON,todeterminepropersecurity
measures.
COMMANDER'S
SIGNATURE
BLOCK
3Encls:
1.MapoIassemblyarea
2.DetailedsecurityinstructionsIorSOGandguards.
3.DetailedinstructionsIorcounteringterrorismandreportingincidentswhileenroutetotheMS.
93
Annex B Mobilization Funding Guidance to RC Unit Commanders Handbook
Purpose
ToprovidebroadguidanceonresourcesandIundingtosupportmobilizationactionsduringthealertandhome
stationphasesIorRCunits,andduringmovementtothemobilizationstation.Fundingsupporttoday,Iocusesonuse
oIIMPACCardsandsupportactionsIromtheUnitedStatesPropertyandFiscalOIIice(USPFO)(IorARNG
units)andtheRegionalSupportCommand(RSC)(IorUSARunits).Plansstillneedtorecognizeneedto
appointpurchasingagentsIorselectedunits,whenneedisdeterminedbythemobilizationstation,
USPFO,orRSC.
General
a.Onorder,FORSCOMmobilizesanddeploysIorcesandequipmenttodesignatedtheatersoI
operationstosupportCombatantCINCsmissionrequirements.Inherentinthemobilizationand
deploymentoIIorcesisthemissiontoprovideresourcemanagementsupportIormobilization,pre-
deployment,andreconstitutionoperationsIorFORSCOMunits.
b.FundingactionsandreimbursementproceduresIorReserveComponentcontingencycosts
whileinapre-mobilizationstatusdependoncapabilitiesoItheRCcommands,theRCunit'scapabilities,
andthespeciIicnatureoIthecost.
(1)IAWreIerencea,incrementalcontingencycostsincurredbytheReserveComponentasa
resultoIperIormanceoIservicesdirectedbytheArmy(toincludecostsrelatedtomobilizedRCunits)
areproperlyIundedbyACappropriations.
(2)IncrementalcostsaredeIinedasthoseoperationalcostsincurredbyanactivitythat
wouldnothavebeenincurrediItheoperationhadnotbeenexecuted.
(3)ContingencycostsnotdirectlyassociatedwithactivesupportormobilizedRCunitsare
notchargeabletoorreimbursablebytheACappropriations.ThesecostsshouldbenormallyIundedas
partoItheunitsprogramandbudgetedmissionorshouldbeoIIsetbyIundingmadeavailablethrough
costavoidanceassociatedwithmobilizedRCunits.
Execution
a.FundingIoradministrativeandlogisticssupportIorRCunitsduringpeacetimeisprovidedby
OperationandMaintenance,ArmyReserve(OMAR)appropriations.TheUSPFO(IorARNGunits)or
theRSC(IorUSARunits)controlsIunds.
(1)IMPACCards
(2)ExtendedHSactivities.
b.TheOperationandMaintenance,Army(OMA)appropriationIundsunitcostsincurredonand
94
aIterthedateoImobilization.Forcontingencycostreimbursement,theIlowoIIundingIortheRCis
IromFORSCOMtomobilizationstations(MS)toeithertheUSPFOortheRSC.
(1)ToobtainaccesstoOMAIunds,theUSPFO(IorARNGunits)andtheRSC(IorUSAR
units)willestimatethecostsIorsuppliesandservicesIromdateoImobilizationuntilarrivalattheMS.
(a)TheUSPFOandRSCwillrequestaDDForm448,MilitaryInterdepartmentalPurchase
Request(MIPR)withareimbursableandadirectIundcitetocoverthecostoIrations,quarters,Iuel,
maintenancesupport,transportation,andtravelandperdiemIorthemobilizedunitduringthisperiod.
(b)IMPACCard.UseoIthecardmaybecontinuedbaseduponguidanceandauthority
IromtheUSPFOorRSC.IssuingUSPFOorRSC,inconiunctionwiththeresourcemanagermustensure
IundcitationassociatedwiththeIMPACcardischangedtoreIlectOMAIunds,asappropriate.
(2)TheMShastheIundingresponsibilityuntiltheunitdepartstheMSIordeployment.
c.FORSCOM,DeputyChieIoIStaIIIorResourceandEvaluation(DCSRE)willprovidedetailed
guidanceonIundcitesIorIunctionalareasaspartoItheoperationsguidanceIoreachoperation.
Purchasing Agent
Onoccasion,theMS,USPFO,orRSCwilldetermineaneedtomaintaincontroloIIundsandappointa
purchasingauthorityratherthanissueanIMPACCard.Theguidancenotedbelowaddressmobilization
purchasingauthoritylimitationsandguidance.
a.WhenrequiredbytheMS,USPFOorRSC,aMobilizationPurchasingAuthoritydesigneewill
beappointed.TheunitcommanderwillIorwardanauthenticatedDDForm577(SignatureCard)iI
required,assumptionoIcommanddocumentandappointmentdocument(Appendix1)tothesupporting
MSFAO(andUSPFOIorARNG).
b.AllpertinentinstructionsasdeterminedbytheMS,USPFOorRSCIortheindividual
authorizedtomakepurchaseswillbepreparedinadvanceandplacedintheMPApacket.TheMPAkit
willcontainacopyoItheMPAappointment,allpertinentinstructionsasdeterminedbytheunit
commanderIortheMPAdesigneetomakepurchases,theunitmobilizationorderiIissued,an
authenticatedDDForm577(SignatureCard)iIrequiredandasupplyoISF44s.SF44sarecontrolled
Iormsandrequiressecuritystorage,preIerablyintheunitsaIe.InstructionsconcerningpreparationoISF
44sareexplainedontheIorm.IncludetwocopiesoItheunitactivationorderintheMPA.
c.TheMobilizationPurchasingAuthoritydesigneewill--
(1)ProvidetheservicesoIapurchasingagentwhenpurchasingagentsarenotavailable,and
thereisnoothersmallpurchasemethodavailable.
(2)MakepurchasesusingSF44,whenalloItheIollowingconditionsaremet:
(a)Thepurchasedoesnotexceed$2,500or$25,000IoraviationPOL.Purchaseswillnot
besplittoavoidthismonetarylimitation.
95
(b)Suppliesornon-personalservicesareneededimmediately.
(c)Onedeliveryandonepaymentwillbemade.
d.AuthorityoItheMobilizationPurchasingAuthoritydesigneewillbetemporaryandwillexpireupon
arrivaloItheunitattheMS.
96
: (Sample Appointment Memorandum of Mobilization Purchasing Authority) to Annex B (Mobilization
Purchasing Authority Guidance)
LETTERHEAD
OFFICESYMBOLDATE
MEMORANDUMFOR
SUBJECT:APPOINTMENTOFMOBILIZATIONPURCHASINGAUTHORITY
1.UnderArmyFARSupplement1.699(b),youareappointedaMobilizationPurchasingAuthorityIor
thepurposessetIorthinparagraph2.YourappointmentshallbecomeeIIectiveandremaineIIective
untilyourorganizationreportstoitsmobilizationstationorpermanentstation.Youareresponsibleto,
andunderthetechnicalsupervisionoI,the(enternameoISI)DirectoroIContractingIoryouractionsas
apurchasingauthority.
2.YourappointmentissubiecttotheuseoIthemethodsoIpurchaseandtothelimitationsand
requirementsstatedbelow:
a.TheservicesoIthepurchasingoIIicenamedinparagraph1arenotavailableandthereisno
othersuitablesmallpurchasemethodavailabletomeettheneedsoIourorganization.
b.YoumaymakepurchasesusingSF44(PurchaseOrder-Invoice-Voucher)providedalloIthe
IollowingconditionsaresatisIied:
(1)TheaggregateamountoIthepurchasetransactionisnottoexceed$2,500,exceptIor
aviationIuelandoilpurchases,whichwillnotexceed$25,000(DODFARSupplement13.505-3).
(2)Suppliesornonpersonalservicesareimmediatelyavailable.
(3)Onedeliveryandonepaymentshallbemade.
c.Itemswhichmaybepurchasedunderthisappointmentinclude,butarenotlimitedtothe
Iollowing:
(1)Subsistenceandlodging.
(2)Transportationcosts,suchasgasolineandoilIorgovernmentvehicles:parking,road,
bridge,tunnelorIerryIees:roadsiderepairs:taxicabandcommercialbusIares:emergencytowing,rental
carsusedIoradvancedpartytraveltoMS:blocking,bracing,packing,crating,andtiedownmaterials.
(3)Emergencytelephonecalls.
(4)Suppliesorservicesasdirectedbytheunitcommander.
(5)ServicesbeyondcapabilitiesoItheunitIordoctorsandprescriptionsIorunitmembers
whoincurminorillnessesoriniuriesenroutetomobilizationstation.
97
3.YouarerequiredtoacknowledgereceiptoIthisappointment,inwriting,totheagencyoIIicerwho
willmakepaymentIortheitemspurchasedbyyou.AcopyoIthisappointmenthasbeenIurnishedto
thatagent.
SIGNATUREBLOCK
DISTRIBUTION:
Individual
ServicingFAO
CustodianoIPersonnelRecords
DirectoroIContracting,(enternameoISI)
(Othersasrequired)
98
Annex C: Personnel Mobilization Guide to RC Unit Commanders Handbook
General
C-1.
a.CommandersshouldkeepunitmembersandIamilymembersinIormedoItheunitrole
in support oI peacetime military operations and mobilization. BrieIings will be given at least
annually, during welcome brieIings to new unit personnel, and when signiIicant changes occur.
Additionally, the brieIing will be given during the alert or home station phase and include any
operational unique personnel guidance (e.g. , requirements to be able to complete a tour,
guidance on non-deployables, additional medical requirements, etc.) The brieIing will also be
giventoany unit member(s) being ordered to active duty voluntarily Ior a period oI 30 days or
more in support oI an active army mission. As a minimum, the inIormation contained in this
guideshouldbeincludedinthebrieIing.
b.ThisguideassistsmembersoItheReserveComponentsandtheirIamilymembersto
understandthesoldier'smilitaryobligationwhentransitionedtoactivedutyandtoarrangetheir
personal aIIairs in the event oI Federal mobilization. Additionally, it provides inIormation on
basicrulesandpoliciesthataIIectthesoldierandhisorherIamilywhilethesoldierisdeployed,
duringredeploymentanddemobilization,andaIterreleaseIromactiveduty.
c.ToprovideunitmemberstheopportunitytobeginplanningtheirpersonalaIIairs,unit
commanderswillprovideeachunitmemberacopyoISectionsIIandIIIoIthisannexandDD
Form 1543, Annual Legal Checkup. Soldiers will be required to provide an address Ior Iamily
memberstotheIamilyassistancecenterattheMS.
d. Spaces are leIt in the guide Ior the member to record personal notes, instructions
providedbytheunitcommander,andotherinIormation.
Notification and Alert
C-2. HOWWILLIBENOTIFIED?
a. INVOLUNTARY CALL. Our unit has an alert notiIication system. You will
normallybealertedbytelephonebyanalertgroupleader.IIyoucannotbereachedbytelephone,
wewillmakeeveryeIIorttolocateyou.IIyouhearinthenewsmediaoIamaiormobilizationoI
Reserve Components, but you have not been called, you should contact our unit as soon as
possible to Iind out iI we have been alerted. It is essential that you keep the unit inIormed oI
yourcurrenthomeandiobaddressandtelephone!
b. VOLUNTARY CALL. Many peacetime operations depend on reserve component
augmentation.ThissupportisaccomplishedthroughthesolicitationoIvolunteers.Normallythe
peacetime chain oI command will provide speciIic guidance on the need Ior volunteers, to
99
include grade, MOS, length oI tour and missions essential data. Your speciIic release as a
volunteerwillbedependentonthereadinessimpactontheunit.Thealertrostermaybeusedto
contactyouwithvolunteerinIormation.
C-2-A. HOWMUCHNOTIFICATIONSHOULDIGIVEMYEMPLOYER?YoushouldnotiIy
your employer as soon as possible about the notiIication oI alert, proiected or known
mobilization or active duty date, and length oI the call up. In many contingency operations, or
stability and support operations , your reserve command and/or the National Committee Ior
EmployerSupporttotheGuardandReservemaywanttogetyouremployersaddresstowritea
letterthankingthemIortheirsupportandprovidingadditionalinIormation,asnecessary.
C-2-B. IF YOU ARE SELF- EMPLOYED. SelI-employment does not iustiIy any special alert
periodordelayincall-up.IIyouareselI-employedorinvolvedinasmallbusinessasapartner,
youneedtoplaneIIectivelyIorhowyouwantthebusinesstoIunctioninyourabsence.
C-2-C. WHAT IF MY REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ARE THREATENED OR MY
EMPLOYERREQUESTSADDITIONALINFORMATION?IIyoushouldincurproblemswith
your employer, let your chain oI command know immediately. Assistance is available and can
be accessed through an ESGR representative. Local representative is
. II he/she is not available, contact the National Committee Ior
EmployerSupportoItheGuardandReserve(NCESGR)at1-800-336-4590.
C-3. HOWMUCHWARNING(ALERTPERIOD)WILLIHAVE?
a. As a member oI the Reserve Components, you can be mobilized in case oI war,
nationalemergency,insupportoIcontingencyoperations,orinsupportoIaPeacetime(Stability
AndSupportOperations)mission.(ExamplesoIrecentcall-upsareoperationsinBosnia,Haiti,
and support oI Hurricane Andrew). Although every unit has a predesignated wartime mission,
youmustbepreparedIoracalltosupportotheroperationseithervoluntarilyorinvoluntarily.
b. Every unit is diIIerent. Some units will be mobilized and enter active duty a day or
twoaIterbeingalerted.OtherunitsmaybealertedbutnotactuallyenteractivedutyIorseveral
weeks. Some operations with a rotational requirement (like JOINT ENDEAVOR/GUARD Ior
Bosnia)allowevenlongeralertwindowstomaximizetrainingandreadinessimprovements.
c.Individualreadinessmeansbeingpreparedtogotoournation'sdeIenseintheshortest
timepracticable.ItmeansplanningaheadtotakecareoIpersonalaIIairsnow,sothatproblems
donotbecomeunnecessarycrisesduringtheconstrainedtimeoIarapidmobilization.IIyouare
volunteeringIoractiveduty,itisevenmoreincumbentonyoutohaveyouraIIairsinorder.
C-4. WHATHAPPENSDURINGTHEALERTPERIOD?
Alotwillhappen.HowmuchwilldependonthelengthoIouralertperiod.Youwillhavemany
personal aIIairs to get in order beIore you enter active duty. Section III lists many oI them.
Additional training assemblies may be possible aIter the alert notiIication. Remember that the
100
alert is simply a warning to emplace Iinal personal planning actions. Implementation oI these
plansshouldnottakeplaceuntilyoureceiveamobilizationorder.TheIollowingquestionshave
beenaskedinalmosteveryoperation.
C-4-A.SHOULDILEAVEMYJOB?WHENISTHEBESTTIMETOLEAVEMYJOB?
Youshouldnotleaveyouriobduringthealertperiod.Thealertisawarningthatactivedutyis
pending. You should notiIy your employer that you have been alerted and call-up may be
imminent. You will normally have 72 hours to report to active duty aIter receipt oI execute
orders (these will normally be individual mobilization orders). You should provide your
employer with a copy oI your mobilization orders and coordinate a speciIic time to leave your
iob.
C-4-B.WHENISTHEBESTTIMETOCANCELMYRENTANDMOVEOUT?
You should not cancel a lease or rent agreement during alert, but simply coordinate actions to
cancel on receipt oI mobilization execution orders. You need to be sure you are aware oI the
proiected length oI time oI the call to active duty (For this operation we are being ordered to
activedutyIordays)toensurethereisaneed to cancel any lease or rental agreement.
Additionally,yourmobilizationordersshouldspeciIytheauthoritytomoveandstorehousehold
goods.Finally,iItheoriginalcall-upisonlyIorashortperiod,youmaywanttoleavealimited
poweroIattorneywithaIamilymemberorothertrustedagent,authorizingthemtocancelleases
orstorehouseholdequipmentiIyourordersareamendedorahigherleveloImobilization(with
alongertourperiod)isimplemented.
C-4-C.WHENISTHEBESTTIMETOQUITSCHOOL?
Aswithyouriob,youshouldonlyquitschoolonreceipt oI execution (mobilization) orders. II
youhavereceivedanalert,youshouldnotregisterIoranyschoolcourses.
C-5. WHEN I ENTER ACTIVE DUTY, HOW LONG WILL I STAY AT THE UNIT
ARMORYORRESERVECENTER?
CurrentplansindicatethatyouwillenteractivedutyandremainIoronlyaIewdaysatyourunit
armory or reserve center beIore departing Ior the mobilization station (MS). During those Iew
days, there will be intensive personnel processing, equipment packing and loading, and
processingyourIamilymemberstoensuretheyreceiveappropriateactivedutybeneIits.Theunit
willprovidebilleting,mess,andmedicalservicesIoryouwhileyouareonactivedutyathome
station(HS).Remember,duringthisphaseyouarenowonactiveduty,andsubiecttoallactive
armyregulationsandpolicies.
C-6.WHEREWILLIGOAFTERLEAVINGHOMESTATION?
CurrentplanshaveusmovingIromhomestationdirectlyto.
101
C-7.WHATHAPPENSATTHEMOBILIZATIONSTATION?
a.DeployingUnits:
They will spend approximately week(s) at the mobilization station Ior intensive training,
assignment oI additional personnel and equipment to Iill their shortages, and Iinal preparations
Ior deployment. Training will be long and hard. There may be no Iree time, and except Ior
emergencies,veryIewleavesorpasseswillbeauthorized.
b.Non-DeployingUnits:
Theywillbeassignedmission(s)tosupportandassistFortintheireIIortstoreceive,
house,trainanddeployreservecomponentunitsandindividuals.
C-8.MAYMYFAMILYACCOMPANYMETOTHEMOBILIZATIONSTATION?
NO, Speedy mobilization precludes it. Housing and Iamily member services at mobilization
stationsandinthesurroundingcommunitywillnotbeavailableandthetimeyouaretheremay
beveryshort.Forthisreason,themovementoIIamilymembersandtheshipmentoIhousehold
goods to your mobilization station are not authorized. Short duration operations such as Haiti
and JOINT ENDEAVOR/GUARD, executed with a PSRC and using temporary change oI
station, recognize that AC soldiers will be returning in less than a year and their Iamilies are
authorizedtoremaininquarters.OncethemilitarysituationhasstabilizedIoroperationsunder
Partial or Full mobilization involving permanent change oI station, it is anticipated that Iamily
members oI soldiers in CONUS sustaining units will be authorized to ioin them at their
permanentCONUSdutystation.
C-9.WHATHAPPENSATTHEPORTOFEMBARKATION?
You will normally be at a port oI embarkation (air or sea) only long enough Ior loading and
departure.
C-10.MAYITAKEPERSONALPROPERTYWITHME?
NO, unless otherwise speciIied Ior non-deploying units. You will not be allowed to take your
automobile or large items such as televisions and stereos, although a Iew small personal items
like portable radios and cameras will be allowed, within reason. Normally, guidance Irom the
theater will even dictate the military and civilian clothing authorized in the theater. For this
operationtheIollowingclothingisauthorized:
Finally,itmustbestressedthatyoucannottakepersonalweaponswithyou.
102
C-11.FAMILYASSISTANCEANDSINGLESOLDIERS
a. WHOLOOKSOUTFORMYFAMILYMEMBERSAFTERILEAVE?
Keyisthatyou,thesoldier,areresponsibleIoractionsthatwillensureyourIamilyiscaredIor.
It is important that you identiIy all your Iamily members and implement pre-enrollment in
DEERS.Additionally,youmustensurethatyourspouse,otherIamilymembersandanyonewith
guardianshipresponsibilitiesreceiveacopyoIyourorders.
(1). We will have a special meeting Ior you and your Iamily members to discuss the
beneIitstheywillbeentitledtowhileyouareonactiveduty,toinitiatethenecessarypaperwork
to obtain their identiIication cards, to explain how they can use their beneIits, and to provide
themwithapointoIcontactwheretheycanobtainadditionalinIormationorassistancewhileyou
are away. These sessions will be held every year and will address general procedures. The
(STARC)(RSC)willcoordinateabrieIingIorIamilymemberseitherduringanactualalertphase
(timepermitting)oraItertheunitdeploys.
(2).IIyouareasingleparentormarriedtoanotherservicememberyouareexpectedto
haveaplanIorthecustodyandcareoIyourIamilymembers.Yourcommanderorhisdesignated
will counsel you representative and the required Iorms and legal documents will be Iiled at the
unit.
(3). You and your Iamily members will be encouraged to ioin the unit Iamily support
group.ThisgroupisanoIIiciallysanctionedorganizationoIoIIicerandenlistedpersonneland
theirIamilymembersthatprovidesinIormationandasupportnetworkIor Iamilies and soldiers
during their association with the unit, especially during periods oI separation (e.g., weekend
drills,annualtrainingand/ormobilization).Duringmobilization,FamilyAssistanceCenterswill
beestablishedatvariouslocationswithineachstate.Thesecentersactasthelinkbetweenyour
IamilysupportgroupandtheArmy.Theywillprovidecontinuingadviceandessentialservices,
such as ID cards and CHAMPUS Iorms Ior your Iamily members aIter your unit has departed.
MyIamilysupportgroupleaderis.Her/histelephonenumberis.Theaddress
IortheclosestFamilyAssistanceCenteris.Thetelephonenumberthereis.
(4).YouandyourIamilymembersshouldparticipateinFamilySupportGroupactivities
now.Waitinguntilmobilizationoccursistoolate.GettingIamilymemberstoknowoneanother
now will make them better prepared to oIIer mutual support during mobilization or other
contingencies.
b. IF I AM SINGLE, WHAT DO I DO ABOUT MY APARTMENT, POV AND
HOUSEHOLDGOODS?
AR37-104-10andDepartmentoIDeIensePayManualestablishcriteriaIorbasicallowanceand
Iorquarters(toincludeVHAwhenordersareIor140daysormore).OrdersIorthiscall-upare
Iordaysandyou(need)(donotneed)toensureyouprovidecopiesoIlease agreements or
103
house payments to support VHA payments. Changes to Iield conditions could aIIect the
mobilized reservist the same as it aIIects active army soldiers, dependent on designation oI
permanent duty station. You may have to request release Irom lease or rental agreements and
storehouseholdgoods.PickupandstorageoIhouseholdgoodsisnormallyauthorizediIorders
are Ior more than 90 days or indeIinite periods. II authorization is not in basic order, it will
require coordination with our support installation or the mobilization station transportation
oIIicers. Orders Ior this call-up (do)(do not) authorize pickup and storage oI household goods.
Thereare,nospecialauthoritiesIorstorageorcareoIPOVs.Youneedtocoordinatethestorage
orcareoIyourcarwithaIamilymemberorIriend.
104
C-12.MAYIBEEXCUSEDFROMMOBILIZINGWITHMYUNIT?
Basically, no! II you are a member oI our unit on the day we receive our oIIicial alert
notiIication, you will be required by law to mobilize with the unit. There are some limited
exceptions,butiIyouhavenotappliedIoradischargeorexemptionIromactivedutyunderthe
provisions oI AR 135-133, and the reasons Ior requesting excusal Irom mobilization did not
occur since your last scheduled drill, you will go with the unit. Table 2-1 in the Reserve
Component Unit Commanders Handbook provides details on identiIying soldiers with a
conditionthatwouldmakethemanon-mobilizationasset.IIanoperationhasalimitedstrength
ceiling or other command unique requirements, Department oI the Army or FORSCOM will
provide detailed guidance on identiIication and processing oI soldiers who do not meet
mobilizationstandards.Forthisoperation,in addition to guidance in Table 2-1, soldiers in the
Iollowingcategoriesarenotconsideredasmobilizationassets:
SomespeciIicareasthatarealwaysquestionedare:
a. SOLDIERSWITHAPHYSICALPROFILE.
Criterion 20, Table 2-1 oI the RCUCH applies. II separation or transIer actions have not been
approved, you must mobilize and report with the unit. Headquarters DA may establish other
policiesiItheoperationisoIshortdurationandhasalimitedstrengthceilingandthosechanges
willbebrieIeduponexecution.
b. FORSOLDIERSPENDINGRETIREMENT,SEPARATIONORDISCHARGE.
Criterion25,Table2-1oItheRCUCHapplies.IIactionisrequiredorrequestedpriortoreceipt
oIthealert,itwillbeeIIectedpriortotheunitsM-date.IIeIIectivedateisaIterreceiptoIthe
alert,memberwillenterADwiththeunit,unlessexemptionisauthorizedinthealertmessageor
byseparateguidanceIromDA.
C-13.WHATSHOULDIDOINTHEEVENTOFANUCLEARATTACKONTHIS
COUNTRY?
a.IIitappearsthatanattackisimminent,ReserveComponentIorcesmaybedirectedto
quickly mobilize. In such a case, you will be notiIied as quickly as possible and given
instructionsonhow,when,andwhereyouandyourIamilyaretorelocate.
b.IIanuclearattackonthiscountryoccursbeIorewecanalertyoutorelocate,youmust
consider yourselI automatically ordered to Federal active duty. Your Iirst action should be to
seekshelterIoryourselIandyourIamilyinaccordancewithyourlocalcommunity'scivildeIense
shelterplan.AssoonaspossibleaItertheattack,youmustmakeeveryattempttocontactyour
unit, Iirst at the unit armory or reserve center, then at the alternate assembly area, which is
locatedat.
105
Personal Records Checklist
C-14.GENERAL
a. Leaving your Iamily, your home, your employment, and your property can create
enormous Iinancial, legal, and personal complications, unless adequate records and documents
areestablishedandsaIeguarded.Maintainingpersonalrecordsareimportanttoyou-notonlyIor
mobilization.TheyshouldbekeptinasaIeplace,readilyavailabletoyou,and,inyourabsence,
toyourspouse,nextoIkin,orexecutor.Itisrecommendedthatyouusethischecklisttorecord
inIormationorlistwhereyourdocumentsarekept.
b. For your Iamily members to obtain identiIication cards and legal beneIits, you must
provide those documents indicated by an asterisk (*) to your unit upon request or on
mobilization.Thedocumentsshouldbelocatednowandkeptavailableatalltimes.
C-15.RECORDSANDDOCUMENTS
The records and documents listed in the remainder oI this section are not all inclusive. Some
haveshortexplanationsandothersarenamedtoassistyouandyourdependents.
a. Your will and testament. A last will and testament is a legal declaration as to the
manner in which you would like to have your property or estate disposed oI aIter your death.
ThisdocumentcanalsonamesomeonetoserveaslegalguardianIoryourminorchildren.You
may consult an attorney (military or civilian) during premobilization legal counseling to
determine whether you should have a will. It's important to have a will regardless oI your
military,Iinancial,ormaritalstatus.Remember,willscanusuallybechangedveryeasily.You
shouldseeyourattorneyaboutpreparingorchangingyourwilloryourspouse'swill.IIyoudie
or become disabled while in Federal service, your death or disability will most likely occur at
someplaceotherthanyourlegalresidence.YourattorneyandyoushouldconsidertheeIIectsoI
your State's laws regarding matters that could cause changes, such as substitute written wills
(Holographic)ortheso-called"deathbed"(nuncupative)changes.Dependingonyourpersonal
circumstances, your attorney can also advise you in naming someone to carry out your will or
instructions,andsomeonetoserveasalegalguardianIorminorchildren.
b.Yourspouse'swillandtestament.
c. Power oI Attorney. A power oI attorney is a legal instrument, which gives another
person the authority to act Ior you in matters relating to your responsibilities and obligations.
You may consult with an attorney during premobilization legal counseling to determine iI you
shouldhaveapoweroIattorneyprepared.ThispoweroIattorneymaybesignedatthetimeoI
mobilization giving someone you trust the authority to act Ior you in your absence in matters
relatingtoyourresponsibilitiesandlegalobligations.Yourattorneycanadviseyouconcerning
thispoweroIattorney.
106
d. * CertiIied copies oI birth certiIicates Ior your children. (Preenrollment in DEERS
willsatisIythisrequirement.)
e.*Adoptionorlegalguardianshipdocuments.(PreenrollmentinDEERSwillsatisIy
thisrequirement).
I.*CertiIiedcopiesoIyourmarriagelicenseorcertiIicate.(Thisdocumentisrequired
toobtaindependentIDcard.)
g.*IIyouhaveanunmarriedchildover21,whoisincapableoIselI-supportbecauseoI
mentalorphysicalincapacitythatexistedbeIoreage21,theIollowingisneeded:StatementIrom
alicensedphysiciancertiIyingmedicalconditionwhichincludeswhetherconditionistemporary
or permanent. II temporary, physician should estimate the expected length oI incapacity.
DocumentationmustbeIorwardedtoDFASIordetermination.
h. * Name and location oI places where unmarried children (including adopted or
stepchildren)over21,butunder23yearsoIage,areenrolledinaIull-timecourseoIinstruction.
(This inIormation will be required to obtain dependent ID cards.) II you are paying tuition Ior
yourspouseorIamilymembers,youwillwanttodeterminewhatarrangementscanbemadeIor
tuition abatement or Iinancial assistance. You must also have documentation to veriIy
attendanceattheappropriateschool/institution. School documentation is a letter Irom registrar
or other oIIicial stating student is enrolled Iull time (12 credit hours per semester Ior
undergraduate,9Iorgraduate)andexpecteddateoIgraduation.
i. * Copy oI any court order giving you legal custody oI any children Irom a previous
marriage.(ThisdocumentwillberequiredtoobtaindependentIDcards.)
i.*Forillegitimatechildren,copyoIacourtordernamingyouthenaturalparentoIthe
child,acopyoIthecourtdecisionthatyoucontributetothechild'ssupport,orwrittenadmission
oI parentage by you. (This document will be required to obtain dependent ID cards.
PreenrollmentinDEERSwillsatisIythisrequirement)
k.*Arecentphotograph(IullIace,lightbackground,about8"x10"includingalloIthe
person'shead)IoreachIamilymember10yearsoIageorolder.(Thesephotoswillberequired
to obtain dependent ID cards.) Requirement Ior photograph is applicable only when ID card is
appliedIorthroughthemail.
l. Full legal names, places and dates oI birth, and location oI marriage record oI your
parents.
m.ChronologicallistoIyourplacesoIresidence(includingdates).
n. Names and addresses oI schools you attended, with dates oI attendance, and
graduationorenrollmentdate.
107
o. ProoI oI citizenship (e.g. Birth CertiIicate, Passport, CertiIicate oI Naturalization or
AlienRegistrationCard).
p. Copies oI divorce or annulment decrees Irom prior marriages (you and your present
spouse)withdocumentsrelativetoalimonyandchildsupport.DecidewhateIIectsyourorders
to duty would have on alimony or child support payments which may or may not have been
addressedindivorce,legalseparation,annulment,childsupport,andpropertysettlementdecrees
andconsideramendingthedecreesastheymaypertaintoyourcircumstancesuponmobilization.
q.CertiIiedcopiesoIdeathcertiIicatesoImembersoIyourimmediateIamily.
r. A list oI social security numbers Ior you, your spouse, children, and other Iamily
members.IItheydon'thaveaSocialSecuritynumber,encouragethemtoapply.
s.AlistoIallcreditcardaccounts,accountnumbers,andmailingaddresses.
t.CopiesoIyourFederalandStateincometaxrecordsIorthelastIiveyears.
u.CopiesoIinsurancepoliciesincludingliIe,home,auto,liability,creditliIe,health,and
disabilitywithalistoIeIIectivepremiumdates,agentsoIrecord,andthehomeoIIiceaddressIor
each insuring company. Keep your policies in one place with a cover list. Check the policies
with your insurance advisors and review them to see whether they give adequate coverage, list
dates, and provide Ior payments oI premiums upon your mobilization. Certain commercial liIe
insurancepolicypaymentsmaybecoveredunderFederallaw.Seeparagraphs5.1through5.10,
DA Pamphlet 27-166 (Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil RelieI Act and the UniIormed Services
EmploymentandReemploymentRightsAct).
v.ListoInames,addresses,and account numbers oI your saving and loan associations,
banks, trust or holding accounts, saIe deposit boxes, and institutions holding certiIicates oI
deposit on Iile in your name. Upon mobilization, you might consider making ioint bank and
savings accounts with your spouse or parents, and you should notiIy the institutions where to
sendstatements.
w.NameandaddressoIemployerswithalistoIemploymentbeneIitssuchasdependent
healthcare,pension,orproIitsharingplans.UponreceivingalertIormobilization,youwillwant
todiscusswithyouremployer,yourintentiontoreturntoworkaItercompletionoImilitaryduty.
Legal reemployment rights are described in DA Pamphlet 135-2 (BrieIing on Reemployment
RightsoIMembersoItheArmyNationalGuardandtheUSArmyReserve).
x. Name and address oI union or proIessional association (e.g.,. Bar Association) and
dateoIunion/associationmembership,togetherwithevidenceoImembershipandstatus.Upon
mobilization,membershipduesmaybesuspendedoradiusted.
108
y. Names and addresses oI Iraternal or service organizations, with a list oI beneIits
receivable Irom membership. Upon mobilization, you may want to arrange suspension oI
membershipdues.
z.Allevidencerelatingtohomeimprovementsorrealpropertyvalueenhancement.
aa.Deedsorothertitledocumentstorealestateandrealproperty,toincludemortgages,
deeds oI trust, abstracts oI title (and the names and addresses oI the holders oI such deeds and
abstracts),titleinsurancepolicies,andcopiesoInotespayablerelatingtotheproperty.Itmaybe
wisetohaveatleastyourhome(andperhapsotherproperty)ownediointlywithyourspouseIor
estate and tax purposes. However, you should consult with a lawyer beIore establishing ioint
ownership oI housing. Under current tax law, iI you sell your home and don't acquire another
within 18 months, there may be capital gain consequences iI your home is valued at more than
youpaidIorit.Beawarethat26USC1034(h)extends this period up to 4 years, with limited
exception. Thus, it's important Ior you to keep all records pertaining to home improvements,
modernization,orlandscaping,etc.,alloIwhicharepartoIyourcostbasis.
bb.CertiIicatesoItitle,registration,warranties,and tax receipts Ior automobiles, boats,
recreationalvehicles,andotherpersonalproperty.ThenamesoIthepersonsentitledtoyourcar
shouldbeshownonyourcertiIicateoItitle.YoushoulddeterminethedispositiontobemadeoI
yourcaronyourmobilization.IIthecaristobekeptbutnotusedIorbusinesspurposes,discuss
possiblepremiumreductionwithyourinsuranceagent.II,uponmobilization,contractpurchase
paymentscannotbemade,seeparagraph4.3,DA Pamphlet 27-166 (Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil
RelieIActandtheUniIormedServicesEmploymentandReemploymentRightsAct).
cc.AlldocumentsrelatingtoyourIinancialobligationsconcerningthepurchaseorrental
oI real property to include leases, rental contracts, purchase contracts, installments, sales
contracts,copiesoInotespayable,andcopiesoIpaymentanddatescheduleswhereappropriate.
II you lease your home or business property, upon mobilization you may want to consider
cancelingtheleaseorrenegotiatingittoincludesublettingoptions.
dd. Stocks, bonds (together with buy-and-sell orders): certiIicates oI deposit: savings
account passbooks: notes receivable: and other evidence oI ownership oI real, intangible,
personalincome-producingpropertyshouldbekept together, identiIied, and maintained in your
saIe deposit box or elsewhere as recommended by your lawyer. Coupon bonds should be
exchanged Ior registered bonds, iI possible. These items should be matters oI discussion in
preparing your will. Consider naming a custodian or trustee(s) to handle income, who will
determine the purchase or sale oI assets Ior your account, and comply with your instructions
relatingtokeepingyouinIormedoIactivity.
ee.AllcopiesoIbillsoIsaleoImaioritemsoIpersonalpropertynototherwiseincluded
inparagraphsuorw,above.
II. Business agreements to include partnership documents, agency or sales contracts,
royaltiesorresidualagreements,andemploymentcontracts.IIyou'reselI-employed,activeIiles
109
and accounts should be well organized and someone should be named to take over on
mobilization. Include Business Care Plans Ior Health Care ProIessionals and others owning or
partners in a small business. On mobilization, you should consider notiIying customers and
suppliersoIanychangeoIaddresstowhichremittance,orders,invoices,etc.willbedelivered.
gg.EvidenceoIbeneIicialinterestinanybusinessoriointventure.
hh.CopiesoIalldocumentsdesignatingyouasanexecutororatrustee.
ii.CopiesoImilitaryandotheremploymentrecords.
ii. Record oI your health history to include a record oI past illnesses or iniuries with
namesandaddressesoIdoctorsandhospitals.
kk.AddressoIyourregistraroIvoters.AItermobilizationyouwillwanttoarrangeIor
absenteeballotstobesenttoyourmilitaryaddressbysendingtheregistraranSF-76(Application
IorAbsenteeBallot).
ll.RecordtheaddressesoIalltaxingauthorities(countyassessor,IRS,Stateincometax,
motorvehicles,etc.).Uponmobilizationyouwillwanttoensurethatalltaxesarepaidtodate,
andnotiIythetaxingauthoritieswhereIurthertaxbillsshouldbesent.ExtensionoItimetopay
certaintaxesmaybegrantedundertheSoldiersandSailorsCivilRelieIActandtheUniIormed
ServicesEmploymentandReemploymentRightsAct.
mm. List the names and addresses oI all special persons (Iamily, lawyer, business
associates,etc.)whoarenotlistedelsewhere.Uponmobilizationyoumaydesiretomailthema
changeoIaddressnotiIication.
nn.RecordspeciIicinstructionsregardingtheplaceandmanneroIburialintheeventoI
yourdeath.Uponmobilization,theseinstructionsshouldbeleItwithyourspouseorIamily.
oo.ListoIdocumentsanditemsstoredinasaIetydepositbox.Youshouldconsultwith
a lawyer about the advisability oI storing important documents and small items in a saIety
depositbox.
pp.MaintainDDForm1543,AnnualLegalCheckup,toassistin getting personal legal
aIIairsinorder.
110
Instructions for Obtaining Family Member Identification Cards
(Tobemaintainedasaseparatepage.UnitsshouldmakecopiesIorsoldierstoprovidetoIamily
members)
C-16.General
a.TheDDForm1173(UniIormedServicesIdentiIicationandPrivilegeCard)identiIies
the holder as a Iamily member oI a member oI the Armed Forces on active duty. This card is
necessarytoobtaintheentitlementsIorwhichyouareeligible.
b. You may obtain an ID card by reporting to the ID card issuing Iacility at any
installation oI any military service or State Family Assistance Center with a veriIied DD Form
1172(ApplicationIorUniIormedServicesIdentiIicationandPrivilegeCard).
c.IIyouhavediIIicultygettingtoamilitaryIacility,theIollowingproceduresapply:
(1) Mail a veriIied copy oI the DD Form 1172 and a copy oI your sponsor's
mobilizationordersto:
(MailingaddressoIunitMSorothermilitaryIacility)
(2)TheissuingoIIicerwillmailapartiallyprocessedIDcardtoyou.
(3)Completeasmanyitemsonthecardaspossible.Don'tIorgettosignit.
(4)ReturntheIDcardtotheissuingoIIicewitha8"x10"photograph.
(5)YourIDcardwillbecompletedandreturnedtoyoubymail.
d. While waiting Ior your ID card to be made, you can use a veriIied copy oI the DD
Form 1172, along with a copy oI your sponsor's mobilization orders as identiIication Ior your
IamilyIoraperiodoI180days.IIyoudonothaveaveriIiedcopyoIDDForm1172,youmay
use your DOD Family Member ID Card (DD Form 1173-1) with your sponsor's mobilization
orders.
111
Deployment/Employment Policy
Asnotedearlier,youarenowonactivedutyandallpersonnelactions(lesspayandpromotions)
willbeimplementedIollowingactivearmypoliciesandprocedures.SomeoIthekeyareasthat
alwayscreateproblemsorareaddressedasconcernsduringalloperationsinclude:
a. LEAVE.(TheaterandEmergency).GuidanceinAR600-8-10applies.Youwill
earnleave2.5dayspermonthwhileonactiveduty.Leavewhileintheaterwillbedeterminedby
thetheatercommander.
b. EARLY RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. AIter M-date at home station
( Ior this operation) you Iall under active army regulations. Unless otherwise
directed by DA, you will be required to report to the mobilization station and process Ior
separationunderAR635-200(enlisted)orAR600-8-24(oIIicers).
c. MEDICAL EVACUATION. II you are medically evacuated Irom theater to
CONUS, both medical and personnel systems establish accountability to ensure you receive
appropriate beneIits. Accountability problems can occur when released Irom the hospital. II
asked where your home station is and where you should report to upon release, you should
providethenameoItheinstallationwhereyoumobilized.Uponrelease,youneedtoreporttoor
coordinate with the appropriate mobilization installation (For this operation your mobilization
stationis)IorcoordinationoIleave,returntotheater,CONUSassignment
orotherpersonnelassignments.
Redeployment and Demobilization
a. LEAVE (Transition). Most soldiers may complete Active Duty with accrued
leave. You will have options oI taking that leave or being paid Ior the leave. The maximum
allowableleaveasoldiermaysellbacktotheArmyis60dayscumulative.Anyleaveyousold
totheArmyaIterpreviousactivedutytourswillcountagainstthetotal.
b. PHYSICAL EXAM/EVALUATION. Guidance on physical examinations or
evaluations may change Ior each operation. Actions could range Irom a simple screening to a
complete examination. It is important that you participate Iully in any medical processing to
avoidproblemswithmedicalissuesaIterreleaseIromactiveduty.
c. EVALUATIONS and AWARDS. Most operations will require that soldiers
receive evaluations Ior their period oI active duty. There is no problem on coordinating the
signaturesIortheevaluationiIyoustaywithinthesamecommandchain.IIthereisachangein
commandorratingschemes,itiscriticaltoensurethatappropriatedocumentsaresignedbeIore
youleavethetheater.Althoughthisisaratingchainresponsibility,youneedtobeawareoIwho
isratingyouduringtheactivedutyperiodandsupportactionstoensurethatallIormsaresigned.
112
Similarly, administrative processing Ior awards should be completed in theater. II you believe
you are authorized an award, you should check with your chain oI command prior to
redeployment.
d. DDFORM214.Thisiscritical.EachsoldierwillreceiveacompletedDDForm
214 prior to release Irom active duty. In the annual review oI you personnel Iiles, you should
ensurethatacopyoIthelastDDForm214youwereissuedisonIile.AllsoldiersmustcareIully
reviewtheDD214preparedattheDMSbeIoresigning.
e. FINAL PAY. Under current procedures, you will remain on the reserve pay
system. II you arent already on SURE PAY, processing will be accomplished during in
processing.Finalpaywillcontinuetobedepositedinsoldier'saccountaIterhis/hertourends.
Whereveryouraccountis,that'swhereyouwillreceiveIinalpay.
I. MEDICAL HOLD AND CONTINUED CARE. You may not be released Irom
activedutyatthesametimeasothers.YourreleasecouldbedelayedbecauseoImedicalhold.
IIyouarenothospitalized,youmaybereleasedIromactivedutybeIoretreatmentiscomplete.II
youarereleasedbeIoretreatmentiscomplete,youwillstillbeauthorizedmedicalcareandmay
be authorized incapacitation pay. It is critical that a line oI duty determination be completed,
priortoyourrelease,toensurethatbeneIitsandentitlementsareauthorized.
g. REEMPLOYMENT. Whether you are ordered to active duty involuntarily or
voluntarily, you are protected Irom discharge Irom employment because oI military obligations
undertheUniIormedServicesEmploymentandReemploymentRightsAct(USERRA),Title38,
Chapter 43 oI the US Federal Code. The position you held prior to mobilization must be an
other than temporary position to obtain protection under the law. Your obligation to the
employerundertheUSERRAisthatyouprovidetimelynotiIication(eitheroralorinwriting)oI
impending orders and report back to work in time Irames according to the duration oI your
militaryservice.ReportingtimeIramesare:
Service oI 1 to 30 days the beginning oI the Iirst regularly scheduled work period that
wouldIallaIterreasonabletraveltimeandeighthoursrest
ServiceoI31to180dayswithin14days
ServiceoI181daysormorewithin90days
AIterreportingbackIorreemployment,theemployermustreemploywithinareasonableperiod
oItimenormallyamatteroIdaysratherthanweeks.Youmustbereadytogobacktoworkthe
day you apply Ior reinstatement. Only in cases where an employer can show cause Ior
termination is not related to an employees military aIIiliation would a returning soldier not be
protected. For example, a lay-oII or termination, which aIIected a group oI personnel (a
company), is not related to an employee's military aIIiliation. II you have problems or seek
additional inIormation, contact NCESGR at 1-800-336-4590, or visit their Web Page at
www.ncesgr.osd.mil.
113
Summary
ThisbrieIinghasbeenpresentedtoprovideyouandyourIamilywithbasicinIormationonwhat
will happen during a call to active duty. As more detailed inIormation is available, it will be
providedtoyouandyourIamily.InIormationwillbeprovidedbycommandbrieIings,pamphlets
andthemailingoIreservepublications,beneIitspackagesandinIormationletterstoyourIamily.
Again,itiscriticalthatyouprovideaddressesIoryourIamilyandemployerstothemobilization
installationtosupportthemailingoIinIormationpackagespriortoandduringtheperiodyouare
onactiveduty.
114
Annex D: (Postmobilization Training) to RC Unit Commanders Handbook
SectionIPostmobilizationTrainingandSupportRequirements(PTSR)
D-1.GENERAL.
a. The concept Ior Postmobilization Training and Support Requirements (PTSR) is to
provide Ior collection and submission oI essential inIormation in a standard Iormat to identiIy
whattheunitneedsIromtheMStoprepareittomeetdeployabilitycriteriaoncemobilized.The
report will be prepared as oI 30 September and Iorwarded, through channels as directed by the
STARC/RSC, to arrive at the Mobilization Station assigned by MOBPLANS by 15 December.
Also, a copy is updated and hand carried to the MS by the unit's advance party upon
mobilization.FORSCOMForm319-RisavailableinautomatedIorm(FormIlow).
b.ThepurposeoIthePTSRistwoIold:1)toallowtheunitanopportunitytoexpressits
unIulIilled needs, and 2) to give the MS a heads-up on what support it will be expected to
provide to the mobilized unit. It is a snapshot in time. The PTSR is designed primarily Ior
deployingunits.Requirementsshouldbebasedonwhatisneededtobringtheunittothehighest
leveloIreadinessinallareas.ThePTSRwillbereviewedattheunit'striennialMSvisit.
D-2.REPORT
a.General.Asstatedpreviously,ReserveComponent(RC)unitswillpreparethereport
at least annually, as oI 30 September to arrive at the assigned mobilization stations by 15 Dec.
Updates are required within 45 days aIter a maior MTOE change/reorganization, signiIicant
change in training readiness or change oI mobilization station. All blocks should be Iilled in,
eitherwithdata,none,orN/A,exceptthoseexemptedintheIollowinginstructions.
b. Instructions Ior Completion oI FORSCOM Form 319-R. Most items are selI-
explanatory.Instructions/clariIicationareprovidedIorselecteditemsasIollows:
1.SectionA-GeneralinIormation.
Item6-Listallsub-unitsoIyourAAUICthatareincludedinthisPTSR.IIunits
withsub-UICsaresubmittingtheirownPTSR,theyshouldnotbelistedhere.
Item 7 - Troop Program Sequence Number (TPSN). Units are exempt Irom
reportingthisitemunderthemanualsystem.
2. Section B - Training and Support Plan. InIormation provided in this section
will be based on the unit's approved postmobilization training plan. It should reIlect
requirementsnecessarytoachieveproIiciencyinalltasksonthetrainingplan.Thesetaskswill
be those that were deIerred Ior postmobilization as well as any pre-mobilization tasks in which
theunitisnotproIicient.PrepareaseparatesectionBpageIoreachweekoItrainingattheMS.
115
CriticalIndividualTasks.ListrequirementsIorcriticaltasks.
Equipment Required. List devices, GTAs, Iilms, audiovisual equipment, etc.,
neededtocompletetraining.UseArmy-widenumbers(DAPamphlets25-37,25-90,350-9and
350-100:TRADOCPamphlet71-9)toidentiIyrequirements.
Ammunition Required. Proiect ammunition required Ior postmobilization
trainingonly.Thisammunitionismanagedthroughtrainingchannels.
Assistance Required. List other training requirements. Be speciIic and describe
clearly.
Ranges/Iiringpoints.ListrequirementsIorranges/Iiringpoints/Iiringtables.
Trainingareas.Listgroundmaneuverareas,andothertrainingareas.
Issues or Assumptions AIIecting Training. Use to ampliIy or to continue
requirementslistedabove.
SectionIIPostmobilizationTrainingSchedule
D-3.General
Based on the approved training and support plan and the support provided Irom the MS as a
resultoIthePTSR,theunitwilldevelopthetrainingscheduletobeIollowedattheMS.Thisis
thenextprogressioninaccomplishingthetrainingnecessaryIortheunittobedeclaredvalidated
Iordeployment.
D-4.REPORT
The postmobilization training schedule will be reIined upon arrival at the mobilization station.
The schedule Iormat will be IAW guidance Irom the MS. Upon arrival at the MS, the unit
commandershouldbepreparedtothoroughlyarticulatehisunit'strainingrequirements/shortIalls
totheMScommanderandhisstaII.
116
Appendix 1 to Annex D (PTSR)
16. MILEAGE (HS t o Mobilizat ion Location) 15. SUPPORTING INSTALLATION(Mobilization)
5. 4. STARC/ MUSARC POC (Name, Grade, Tel No)
9. MAILING ADDRESS (If dif f erent f rom HS Address) 8. HOME STATION (HS) ADDRESS (St reet , Cit y, St ate, ZIPCode)
COMMANDER' S NAME, GRADE, TEL NO
2. UIC 1. UNIT NAME
Requirement s Cont rol Symbol
AFOP-366(R5)
FORSCOM FORM 319-R, 1 DEC 97 EDITION OF 1 NOV 97 IS OBSOLETE. 8x11
POST MOBILIZATION TRAINING AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS (PTSR)
(FORSCOM Reg 500-3-3)
3. DATE
a. As Of b. Of Last Report
a. MTOE/TDA (No/ dat e) b. ALO
UNIT NAME UIC DODAAC ADDITIONAL DODAAC
7. TPSN
SECTION A - GENERAL INFORMATION
10. TEL NO (List All)
COMMERCIAL DSN
11. MAILINGADDRESS (TAG/ MUSARC)
a. TRAINING SUPPORT BRIGADE (TSB) POC (Name, Grade, Tel No)
13. MOBILIZATION LOCATION (St ation, Army Area, Stat e) 14. COORDINATING INSTALLATION (Mobilizat ion)
6. DODAAC LIST OF ALL UNITS MOBILIZING UNDER AA UIC
b. TSB POC VERIFICATION SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
17.
12.
EDITION OF 1 NOV 97 IS OBSOLETE.
DATE
117
Appendix 1 to Annex D (PTSR) Contd
SECTION B - TRAINING AND SUPPORT PLAN
2. WEEK NUMBEROF TRAINING 1. UNIT
3. PRIORITIZED COLLECTIVE TASKS
4. CRITICAL INDIVIDUAL TASKS
5. EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
6. AMMUNITION REQUIRED
7. ASSISTANCE REQUIRED
8. RANGES/ FIRING POINTS
9. TRAINING AREAS
10. ISSUES OR ASSUMPTIONS AFFECTING TRAINING
2
118
Annex E: (Mobilization Checklist for Unit Commanders) to RC Unit Commanders
Handbook
This annex contains a checklist to assist unit commander in preparing Ior their units entry on active duty and
movement to a mobilization station or port oI embarkation. The list may be modiIied to accommodate local
requirementsorconditions.ThischecklistisorganizedbyphaseasindicatedunderreIerenceandwillbeusedasa
reIerenceIordevelopingtheHSActivitiesPlanandschedule.Thoughthechecklistisbroken out by phase, within
eachphase,tasksarenotnecessarilylistedinthesequencethattheyshouldaccomplished.Unitsareencouragedto
usethischecklistateveryopportunity.
PLANNING PHASE (PHASE 1)
TASK REFERENCE
CHAP/PHASE/TAS
KORANNEX
PERSON
ASSIGNED
ACTION
DATE/TIME
COMPLETED
VERIFIED
(1) ProvidepersonnelinIormation. 2-I-1
(2) ConductSoldierReadinessProcessing
(SRP).
2-I-2
(3) MaintainMPRJ(DAForm201) 2-I-3
(4) Updateandmaintainunitdata. 2-I-4
(5) ScreenpersonnelnotavailableIor
deployment
2-I-5
(6) CompleteFamilyCarePlans 2-I-6
(7) EnsureunitmembershaveIDdocuments 2-I-7
(8) IdentiIyandprocesssoldierswithproIiles 2-I-8
(9) Ensurepersonnelhaveasecurityclearance 2-I-9
(10) Providepremobilizationlegalpreparation 2-I-10
(11) MaintainsoldiersMMPA 2-I-11
(12) Maintainhealthrecord(DAForm3444
Series).
2-I-12
(13) Ensuremedicalexamsarecurrent 2-I-13
(14) Ensuredentalexaminations 2-I-14
(15) EnsureDNAspecimeniscompleted 2-I-15
(16) EnsureunitmembersaretestedIorHIV 2-I-16
(17) Ensureimmunizationsarecurrent 2-I-17
(18) IdentiIypersonnelneeding
spectacles/hearing/aids.
2-I-18
(19) IdentiIypersonnelrequiringlensinserts. 2-I-19
(20) VeriIyapplicationIorDEERSenrollment 2-I-20
(21) EstablishaFamilySupportGroup(FSG). 2-I-21
(22) ScreenPractitionerCredentialsFile. 2-I-22
(23) Familiarizeadministrativepersonnelin
SIDPERS.
2-I-23
(24) Appoints/signaturecards. 2-I-24
(25) AssembleandmaintainunitMWRkits. 2-I-25
(26) IdentiIypersonnelrequiringwaiveroI
beneIits.
2-I-26
(27) MaintainaunitmobilizationIile 3-I-1
(28) ConductannualreviewoImobilizationIile 3-I-2
(29) Developpostmobilizationtrainingplan 3-I-3
119
TASK REFERENCE
CHAP/PHASE/TAS
KORANNEX
PERSON
ASSIGNED
ACTION
DATE/TIME
COMPLETED
VERIFIED
(30) DevelopHSunitactivityplan. 3-I-4
(31) TestthealertnotiIicationplan. 3-I-5
(32) EstablishliaisonwithMS. 3-I-6
(33) IdentiIykeypersonneltobeorderedtoduty
early.
3-I-7
(34) ConductapremobilizationbrieIing 3-I-8
(35) EstablishCOMSECaccount. 3-I-9
(36) IdentiIyadvancepartypositionandmission. 3-I-10
(37) EstablishliaisonwithCI/SI. 3-I-11
(38) DeveloplodgingplanIorHS. 4-I-1
(39) DevelopsubsistenceplanIorHS. 4-I-2
(40) IdentiIycontractingrequirementstotheSI
/USPFO
4-I-3
(41) IdentiIyClassVABLrequirement 4-I-4
(42) IdentiIyClassVIII,medicalsupply
requirement.
4-I-5
(43) Prepareaunitmovementplan. 4-I-6
(44) Testunitloadplan. 4-I-7
(45) MaintainCOMPASSAUEL/TCACCIS
UELdocuments.
4-I-8
(46) Developandcoordinateunitretrievalplans. 4-I-9
(47) IdentiIypropertynotbetakentotheMS. 4-I-10
(48) PlantotransIerIacilityresponsibility 4-I-11
120
ALERT PHASE (PHASE II)
TASK REFERENCE
CHAP/PHASE/TAS
KORANNEX
PERSON
ASSIGNED
ACTION
DATE/TIME
COMPLETED
VERIFIED
(1) Coordinatemissionrelatedtravel. 2-II-1
(2) ReviewandvalidatereceiptoIunitorders. 2-II-2
(3) Review,coordinate/validateorders 2-II-3
(4) Releaseattachedpersonnel. 2-II-4
(5) Screenpromotioneligiblepersonnel. 2-II-5
(6) IdentiIypersonnelwhorequireevaluation
reports.
2-II-6
(7) Orderunitmemberstoactiveduty. 2-II-7
(8) NotiIyIinanceoIunitsmobilization 2-II-8
(9) Processdelayedarrivalpersonnel. 2-II-9
(10) Reviewappointmentmemo. 2-II-10
(11) Increaseupdatetounit/personneldatabases. 2-II-11
(12) ActivatetheunitIamilysupportnetwork 2-II-12
(13) SoldierIinancialreadiness. 2-II-13
(14) UpdateHSactivitiesplan. 3-II-1
(15) Respondtopressinquiries. 3-II-2
(16) TakeactionoutlinedintheMobilization
ChecklistIorunitcommanders.
3-II-3
(17) Finalizepostmobilizationtrainingplanand
PTSR.
3-II-3
(18) IdentiIyadvancepartymembers. 3-II-4
(19) IdentiIystorageIorclassiIiedmaterialatMS. 3-II-6
(20) ReviewUnitStatusReport. 3-II-7
(21) CoordinatearrivaloIIillers. 3-II-8
(22) MakeIinalcoordinationIorHSlogistics
plans.
4-II-1
(23) Updatecontractingrequirements. 4-II-2
(24) CoordinaterequirementIorsignaturecards
withMS.
4-II-3
(25) PreparememotoMStoestablishaccount. 4-II-4
(26) PreparetoconductashowdowninspectionoI
OCIEandpersonaluniIorms.
4-II-5
(27) IdentiIyandprocurePOLpackagedproduct. 4-II-6
(28) ReviewandupdateABLdocumentation. 4-II-7
(29) Preparerecords/conductinventoryoIunit
property
4-II-8
(30) Reviewmedicalitem,requisitionIorClass
VIII
4-II-9
(31) ReviewPLLlisting 4-II-10
(32) CoordinatetransIeroIpropertynottakento
MS
4-II-11
(33) Coordinatewithmaintenanceactivities 4-II-12
(34) Retrieveoperationalrecords 4-II-13
(35) Updatecalibrationrecords 4-II-14
(36) Reviewandcoordinateunitmovementplan. 4-II-15
121
TASK REFERENCE
CHAP/PHASE/TAS
KORANNEX
PERSON
ASSIGNED
ACTION
DATE/TIME
COMPLETED
VERIFIED
(37) UpdateCOMPASSAUEL/TCACCISUEL 4-II-16
(38) Executeequipmentretrievalplans. 4-II-17
(39) StorageoIpersonalpropertyandhousehold
goods.
4-II-18
122
HOME STATION PHASE (PHASE III)
Task Reference
Chap/Phase/Task
orAnnex
Person
Assigned
Action
Date/Time
Completed
Verified
(1) VeriIyarrivalstatusoIpersonnel. 2-III-1
(2) InitiateSRPcheckIormobilization. 2-III-2
(3) IdentiIymedicallydisqualiIiedpersonnel. 2-III-3
(4) VeriIysoldierIinancialreadiness 2-III-4
(5) Reviewandupdateindividualrecords. 2-III-5
(6) ProcessrecordoIemergencydata. 2-III-6
(7) Prepareevaluationreports. 2-III-7
(8) CompletechangeoIaddresscards. 2-III-8
(9) ProcessIamilymemberIDcards. 2-III-9
(10) VeriIyIDcardsandtags. 2-III-10
(11) ProcessGenevaConventionidentitycardiI
required.
2-III-11
(12) Securityclearancerosters. 2-III-12
(13) PrepareclaimsIortravel. 2-III-13
(14) ArrangeIorlegalservices. 2-III-14
(15) Providehealth,MMPA,andpersonnelto
MS.
2-III-15
(16) RecordsprocessingIorDirectDeploying
Units.
2-III-16
(17) AccountIormedicalemergencies/complete
LOD.
2-III-17
(18) Incentivesandentitlements. 2-III-18
(19) ProvideIinalpersonnelreport. 2-III-19
(20) CoordinatetransIeroIdatatothe
2-III-20
(21) CoordinatewithMSondate/timeIor
reporting.
3-III-1
(22) ExecuteHSactivitiesplan 3-III-2
(23) DispatchadvancepartytoMS. 3-III-3
(24) Conductanoperations/inIormationstatus
brieIing.
3-III-4
(25) UpdateUnitStatusReport. 3-III-5
(26) PrepareclassiIiedmaterialIormovement. 3-III-6
(27) ProvideHSsupport/services. 4-III-1
(28) Implementcontractprocess. 4-III-2
(29) Completesignaturecards. 4-III-3
(30) PreparememotoestablishDiningFacility
account
4-III-4
(31) Conductashowdowninspection. 4-III-5
(32) PreparerequisitionsIorPOL. 4-III-6
(33) FinalizeDAForm581IorABL. 4-III-7
(34) FinalizereconciliationoIPropertyBook. 4-III-8
(35) FinalizeClassVIIIrequisitions. 4-III-9
(36) FinalizePLL/ASLlistingandprepare
requisitions.
4-III-10
123
Task Reference
Chap/Phase/Task
orAnnex
Person
Assigned
Action
Date/Time
Completed
Verified
(37) CompletetransIeroIpropertynottakento
MS.
4-III-11
(38) Finalizematerialconditionstatusreport. 4-III-12
(39) ExecuteMobilizationMovementPlan. 4-III-13
(40) FinalizeCOMPASSAUEL/TCACCISUEL 4-III-14
(41) CompletetransIeroIIacilities/property 4-III-15
(42) CompletestorageoIpersonalproperty 4-III-16
124
Annex F: (Guidelines for Determining Security Clearance Requirements) to RC
Unit Commanders Handbook
F-1. Generalguidelinestoassistthecommanderindeterminingclearancerequirementsare:
a. All oIIicers and warrant oIIicers commissioned aIter 1 Jan 88 will have a
SECRETsecurityclearancepriortocommissioning.
b. NeedIoraccesstoclassiIiedinIormation.
c. Certainpersonnel,becauseoItheirMOS,arerequiredbyArmyregulationtohave
a security clearance. ReIer to AR 611-201 (enlisted), AR 611-101 (oIIicers), and AR 611-122
(warrant oIIicers). Even iI the individual does not currently require access, they must maintain
theclearancetoretaintheMOS.
d. Allmessagecenter,administrativeanddistributionpersonnelshouldhaveatleast
aSECRETclearance.
e. All individuals who have unescorted access to unopened oIIicial Iirst class mail,
accountablemail,bulkshipmentsorotherpotentiallyclassiIiedshipmentsmustpossessatleasta
SECRETclearance.
I. All company and battalion administrative personnel should have at least a
CONFIDENTIALclearance.
g. All communications personnel should have at least a SECRET clearance. This
includes personnel who operate communications equipment (e.g., the commander's driver and
radiooperator).
h. All personnel in a chemical or ADP personnel reliability program (PRP) should
haveappropriateinvestigationsandclearances(AR50-5,AR50-6,andAR380-19).
i. In each situation, operational considerations may dictate a higher degree oI
securityclearance.ThismustbeanticipatedandplannedIorbythecommanderandhisstaII.
F-2. Some basic questions the commander and security manager should ask to assist in
determiningtheoverallpersonnelsecurityclearancerequirementsare:
a. DoestheunithaveaclassiIiedmissionduringpeacetime?
b. DoestheunithaveaclassiIiedmobilizationmission?
c. WhatisthehighestleveloIclassiIicationoItheunitsmission?
125
d. Does the unit have a support role that may require the unit to handle classiIied
documentsormaterial?
e. Have clearance problems identiIied during training been documented? What is
requiredtosolvetheseproblems?
I. DoestheunithaveclassiIiedequipment?Whohandlesorhasaccesstoit?Who
repairsit?
g. Will the unit be issued classiIied equipment upon mobilization? Who will be
requiredtohandleit?
h. DoestheunithaveequipmentthatwillbeIittedwithclassiIiedcomponentsupon
mobilization?Whowillberequiredtouseit?
i. Does the unit posses, or will it be required to posses, classiIied cryptographic
keyingmaterial?
F-3. Whenadeterminationismadeonwhorequiresaclearanceandthelevels,theIollowing
actionsaretaken:
a. AnnotatetheunitmanningreportindicatingtheleveloIclearancerequired.
b. Contactthenext higher unit in the chain oI command Ior assistance in resolving
problemsthatcannotbehandledattheunitlevel.
c. Submit the appropriate investigative Iorms and request Ior security clearance
actions on unit personnel who require a security clearance Ior your unit IAW established
clearance-processingprocedures.
d. Develop a suspense system to Iollow-up on clearance actions that have been
submitted.
e. Develop a system to ensure quality control oI paperwork to avoid costly delays
causedbypaperworkbeingreturnedIorcorrection.
126
Annex G: (Required Documents
Checklist) to RC Unit Commanders
Handbook
G-1. The purpose oI this checklist is to standardize
the required documents that a unit commander must
prepare and take to the mobilization station (MS)
upon mobilization or during mobilization exercises.
This checklist will not be supplemented. Any
recommended additions or deletions may be
Iorwarded to HQ FORSCOM, AFOP-OCM, Ior
consideration.
G-2. The checklist contains all unit requirements to
meet mobilization station needs. RC unit
commanders will ensure that these documents
accompany the advance party, and that members oI
the party are knowledgeable oI them and the
requirements oI the unit to complete preparations Ior
deployment. II time (accelerated Phase II and/or
Phase III) precludes completion, the main body must
comply with the provisions upon arrival at the MS.
ThischecklistdoesnotrelievetheunitIromtakingall
unitequipmentandadministrativerecordsandIiles.
G-3. II the stated requirements are not completed at
thehomestation,theywillhavetobecompletedupon
arrival at the MS. Every eIIort will be made to
complete all requirements prior to departure Irom
homestation,sincetimeisoItheessenceaIterarrival
attheMS.
G-4.TheIollowingchecklistisintendedtoprovidea
sequential identiIication oI unit mobilization
requirement reIerences. A unit organization
(DerivativeUIC)whichisorganizedatlessthanIull
MTOE capabilities will not be required to IulIill Iull
unitrequirements,i.e.USR(Itemg),PTSR,TAM,
etc.
127
ITEM REFERENCE
a. AssumptionoIcommandletter FORSCOMReg500-3-3
b. UpdatedunitPostmobilizationTrainingPlanandrevisedFORSCOM
Form319-R,PostmobilizationTrainingandSupportRequirements(PTSR
Hardcopy)
FORSCOMReg500-3-3
c. LatestevaluationoIAnnualTraining(TAM)(ARNGonly)andlatest
ComplianceInspectionbySTARC/RSC
FM25-100/101
d. CopiesoIUnitMobilizationOrder FORMDEPS
e. CopyoIMTOE/TDAandlettersoIauthorization
I. CompleteUpdatedUnitStatusReport(DAForm2715and2715-R) AR220-1
g. RequiredMemorandums
1. DiningFacilityAccount AR30-1
2. VeriIicationbyS2/SecurityManageroIaSecretclearanceIoreach
UnitMailClerk
AR600-8-3andDoD4525.6-M,
VolumeII
3. VeriIicationbyS2/SecurityManageroIaIavorablelocalIiles
checkIoreachUnitMailOrderly
AR600-8-3andDoD4525.6-M,
VolumeII
h. AppointmentOrders(MemorandumFormat)Ior:
1. MobilizationPurchasingAuthority
2. ClaimsOIIicer
3. PropertyBookOIIicer
4. ArmyOilAnalysisProgramCoordinatorandalternate
5. COMSECCustodian/Alternate
6. SecurityManager
7. SaIetyManager
8. TelephoneControlOIIicer
9. PublicationsControlOIIicer
10. ClassiIiedCustodian
11. ISSO(InIormationSystemsSecurityOIIicer)
12UnitPostalOIIicer
13.InIormationManagementOIIicer
FORMDEPS
AR710-2
TB43-0210
FORSCOMReg380-41:AR380-
40:TB380-41-2
AR380-5
AR385-10
AR105-23
AR25-30
AR380-5
AR380-19
AR600-8-3andDoD4525.6-M,
VolumeII
AR25-1
i. PurchaseOrder(Invoice/Voucher)SF44 FORMDEPS
i. UnitPropertyBook FORMDEPS
k. DAForm1687,DelegationoIAuthorityIorreceiptoIsuppliesand
DDForm577,SignatureCard(asrequiredbythemobilizationstation)
preparedIor:
1. Trainingaids/Audiovisual
2. CentralIssueFacility
3. IMPACTAccount
4. IMSA(ClassVIII)
5. Signal
6. Engineersupplies
7. TDA/TOEsupplies
8. Realproperty
9. TroopIssueSubsistenceActivity(TISA)
10. AmmunitionSupplyPoint(ASP)
FORMDEPS
AR710-2
AR710-2
AR710-2
AR710-2
128
l. ClassII-
1. DAForm3645,OrganizationClothing&Equipment(record)
Shortages.
2. DAForm2765-1IorShortagesorDAForm3161.
3. DAForm3078Iorpersonalclothing
FORMDEPS
m. ClassIV-DAForm2765-1,ConstructionandFortiIicationShortages
(TrainingRequirementsOnly)
FORMDEPS
n. ClassV-DAForm581,RequestIorissueandTurn-inoIAmmunition
basicload(ABL),AIIQTAT.
FORMDEPS
o. ClassVIII-MedicalSupplyRequisitions(DAForm2765-1) FORMDEPS
p. ClassIX-CopyoIPLL/ASLandshortagerequisitions FORMDEPS
q. Maintenance
1. DAForm2406,MaterielConditionStatusReportand/orDA
Form1352,MaterielConditionReport(AircraIt)and/orDAForm3266-1
ArmyMissileReadinessReport
2. ListoIitemsrequiringcalibration
FORMDEPS
FORMDEPS
r. Transportation
1. COMPASSAUEL/TCACCISUELUpdate
2. DeploymentMovementPlan
3. DriverQualiIications
FORSCOMReg55-1
FORSCOMReg55-1
FORMDEPS
s. ComputerizedUnitManningRoster/Reportannotatedwith:
1. RosteroINondeployingpersonnelwithreasonwhynondeployable
2. RosteroIAWOLsandnoshows(Name,Rank,SSN,UnitHome
Address,andSecurityClearance.)
3. Positionsrequiringsecurityclearances
4. Disciplinaryactions
FORMDEPS
FORMDEPS
t. Records(NOTE:RecordsIoradvancepartywillnotbetransportedin
thesamevehicleoraircraItasthepersonnel)
1. MilitaryPersonnelJacket(DAForm201)
2. Finance(DAForm2356)
3. Medical(DAForm3444Series)
4. Dental(SF603)Paragraph
5. HealthcareproviderAR40-68PractitionerCredentialsFiles
(PCFs)CertiIiedMailPreIerred
(a)DAForm4691-R
(b)CurrentDAForm5440-(Specialty)-R
(c)CurrentDAForm5441-(Specialty)-R
(d)CurrentDAForm5754-R
(e)CurrentDAForm537
(I)Medicalschooldiplomaw/primarysourceveriIication
(g)GraduateMedicalEducationdiploma(s)
(h)Currentstatelicense
(i)ProoIoIcurrentbasicoradvancedcardiacliIesupport.
(i)AnyotherdocumentthatmayaIIectprivileging.
FORMDEPS
AR600-8-104
AR40-66
AR40-66
u. PendingPersonnelactions:Promotions
v. DAForm3955(ChangeoIAddressandDirectoryCards) FORMDEPS
AR340-5,DOD4526.6.M
w. SeriousIncidentReports(iIapplicable) AR190-10&AR190-11
x. AccidentReports(iIapplicable) AR190-5&AR190-9
y. Form3986,PersonnelAssetInventory AR680-31
z. RosteroIpersonnelrequiringIdentiIicationTags FORMDEPS
129
aa. DDForm577,SignatureCards,asapplicable. PreparedIor:
1. ClassiIiedCourier
2. MoraleWelIareRecreationFundRepresentative
3. CustodianoIClassiIiedDocuments
4. MobilizationPurchasingAuthority(MPA)
FORMDEPS
AR105-31:AR380-5
AR37-103:AR380-5
FORMDEPS
ab. DDForm285,AppointmentoIMilitaryPostalClerk,UnitMailClerk,
orMailOrderly
1. PrimaryUnitMailClerk
2. AlternateUnitMailClerk
3. UnitMailOrderly(TwoIoreachcompanysection)
AR600-8-3andDoD4525.6-M,
VolumeII
ac. PersonnelSecurityClearanceRosterIorentrancetoEOC FORMDEPS
ad. RosteroIPersonnelrequiringsecurityclearancesandappropriateIorms
necessarytoobtainaclearance.
1. CONFIDENTIALandSECRETclearance
(a)ProoIoIUScitizenship.
(b)SF86(QuestionnaireIorNationalSecurityPositions)
(c)FD258(FingerprintCard).
2. TOPSECRET
(a)SF86(QuestionnaireIorNationalSecurityPositions)|Items9,
10&11mustcontaininIormationIorpast10years.|
(b)FD258(FingerprintCard).
(c)ProoIoIUSCitizenship.
(d)DDForm1879(RequestIorPersonalSecurityInvestigation).
AR380-67
ae. ClaimsIortravelIromhometoassemblysite(DD1351-2) FORMDEPS
aI. MobilizationPurchasingAuthority(MPA)ProcurementReporting
InIormation
FORMDEPS
ag.PSForm3801(StandingDeliveryOrder)IorUnitMailClerk
ah.ListoIADPEbeingbroughttothemobstationtoincludemake/model,
memory,disk,processor,networkinterIacetype,warrantyinIormation,and
titleandversionoIallinstalledsoItware.IncludesensitivityoIdatabeing
processed,i.e.,unclassiIied,conIidential,secret
ai.ListoISystemAdministrators(SA)Iormulti-userserversystems(iI
applicable).AlsoindicatewhatspeciIictechnicalAIS-relatedtrainingthey
havereceived
ai.Stand-aloneandBattleIieldAutomationSystem(BAS)accreditations
Ioreachcomputerbeingbroughttothemobstation.
ak.ListoIremotesystemsonDODandcommercialnetworksthatyoumust
communicatewithwhileatthemobstation.IncludeIPaddressesandhelp
deskphonenumbersIorthesesystems/networks,iIpossible.Describethe
IunctionorpurposeoIeachconnection.IIavailable,listspecialInternet
servicesandprotocols(i.e.,FTP,SMTP,NETBIOS,etc.)thatmustpass
overtheDODorcommercialInternet.
130
Annex H: (References) to RC Unit Commanders Handbook
ThisannexliststhepublicationsandblankIormsusedassourcereIerencesIorcompilingthishandbook.
PUBLICATIONS.
NUMBER TITLE
AR5-9 IntraserviceSupportInstallationAreaCoordination
AR20-1 InspectorGeneralActivitiesandProcedures
AR25-1 TheArmyInIormationResourcesManagementProgram
AR25-11 RecordCommunicationsandthePrivacyCommunicationsSystem
AR25-30 TheArmyIntegratedPublishingandPrintingProgram
AR25-51 OIIicialMailandDistributionManagement
AR27-10 MilitaryJustice
AR30-1 TheArmyFoodServiceProgram
AR30-21 TheArmyFieldFeedingSystem
AR37-103 FinanceandAccountingIorInstallations:DisbursingOperations
AR37-104-4 MilitaryPayandAllowancesPolicyandProceduresActiveComponent
AR37-104-10 MilitaryPayandAllowanceProceduresIorInactiveDutyTrainingJointUniIormPay
System,ReserveComponents.
AR37-106 FinanceandAccountingIorInstallationsStationandEvacuationAllowancesFinance
Handbook(Update)
AR40-3 Medical,DentalandVeterinaryCare
AR40-5 PreventiveMedicine
AR40-15 MedicalWarningTagandEmergencyMedicalIdentiIication
AR40-61 MedicalLogisticsPoliciesandProcedures
AR40-63 OphthalmicServices
AR40-66 MedicalRecordandQualityAssuranceAdministration
AR40-68 QualityAssuranceAdministration
AR40-501 StandardsoIMedicalFitness
AR40-562 ImmunizationRequirementsandProcedures
AR50-5 NuclearSurety
AR50-6 ChemicalSuretyProgram
AR55-71 TransportationoIPersonalPropertyandRelatedServices
AR55-113 MovementoIUnitsWithinContinentalUnitedStates
AR135-91 ServiceObligations,MethodsoIFulIillment,ParticipationRequirementsand
EnIorcementProcedures-ReserveComponentsPersonnel(Update)
AR135-133 ReadyReserveScreening,QualiIicationRecordsSystemandChangeoIAddress
Reports-ReserveComponentsPersonnel(Update)
AR135-155 PromotionoICommissionedOIIicersandWarrantOIIicersOtherthanGeneral
OIIicers-ReserveComponentsPersonnel(Update)
AR135-175 SeparationoIOIIicers-ReserveComponentsPersonnel(Update)
AR135-178 SeparationoIEnlistedPersonnel-ReserveComponentsPersonnel(Update)
AR135-210 OrdertoActiveDutyasIndividualsduringPeacetime
AR145-1 SeniorROTCProgramOrganizationAdministrationandTraining
AR190-5 MotorVehicleTraIIicSupervision
AR190-9 MilitaryAbsenteeandDeserterApprehensionProgram
AR190-11 PhysicalSecurityoIWeapons,Ammunition,andExplosives-PhysicalSecurity
Handbook(Update)
AR190-51 SecurityoIUnclassiIiedArmyProperty(Sensitiveandnon-sensitive-Physical
SecurityHandbook(Update)
131
AR215-1 NonappropriatedFundInstrumentalitiesandMorale,WelIare,andRecreation
Activities
AR220-1 UnitStatusReporting(RCSJCS6-11-2-1-6)
AR220-10 PreparationIorOverseasMovementoIUnits(POM)
AR220-45 DutyRoster
AR310-50 CatalogoIAbbreviationsandBrevityCodes
AR340-21 TheArmyPrivacyProgramreplacedbyAR25-51AR350-30
AR380-5 DepartmentoIArmyInIormationSecurityProgramRegulation
AR380-19 InIormationSystemsSecurity
AR380-19-1(C) ControlandCompromisingEmanation(TEMPEST)
AR380-40 PolicyIorSaIeguardingandControllingCommunicationsSecurity(COMSEC)
Material(C)
AR380-67 PersonnelSecurityProgramRegulation
AR381-12 SubversionandEspionageDirectedAgainstUSArmyandDeliberateSecurity
Violations(ShortTitle:SAEDA)
AR381-26 TheArmyForeignMaterielExploitationProgram
AR385-10 TheArmySaIetyProgram
AR385-40 ArmyAccidentInvestigationandReporting
AR500-5 TheArmyMobilizationandOperationsPlanningandExecutionSystem(AMOPES)
AR600-8-1 ArmyCasualty,MemorialAIIairsandInvestigations
AR600-8-3 UnitPostalOperations
AR600-8-6 PersonnelAccountingandStrengthReporting
AR600-8-14 IdentiIicationCards,Tags,andBadges
AR600-8-101 PersonnelProcessing(In-and-outandMobilization),SoldierReadinessProcessing
(SRP)
AR600-8-104 MilitaryPersonnel InIormation Management/Records
AR600-8-105 MilitaryOrders
AR600-20 ArmyCommandPolicyandProcedures
AR600-43 ConscientiousObiection
AR600-55 TheArmyDriverandOperatorStandardizationProgram(Selection,Training,
Testing,andLicensing)
AR600-60 PhysicalPerIormanceEvaluationSystems(AC)
AR600-110 IdentiIication,SurveillanceandAdministrationoIPersonnelInIectedwithHuman
ImmunodeIiciencyVirus(HIV)
AR600-200 EnlistedPersonnelManagementSystem(Update)
AR601-25 DelayinReportingIorandExemptionFromActiveDutyandActiveDutyTraining
AR601-210 RegularArmyandArmyReserveEnlistmentProgramServiceman'sGroupLiIe
Insurance(SGLI):VeteransGroupLiIeInsurance(VGLI)
AR600-8-29 OIIicerPromotions
AR611-5 ArmyPersonnelSelectionandClassiIicationTesting
AR611-6 ArmyLinguistManagement
AR611-101 CommissionedOIIicerClassiIicationSystem,MilitaryOccupationalClassiIication
StructureHandbook(Update)
AR611-112 ManualoIWarrantOIIicerMilitaryOccupationalSpecialties,MilitaryOccupational
ClassiIicationStructureHandbook(Update)
AR611-201 EnlistedCareerManagementFieldsandMilitaryOccupationalSpecialty,Military
OccupationalClassiIicationStructureHandbook(Update)
AR612-201 Processing,Control,andDistributionoIPersonnelatUSArmyReceptionBattalions
andTrainingCenters(RCSMILPC-17|R1|)andDistributionoITrainees(RCS
MILPC-17)
AR614-30 OverseasServiceAllRanksPersonnelHandbook(Update)
AR623-105 OIIicerEvaluationReportingSystemEvaluationHandbook(Update)
AR623-205 EnlistedEvaluationReportingSystemEvaluationHandbook(Update)
AR630-10 AbsenceWithoutLeave,DerelictionandAdministrationoIPersonnelinvolvedin
CivilianCourtProceedings
132
AR690-11 MobilizationPlanningandManagement
AR700-84 IssueandSaleoIPersonalClothing,UnitSupplyUpdate
AR710-2 InventoryManagementSupplyPolicyBelowtheWholesaleLevel-UnitSupply
Update
AR710-3 AssetandTransactionReportingSystem
AR725-50 Requisitioning,Receipt,andIssueSystem
AR735-5 PoliciesandProceduresIorPropertyAccountability-UnitSupplyUpdate
AR750-1 ArmyMaterialMaintenancePolicies,MaintenanceManagementUpdate
DAPAM25-33 TheStandardArmyPublicationsSystem(STARPUBS)
DAPAM25-37 IndexoIGraphicTrainingAids(GTA)
DAPAM25-380-2 SecurityproceduresIorcontrolledcryptographicitems
DAPAM40-501 HearingConservation
DAPAM350-9 IndexandDescriptionoIArmyTrainingDevices
DAPAM350-100 ExtensionTrainingMaterialsConsolidatedCatalog
DAPam385-40 ArmyAccidentInvestigationandReporting
DAPAM600-8 ManagementandAdministrativeProcedures
DAPAM600-8-1 StandardInstallation/DivisionPersonnelSystem(SIDPERS)BattalionS1Level
Procedures(VOLI)
DAPAM600-8-2 SIDPERSUserManual-MilitaryPersonnelOIIice(LevelProcedures)
DAPAM608-47 AGuidetoEstablishingFamilySupportGroups
DAPAM611-54 ManualIorTestingWomenApplicantsatReserveComponents
DAPAM611-54-1 ManualIorTestingMenApplicantsatReserveComponents
DAPAM710-2-1 UsingUnitSupplySystemManualProcedures-UnitSupplyUpdate
DAPAM710-2-2 SupplySupportActivitySupplySystem:ManualProcedures-UnitSupplyUpdate
DAPAM738-750 FunctionalUserManualIortheArmyMaintenanceManagementSystem(TAMMS)-
MaintenanceManagementUpdate
DOD4500.9-R VolII,CargoMovements
DOD4500.9-R VolIII,Mobility
DOD4500.34-R PersonalPropertyTraIIicManagementRegulation
DOD4525.6-MVol1
DOD4525.6-MVol2 DODPostalManualDOD5040.2-C-1
DAPAM25-30 IndexoIAdministrativePublicationsandBlankForms(MicroIiche).
CTA8-100 ArmyMedicalDepartmentExpendable/DurableItems
CTA50-900 ClothingandIndividualEquipment
CTA50-909 FieldandGarrisonFurnishingandEquipment
CTA50-970 Expendable/DurableItems
FM14-7 FinanceOperations
FM19-30 PhysicalSecurity
FM25-100 TrainingtheForce
FM25-101 BattleFocusedTraining
FM55-30 ArmyMotorTransportOperationsandUnits
FM55-312 MilitaryConvoyOperationsintheContinentalUnitedStates
FM100-17 Mobilization,Deployment,RedeploymentandDemobilization(MDRD)
FORSCOM/ARNGReg
55-1
UnitMovementPlanning
FR55-2 UnitMovementDataReportingandSystemsAdministration
FR115-11 Climatic,HydrologicalandTopographicService
FR135-7 TrainingAssessment
FR380-41 CommunicationsSecurity
FR500-3 FORSCOMMobilizationandDeploymentPlanningSystem(FORMDEPS)
FR700-2 FORSCOMStandingLogisticsInstructions
FR700-3 AmmunitionBasicLoad
TB380-41 ProcedureIorSaIeguarding,Accounting,andSupplyControloICOMSECMaterial
DODPAM AGuidetoReserveComponentFamilies.
TM746-10 Marking,Packaging,andShipmentoISuppliesandEquipment:GeneralPacking
133
InstructionsIorFieldUnits
NGR310-10 MilitaryOrders
NGR600-2 ScreeningoIArmyNationalGuard
NGR600-200 Enlistedpersonnelmanagement
NGR614-1 InactiveArmyNationalGuardAdministration
NGR635-100 FormationoIAppointmentandWithdrawaloIFederalrecognition
NGR680-2 AutomatedRetirementPointsAccountingSystem
ACP190USSuppl1(C)-
GuidetoFrequency
Planning
BLANK FORMS.
DA FORMS:
FORMNUMBER TYPE TITLE
2Series PersonnelQualiIicationRecordPartI
6 CS DutyRoster
12Series PublicationsandBlankFormsAccounts
17 CS RequestIorPublicationsandBlankForms
31 CS RequestAuthorityIorLeave
201 FL MilitaryPersonnelRecordsJacket,U.S.Army
285-AB-R U.S.ArmyAbbreviatedGroundAccidentReport(AGAR)
330 ST3 LanguageProIiciencyQuestionnaire
581 STC6 RequestIorIssueandTurninoIAmmunition
705 CD ArmyPhysicalFitnessTestCard
1352 CS ArmyAircraItInventory,StatusandFlyingTimeReport
1380 ST3 RecordoIIndividualPerIormanceoIReserveDutyTraining
1687 ST3 NoticeoIDelegationoIAuthority-ReceiptIorSupplies
2062 CS HandReceipt/AnnexNumber
2356 CS
2397Series TechnicalReportoIU.S.ArmyAircraItAccident
2406 CS MaterielConditionStatusReport
2407 ST5 MaintenanceRequest
2715-R UnitStatusReport
2765 TCBX RequestIorIssueorTurn-in
2765-1 ST4 RequestIorIssueorTurn-in
3053 CS DeclarationoIRetiredPayBeneIitsWaiver
3078 ST6 PersonnelClothingRequest
3161 ST6 RequestIorIssueorTurn-in
3266-1 CS ArmyMissileMaterielConditionStatusReport
3365 CS AuthenticationIorMedicalWarningTag
3444Series TerminalDigitFileIorTreatmentRecords
3645 PD50 OrganizationClothingandIndividualEquipmentRecord
3964 ClassiIiedDocumentAccountabilityRecord
3685R JSS-ArmyPayElections
3716 JUMPS/JSS-ArmyPersonnelFinancialRecordsU.S.Army
3953 PD50 PurchaseRequestandCommitment
3955 ChangeoIAddressandDirectoryCard
4187 PersonnelAction
4886 CS Issue-in-KindPersonalClothingRecord(EnlistedReserve)
5304R FamilyCareCounselingChecklist
134
5504 MaintenanceRequest
5960 AuthorizationtoStartandStopBAQ
DD FORM
FORMNUMBER TITLE
2A ActiveDutyMilitaryIDCard
4 Enlistment/ReenlistmentDocument
93 RecordoIEmergencyData
137 ApplicationIorBAQwithSecondaryDependents
214 CertiIicateoIReleaseDischargeIromActiveDuty
285 AppointmentoIMilitaryPostalPersonnel
577 SignatureCard
1172 ApplicationIorUniIormedServicesIdentiIicationCardDEERSEnrollment
1173 UniIormedServicesIdentiIicationandPrivilegeCard
1173-1 DEERS
1348-6 DODSingleLineItemRequisitionSystemDocument
1351-2 TravelVoucherorSubvoucher
1561 AuthorizationIorFamilySeparationAllowance
1879 RequestIorPersonalSecurityInvestigation
1934 GenevaConventionIdentityCardIorMedicalandAuthorizedReligiousPersonnelwho
serveinorAccompanytheArmedForces
2501 CourierAuthorization
2558 ChangeoIAllotment
2559 Savingsbondallotmentauthorization/activedutyorretiredpay
FORSCOM FORMS
12-R RequesttoEstablish/ChangeaFORSCOMPublicationsAccount
149-R AmmunitionBasicLoadComputationSheet
248-R RequestIorMotorTransportation
285-1-R RequestIorCommercialTransportation
319-R PostmobilizationTrainingandSupportRequirements(PTSR)
900-R ComputerizedMovementPlanningandStatusSystem(COMPASS)
SF FORM
44 PurchaseOrder-InvoiceVoucher
76 PostCardApplicationIorAbsenteeBallot
86 QuestionnaireIorNationalSecurityPositions
601 ImmunizationRecord
603 DentalRecord
1199A AuthorizationIorDepositsoIFederalRecurringPayments
NGB FORMS
23A RetirementCredits-Records
SGLV FORMS
135
8286 RequestIorInsurance-SGLI
IRS FORM
W-4 Employee'sWithholdingExemptionCertiIicate
FBI FORMS
FD258 FingerprintCard
136
Annex X: (Glossary) to RC Unit Commanders Handbook
SECTION I: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASF ArmyAviationSupportFacility
ABL AmmunitionBasicLoad
AC ActiveComponent
ACB ArmyclassiIicationbattery
AD ActiveDuty
ADP AutomatedDataProcessing
ADPE AutomatedDataProcessing
Equipment
ADSW ActiveDutyIorSpecialWork
ADT ActiveDutyIorTraining
AEC AreaEquipmentCompounds
AESR ArmyEquipmentStatusReport
AF AugmentationForce
AFO ArmyFinanceOIIicer
AFS AviationSupportFacility
AG AdiutantGeneral
AGC AdiutantGeneralsCorps
AGR ActiveGuard/Reserve
AIIQ AmmunitionInitialIssue
Quantity
ALD AvailabletoLoadDate
ALO AuthorizedLeveloI
Organization
AMC ArmyMaterielCommand
AMDF ArmyMasterDataFile
AMEDD ArmyMedicalDepartment
AMO AutomationManagementOIIice
AMOPES ArmyMobilizationand
OperationsPlanningand
ExecutionSystem
AMSA AreaMaintenanceSupport
Activities
AOMS AreaOrganizationMaintenance
Shop
APOE AerialPortoIEmbarkation
ARCASP ArmyReadinessCivilian
AcquiredSkillsProgram
ARPERCOM U.S.ArmyReservePersonnel
Command
ARNG ArmyNationalGuard
ARTEP ArmyTrainingandEvaluation
Program
ASGD Assigned
ASL AuthorizedStockageLevel
AT AnnualTraining
ATP ArmyTrainingPlan
ATTN Attention
AUEL AutomatedUnitEquipmentList
AWOL AbsentWithoutLeave
BBM Blocking,BracingMaterial
BBPCT Blocking,Bracing,Packing,
CratingandTiedownmaterial
BFTMS BattleFocusedTraining
ManagementSystem
BLDG Building
CARS CombatArmsRegimental
System
CASP CivilianAcquiredSkills
Program
CBS-X ContinuingBalanceSystem-
Expanded
CCISP ControlledCryptographicItem
Serialization
CHAP Chapter
CI CoordinatingInstallation
CNGB ChieI,NationalGuardBureau
CO ConscientiousObiector
COMPASS ComputerizedMovement
PlanningandStatusSystem
COMPO ComponentCode
COMSEC CommunicationsSecurity
CONUS ContinentalUnitedStates
CONUSA ContinentalUSArmy
CPX CommandPostExercise
CRS CalibrationRecallSystem
CSMS CombinedSupportMaintenance
Shop
CTA CommonTableoIAllowances
DA DepartmentoItheArmy
DACG DepartureAirIieldControl
Group
DAMPL DepartmentoItheArmyMaster
PriorityList
DC DentalCorps
DDU DirectDeploymentUnit
DEFCON DeIenseReadinessCondition
DIV(EX) Division(Exercise)
DIVARTY DivisionArtillery
DMC DeIenseMovementCoordinator
DOD DepartmentoIDeIense
DODAAC DODActivityAddressCode
DODIC DODIdentiIicationCode
DODSASP DODSmallArmsSerialization
Program
DPA DataProcessingActivities
137
DPCA Director,Personneland
CommunityActivities
DRL DateRequiredtoLoad
EAD EarliestArrivalDate
EAP EmergencyActionProcedures
ECS EquipmentConcentrationSite
E-DATE DateoIStatusChangeoIUnit
ED EIIectiveDateunitenters
Federalactiveduty
EDDA EstimatedDepartureDateAir
EDDS EstimatedDepartureDateSea
ESGR EmployerSupportoItheGuard
andReserve
ESR EquipmentStatusReport
ETS ExpirationoITermoIService
EXMOVREP ExpeditedMovementReport
FAD Force/ActivityDesignator
FAO FinanceandAccountingOIIice
FAR FederalAcquisitionRegulation
FC FinanceCorps
FEMA FederalEmergencyManagement
Agency
FID FormatIdentiIicationData
FMP FORSCOMMobilizationPlan
FORMDEPS FORSCOMMobilizationand
DeploymentPlanningSystem
FORSCOM ForcesCommand
FTM Full-TimeManning
FTNGD FullTimeNationalGuardDuty
FTUS Full-timeUnitSupport
FTX FieldTrainingExercise
GCCS GlobalCommandandControl
System
GCCS-A GlobalCommandandControl
System-Army
GEOLOC GeographicalLocationCode
GOCOM GeneralOIIicerCommand
GSF GeneralSupportForce
GTA GraphicTrainingAid
HQ Headquarters
HQDA Headquarters,DepartmentoIthe
Army
HS HomeStation
HSC HealthServicesCommand
HSDD HomeStationDepartureDate
IAW InAccordanceWith
ID IdentiIication
IDS IntrusionDetectionSystem
IDT InactiveDutyTraining
IET InitialEntryTraining
IMA IndividualMobilization
Augmentee
IMSA InstallationMedicalSupply
Account
INCONREP Intra-CONUSMovementReport
ING InactiveNationalGuard
IRR IndividualReadyReserve
ISO InstallationSupplyOIIicer
ITO InstallationTransportation
OIIicer
JAGC JudgeAdvocateGeneralsCorps
JCS JointChieIsoIStaII
JSS JointServiceSystem
JUMPS JointUniIormMilitaryPay
System
LAD LatestArrivalDate
LIN LineItemNumber
LRA LocalReproductionAuthorized
MACOM MaiorArmyCommand
MAT MobilizationAssistanceTeam
MATES MobilizationandTraining
EquipmentSite
M-DATE MobilizationDate
M-DAY ForFullMobilizationDay
MC MedicalCorps
MDC MovementDesignatorCode
MEPS MilitaryEntranceProcessing
Station
METL MissionEssentialTaskList
MFR MemorandumForRecord
MHE MaterielHandlingEquipment
MI MiddleInitial
MILPO MilitaryPersonnelOIIice
MOBCON MobilizationMovementControl
MOBPERS MobilizationPersonnel
ProcessingSystem
MOBTDA MobilizationTableoI
DistributionandAllowances
MOS MilitaryOccupationalSpecialty
MOU MemorandumOIUnderstanding
MP MobilizationPlan
MPA MobilizationPurchasing
Authority
MPL MandatoryPartsList
MPRJ MilitaryPersonnelRecords
Jacket
MRE Meal,ReadytoEat
MS MobilizationStation
MSAD MobilizationStationArrival
Date
MSCA MilitarySupportoICivil
Authority
MTDA ModiIiedTableoIDistribution
andAllowances
MTMC MilitaryTraIIicManagement
Command
MTOE ModiIiedTableoIOrganization
andEquipment
MUTA MultipleUnitTrainingAssembly
NAC NationalAgencyCheck
138
NBC Nuclear,Biological,and
Chemical
NCESGR NationalCommitteeIor
EmployerSupportoItheGuard
andReserve
NGB NationalGuardBureau
NGR NationalGuardRegulation
NO Number
NSLI NationalServiceLiIeInsurance
NSN NationalStockNumber
OBC OIIicerBasicCourse
OCONUS OutsideContinentalU.S.
OCS OIIicerCandidateSchool
OMA OperationsandMaintenance,
Army
OMS OrganizationalMaintenance
Shop
OPCOM OperationalCommand
OPCON OperationalControl
OPLAN OperationPlan
OSGLI OIIiceoIServicemensGroup
LiIeInsurance
PAA PrimaryAssemblyArea
PAM Pamphlet
PARA Paragraph
PBO PropertyBookOIIicer
PCS PermanentChangeoIStation
PFR PersonalFinancialRecord
PLASSN PlanningAssociation
PLCP PremobilizationLegal
CounselingProgram
PLL PrescribedLoadList
PLS PremobilizationLegalServices
PMOS PrimaryMOS
PMT PostmobilizationTraining
POD PortOIDebarkation
POE PortOIEmbarkation
POL Petroleum,Oil,andLubricants
POM PreparationIorOverseas
Movement
POV PrivatelyOwnedVehicle
PPP PowerProiectionPlatIorm
PRP PersonnelReliabilityProgram
PSP PowerSupportPlatIorm
PSRC PresidentialSelectedReserve
Call-up
PTSR PostmobilizationTrainingand
SupportRequirements
PWRS PrepositionedWarReserve
Stocks
RC ReserveComponent
RCAS ReserveComponentAutomation
System
RCU ReserveComponentUnit
RDYLD Readytoloaddate
REDCON ReadinessCondition
REG Regulation
ROBCO RequirementObiectiveCode
ROTC ReserveOIIicerTrainingCorps
RSC RegionalSupportCommand
RSG RegionalSupportGroup
SAEDA SubversionandEspionage
DirectedagainsttheArmy
S-DAY DayPSRCMobilizationbegins
SB SupplyBulletin
SCIF SensitiveCompartment
InIormationFacility
SDT SkillDevelopmentTest
SECDEF SecretaryoIDeIense
SGLI ServicemensGroupLiIe
Insurance
SI SupportInstallation
SIB SIDPERSInterIaceBranch
SIDPERS StandardInstallation/Division
PersonnelSystem
SMOS SecondaryMOS
SMP SimultaneousMembership
Program
SOMS StateOperatedMobilization
Stations
SORTS StatusoIResourcesandTraining
System
SPOE SeaPortOIEmbarkation
SRC StandardRequirementCode
SRP SoldierReadinessProcessing
SSAN SocialSecurityAccountNumber
SSI SpecialtyskillidentiIier
SSO SpecialSecurityOIIice
STARC StateAreaCommand
TAG TheAdiutantGeneral
TALCE Tanker/AirliItControlElement
TAM TrainingAssessmentModel
TAT ToAccompanyTroops
TBEP TrainingBaseExpansionPlan
(TRADOC)
TCS TemporaryChangeoIStation
T-DAY DayPartialMobilizationbegins
TDA TableoIDistributionand
Allowances
TDY TemporaryDuty
TOE TableoIOrganizationand
Equipment
TPSN TroopProgramSequence
Number
TPU TroopProgramUnit
TRADOC TrainingandDoctrineCommand
TSB TrainingSupportBrigade
TSC TrainingSupportCenter
TTAD TemporaryTouroIActiveDuty
UCMJ UniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice
139
UIC UnitIdentiIicationCode
ULMS UnitLevelManagementSystem
UMC UnitMovementCoordinator
US UnitedStates
USAR U.S. ArmyReserve
USARC U.S. ArmyReserve
Command
USPFO U.S. PropertyandFiscal
OIIicer
USR UnitStatusReport
UTA UnitTrainingAssembly
UTES UnitTrainingEquipmentSite
VA VeteransAdministration
WETEP WeekendTrainingEquipment
Pool
WETS WeekendTrainingSite
WMD WeaponsoIMassDestruction
YTP YearlyTrainingProgram
140
SECTION II: TERMS
AAUNIT:SeeMobilizationEntity
ACTIVEDUTY:Full-timedutyintheactiveU.S.
militaryservice.Ageneraltermappliedtoallactive
militaryservicewiththeactiveIorcewithoutregard
todurationorpurpose.
ALERT:AnyIormoIcommunicationusedby
Headquarters,DepartmentoItheArmy,orother
competentauthority,tonotiIyRCunitcommanders
thatorderstoactivedutyarependingIortheunits.
Simultaneouslywiththealert,orassoonaspossible
intheHQDAmobilizationorder,theunitisgiventhe
eIIectivedateoIentryonactiveduty,itsmobilization
station,MTOE,andotherbasicdataasdeterminedby
theordersissuingauthority
AUTHORIZEDLEVELOFORGANIZATION
(ALO):ALOestablishestheauthorizedstrengthand
equipmentlevelIorunits.ALOmaybeexpressedin
numericallyorletterdesignatedlevelsrepresenting
percentagesoIIullmanpowerspaces(e.g.,ALO1is
100percent,ALO2approximately90percent,ALO
3approximately80percent,ALO4approximately70
percent).TheJCSterm"ReadinessRating
Limitations"issynonymouswithALOIorArmyunit
statusreporting.
CALLUP:ProceduresbywhichthePresident
bringsallorapartoItheArmyNationalGuardinto
theactiveFederalserviceoItheUnitedStatesunder
Section3500andChapter25oITitle10United
StatesCode.
C-DAY:Theunnameddayonwhichadeployment
operationcommencesoristocommence.
ComponentCode:IdentiIiesthedutystatusoIaunit
(1ActiveArmy:2-ARNG:3USAR,
4Unmanned/unequipped).
COMPUTERIZEDMOVEMENTPLANNING
ANDSTATUSSYSTEM(COMPASS):A
computerassistedactivitydesignatedtoprovide
movement-planningaidstoActiveComponentand
RCunitsandactivities.
CONTINENTALU.S.ARMY(CONUSA):Within
ageographicareaoIresponsibility,providesdirect
supporttoARNGandUSARunits:Iacilitates,assists
andassessestrainingoIRCIorces:evaluates
readinessoIallIorces:andexecutesoperations,
mobilizationanddeploymentasdirectedby
FORSCOM.
COORDINATINGINSTALLATION(CI):A
supportinginstallationassignedtocoordinate
speciIiedtypesoIintra-servicesupportwithina
prescribedgeographicalarea.
CONUSSUSTAININGBASE:Thoseminimum
essentialunitsrequiredonstationimmediatelyaIter
mobilizationtoexpandrapidlythetrainingbase,to
serveasACbackIillandtoperIormprioritytasksin
deployingtheearlyIorceandshippingessential
supplies.
D-DAY:Thedayonwhichanoperationcommences
orisduetocommence.Thismaybethe
commencementoIhostilitiesoIanyoperation.
DELAY:ThepostponementoIeitherthedatea
memberisavailabletoreportIorhisactivedutytour
orthereportingdatespeciIiedinorderstoactive
duty.
DIRECTDEPLOYINGUNIT:AReserve
ComponentunitthatmovesdirectlyIromHome
Station(HS)toaPortoIEmbarkation(POE).The
unitdoesnotmovethroughaMobilizationStation
(MS).
DIRECTREPORTINGCOMMAND(DRC):A
USARtroopprogramunit,otherthanaU.S. Army
RegionalSupportCommand(RSC).Itis
commandedbyageneraloIIicer.
DIRECTEDTRAININGASSOCIATION:A
directedtrainingassociation(DTA)programwhereby
earlydeployingunitsareaIIiliatedwithlike-typeAC
unitstoimprovetheirreadiness.
EARLIESTARRIVALDATE(EAD):Theearliest
dateaunitshouldarrive"intheater"insupportoIa
speciIicoperationplan.
EQUIPMENTCONCENTRATIONSITE(ECS):
Asiteatwhichequipmenthasbeenplaced,with
provisionsIoritsmaintenanceandsecurity,Ior
storageand/orusebyUSARunits.
EXEMPTION:TotalrelieIIromtherequirementto
reportIoractivedutyonthereportingdatespeciIied
inorderstoactiveduty.
141
F-HOUR:Thetime,speciIiedbytheSecretaryoI
DeIense,atwhichthemilitarydepartmentswill
initiatemobilization.
FORCEACTIVITYDESIGNATOR(FAD):Each
unitintheArmyisassignedanumberIromItoV,
whichisknownastheFAD.TheFADprovides
guidanceIortheallocationanddistributionoI
resourcessuchasequipmentandpersonnel.The
highertheFADnumber,thelowertheunitspriority
toreceiveresources.
FULL-TIMEMANNING:Full-timemilitary
personnel,eitherARNG,USAR,orActive
Component,assignedtoaunittoincreasethe
mobilizationreadinessoIthatunit.
HOMESTATION(HS):Theassignedpermanent
locationorassemblypointoIARNGUSandUSAR
units,orinitialactivedutystationIorindividuals
reportingseparately.
INACTIVENATIONALGUARD(ING):A
continuingmilitarystatusIorthosequaliIiedoIIicers,
warrantoIIicers,andenlistedpersonsprevented
temporarilyIromparticipationinNationalGuard
training. Individualssoassignedcontinuetobeinthe
ReadyReserveandsubiecttoordertoactivedutyin
timeoIwarornationalemergencyasmembersoIthe
ArmyNationalGuardoItheUnitedStates.
INDIVIDUALMOBILIZATIONAUGMENTEE
(IMA):AmemberoItheIndividualReadyReserve
whoispre-selected,pre-trained,andassignedto
occupyanauthorizedactivedutyposition.
LATESTARRIVALDATE(LAD):Thelatestdate
aunitisproiectedtoarriveatitsoverseastheater.
M-DAY:ThedaytheSecretaryoIDeIensedirects
thatFullmobilizationcommencebasedonadecision
bythePresident,theCongress,orboth. All
mobilizationplanning(e.g.,alert,movement,
transportation,anddeploymentoremployment)is
basedonthisdate.
M-DATE:ThespeciIicdayanRCunitentersactive
duty.
MOBILIZATION:TheactoIassemblingand
organizingnationalresourcestosupportnational
obiectivesinthetimeoIwarorotheremergencies.
TheprocessbywhichtheArmedForcesorpartoI
themarebroughttoastateoIreadinessIorwaror
othernationalemergency.Thisincludesactivatingall
orpartoItheReservecomponentsaswellas
assemblingandorganizingpersonnel,supplies,and
materiel.MobilizationoItheArmedForcesincludes
theIollowingcategories:
a. Selectivemobilization. ExpansionoIthe
activeArmedForcesresultingIromactionby
Congressand/orthePresidenttomobilizeReserve
componentunits,andtheresourcesneededIortheir
supporttomeettherequirementsoIadomestic
emergencythatisnottheresultoIanenemyattack.
b. PresidentialSelectedReserveCall-up
(PSRC). ThePresidentmayaugmenttheactive
Iorcesbyacall-upoIunitsorindividualsoIthe
SelectedReserve,upto200,000personnel(all
services),Iorupto270days,withadditional90
days,iInecessary,tomeettherequirementsoIan
operationalmission. WhilethePSRCisnota
statutoryleveloImobilization,itispartoIthe
graduatedmobilizationresponse.
c. PartialMobilization. ExpansionoIthe
Congress(uptoIullmobilization)orbythePresident
(notmorethan1,000,000)tomobilizeIorupto24
monthsReadyReservecomponentunits,individual
reservists,andtheresourcesneededIortheirsupport
tomeettherequirementsoIawarorothernational
emergencyinvolvinganexternalthreattothenational
security.
d. FullMobilization.ExpansionoItheactive
ArmedForcesresultingIromactionbyCongressand
thePresidenttomobilizeallReservecomponentunits
intheexistingapprovedIorcestructure,allindividual
reservists,retiredmilitarypersonnel,andthe
resourcesneededIortheirsupporttomeetthe
requirementsoIawarorothernationalemergency
involvinganexternalthreattothenationalsecurity.
e. Total Mobilization.ExpansionoIthe
CongressandthePresidenttoorganizeand/or
generateadditionalunitsorpersonnel,beyondthe
existingIorcestructure,andtheresourcesneededIor
theirsupport,tomeetthetotalrequirementoIawar
orothernationalemergencyinvolvinganexternal
MOBILIZATIONANDTRAINING
EQUIPMENTSITE(MATES):Asiteatwhicha
portionoIanArmyNationalGuardunitsauthorized
equipmentispositionedbydirectionoIChieI,
142
NationalGuardBureau,andmaintainedtosupport
unitmobilizationandtraining.
MOBILIZATIONDEPLOYMENTEXERCISE:
AnArmyNationalGuardexerciseIorunitsselected
toparticipateinRCDeploymentTrainingOverseas.
Theexerciseevaluatestheunit'smobilization
planning,completionoIallrequirementsIoroverseas
training,completionoIindividualrecordsreviewand
update,deploymentplanningandtraining,andan
assessmentoItheSTARC`s/unit'scapabilityto
support/executemobilizationprocedures.
MOBILIZATIONENTITY(UICENDINGIN
"AA"):Aunit,whichisorganizedunderan
approvedauthorizationdocument(MTOEorTDA),
implementedbygeneralorder,andwhichmobilizes
asoneentity.Allsub-elementsareorganicandhave
acommontroopprogramsequencenumberanda
commonMobilizationStation.Abattalionwith
organiccompanieswouldbeamobilizationentity.
MOBILIZATIONSTATION(MS):The
designatedmilitaryinstallation(active,semiactive,or
inactive)ormobilizationcentertowhichaReserve
ComponentunitismovedIorIurtherprocessing,
organizing,equipping,training,andemployingaIter
mobilization.
MOBILIZATIONPLANNINGAPPLICATION,
MOBILIZATIONPRODUCTLINE(MPAMPL):
ProvidedIormobilizationanddeploymentplanning
andexecution,whichdisplaystheU.S.Armywithin
CONUS,OCONUS,FORSCOM,andUSARPAC
alongwithproiectedmobilizationdeployment/
employmentoIunits.
ORDER:TheprocedurebywhichtheReserve
Components(ARNGUSandUSAR)enterintothe
activemilitaryserviceoItheUnitedStates,under
Sections672and673oITitle10UnitedStatesCode,
orotheractsoICongress.
PORTOFEMBARKATION(POE):Anair
(APOE)orsea(SPOE)terminalatwhichtroops,
units,militarysponsoredpersonnel,unitequipment,
andmaterielboardand/orareloaded.
READINESSFORMOBILIZATIONEXERCISE
(REMOBE):ArmyNationalGuardexercise
conductedbySTARCsastheIormersmaior
subordinatecommandsIorARNGunitswithinthe
states.Itisanannouncedexercisedesignedto
examinealertnotiIicationprocedures,mobilization
proceduresatHS,loadplans,movementplans,and
whereIeasible,actualunitmovement.REMOBE
maybeconductedinconiunctionwithanATmove.
READYRESERVE:UnitsandunitmembersoIthe
ReserveComponentsandindividualsliableIor
involuntaryactivedutyintimeoIwar,national
emergencyasdeclaredbyCongress,national
emergencydeclaredbythePresident,orwhen
otherwiseauthorizedbylaw.
READYTOLOADDATE(RDYLD):The
proiecteddateaunitiscapableoIstartingand
sustainingmovementIromitsMStoanassigned
POE.
REGIONALSUPPORTCOMMAND:A
geographicareacommandthatcommandsUSAR
unitsandisunderthecombatantcommandoIthe
appropriateCINC.
REQUIREDDELIVERYDATE(RDD):
a. Thecalendardateonwhichmaterialis
requiredbytherequisitioner.
b. Thedateaunitisrequiredtoarriveatthe
mainbattleareainsupportoIaspeciIicoperations
plan.
RETIREDRESERVE:ConsistsoIthose
individualswhosenamesareplacedontheReserve
Retiredlistbyproperauthorityinaccordancewith
laworregulations.MembersoItheRetiredReserve
may,iIqualiIied,beorderedtoactiveduty
involuntarilyintimeoIwarornationalemergency
declaredbyCongress,orwhenotherwiseauthorized
bylaw,andthenonlywhenitisdeterminedbythe
SecretaryoItheArmythatadequatenumbersoI
qualiIiedindividualsintherequiredcategoriesarenot
readilyavailableintheReadyReserveorinactive
statusintheStandbyReserve.
S-DAY:ThedayPSRCisdeclared.
SELECTEDRESERVE:ThatportionoItheReady
ReserveconsistingoIunitsandindividualreservists
requiredtoparticipateininactivedutytrainingand
annualtraining,bothoIwhichareinapaystatus.
TheSelectedReservealsoincludespersons
perIormingInitialActiveDutyIorTraining10USC
268(b).
STANDARDREQUIREMENTSCODE(SRC):A
basicsetoIcodes,integraltoeachcurrenttableoI
organizationandequipmentIorthepurposeoI
expressingeachandeverypossiblecombinationor
variationthereoI,which,whenassociatedwith
143
organizationaldata,isthebasisIorpersonneland
supplycomputations.
STANDBYRESERVES:Thoseunitsandmembers
oItheReserveComponents(otherthanthoseinthe
ReadyReserveorRetiredReserve)whoareliableIor
activedutyonlyaIterbeingcertiIiedasavailableby
theSelectiveServiceSystemwhenrequestedbythe
SecretaryoIDeIense.
STATEAD1UTANTGENERAL:Anindividual
appointedbytheGovernoroIastateorelectedby
popularvotetoadministerthemilitaryaIIairsoIthe
state.AstateadiutantgeneralmaybeIederally
recognizedasageneraloIIicer,providedhemeetsthe
prescribedrequirementsandqualiIications.
Otherwise,hewillbeIederallyrecognizedasa
generaloIIicer,AdiutantGeneralCorps,IortenureoI
oIIice.
STATEAREACOMMAND(STARC):A
mobilizationentitywithintheARNGthatisordered
toactivedutywhenARNGunitsinthatstateare
alertedIormobilization.ItprovidesIorcommand
andcontroloImobilizedARNGUSunitsIromHS
untilarrivalatMS.ItisalsoresponsibleIorplanning
andexecutingmilitarysupportIorcivildeIenseand
landdeIenseplansundertherespectivearea
commander.
SUPPORTINSTALLATION(SI):Aninstallation
oractivitythatprovidesatypeoIsupporttooII-post
unitsandactivitieswithinaspeciIicgeographicarea.
T-DAY:ThedayPartialmobilizationisdeclared.
TRAININGASSESSMENTMODEL(TAM):A
standard,comprehensivemeansIorcommandersto
monitorandassessthecurrenttrainingreadinessoI
theirunitsandsoldiers.ItincorporatesFORSCOM
Form1-1-R,MissionEssentialTaskList(METL).
GuidanceIorTAMisFORSCOMReg135-7.
TECHNICIAN:AIull-timecivilianemployeeoIthe
ArmyNationalGuardorU.S.ArmyReserve,
normallyamilitarymemberoItheunitIorwhich
employed,retainedtoprovideday-to-daycontinuity
oIoperations.Techniciansprovidesupportinthe
perIormanceoIIunctionsthatcannotbeperIormedby
unitpersonnelduringtheregularlyscheduledtraining
periods.
UNIT("AA"LEVEL):ForthepurposeoI
mobilizationplanning:
a. AnymilitaryelementoItheSelected
Reservewhosestructureisprescribedbyanapproved
authorizationdocument,suchasanMTOEoraTDA.
b. AnorganizationaltitleoIasubdivisionoIa
groupinataskIorce.
UNITIDENTIFICATIONCODE(UIC):Acode
toidentiIyuniquelyeachunitoItheActiveArmy,
ArmyNationalGuard,UnitedStatesArmyReserve.
UNITSTATUSREPORTINGSYSTEM:A
systemIorreportingthecurrentstatusoIActiveand
ReserveComponentunits.
UNITTRAININGASSEMBLY:Anauthorized
andscheduledtrainingassemblyoInotlessthanIour
hoursduration,includingrollcallandrestperiods.
Oneretirementpointandoneday'spayareauthorized
Ioreachassignedandattachedindividualwho
satisIactorilycompletestheentireassembly.This
typeoIassemblyismandatoryIoralltroopprogram
units,exceptUSARschools.
UNITTRAININGEQUIPMENTSITE(UTES):
AconsolidationoIARNGorganizationalequipment
atorincloseproximitytoandservinganauthorized
weekendtrainingsite.UndertheUTESconcept,
suchpoolingoIequipmentassetsextendsexisting
organizationsratherthancreatingaseparateTDA
typeactivity.UTESequipmentisderivedIromand
cannotexceedMTOE,TDAorMTDAauthorization
orHSallowancesestablishedbytheNationalGuard
BureauIorparticipatingunitsandaccountedIoron
unitpropertybooks.OrganizationalidentityoIall
pooledequipmentismaintainedandallunitsusing
suchequipmentprovideIornormalorganizational
maintenanceandreporting.
WEEKENDTRAININGSITE(WETS):Astate
operatedtrainingsitenormallyusedtoconductunit-
trainingassembliesinaIieldenvironment.Army
approvedranges(exceptatannualtrainingsites)are
WETS.
144
A
AbsentWithoutLeave(AWOL) 36,136
ActiveComponent(AC) 10,35,61,101,131,136,140
ActiveDuty(AD) 21,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,70,104,136
ActiveDutyIorSpecialWork(ADSW) 21,27,28,69,136
ActiveDutyIorTraining(ADT) 21,25,27,28,69,80,136
ActiveGuard/Reserve(AGR) 27,30,136
AerialPortoIEmbarkation(APOE) 9,136,142
AlertandAssemblyPlan 91
AlertNotiIicationRoster 90
AlertPhase(PhaseII) 48,67,68
AlternateAssemblyArea(AAA) 91
AmmunitionBasicLoad(ABL) 47,50,52,65,74,83,119,120,122,128,136
AnnualLegalCheckup 98,109
AnnualTraining(AT) 10,21,25,69,80,100,101,136,142
AreaMaintenanceSupportActivities(AMSA) 48,53,66,84,136
AreaOrganizationMaintenanceShop(AOMS) 136
Army 130
ArmyEquipmentStatusReport(AESR) 136
ArmyMasterDataFile(AMDF) 136
ArmyMedicalDepartment(AMEDD) 21,27,31,37,59,69,136
ArmyMobilizationandOperationsPlanningandExecutionSystem(AMOPES) 136
ArmyNationalGuard(ARNG)11,13,14,19,20,21,22,31,32,35,48,51,53,56,60,66,67,69,70,71,76,84,85,88,94,
127,136,140,141,142,143
ArmyOilAnalysisProgram(AOAP) 46,51,76
ArmyReadinessCivilianAcquiredSkillsProgram(ARCASP) 136
ArmyRegulation135-133 14,32,34,56,104,130
ArmyRegulation135-178 15,32,33,57,130
ArmyRegulation145-1 30,130
ArmyRegulation190-11 51,76,128,130
ArmyRegulation215-1 20,61,131
ArmyRegulation340-17 90
ArmyRegulation37-104-10 103,130
ArmyRegulation37-104-4 20,61,130
ArmyRegulation380-5 20,42,61,82,127,129,131
ArmyRegulation40-501 15,16,32,57,58,130
ArmyRegulation40-66 16,19,26,58,60,81,128,130
ArmyRegulation600-20 15,18,34,57,60,131
ArmyRegulation600-8-1 14,15,21,22,24,25,26,29,34,55,56,57,70,79,80,81,111,128,131
ArmyRegulation600-8-10 14,21,22,24,29,55,56,70,79,111,128,131
145
ArmyRegulation600-8-101 14,24,55,79,131
ArmyRegulation600-8-104 14,29,56,128,131
ArmyRegulation600-8-105 21,22,70,131
ArmyRegulation600-8-14 15,25,57,80,131
ArmyRegulation600-8-18 24,79
ArmyRegulation600-8-24 111
ArmyRegulation600-8-3 20,25,61,80,131
ArmyRegulation601-25 22,28,30,31,32,33,34,36,71,131
ArmyRegulation623-205 21,24,70,79,131
AuthorizedLeveloIOrganization(ALO) 136,140
AuthorizedStockageLevel(ASL) 52,53,84,123,128,136
AutomatedDataProcessing(ADP) 43,124,136
AutomatedDataProcessingEquipment(ADPE) 136
AutomatedUnitEquipmentList(AUEL) 11,48,51,53,66,77,84,119,121,123,128,136
AvailabletoLoadDate(ALD) 136
B
Blocking,BracingMaterial(BBM) 136
Blocking,Bracing,Packing,CratingandTiedownmaterial(BBPCT) 46,51,76,136
C
CenterLevelApplicationSoItware(CLAS) 13,22,71
Checklist,Mobilization 10,118
CivilConIinement 36
CivilianAcquiredSkillsProgram(CASP) 27,30,136
ClassI 128
ClassII 128
ClassIV 128
ClassIX 128
ClassV 47,48,50,52,65,66,75,83,119,120,122,127,128
ClassVI 48,50,52,66,75,83,119,120,122,127,128
ClassVII 48,50,52,66,75,83,119,120,122,127,128
ClassVIII 48,50,52,66,75,83,119,120,122,127,128
CommonTableoIAllowances(CTA) 48,49,50,66,74,75,132,136
CommunicationsSecurity(COMSEC) 40,44,51,63,76,119,127,131,133,136
ComputerizedMovementPlanningandStatusSystem(COMPASS) 11,48,51,53,66,77,84,119,121,123,128,134,136,140
ConscientiousObiector 34,136
ContinentalUSArmy(CONUSA) 9,10,11,12,21,22,44,69,70,86,136,140
CoordinatingInstallation(CI) 11,41,51,64,76,119,136,140
CTA8-100 48,66,132
D
DAPamphlet135-2 107
DAPamphlet27-166 107,108
DAPamphlet600-8-23 19,61
DateoIStatusChangeoIUnit(E-DATE) 137
DateRequiredtoLoad(DRL) 137
146
DEERS 14,16,18,25,55,59,60,80,102,106,118,134
DeIenseMovementCoordinator(DMC) 51,76,136
DepartmentoItheArmyMasterPriorityList(DAMPL) 136
DepartureAirIieldControlGroup(DACG) 136
Dependency 27,32
DirectDeploymentUnit(DDU) 136
Disability 31
Discharge 33,134
DODActivityAddressCode(DODAAC) 49,74,136
DODIdentiIicationCode(DODIC) 136
DODSmallArmsSerializationProgram(DODSASP) 50,75,136
E
EarliestArrivalDate(EAD) 137,140
EIIectiveDateunitentersFederalactiveduty(ED) 90,137
EmergencyActionProcedures(EAP) 40,63,137
EquipmentConcentrationSite(ECS) 48,66,137,140
EquipmentStatusReport(ESR) 137
EstimatedDepartureDateAir(EDDA) 137
EstimatedDepartureDateSea(EDDS) 137
EvaluationReports 24,79
Excess/SurplusPersonnel 31,35
F
FamilyAssistance 18,19,20,22,25,60,61,70,80,102,110
FamilySupportGroup(FSG) 18,19,60,118
FederalAcquisitionRegulation 96,137
FieldManual12-6 20,61
FieldManual25-100 127,132
FieldManual25-101 132
FO 48,49,66,74
Force/ActivityDesignator 16,137,141
ForcesCommand(FORSCOM)5,9,10,11,12,15,20,21,24,38,40,47,48,49,50,51,55,57,61,63,65,66,70,74,76,79,
104,114,126,127,128,132,134,137,140,142
FORSCOMMobilizationandDeploymentPlanningSystem(FORMDEPS) 5,9,13,55,127,128,129,132,137
FORSCOMMobilizationPlan(FMP) 15,38,57,137
FORSCOMRegulation380-41 40,63
FORSCOMRegulation55-1 9,11
FORSCOMRegulation55-2 11,48,66
FORSCOMRegulation700-2 48,49,66,74
FORSCOMRegulation700-3 47,50,65,74
FullMobilization 13,28,37,137,141
FullMobilizationDay(M-DAY) 137,141
FullTimeManning(FTM) 137
FullTimeNationalGuardDuty(FTNGD) 30,137
FullTimeUnitSupport(FTUS) 27,30,137
G
GeneralOIIicerCommand(GOCOM) 137
H
Headquarters,DepartmentoItheArmy 11,24,26,29,31,35,79,81,137,140
HighSchool 21,27,30,38,69
HIV 16,17,59,118,131
HomeStation(HS)5,9,10,11,20,32,39,40,41,42,47,48,49,51,52,62,63,65,66,69,73,74,76,77,82,83,101,118,
119,120,122,137,140,141,142,143
147
HomeStationDepartureDate(HSDD) 137
HomeStationPhase(PhaseIII) 78
HomosexualConduct 27,33
I
IdentiIicationCard 15,18,25,57,60,80,110,131,134
IdentiIicationTag 128
Immunization 130,134
InactiveDutyTraining(IDT) 30,137
InactiveNationalGuard(ING) 21,22,27,32,70,137,141
IndividualMobilizationAugmentee(IMA) 137,141
IndividualReadyReserve(IRR) 6,17,30,34,59,137
InitialEntryTraining(IET) 21,27,28,29,69,137
Iniury 31,32
InstallationMedicalSupplyAccount(IMSA) 52,83,127,137
Intra-CONUSMovementReport(INCONREP) 137
J
JudgeAdvocateGeneralsCorps(JAGC) 31,137
K
KeyEmployee 34
L
LatestArrivalDate(LAD) 137,141
LegalServices 138
M
MasterMilitaryPayAccount(MMPA) 15,22,23,24,25,58,70,72,79,81,118,122
MilitaryOccupationalSpecialty(MOS) 14,27,30,34,56,99,124,137,138
MilitaryPersonnelRecordsJacket 14,22,24,56,70,79,118,137
MilitaryTraIIicManagementCommand(MTMC) 39,62,137
MissionEssentialTaskList(METL) 10,38,137,143
MissionGuidanceLetter 39,62
MobilizationandTrainingEquipmentSite(MATES) 48,66,137,142
MobilizationAssistanceTeam(MAT) 43,44,137
MobilizationDate(M-DATE) 137,141
MobilizationLevelApplicationSoItware(MOBLAS) 10,14,55
MobilizationMovementPlan 51,53,76,84
MobilizationPlan 15,38,54,57,88,132,137
MobilizationPlan(MP) 137
MobilizationPurchasingAuthority(MPA) 51,52,76,83,94,129,137
MobilizationStation(MS)5,9,10,11,12,13,19,22,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,43,47,48,49,
50,51,52,53,54,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,70,73,74,75,76,77,79,80,81,82,83,84,92,94,96,98,100,110,
114,115,119,120,122,123,126,137,140,142,143
MobilizationStationArrivalDate(MSAD) 137
MobilizationTableoIDistributionandAllowances(MOBTDA) 137
ModiIiedTableoIDistributionandAllowances(MTDA) 137,143
ModiIiedTableoIOrganizationandEquipment(MTOE) 5,15,50,57,75,114,126,127,138,140,142,143
Morale,WelIareandRecreation(MWR) 20,61,118
MovementDesignatorCode(MDC) 137
MultipleUnitTrainingAssembly(MUTA) 138
148
N
NationalAgencyCheck(NAC) 138
NationalGuardRegulation310-10 21,70,133
NationalGuardRegulation600-2 14,32,56,133
NationalGuardRegulation614-1 32,133
NationalGuardRegulation635-100 32,133
Non-deployable 27,34
O
Overage 27,33
P
PartialMobilization 28,29,138,141
PermanentChangeoIStation(PCS) 138
PersonalFinancialRecord(PFR) 138
Personal/CommunityHardship 34
PersonnelReliabilityProgram 124,138
Petroleum,Oil,andLubricants(POL) 47,49,51,52,65,74,76,83,95,120,122,138
PhysicalProIile 27,32
PhysicalSecurityPlan 91,92
PlanningAssociation(PLASSN) 138
PlanningPhase(PhaseI) 54
PortOIDebarkation(POD) 138
PortOIEmbarkation(POE) 9,138,140,142
PostmobilizationTrainingandSupportRequirements(PTSR)10,39,40,41,62,63,73,114,115,116,117,120,126,127,134,
138
PostmobilizationTrainingSchedule 115
PoweroIAttorney 105
PowerProiectionPlatIorm(PPP) 10,138
PowerSupportPlatIorm(PSP) 10,138
PractitionerCredentialsFile(PCF) 19,24,60,79
Pregnancy 27,32
PremobilizationLegalCounselingProgram(PLCP) 15,38,57,138
PremobilizationLegalServices(PLS) 15,38,57,138
PreparationIorOverseasMovement(POM) 9,12,44,131,138
PrescribedLoadList(PLL) 48,50,52,53,66,75,84,120,123,128,138
PresidentialSelectedReserveCallup(PSRC) 4,6,13,21,27,28,29,30,31,34,35,38,70,101,138,141,142
PrimaryAssemblyArea(PAA) 91,92,138
PrimaryMOS(PMOS) 19,61,138
PrivatelyOwnedVehicle(POV) 11,48,51,67,77,103,138
PropertyBookOIIicer(PBO) 138
Property,unit 127
R
Reassignment 32,33
Record,medical 16,58
Records,Personal 105
RegionalSupportCommand(RSC)5,11,12,13,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,34,35,38,39,40,41,48,49,
50,51,53,59,60,62,63,67,69,70,71,73,75,76,79,81,84,86,88,114,127,138,140
RegionalSupportGroup(RSG) 138
ReserveComponentAutomationSystem(RCAS) 10,138
ReserveOIIicerTrainingCorps(ROTC) 27,30,130,138
Retirement 33,133,135
149
S
SeaPortOIEmbarkation(SPOE) 9,138,142
SecondaryMOS(SMOS) 138
SecurityClearance 25,80,122
Separation 33,130,134
Sickness 27,31,32
SignatureCards 49,52,74,83,129
SoldierReadinessProcessing(SRP)9,10,12,14,15,16,18,19,20,22,23,24,25,28,44,55,56,71,72,79,80,81,118,122,
131,138
SpecialSecurityOIIice(SSO) 138
StandardInstallation/DivisionPersonnelSystem(SIDPERS) 13,14,19,22,43,56,61,71,118,132,138
StateAreaCommand(STARC)5,11,12,13,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,35,38,39,40,41,48,49,50,
51,59,60,62,63,67,69,70,71,73,75,76,79,81,86,114,127,138,142,143
StateOperatedMobilizationStation(SOMS) 138
StatusoIResourcesandTrainingSystem(SORTS) 138
STOPLOSS 28,33
SupportInstallation(SI) 11,12,22,26,41,47,48,51,52,64,65,66,70,76,77,81,83,96,97,119,138,143
T
TableoIDistributionandAllowances(TDA) 5,13,50,75,127,138,142,143
TemporaryDuty(TDY) 138
TemporaryTouroIActiveDuty(TTAD) 21,22,27,28,69,70,139
TheAdiutantGeneral(TAG) 11,31,138
ToAccompanyTroops(TAT) 12,46,128,138
TotalMobilization 29
TRADOCPamphlet71-9 115
TrainingandDoctrineCommand(TRADOC) 115,138,139
TrainingAssessmentModel(TAM) 10,126,127,138,143
TrainingSupportBrigade(TSB) 139
TrainingSupportCenter(TSC) 43,49,67,139
Training,postmobilization 41,42,73,82,114,115,127,134,138
TransIer 30,33,34,53,84
TroopProgramUnit(TPU) 139
U
U.S.ArmyReserve(USAR) 11,13,14,19,20,22,23,30,32,35,36,48,53,56,60,66,69,70,71,84,139,140,141,142,143
U.S.ArmyReserveCommand(USARC) 5,11,139
U.S.ArmyReservePersonnelCommand(ARPERCOM) 30,35,36,136
U.S.PropertyandFiscalOIIicer(USPFO) 11,20,22,24,47,48,51,52,53,65,66,69,71,76,77,79,83,84,94,119,139
UniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice(UCMJ) 139
UnitIdentiIicationCode(UIC) 49,74,114,126,139,142,143
UnitLevelManagementSystem(ULMS) 139
UnitLoadPlan 48,66
UnitStatusReport(USR) 10,11,41,42,52,73,82,83,126,139
UnitTrainingAssembly(UTA) 139
UnitTrainingEquipmentSite(UTES) 48,66,139,143
USARControlGroup 30,35,36
W
WARTRACE 39,40,62,63
Wills 38
Y
YearlyTrainingProgram(YTP) 139
150
Search All NYTimes.com
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Military Reserves Are Falling Short In Finding Recruits
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: August 28, 2000
WASHI NGTON, Aug. 27 The nation's military Reserves are
increasingly struggling to fill their ranks with new recruits, even as the
Pentagon relies on them more heavily than ever to conduct operations
around the world, according to military officials and Pentagon
documents.
In each of the last three years, the Army, Naval and Air Force
Reserves have each fallen short of their recruiting goals; last year, the
Air Force Reserve missed its objective by nearly 40 percent, signing
up only 7,518 of the 11,791 recruits it needed. Only the Marine Corps
Reserve has steadily recruited enough new troops in recent years.
The recruiting problems have continued -- with the three Reserve forces unlikely to make
their targets by the time the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 -- even though the active-duty
services have turned around their own dismal recruiting record after an infusion of
recruiters, increased advertising and enlistment bonuses, according to Pentagon records.
For the first time since 1997, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are all expected
to meet their recruiting goals this year, an achievement Secretary of Defense William S.
Cohen and other officials have attributed in part to sharper marketing strategies and a
string of military pay increases.
But the difficulty in persuading young men and women to sign up as part-time soldiers,
sailors and airmen has been a sobering counterpoint. It is also raising questions about the
Pentagon's strategy of turning to the 864,000 members of the Reserves and National
Guard for humanitarian missions, peacekeeping operations and combat.
In fact, the increased demands on the Reserves, which have resulted in more missions
overseas, is one of the reasons cited as an obstacle to filling units that not so long ago
required reservists to set aside only a weekend a month and two weeks a year.
The military's readiness -- particularly efforts to recruit new soldiers and re-enlist the ones
it has -- has become an issue in this year's presidential campaign, and the latest recruiting
numbers could provide fodder for both Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush.
While Mr. Gore can point to the recruiting turnaround for the active forces, Mr. Bush can
Stuart Elliott's In Advertising E-mail
Sign up for Stuart Elliott's exclusive column, sent every
Monday.

See Sample | Privacy Policy
Ads by Google what's this?
HOME PAGE TODAY'S PAPER VIDEO MOST POPULAR TIMES TOPICS
U.S.
WORLD U.S. N.Y. / REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPINION ARTS STYLE TRAVEL JOBS REAL ESTATE
AUTOS POLITICS EDUCATION BAY AREA CHICAGO
www Symantec com/NortonLive/PC Help Ads by Google
SIGN IN TO
RECOMMEND
SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
TWITTER
Log In Register Now
Welcome to TimesPeople
Get Started
Get Started
Recommend Recommend
Get Started
Recommend TimesPeople recommended: We Still Dont Hear Him 4:50 PM TimesPeople recommended: We Still Dont Hear Him 4:50 PM TimesPeople recommended: We Still Dont Hear Him 4:50 PM
emphasize the shortages on the Reserves' side.
''We have the same concerns about morale, recruiting and re-enlistment for the Reserves
as we do for the regular forces,'' a spokesman for the Bush campaign, Ray Sullivan, said on
Friday.
The Gore campaign did not respond to questions about Reserve recruiting.
Many of the recruiting challenges facing the Reserves are the same ones that have besieged
the entire military in recent years. The economy is thriving, creating more, better-paying
alternatives to military service. More and more high school graduates also are heading
directly to college, while there has been a steady decline in young people expressing any
interest in enlisting in the military.
The Reserves, however, are facing unique problems. Traditionally, the largest pool of
Reserve recruits has been made up of people leaving full-time active duty, but as all the
services have shrunk from their cold war levels, so has that pool.
There is also evidence that people leaving active duty are less willing to join the Guard or
Reserves. In the last three years, the percentage of those leaving the Army who said they
would consider continuing to serve part time has declined to 21 percent from 41 percent,
according to the Army Reserve.
Officials attribute that at least in part to the increased missions of the Guard and Reserves.
Reservists, once described as ''weekend warriors,'' are now serving beside their full-time
counterparts in operations from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans. The average Air Force
reservist served 58 days last year, while air crews served 110.
''Kids getting off active duty right now are looking at what we're doing and they're saying,
'Whew! I'm not going to join the Reserves or the Guard. I mean you're going where I just
came from,' '' Maj. Gen. David R. Smith, vice commander of the Air Force Reserve
Command, said during an interview earlier this month in his headquarters at Robins Air
Force Base in central Georgia.
NEXT PAGE >
Times Reader 2.0: Daily delivery of The Times - straight to your computer.
Subscribe for just $4.62 a week.
8. Op-Ed Columnist: We Still Dont Hear Him
9. Cycling Provides a Break for Some With Parkinsons
10. Urologist Posts His Politics on His Florida Office Door
Go to Complete List
Ads by Google what's this?
04.04.10 is Your Moment
Live the Moments of Pride Experience on 4/4/10.
nationalguard.com/momentsofpride
Join the National Guard
Find Out How You Can Serve Get Free Info Here. No Obligation
www.Military.com
Military Scholarships
Educational scholarships for dependants of military families.
www.Grantham.edu/MilitaryUniversity
Degrees for CIA Agents
Advance Your CIA Career Learn from Past Intelligence Agents
www.Henley-Putnam.edu
College for Veterans
Learn About The Education Benefits You Earned Through Your
Service.
www.TodaysGIBill.org
Statoil
Norwegian Oil & Gas Company expanding on international fields.
www.Statoil.com
Advertise on NYTimes.com
U.S. OPINION BUSINESS REAL ESTATE OPINION MUSIC
1 2 3
SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
E-MAILED BLOGGED SEARCHED
I NSI DE NYTI MES.COM
Home World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Back to Top
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company Privacy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Advertise Site
Map
A Race to Reap Energy
From the Ocean Breezes
Bloggingheads
Video: Expand
the Bracket?
Will Leitch and
Hampton Stevens
debate expanding the
N.C.A.A. basketball
tournament.
Pro Athletes Bring Video
Games Into the Regimen
Charmed Obsolescence
What It Takes
to Fight
Obesity
Room for Debate
readers on their
struggles with weight
and ways to keep the
pounds off.
Resounding Schuman,
Rebounding Slatkin
pursuethat"byopeningaIormal
investigationthatcouldleadto
discharge.
NoteveryoneatthePentagonagrees.
ArmySecretaryJohnM.McHughtold
reportersWednesdaythathehasbeen
gaugingtroops'sentimenton"don'task,
don'ttell"recently.Inresponse,hesaid,
somehavevolunteeredthattheyaregay.
Hesaidhedeclinedtotakeaction
againstthem,reasoningthatiIhehadn't
asked,theywouldn'thavetold.
"WhatI'mtryingtodoisshowthetroops
that,yes,it'sokaytotalkaboutthis,"he
said."IiustIeltitwouldbe
counterproductive...totake
disciplinaryactionagainstsomeonewho
spokeopenlyandhonestly."
SupportersoI"don'task,don'ttell"also
havetowalkaIineline.
Lt.Gen.BeniaminMixon,commanderoI
theU.S.ArmyPaciIic,receivedasmack-
downIromthetopbrassatthePentagon
aIterhewrotealettertoStarsand
Stripes,anewspaperthatcoversthe
military,urgingservicemembersand
theirIamiliestolobbyelectedoIIicialsto
keep"don'task,don'ttell"inplace.
Lastweek,GatescalledMixon's
comments"inappropriate."Adm.Mike
Mullen,chairmanoItheJointChieIsoI
StaII,concurredandsaidthatiI
commandersdisagreewithpolicy
changes,theyshouldnotresortto
politicaladvocacybutrather"votewith
yourIeet"byresigning.
Sincethen,however,Mixonappearsto
haveundergoneapoliticalrehabilitation.
OnWednesday,McHughsaidthatMixon
hadbeenadvisedthathisletterwas
"inappropriate"butthathewouldnot
receiveaIormalreprimand.
Anothergeneralwhohasbeenatodds
withGatesandMullenover"don'task,
don'ttell"isJamesT.Conway,
commandantoItheMarineCorps.
ConwayhastoldCongressthatthelaw
shouldnotbechanged.Lastweek,he
saidthateveniIitis,hewillnotIorce
straightMarinestolivewithgayonesin
theirmilitaryquarters,citingwhathe
called"overwhelming"oppositioninthe
Corpstosuchanarrangement.Conway,
however,hasnotdrawnanyoIIicial
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104039.html
Advertisement
Print Powered By
A 'Don't ask, don't tell' rules complicate survey of
troops on policy change
rebukesIorhisviews.
Hamsaidthemilitarycouldresolve
concernsoverhousing.Hesaidamuch
tougherchallengewouldbetodetermine
whethersame-sexpartnersorspouses
shouldreceiverecognitionorbeneIits,
giventheIast-changingandconIlicting
arrayoIstateandIederallawsregarding
gaymarriage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104039.html
Advertisement
Print Powered By
A 'Don't ask, don't tell' rules complicate survey of
troops on policy change
1
BalancingYourStrengthsAgainstYourFelonies:
ConsiderationsIorMilitaryRecruitmentoIEx-OIIenders
MichaelBoucai
I.Introduction .............................................................................................................................2
II.TheMoralWaiverSystem......................................................................................................6
A. SubstantiveLawsandPoliciesGoverningtheMoralWaiverSystem...............................6
B. MoralWaiverProcedure:ThePracticeandEIIicacyoICharacterScreening..................11
C. MoralWaivers:TheNumbers........................................................................................17
III.PolicyConsiderationsIorMilitaryRecruitmentoIEx-OIIenders.........................................21
A. Ex-OIIenderEnlistment,RecruitQuality,andServicememberAttrition ........................21
B. SocialPolicyConsiderations..........................................................................................26
1. TheRecruitPool.........................................................................................................27
2. WhyEnlist?TheEx-OIIendersSituation................................................................29
3. WhyRecruit?BeneIitstoSociety ............................................................................34
IV.Conclusion..........................................................................................................................37
Table1.MoralWaiverRequirementsbyOIIenseandService..................................................40
Table2.1990-1997WaiverGrantFigures................................................................................41
Table3.2003-2006WaiverGrantFigures................................................................................42
Table4.2003-2006WaiverGrantFiguresbyOIIenseCategory...............................................43

Associate,Kasowitz,Benson,Torres&FriedmanLLP.JurisDoctor,GeorgetownUniversityLawCenter,2005:
BacheloroIArts,History,YaleUniversity,2002.TheauthorthankstheMichaelD.PalmCenterIoritsgenerous
supportoIthisstudy,aswellasAaronBelkin,RyanLozar,andMichaelOttolenghiIortheiradviceand
encouragement.ThisArticlewasprimarilycomposedwhiletheauthorwasaVisitingResearcherattheGeorgetown
UniversityLawCenter.
2
I.INTRODUCTION
ArecentNewYorkercartoonwittily,iIunwittingly,capturesagrowingrealityoItodays
iobmarket.Perusinganapplicantsrsum,anemployerconIesses:ImtryingtoIindawayto
balanceyourstrengthsagainstyourIelonies.
1
Thoughmerelyapunchlinetomostreaders,
suchtepidwordsoIwelcomearetakenanythingbutlightlyamongthenumerousex-oIIendersin
thenationsworkIorce.The600,000individualsreleasedeachyearIromIederalandstate
prisonsIacetremendousdiIIicultiesIindingemploymentespeciallywhen,liketheapplicantin
theNewYorkercartoon,theyarehonestabouttheirbackgrounds.
Asthosewhohidetheirarrestsandconvictionswellknow,thecriminalclosetishardly
conducivetoiobretention,perIormance,orpromotion.Nonetheless,secrecyisoItentheonly
alternativetounemployment.Echoingawidespreadexpertconsensus,criminologistJoan
PetersiliasaysthatIindingaiobiscriticaltoconvictseIIectivereintegrationintosociety.
2
EmployersreluctanceoroutrightreIusaltohireex-oIIenderskeepsmanyoItheseindividualsat
themarginsoIsociety,increasingtheirlikelihoodoIrecidivismandreincarceration.
3
ThisArticledealswithex-oIIenderemploymentinonecontextwherethenecessityoI
balancingstrengthsagainstIeloniesistakenveryseriouslyindeed:theU.S.ArmedForces.
4
It
suggestsrevisingthetraditionalwisdomthatthemilitaryseligibilityrequirementsareIorthe

1
LeoCullum,Cartoon,NEWYORKER,Sept.19,2005,at74.
2
JoanPetersilia,HaraTime.Ex-OffenaersReturningHomeAfterPrison,CORRECTIONSTODAY,Apr.2005,at66,
67(2005).
3
See.e.g., DoingMoreThanTime,Op-Ed,CHRISTIANSCI.MONITOR,May4,2001,at10,availableat2001WLNR
1242682(True,about40percentoIIormerconvictsturntocrimeagain.Butthatstatisticwouldalmostcertainly
shrinkiImorebusinesseslookedbeyondthequestionoIpastIelonyconvictions,andiIstatecorrectionsdepartments
didmoretogiveinmatesanopportunitytoprepareIorliIeontheoutside.).
4
Inassessingpotentialrecruits,includingthosewithcriminalhistories,themilitaryusesawholepersonstandard
thatentailsevaluating|whether|theapplicantsstrengthsoutweighthereasonsIordisqualiIication.LeonardL.
Etcho,TheEIIectoIMoralWaiversonFirst-Term,UnsuitabilityAttritionintheMarineCorps,at4(Mar.1996)
(thesis,NavalPostgraduateSchool),availableathttp://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?ADADA309309&LocationU2&docGetTRDoc.pdI.
3
protectionoIthegovernment,andnotIorthesoldier.
5
InaspiritoIgreaterreciprocity,civilian
societyoughttopaycloserattentiontowhetherandhowex-oIIendersgainaccesstomilitary
employment.ServiceintheArmedForcesshouldbecautiously,butseriouslyandIrankly,
consideredasapotentialcareerpathIorsomeoItheseindividuals.Certainlyweshouldcontinue
toaskwhatIormercriminalscandoIorthemilitary:butweshouldalsoaskwhatthemilitarycan
doIorIormercriminalsandwhat,inturn,themilitarycandoIorthecommunitiesinwhichex-
oIIendersareexpected,andsooItenIail,tobuildnewandproductivelives.
6
Recentdevelopmentsathomeandabroadmakeex-oIIenderenlistmentaparticularly
timelyquestion.First,theissuerelatesinmultiplewaystotheArmedForcesIalteringabilityto
Iillranks.
7
Aswewillsee,ex-oIIenderspresenceintheArmedForcescanbecharacterizedasa
cause,eIIect,orevencorrectionoIthemilitarysapparentrecruitmentproblem.Second,ex-
oIIenderenlistmentconstitutes,inandoIitselI,amaiorrecruitmenttrend.
8
Manyreaderswillbe
surprisedtolearniusthowmanyex-oIIenderstheArmedServicesknowinglyadmiteachyear
despiteastatutorypresumptionagainstsuchaccessions,anddespiteaburdenonenlisteesto

5
ExparteDostal,243F.664,672(N.D.Ohio1917).
6
NormanMailersevocativedescriptionoIthesituationoIaconvictuponreleaseIromprisonhaslostnoneoIits
Iorceortruth:
ThenonedaytheyputtheconvictouttheIrontdoor,toldhimtodayismagic....Now,doitonyourown.
Goout,Iindaiob,getupbyyourselI,reporttoworkontime,manageyourmoney,doallthethingsyou
weretaughtnottodoinprison.GuaranteedtoIail.Eightypercentwentbacktoiail.
NORMANMAILER,THEEXECUTIONERS SONG 482(1979).
7
SeeTomBowman,ArmvAcceptsCrimeinRecruitstoFillItsNeeas.MilitarvIssuesWaiversforSomePastMinor
Offenses,BALT.SUN,Feb.14,2006,at1A,availableat2006WLNR2554076:FrankMain,MoreArmvRecruits
HaveRecoras.NumberAlloweainwithMisaemeanorsMoreThanDoubles,CHI.SUN-TIMES,June19,2006,at3,
availableat2006WLNR10550175.MoregeneralexpressionsoIrecruitment-relatedanxiety,Iromameretwo-
monthperiodin2005,includePhilipCarter,TheQuietMan,N.Y.TIMES,July6,2005,atA19,availableat2005
WLNR10629369,VictorDavisHanson,AreThevintheArmvNow?CriesofShortfall.Exhaustion.ana
Overstretch,NATL REV.,July4,2005,at17,GregJaIIe,ToFillRanks.ArmvActstoRetainEvenProblem
Enlistees,WALLST.J.,June3,2005,atB1,andGregJaIIe&YochiR.Dreazen,ArmvMightSeekWaiverstoCall
GuarasBackUp,WALLST.J.,Jan.7,2005,atA3.
8
ThemainstreampresshasdevotedsomeattentiontothesigniIicantpopulationoIex-oIIendersrecruitedintothe
ArmedForces.See.e.g., TheArmv.AfterIraq,Op-Ed,N.Y.TIMES,Mar.18,2007,4,at11,availableat2007
WLNR5097688(YoudonothavetolookveryhardthesedaystoseethegravedamagetheBushadministrations
mismanagementoItheIraqconIlicthasinIlictedontheUnitedStatesArmy.Consiaerthemoralwaiversforviolent
offenaers.tomeetrecruitmenttargets.(emphasissupplied)):Bowman,supranote7:Main,supranote7.
4
provetheirqualiIications.
9
Finally,thepublichasrespondedtotheAbuGhraibprisonabuse
scandal,
10
aswellasotherdisturbinginstancesoIservicemembermisconduct,
11
withheightened
concernaboutthecheckeredbackgroundsoIsomemilitaryrecruits.
12
AsthepubliccontinuestoengagetheissueoIex-oIIenderenlistment,itshouldtakecare
toavoidthemilitaryssingle-mindedIocusonsuitabilitydisparitiesbetweenex-oIIendersand
otherrecruits.
13
Thesewell-documenteddiIIerencesareimportantconsiderations,butothers,
whichlookbeyondmerenumbers,alsomeritattention:theIactthatasubstantialmaiorityoI
servicememberswithcriminalhistoriesaresuccessIullyintegratedintotheArmedForces:
14
the
possibilitythataprobleminmilitaryculture,notmilitaryrecruitmentperse,isamoreproximate
causeoIthemostdisturbinginstancesoIservicemembermisconduct:
15
andthemoregeneral

9
See.e.g., DEPTOFTHEARMY,ARMYREGULATION601-210,at 4-2(c)(2005),availableat
http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdIIiles/r6015F210.pdI(Theburdenisontheapplicanttoprovetowaiverauthorities
thatheorshehasovercometheirdisqualiIicationsIorenlistmentandthattheiracceptancewouldbeinthebest
interestsoItheArmy.)|hereinaIterARMYREGULATION601-210|.
10
JamesRisen,G.I.sAreAccuseaofAbusingIraqiCaptives,N.Y.TIMES,Apr.29,2004,atA15,availableat2004
WLNR5501121:ThomShankner&DexterFilkins,ArmvPunishes7withReprimanasforPrisonAbuse,N.Y.
TIMES,May4,2004,atA1,availableat2004WLNR5604118:TimGolden&EricSchmitt,GeneralTook
GuantanamoRulestoIraqforHanalingofPrisoners,N.Y.TIMES,May13,2004,atA1,availableat2004WLNR
5538678.
11
RyanLenz,GIsMavHavePlanneaIraqRape.Slavings,ABCNEWS,July1,2006,availableat
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id2142323:JohnKiIner,HateGroupsAreInfiltratingtheMilitarv.
GroupAsserts, N.Y.TIMES,July7,2006,atA14,availableat2006WLNR11719901.
12
KenSilverstein,PentagonAlerteatoTroubleinRanks,L.A.TIMES,July1,2004,atA1,availableat2004WLNR
19762878:seealsoKateZernike,ThreeAccuseaSolaiersHaaRecorasofUnrulinessThatWentUnpunishea,N.Y.
TIMES,May27,2004,atA13,availableat2004WLNR5482807.
13
SeeinfraPartsII.A-.B.
14
SeeinfraPartsIII.A-.B.ItisworthquestioningtheeIIiciency,nottomentiontheIairness,oIexcludingthewhole
classoIex-oIIendersIromanyandallkindsoImilitaryservice.Amorereasonable,well-tailoredsolutionmightbe
tokeepsuchrecruitsawayIromparticularlysensitiveorconsequentialtasks(likeguardingorinterrogatingenemy
prisoners),ortodosountiltheyhavesuIIicientlydemonstratedtheirreliabilityinuniIorm.OIcoursethisis,in
someregards,currentmilitarypractice.SeegenerallvU.S.GEN.ACCOUNTINGOFFICE,MILITARYRECRUITING:
NEWINITIATIVESCOULDIMPROVECRIMINALHISTORYSCREENING(1999)|hereinaIterGAOMILITARY
RECRUITING|,availableathttp://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99053.pdI.
15
See.e.g.,ElizabethL.Hillman,GuaraingWomen.AbuGhraibanaMilitarvSexualCulture, inONEOFTHEGUYS:
WOMENASAGGRESSORSANDTORTURERS111(TaraMcKelveyed.,2007):HankNuwer,MilitarvHazing, inTHE
HAZINGREADER141(HankNuwered.,2004):CarieLittleHersh,CrossingtheLine.Sex.Power.Justice.anathe
U.S.NavvattheEquator,9DUKEJ.GENDERL.&POLY277(2002)(describingindetailthesimulatedsex,
degradation,andhumiliationinvolvedintheNavysinitiationoIsailorsuponIirstcrossingtheequator).
5
possibilitythatthecrimescommittedbyrecidivistoIIendersasciviliansareworseinquantity,
quality,oreIIectthanthosecommittedbyrecidivistsinuniIorm.
16
***
PartIIoIthisArticlediscussesthelegalandempiricalaspectsoIex-oIIenderenlistment
intheU.S.ArmedForces.Itbeginswiththelaws,policies,andproceduresregardingthemoral
waiversbywhichindividualswithcriminalhistoriesareadmittedintothemilitary.Itthen
describesthewaiversysteminaction,drawingonoriginalDepartmentoIDeIense(DOD)data
IurnisheddirectlytotheauthorundertheFreedomoIInIormationAct.Thestartlingtrends
exposedinPartIIIromthemilitarysuseoImoralwaiverstoknowinglyrecruitthousandsoI
personswithcriminalbackgroundseachyear,toitsIailuretodetectthecriminalbackgroundsoI
manythousandsmorearediscussedinlightoIthecompetingneedsandpressuresIacedbyour
contemporaryArmedForces.
PartIIIdescribessomeoIthepractical,social,andpoliticalconsiderationsthatareand
shouldbeatplayintheIormulationandimplementationoItheArmedForceswaiverpolicy.
Theseinclude:thecharacteristicsoItheAmericanyouthpopulationIromwhichrecruitsare
drawn:moralwaiverrecipientsperIormance,retention,andattritionlevels:ex-oIIenders'
employmentdiIIicultiesandtheeIIectoIthesediIIicultiesoncriminalrecidivism:andthesocial
advantagesoImilitaryserviceamongex-oIIenders.
SynthesizingthedescriptiveinIormationpresentedinPartIIwiththepolicyconcerns
addressedinPartIII,thisArticleconcludesthatex-oIIenderrecruitment,currentlypursued
throughasystemoIwinksandnods,shouldbeapproachedmoreIorthrightly,andperhapsmore
vigorously,IorthegoodoIciviliansocietyanatheArmedForces.

16
Seeinfranotes191-202andaccompanyingtext.Thereisevidence,Iorexample,thatrecidivismratesarelower
Iorthosewhoenterthemilitarywithmoralwaiversand/orcriminalbackgroundsthanIorthosewhodonotenterthe
militaryatall.
6
II.THEMORALWAIVERSYSTEM
A.SubstantiveLawsanaPoliciesGoverningtheMoralWaiverSvstem
TheSupremeCourthasheldthatvoluntarinessandcapacityaretheonlytwo
requirementsIoravalidenlistmentintotheU.S.ArmedForces.
17
Beyondthesecriteria,the
IederalgovernmenthaslongbeenentrustedtoprescribetherequisitequaliIications,andinsist
uponorwaivetheminitsdiscretion.
18
Generally,Congresshasdelegatedthisauthoritytothe
SecretaryoIDeIense,authorizingtheSecretarytoestablishphysical,mental,moral,
proIessional,andagerequirementsIorenlistment.
19
AnotablelimitationontheArmedForces
powertosettheirownstandardsisthestatutoryexclusionoIpersonswhohavebeenconvicted
oIaIelony.
20
TheU.S.DepartmentoIJustice(DOJ)citeslossoItherighttoserveinthe
militaryasoneoIthemanycollateralconsequencesoIaIelonyconviction,
21
anditisregularly
describedassuchiniudicialopinions.
22
Generallyspeaking,disqualiIicationonthebasisoI
moralcharacterencompassesindividualsunderiudicialrestraint|or|withsigniIicantcriminal
records,personsdisplayingantisocialorotherproblematicbehavior,andone-timeservice
memberswhosedischargewaslessthanhonorable.
23

17
Hodgesv.Brown,500F.Supp.25,28(E.D.Pa.1980)(citingInreGrimley,137U.S.147,151-53(1890),affa,
649F.2d859(3dCir.1981).
18
UnitedStatesv.Cottingham,40Va.615,631(Va.1843).
19
See.e.g.,10U.S.C.12102(b)(2006)(relatingtotheReserves).
20
10U.S.C.504(a)(2006).
21
SeeDEPTOFJUSTICE,OFFICEOFTHEPARDONATTORNEY,FEDERALSTATUTESIMPOSINGCOLLATERAL
CONSEQUENCESUPONCONVICTION3(2000)(citing 10U.S.C.504)|hereinaIterCOLLATERALCONSEQUENCES
UPONCONVICTION|,availableathttp://www.usdoi.gov/pardon/collateralconsequences.pdI.
22
See.e.g.,Mulloyv.UnitedStates,937F.Supp.1001,1006(D.Mass.1996):Commonwealthv.DuIIy,639A.2d
1174,1176(Pa.1994):InreDisciplinaryProceedingsAgainstHyndman,638N.W.2d293,300(Wis.2002)
(Wilcox,J.,dissenting)(Thecrimethatthecourtglossesoverisnotaminorone.SuchaIelonydrugconviction
wouldpreventHyndmanIromioiningtheArmedForces,IrombecomingapoliceoIIicer....(Iootnotesomitted)):
seealsoCOLLATERALCONSEQUENCESUPONCONVICTION, supranote21,at3.
23
SHEILANATARAJKIRBY&HARRYJ.THIE,RAND,ENLISTEDPERSONNELMANAGEMENT:AHISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE66(1996).
7
ThesamestatutethatdisqualiIiesIelonsIrommilitaryservicepermitstheSecretaryoI
DeIensetoauthorizeexceptions,inmeritoriouscases.
24
Suchexceptionsarecalledmoral
waivers,adesignationthatunderscoresthemilitarysuseoIcriminalhistoryasaproxyIor
moralcharacter.
25
JustastheArmedServicesmayadmitrecruitswhoarephysicallyheavier
thantherulesallowviaweightwaivers,theymayadmitthosewithcriminalhistoriesIrom
traIIicviolationstoIelonyconvictionsviamoralwaivers,whichovercometheseenlistees
priormisconduct.ThoughtheproceduresandrequirementsgoverningtheirallocationdiIIer
IromServicetoService,moralwaiversarewidelyusedthroughouttheArmedForces.
26
Themilitarysnominalbanonex-oIIendersmerelynominalbecausethemoralwaiver
systemenioyswidespreadobservanceinthebreachispartoIalargerlegalandpolicy
Irameworkthatparticularlydiscouragescriminalbehavioramongservicemembers.The
UniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice(UCMJ)andtheCourtoIAppealsIortheArmedForces,
whoseoperationisbynomeanslimitedtosituationswhereenIorcementoIcivilianlawsby
civiliancourtsisimpracticable,
27
areprominentexamplesoIsocietysdeIerencetothemilitarys
needtoregulatethedisciplineandcharacteroIitstroops.Individualsmaybedischargedor

24
10U.S.C.504(a)(2006).
25
AnthonyW.Frabutt,TheEIIectsoIPre-ServiceLegalEncountersonFirst-TermUnsuitabilityAttritioninthe
U.S.Navy,at2-4(Mar.1996)(unpublishedthesis,NavalPostgraduateSchool),availableat
http://www.stormingmedia.us/47/4767/A476703.html(mustpurchaseIoraccess).CriminalhistoryisanimperIect
measureoImoralcharacter.AsFrabuttexplains,
committing a crime does not necessarily equate with low moral character. First, individual
circumstancesthatmaynotreIlect moral charactercandetermineonesbehavior.Theremaybe
economicorenvironmentalIactorsthatinIluenceanindividualsactions.Second,onemustalso
take intoaccountremorse,reIorm,orrehabilitation,... as wellas theIact thatpeoplepayIor
theircrimeswithlegally-deIinedIormsoIpunishment.
Ia.at4.
26
Thus,itisthepolicyoItheMilitaryServicesasawholetoacquireanduse,wheneverpossible,criminalhistory
recordstoidentiIythosewhomaynotbeenlistedintheMilitaryServicesunlessawaiverisgrantea.32C.F.R.
96.4(b)(emphasissupplied).Notably,thisisthehighestlegalreIerencetomoralwaivers.
27
See10U.S.C.802(2006)(listingthepersonssubiecttoUCMJiurisdiction).
8
dismissedIromthemilitaryIorcommittingacrime,
28
andIederallawsometimesensuresthat
evenveteransaresubiecttospecialpunishment.
29
ADODdirectiveexplainsthatmoralcharacterrequirementsunderlyingpurposeisto
screenoutindividualswhoarelikelytobecomedisciplinarycasesorsecurityrisksorwho
disruptgoodorder,morale,anddiscipline.
30
AnearlierversionoIthedirectiveinvokesthe
militarysresponsibilitytoparents,whodonotwishtoseetheirsonsanddaughters...
placedintocloseassociationwithpersonswhohavecommittedseriousoIIensesorwhose
recordsshowingraineddelinquencybehaviorpatterns.
31
Inasimilarvein,somecommentators
havesuggestedthattheprohibitionreIlectsconcernovertheArmedForcespublicimage,
becauseacriminalelementinthemilitarywouldaIIectnotonlyrecruitingandretentionbut
alsopopularsupportandrespect.
32

28
SeegenerallvUniIormCodeoIMilitaryJustice,10U.S.C.801etseq.:10U.S.C.804:10U.S.C.816-20.
29
No|military|pension...shallbepaidto...anindividualwhohasbeenimprisonedinaFederal,State,|or|
local...penalinstitution...asaresultoIconvictionoIaIelonyormisdemeanorIoranypartoItheperiod
beginningsixty-onedaysaItersuchindividualsimprisonmentbeginsandendingwhensuchindividuals
imprisonmentends.38U.S.C.1505(a)(2006).Nonetheless,thelostpensionmavbepaidtothespouseor
childrenoItheimprisonedveteran.38U.S.C.1505(b).
30
DEPTOFDEFENSE,INSTRUCTION1304.26art.E2.2.7(2005)|hereinaIterDODINSTRUCTION1304.26|,available
athttp://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdI/130426p.pdI.Roughlythesamerationaleshavebeenarticulated
Iromamoreempiricalperspective.SeeFrabutt,supranote25,at1.TheprimaryiustiIicationsIorexcludingex-
oIIendersinclude,albeitmorecredibly,someoIthesameconcernsadvancedbythosewhoargueagainst
homosexualsinthemilitary,anassociationreinIorcedinDODsownrecruitmentliterature.See.e.g., WilliamA.
WoodruII,HomosexualitvanaMilitarvService.Legislation.Implementation.anaLitigation,64UMKCL.REV.
121,163-64(1995).TherecruitmentdirectivemovesdirectlyIromtheServicespolicyonhomosexualstoits
policyonex-oIIenders.Theexplanation/determinationguidelinesIortheAirForcesCategory1ineligibility
IactorsmaioroIIenseswhichcannotbewaivedreIerinthesamebreathtopersonswhoadmittoengagingin
homosexualconductandpersonswhohavebeenconvictedoIanoIIensepunishablebydeath.OtherCategory1
ineligibilityIactorsaretransexualismandothergenderidentitydisorders,exhibitionism,transvestism,|and|
voyeurism.AIR NATL GUARD,INSTRUCTION36-2002,at15,57(2004),availableathttp://www.e-
publishing.aI.mil/pubIiles/ang/36/angi36-2002/angi36-2002.pdI.
31
DEPTOFDEFENSE,DIRECTIVE1304.26art.E1.2.7(1993),availableat
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/text/d130426p.txt.
32
See.e.g.,Frabutt,supranote25,at2.
9
Yetthemilitaryspolicyonex-oIIenders,andeventhestatutorydisqualiIicationoI
convictedIelons,hardlyamountstoaclass-wideexclusion.
33
Theintricatesystememployed
todetectmeritoriousexceptions,likethewidespreaduseoIwaivers,demonstratestheArmed
ForcescollectivereIusaltoreiectpersonnelirrespectiveoItheirinaiviaualsuitability.
34
Instead,mostapplicantsbeneIitIromthewholepersonstandard.
35
SometimescriticizedIorits
Iailuretoprovideconcreteguidancetorecruiters,
36
thewholepersonstandardpermits
considerationoIthecircumstancessurroundingthecriminalviolations,theageoItheperson
committingthem,andpersonalinterviewswiththeapplicantandothers,aswellasarecruit's
otheraptitudes,experiences,andcharacteristics.
37
DocumentsusedthroughouttheDODreIertoacommonsetoIwaivercodes,butthe
oIIensesencompassedundereachcodevarybyService,withoneormoreServicesIoregoing
notationoIcertaincodesandthereIorecertainoIIensesaltogether.
38
DODForm1966
initiallyclassiIiesoIIensesbytheirtimeoIcommission:enlistmentwaiversIorviolationsthat
occurredpriortoentryintoArmedForcesDelayedEntryProgram(DEP)andaccession
waiversIorviolationsthatoccurredaIterentryintoDEPbutbeIoretheIormalstartoImilitary

33
WoodruII,supranote30,at164(WithineachoI|the|broadcategories|uponwhichthemilitarychoosesto
restrictenlistment,|theremaybeindividualswhocouldperIormwellincertainpositionsinthemilitary.Enlistment
qualiIications,however,excludethemonaclass-widebasis.).Thereare,inIact,veryIewclass-wideexclusions.
34
Ia.(statingthatCongresshasimposedanumberoIrestrictionsonentrythatdisqualiIypersonnelirrespectiveoI
theirindividualsuitability)(emphasissupplied).
35
See.e.g., ARMYREGULATION601-210,supranote9,at4-2(c)(Waiverauthoritieswillapplythewholeperson
conceptwhenconsideringwaiverapplications.).
36
OnestudycallsIorresearchthatwouldallowtheservicestoestablishguidelinesIorthosewhomust
approve/denyrequestsIormoralcharacterwaivers,andprovideempiricallygroundedcriteriaandstandardson
whichtobasethosedecisions.DAN J.PUTKAETAL., EVALUATINGMORALCHARACTERWAIVERPOLICYAGAINST
SERVICEMEMBERATTRITIONANDIN-SERVICEDEVIANCETHROUGHTHEFIRST18MONTHSOFSERVICE,atviii-ix
(2003).
37
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at2.
38
See ia.at2-5.LiketheServiceslackoIuniIormityinthesubstantivecriteriausedIorgrantingorwithholding
moralwaivers,thislackoIconsistencyincategorizationhasbeencriticizedasconIusingandineIIicient.SeePUTKA
ETAL.,supranote36,atvii(recommendingadoptionoIaDoD-wide,standardlawviolationclassiIication
Iramework).
10
service.
39
ThealphabeticalcodethatForm1966appliestoeitherkindoIwaiverisdetermined
IirstbyinIractiontype(lawviolationorillegalsubstance-relatedadmission)andthenbya
varietyoIpotentialIactors:theoIIendersage(iuvenileoradult):theoIIensesmagnitude
(seriousornon-serious):thetypeoIoIIense(traIIicviolation,non-traIIicviolation,Ielony):
and/orthesubstanceinvolved(alcohol,mariiuana,oranotherdrug).
40
InadditiontothecategoriessuggestedbyDODForm1066,theServicesIurther
distinguishbetweenIelonies(e.g.,kidnapping,murder),
41
seriousmisdemeanors(e.g.,assault,
pettylarceny),minormisdemeanors(e.g.,dischargingaIirearmwithincitylimits,removing
publicproperty),minornon-traIIicoIIenses(e.g.,disorderlyconduct,vandalism),serioustraIIic
oIIenses(e.g.,drivingwitharevokedlicense),andminortraIIicoIIenses(e.g.,speeding).
42
EvenatthisleveloIspeciIicity,therearediIIerencesbetweenthevariousbranchesclassiIication
oIcrimes.
43
ByIarthemostimportantoIthesearetheArmysdecisiontoignorethatis,to
Iorgivewithoutgrantingamoralwaiverpre-serviceabuseoIillegalsubstances,andtheMarine
CorpsrequirementoIamoralwaiverIorevenonetimemariiuanause.
44
OIIensecategorizationisimportantbecauseitlargelydetermineswhetheranenlisteewill
beeligibleIorawaiverand,iIso,howmanyotheroIIensesarewaivable.Table1below,based
oninIormationcompiledbytheU.S.GovernmentAccountingOIIice(GAO),summarizesthe
extenttowhicheachServicewillconsiderwaivingcertainkindsoIoIIenses.Evidently,all

39
DEPTOFDEFENSE,FORM1966,RECORDOFMILITARYPROCESSINGII-17(h),-18(I),availableat
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/inIomgt/Iorms/eIorms/dd1966.pdI.
40
SeePUTKAETAL., supranote36,at8.
41
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at3:Frabutt,supranote25,at20.Felonies,generallyunderstoodto
beoIIenseswhosepunishmentequalsorexceedsoneyearinprison,encompassawiderangeoIoIIenses.As
indicatedbytheearlierreIerencetotheAirForcesautomaticdisqualiIicationoIindividualsconvictedoIIelonies
carryingthedeathpenalty,somecrimesinthiscategorywillbetreatedmoreharshlythanothers.
42
43
WhilethestandardsacrosstheServicesaresimilar,thereareminorvariationswhichcreateService-speciIic
requirements.DEPTOFDEFENSE,OFFICEOFDEPUTYUNDERSECRETARYOFDEFENSE,MILITARYRECRUITING
AND WAIVERS3(2007)(onIilewithauthor)|hereinaIterDODMILITARYRECRUITINGANDWAIVERS|.
44
SeeGAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at27-28(explainingthattheArmydeIinespre-serviceillegal
substanceuseasamedical,notamoral,problem):DODMILITARYRECRUITINGANDWAIVERS, supranote43at1.
11
branchestakeadvantageoItheirwidediscretiontocreatesubstantivemoralwaiverpolicy.
ThreeoItheIourServicesdeclinetouseonecategory,SeriousTraIIicOIIenses,whichthe
DODnonethelessemploysinitswaiver-relatedoperations.TheNavyandtheAirForcewill
considerwaivingmultipleIelonies,buttheArmyandMarineCorpsallownomorethanone.
45
ApartIromcrimesspeciIicallyclassiIiedasdrugoIIenses,seriousmisdemeanors(alsoknownas
seriousnon-traIIicoIIenses)accountIoramaiorityoIallmoralwaivers
46
andaretreatedquite
diIIerentlyIromoneServicetoanothertheNavywillwaivenomorethantwosuchoIIenses,
theArmyreIusestowaivemorethanIour,theMarineCorpssetsitslimitatIive,andtheAir
ForceimposesnoIormalnumericalrestrictionwhatsoever.
47
B.MoralWaiverProceaure.ThePracticeanaEfficacvofCharacterScreening
Moralcharacterscreeningistheprocessbywhichrecruitersreviewenlisteescriminal
andsubstanceabusehistories.
48
Screeningproceduresareextensive,IurnishinguptoIourteen
separateopportunities(involvinguptosevendiIIerentrecruitingpersonnel)Iorrecruitsto
discloseIactsrelevanttoamoralwaiverapplication.
49
Althoughthescreeningprocessis
diIIerentIrombranchtobranch,eachServiceusesasimilarsetoImethods,
50
including
interviews,brieIings,Iorms,
51
aswellasstate,local,andIederalrecordchecks.
52
Suchpersistent

45
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at4.ThisshouldnotbetakentomeanthattheNavyandtheAir
ForcehabituallyadmitindividualswhorequiremorethanoneIelonywaiver.Itislikelythatmostsuchindividuals
areexcludedonrecruitersdiscretionratherthanbyautomaticdisqualiIication.
46
Seeinfratbl.4.
47
48
PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,atv.
49
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at1,6.
50
PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at1(citingJ.L.BURNFIELD,K.HANDY,D.E.SIPES&J.H.LAURENCE,MORAL
CHARACTERANDENLISTMENTSTANDARDS:DOCUMENTATION,POLICY, AND PROCEDUREREVIEW (1999)).
51
xt
ApplicantsarerequiredtocompletetheIollowingIormsusedinobtainingcriminalhistory
inIormation:(1)RecordoIMilitaryProcessingArmedForcesoItheUnitedStates(DDForm
1966),(2)PersonnelSecurityQuestionnaire(SF-86),(3)thePoliceRecordCheck(DDForm
369),and(4)theArmedForcesFingerprintCard(DDForm2280).TheseIormselicit
inIormationonpolicerecordhistories,drugandalcoholuseandabuse,Iinancialrecordsand
delinquencies,andanyiuvenilearrestorcriminalactivity.
12
inquiryisespeciallyimportantinlightoItheconsequencesoIdishonestyornon-disclosure:
enlisteeswhointentionallyconcealdisqualiIyinginIormationmaybereIusedenlistmentatany
pointduringtherecruitingprocessor,aIterenlisting,|maybe|dischargedIorIraudulent
enlistment.
53
BeginningattheIirstrecruitmentinterview,anapplicantisaskedtodiscloseall arrests
orconvictions,regardlessoIwhentheincidentoccurredand,inthecaseoIarrests,regardlessoI
whethertheapplicantwasIoundguilty.
54
IIasigniIicantissuearises,therecruiterandthe
applicantareexpectedtodiscussallrelevantIactsandcircumstances.Indecidingwhetherto
seekamoralwaiver,recruitersareguidedinpartbytheoIIenseclassiIicationrulesdescribed
above.
55
AdmissionorsuspectedconcealmentoIacriminalrecordtriggersamorerigorous
backgroundinvestigationthanthegeneralnationalagencycheckconducteduponadmissioninto
DEP.
56
AlthoughrecruitsnormallyenterDEP|r|egardlessoImoralcharacterstatus,
57
subsequentparticipationentailsconsiderableinquiryintotheirso-calledmoralbackground.
58

GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at8(Iootnoteomitted).TherespectiveServiceswillposesimilar
questionsonIormsoItheirown.Forexample,theAirForceEnlistmentquestionnaireasks:
1.Haveyoueverbeeninvolved,arrested,indicted,orconvictedIoranyviolationoIcivilor
militarylaw,includingnoniudicialpunishmentpursuanttoArticle15oItheUniIormCodeoI
MilitaryJustice(UCMJ)orminortraIIicviolations?
....
8.Areyouunderinvestigationbymilitaryorcivilianauthorities?...
9.AreyouundertheinIluenceoIdrugsoralcohol?...
10.HaveyouevertestedpositiveIoranillegaldrug/substance?
AIR NATL GUARD,INSTRUCTION36-2002,supranote30,at36(emphasisinoriginal).
52
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at5(notingthat|e|achservicescreensIorcriminalbackground
inIormationinasimilarmanner.).
53
Ia.at9.
54
PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at1(emphasisinoriginal).
55
Ia.at1,2.
56
Ia.at2:seealso.e.g.,ARMYREGULATION601-210,supranote9,at2-11(b)(2)-(4).ThissectionentitledMoral
andAdministrativeCriteria,statesthat
|a|pplicants who claim no law violations or claims |sic| only minor traIIic oIIenses (except
reckless or careless or imprudent driving) will have police record checks, based on current
residence,obtainedIromthreelevels:(a)Cityormunicipal,militaryinstallationlawenIorcement.
(b)CountylawenIorcement.(c)StatelawenIorcement.(3)Applicantwhoclaimslawviolations
other than minor traIIic oIIenses will have police record checks completed where applicant has
lived, worked . . . and attended school during the 3 years prior to application into the
DEP/DS/DTP: police/court documents where the oIIense(s) occurred will be obtained Irom: (a)
13
Atanypointduringtheenlistmentprocess,discoveryoIinIormationthatwouldrender
theapplicantineligibleIorawaiverIorexample,aiudicialconvictionIorspousalabuse
automaticallyterminatestherecruitmentprocess.
59
SolongastheapplicantsoIIensedoesnot
entailsuchimmediatedisqualiIication,theIirstdisclosureordiscoveryoIanylawviolation
initiatesthemoralwaiverprocess.
60
Recruitersmaybeginthisprocessatanypointinthe
recruitmentschedule.
61
Onceawaiversnecessitybecomesapparent,DOD-widepolicyrequires
collectionoIallpossibleinIormationaboutthewho,what,when,where,and/orwhyoIthe
oIIenseatissue,aswellaslettersoIrecommendationIromresponsiblecommunityleaders.
62
ThoughmoralwaiverrequestsmaybereiectedatanyleveloItherecruitmenthierarchy,
anoIIensesseverityisthemostimportantIactordeterminingthelevelatwhichawaiverrequest

Cityormunicipal,militaryinstallationlawenIorcement.(b)CountylawenIorcement.(c)State
law enIorcement. (d) Court documents. (e) Probation departments. (I) Adult correctional
Iacility. (g) Juvenile correctional Iacilities. (4) Applicants requiring a moral waiver Ior any
misdemeanor or Ielony level charge, regardless oI disposition, will have police record checks
obtained Irom: (a) City or municipal, military installation law enIorcement. (b) County law
enIorcement. (c) State law enIorcement. (d) Court documents. (e) Probation departments. (I)
AdultcorrectionalIacility.(g)JuvenilecorrectionalIacility.
Ia.(internaldivisionsomitted).
57
PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at2.
58
When the |national agency| checks involve Iingerprints, the services request a Iingerprint
veriIication a comparison oI an enlistees Iingerprints against FBI criminal records to ensure
that they are Irom the same individual whose name was associated with a possible arrest record
identiIied through |a| descriptive data search. Also, during the |DEP|, recruiters are in contact
withtheenlisteesandcontinuetoinquireabouttheircriminalbackgroundandanycurrentcontact
with law enIorcement agencies. . . . AIter the |DEP| period, . . . enlistees are asked again to
disclose disqualiIying inIormation when they report to basic training, which lasts Irom 6 to 12
weeksdependingontheservice.
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at8-9.
59
TheLautenbergAmendmenttotheGunControlActmakesitaIelonyIoranyoneconvictedoIamisdemeanor
crimeoIdomesticviolencetoship,receive,orpossessIirearmsorammunition,andprovidesnomilitaryorlaw
enIorcementexception.See18U.S.C.922(g)(9)(2005).Studiesreveal,however,thatasmallnumberoI
waivershavebeengrantedtoindividualsconvictedoIdomesticviolence-relatedcharges.DEPTOFDEFENSE,
DEFENSETASKFORCEONDOMESTICVIOLENCE:INITIALREPORT53(2001):seealsoPUTKAETAL., supranote36,
at2(IItherecruiterdiscoversthattheapplicantissubiecttoIurtherorpendingiudicialproceedings,theapplication
processisalsoterminatedimmediately.).
60
ForahelpIuldescriptionoIthemoralcharacterwaiverapprovalprocess,seePUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at1-2.
61
62
SeeDODINSTRUCTION1304.26,supranote30,art.E2.2.7.2.2.
14
maybegranted.
63
RecruitingcommandersareresponsibleIorapprovingwaiversoIthemost
seriousoIIenses.
64
AttheotherendoIthespectrumaredisclosuresoIillegalsubstanceuse,
whichmaybeexcusedbylow-levelrecruiterswhoareotherwiseunqualiIiedtograntwaivers.
65
ThethirdletteroIanoIIenseswaivercodesignalstherequiredwaiverauthoritylevel.
66
Clearly,themoralscreeningprocessiselaborate.ButisiteIIective?Doadozen
requestsIorconIessionmakethesystemairtight,ordoessuchpersistencebetrayacertainlackoI
conIidenceintheconIessor?
AlthoughthepreciseIailurerateisimpossibletomeasure,themoralscreeningprocess,
aspresentlyconstituted,isIundamentallyanddrasticallyIlawed.OIIicialbackgroundchecksIor
allenlisteesthatis,across-the-boardcriminalhistorysearcheswerediscardedin1986
becauseIormalprohibitionsonthereleaseoIsuchinIormationconstantlythwartedrecruiters
investigations.
67
Since1986,however,thesameproblemcontinuestoariseinasmaller(and,per
capita,moreproblematic)segmentoItheapplicantpoolnamely,individualswhohaveactually
conIessedtoanarrestorconvictionorwhohaveotherwiseacknowledgedtheexistenceoIa
criminalrecord.
68
ThespecialprotectionthatbackgroundconcealmentstatutesaIIordiuvenile
oIIendersisparticularlyIrustratingIormilitaryrecruitersgiventhatseventeentotwenty-oneyear

63
PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at2.
64
65
PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at1,8.
66
Ia.at8.ThecodesareasIollows:
A:Waivergrantedbythehighestauthoritylevel
B:WaivergrantedbytheRecruitingCommandHeadquarterslevel
C:WaivergrantedbytheUSMCRegionalCommandlevel
D:WaivergrantedbytheUSABrigade,USNArea,USMCDistrict,USAF
Grouplevel
E:WaivergrantedbytheUSABattalion,USNDistrict,USAFSquadronlevel,
USMCRecruitingStation
F:WaivergrantedbytheCoastGuardRecruitingCenter
Ia.
67
ELIS.FLYER,DIRECTORATEFORACCESSIONPOLICYOFFICEOFTHEASSISTANTSECYFORDEF.,RECRUITSWITH
A PRESERVICEARRESTHISTORY:IDENTIFICATION,CHARACTERISTICS, ANDBEHAVIORONACTIVEDUTY4-5(1995).
68
Seeia.at 2-3.
15
oldsconstitutetheprimaryrecruitpopulation.
69
TheDODandothermilitaryvoiceshave
complainedthatsuchrestrictionsareaseriousdeIectinthemoralscreeningsystem.
70
Anthony
Frabutt,Iorone,urgesthemilitarytoinvestigatewaystoIixthisproblem,includingtherepeal
ormodiIicationoIIederal,
71
state,
72
andlocalpoliciesthatbarorrestrictoIIicialdisclosureoI
criminalhistories.
73
TheArmedForcesnarrowlyconstraineduseoIoIIicialcriminalrecordsentailsalmost
completerelianceonrecruitsownconIessionsoIwrongdoing.
74
Becausethemilitaryishardly
immuneIromex-oIIenderstendencytohidetheircriminalpastsIromemployers,
75
many
individualswithmoraldisqualiIicationsareadmittedintotheServiceswithoutevenapplyingIor
thenecessarywaiver.TheselI-preservationistimpulseunderlyingex-oIIendersreticenceis

69
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at12:seealsoBETHJ.ASCH,CAN DU &MATTHIASSCHONLAU,
RAND,POLICYOPTIONSFORMILITARYRECRUITINGINTHECOLLEGEMARKET:RESULTSFROMANATIONAL
SURVEY1(2004)(reIerringtothemilitarystraditionalrecruitingmarket,namelyhighschoolgraduateswithno
immediateplanstoattendcollege).
70
BeIorepublication,theGAOsreportonmoralcharacterscreeningwassubmittedtotheDODIorcomment.The
GAOdevotedaconsiderableportionoIitsdiscussiontocriminalrecordaccess,aproblemdiscussedinasmuchor
moredetailthananyothersubiectcoveredinthereport.Nonetheless,theDODnotedthatthereportdoesnotIully
address|its|needIortimelylocalandstatecriminalhistoryinIormationatareasonablecost.GAOMILITARY
RECRUITING, supranote14,at36.
71
DOD policy states that the military services shall obtain and review criminal history record
inIormationIromthecriminaliusticesystemandDeIenseSecurityServicetodeterminewhether
applicantsareacceptableIorenlistmentandIorassignmenttospecialprograms.However,under
theSecurityClearanceInIormationAct(5U.S.C.9101),criminal iusticeagenciesarerequired
to provide this inIormation to DOD only when an individual is being investigated Ior eligibility
Ior access to classiIied inIormation or sensitive national security duties. These agencies, which
include Iederal, state, and local agencies, are not required to provide this inIormation Ior
determiningbasiceligibilityorsuitabilityIorenlistment(i.e.,employment).
Ia.at11(Iootnoteomitted).
72
Manystates,andindeedmanymunicipalities,chargeIeesIorreleasinginIormation.ANavyRecruiting
CommandsurveyIoundthat33stateschargedIeesrangingIrom$5to$59.Ia.at12.TheeIIectoIsuchIees
variesdependingontheparticularService:
TheArmyhasapolicytorequestlocalandstaterecordchecksIorallapplicants,butwillnotpay
these Iees, and thereIore, does not obtain inIormation Irom states that charge Iees. The other
servicesrequest theserecordchecksonlyiI anapplicantadmitsto acriminalhistory.Navyand
MarineCorpspolicyallowsrecruiterstopayIorthechecks:AirForcepolicyrequiresapplicants
toobtainthechecksandpayanyIeesassociatedwiththechecks.
Ia.
73
Ia.at2.Seegenerallv,Frabutt,supranote25,at50.
74
Frabutt,supranote25,at3.
75
See infraPartIII.B.2.
16
hardlyincomprehensibleinlightoIhonestysoItenharshconsequences,andadecisiontoheed
thatimpulsemaybeparticularlyunderstandablewhenitissoeasytogetawaywithlying.
76
Sometimes,however,recruitersthemselvesmayberesponsible,inwholeorinpart,Ioran
applicantsperiurytheymightsuggestorimplythatarecruitkeepcertainIactshidden,orthey
mightconcealinIormationontheirowninitiative.
77
Whatevertheirmotive,cover-upsdohappen:|I|nreality,therearemanyenlisteesinthe
militarytodaywithaconcealedcriminalhistory.
78
Thecriminalclosetapparentlypervadesthe
ArmedForces.OIcourse,itsexactprevalenceisimpossibletomeasureIorthesamereasonthat
detectionisdiIIicultintheIirstplacenamely,widespreadrestrictionsonaccesstocriminal
records.Whatresearchexistsisnotencouraging.A1995studyIoundthatthemaiorityoINavy
recruitswithanarresthistorydidnotseek,letalonereceive,amoralwaiver.
79
AnotherNavy
studyconductedoneyearlaterIoundanon-disclosurerateoIthirty-onepercentIornon-Ielony
convictionsandninety-onepercentIorIelonyconvictions:intheiuvenilesample,theIigures
wereevenhigherIorbothoIIensecategories.
80
AndwhileitistruethatamongasampleoImore
than48,000Navyrecruits,onlythirty-eightpercentoIthosewithadocumentedpriorlegal

76
Toemphasizehowirresistiblelyingmayseemtoanex-oIIender,consideragainthatanapplicantisinstructedto
divulgeinIormationaboutanyoIIenseeveniI|the|recordsweresealedorexpunged.PUTKAETAL.,supranote
36,at1.
77
SeeFrabutt,supranote25,at23-24:seealsoDamienCave,ArmvRecruitersSavThevFeelPressuretoBena
Rules,N.Y.TIMES,May3,2003,atA23,availableat2005WLNR6894465(Several|recruiters|spokeoI
concealingmental-healthhistoriesandpolicerecords....|Onerecruitersaid|hehasbeenordered|byhis
superiors|toconcealpolicerecordsandminormedicalconditions....).
78
SeeFrabutt,supranote25,at10.
79
SeeMiguelA.Lake,NavyPersonnelwithIn-ServiceCriminalRecords:CharacteristicsoIOIIendersandCareer
Implications,at7(Dec.1996)(unpublishedM.S.thesis,NavalPostgraduateSchool),availableat
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA326534(citationomitted).
80
JuvenileconvictionsweredisclosedatarateoIsixtypercentIornon-IeloniesandthreepercentIorIelonies.See
JeIIreyW.Connor,TheEIIectsoIPre-ServiceCriminalHistoryonRecruitPerIormanceintheU.S.Navy,at31
(Mar.1997)(unpublishedM.S.thesis,NavalPostgraduateSchool),availableat
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331671.
17
encounterenteredtheservicewithouttheappropriatewaiver,
81
thisrelativelyencouraging
IigurewasoIIsetbythediscoverythatconvictedIelonshadatwopercentdisclosurerate,
comparedwithseventy-ninepercentIorrecruitsconvictedoImisdemeanors.
82
Basedonthese
Iindings,thestudyconcludedthattheNavyscurrentsystemIorprovidingmoralwaiversand
reviewingthebackgroundoIapplicantsIorenlistmentisineIIectiveinidentiIyingpersonswitha
pre-servicearresthistory.
83
C. MoralWaivers.TheNumbers
Althoughwecannotdeterminepreciselyhowmanyex-oIIendersenterthemilitary,even
thedrasticallydeIicientoIIicialIiguresi.e.,thenumberoImoralwaiversgrantedeachyear
establishthatastartlingpercentageoIservicemembershavecriminalhistories.Moreover,
althoughmanywaiversexcuseeitherminoroIIensesoradmitted-but-unpunishedillegal
substanceuse,aboutone-thirdrelatetowhattheDODcallsseriousnon-traIIicoIIenses.
84
SuchoIIensesdonotincludeIelonies,whichconstituteaseparate,signiIicant,butrelatively
smallclassoIcrimesIorwhichmoralwaiversareroutinelygranted.
Table2providesthenumberoImoralwaiverseachServicebestowed,andthenumber
theArmedForcesasawholebestowed,IorIiscalyears1990through1997.
85
TheGAO
compiledthisdatabasedontheDeIenseManpowerDataCentersenlistmentandseparation

81
Frabutt,supranote25,at23.MoralwaiversarenotrequiredIormereencounterswiththelaw(e.g.,arreststhat
donotresultinconviction),eventhoughapplicantsarerequiredtoconIesssuchencounters.Pre-serviceconvictions
areagoodindicatoroImoralcharacterIorscreeningpurposes.ButasFrabuttobserves,usingconvictionsinstead
oIarreststoevaluatemoralcharacter...holdswellwiththevaluesoIAmericansociety,whoseiusticesystemis
basedontheconceptoIapersonsinnocenceuntilprovenguilty....|A|narrestdoesnotequatetoguilt...|and|
thereisnoreasontoassumethattheindividualhasbrokenthelaw. Ia.at3-4.
82
Ia.at27.
83
Ia.at49.
84
SeeDODMILITARYRECRUITINGANDWAIVERS, supranote43,at4:DEPTOFDEFENSE,OFFICEOFFREEDOMOF
INFORMATION&SEC.REV.,MORALWAIVERDATA,REF.05-5-0960(onIilewithauthor)|hereinaIterDODFOIA
05-5-0960|.
85
Throughoutthissection,reIerencestoyearsindicateIiscal,notcalendar,years.ForasummaryoImoralwaiver
trendspriorto1990,seegenerallyELIS.FLYER,DIRECTORATEFORACCESSIONPOLICYOFFICEOFTHEASSISTANT
SECYFORDEF.,CHARACTERISTICSANDBEHAVIOROFRECRUITSENTERINGMILITARYSERVICEWITHANOFFENSE
HISTORY(1990).
18
Iigures.
86
Table3providesthenumberoImoralwaiverstheArmedForcesgrantedIorIiscal
years2003through2006:thisdatarepresentsprimarydataobtaineddirectlyIromtheDODIor
useinthisArticle.
87
AlthoughtheDODwasunabletoprovidereliabledataIorIiscalyears1998
through2002,
88
itislikelythattheseyearswitnessedanincreaseinwaiverratesgiventhe
diIIicultrecruitingexperienceoIthelate1990s.
89
BeyondIormal,internalpolicychangesintheclassiIicationandtreatmentoIoIIenses,the
ArmedForceshavehaddiIIicultyaccountingIorIluctuationsinmoralwaiverrates.
90
InIact,
suchpolicychangesdrasticallyobscuremoresalientvariablesrelatingtooveralltrendsinrecruit
numbersandquality.
91
NearlyallmilitarystandardswillreIlecttheseIluctuations,
92
butwaiver

86
87
SeeDODMILITARYRECRUITINGANDWAIVERS, supranote43,at2.
88
InFebruary2005,theauthorsubmittedaFreedomoIInIormationAct(FOIA)requesttotheDOD,seekinga
varietyoIinIormationregardingex-oIIenderenlistmentintheArmedForcesbetweenIiscalyears1998and2004.
E-mailIromMichaelBoucai,Author,toDeIenseManpowerDataCenter,FreedomoIInIormationActOIIicer,
UndersecretaryoIDeIense,DOD(Feb.8,2005)(onIilewithauthor).Althoughtheauthorreceivedapartial
responsetothatrequestinOctober2005,seeDODFOIA05-5-0960,supranote84,theDODeventuallydisclaimed
thedataitprovidedinthatresponse.InJanuary2007,theDODIurnishednumberspertainingtoIiscalyears2003
through2005,explainingthatdataissuescodingandcompilationerrorsmadeitiusttoodiIIiculttogoback
|as|Iarasoriginallyrequested.EmailIromDennisJ.Drogo,DOD,toMichaelBoucai,Author(Jan.19,2006)
(onIilewithauthor).
89
ChristopherJehn,SustainingtheForce.Introauction, inTHEALL-VOLUNTEERFORCE:THIRTYYEARSOF
SERVICE55-56(BarbaraA.Bicksleretal.eds.,2004):seealsoRICHARDJ.BUDDIN,RAND,SUCCESSOFFIRST-
TERMSOLDIERS:THEEFFECTSOFRECRUITINGPRACTICESANDRECRUITCHARACTERISTICS7(2005)(InFY1998
andFY1999,thecivilianeconomyboomed,andArmyrecruitingstruggled,acceptingmorelow-qualityrecruitsto
satisIyrequirements.).
90
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at28(TheservicescouldnotexplainthereasonsIorthesetrends.).
91
Annualrecruitmentcohorts,likegrapevintages,becomeknownIortheirsizeandquality.2000through2003are
knownintheArmyasstrongrecruitingyears,asuccess...relatedtoaweakeconomyand,possibly,the
patrioticIervorIorthewaragainstterrorism.BUDDIN, supranote89,at1.Theseyearsstandincontrasttothe
diIIicultrecruitingexperienceoIthelate1990s.Jehn,supranote89,at56.Examiningmorelong-termtrends,
ArmorandSackettnotedthattherehavebeensubstantialvariationsinrecruitqualityoverthepast20years,Irom
unprecedentedlowsinthelate1970storecordhighsintheearly1990s.DavidJ.Armor&PaulR.Sackett,
ManpowerQualitvintheAll-JolunteerForce, inTHEALL-VOLUNTEERFORCE:THIRTYYEARSOFSERVICE, supra
note89,at90.
92
MinimumstandardsIoracceptanceintothemilitarywereestablishedearlyinmilitaryhistorybut
generally these standards, as Eitelberg et al. . . . point out, act as Ilexible gates that open and
closeinreactiontotheshiItingneedsoInationaldeIenseandmanpowerrecruitment....Certain
circumstances,suchasarecruitingdroughtoraneedIormassmobilization,typicallynecessitate
lessstringentphysicalstandards,lowereducationandabilitycriteria,andmorelenienteligibility
requirements in other areas. Conversely, during periods oI peace when the standing army is
streamlined to Iunction as a caretaker, or during periods oI high unemployment when military
19
ratesmoralandotherwiseshouldbeoneoItheIirstmaniIestationsoIgeneralrecruitment
developments,preciselybecausewaiversystems,ratherthanoutrightbans,provideIlexibilityIor
dealingwiththevicissitudesoIsupplyanddemand.InyearswhenrecruitmentisIlaggingor
whenagoodcivilianiobmarketattractsmanywell-qualiIiedworkersdevelopmentsthattend
tocoinciderecruiters,anxioustoIillenlistmentquotas,generallywillacceptmoreindividuals
whorequirewaivers,andtheywillgrantwaiversIormoreseriousoIIensesthantheywouldin
timesoIplenty.
93
Asonestudyconcluded,moralwaiversareutilizedbytheservicestoIill
immediatemanpowerneeds.
94
ButrecruiterswillingnesstopursueamoralwaiverIortheirenlisteesdoesnotalwaysor
necessarilyensurethetriumphoIquantityoverquality.Moralwaiversareregularlyusedto
bolsterthecandidacyoIotherwisegoodprospects.Severalstudiesindicatethatrecruitersare
morelikelytograntmoralwaiverstorecruitswhoexcelinareasotherthancharacter,apractice
thatmilitarypolicyresearchershaveexplicitlyrecommended.
95
A1988studyIocusingon

iobs are relatively more attractive to the youthIul workIorce, the Armed services are usually
abletobemoreselectiveandthequalitativebarrierstoentryarestrengthened.
KIRBY &THIE, supranote23,at66(citingMARKJ.EITELBERGETAL., SCREENINGFORSERVICE7(1984))(Iootnote
omitted).
93
Lake,supranote79,at5(explainingthata1990EliS.FlyerstudyconcludedthatthediIIerencesbetween
serviceswerelikelyduetodiIIerencesonpressureonrecruiterstoIillenlistmentquotas.).ReIerringtotheMarine
Corps,LeonardEtchostatedoutrightthat|t|hegrantingoImoralwaiversisoItendrivenbythesupplyoI
applicants.ItisnecessaryIortheMarineCorpstograntmoralwaiversinordertomeetIirst-termenlistment
requirements.Etcho,supranote4,at4.Inasimilarvein,respondingtoadwindlingsupplyoItroops,Army
IieldcommanderswererecentlyinstructedtoretainsoldierstheyhadbeenintendingtodischargeIordrugand
alcoholabuse.PhilipCarter,TheQuietMan,N.Y.TIMES,July6,2005,atA19,availableat2005WLNR
10629369.
94
MartinF.WiskoII&NormaE.Dunipace,MoralWaiversanaSuitabilitvforHighSecuritvMilitarvJobs,DEF.
PERSONNELSEC.RESEARCHANDEDUC.CTR.,Dec.1988,at14:seealsoCarter,supranote7:JaIIe,supranote7
(Tokeepmoresoldiersintheservice,theArmyhastoldbattalioncommanders,whotypicallycommand800-
soldierunits,thattheycannolongerbouncesoldiersIromtheserviceIorpoorIitness,pregnancy,alcoholanddrug
abuseorgenerallyunsatisIactoryperIormance....Instead,thebattalioncommandersmustsendtheproblem
soldierscasesuptotheirbrigadecommander,whotypicallycommandsabout3,000soldiers.).
95
SeegenerallvJANICEH.LAURENCE,JENNIFERNAUGHTON&DICKIEA.HARRIS,U.S.ARMYRESEARCHINST. FOR
THEBEHAVIORAL&SOCIALSCIENCES,ATTRITIONREVISITED:IDENTIFYINGTHEPROBLEMANDITSSOLUTIONS
(1995):PUTKAETAL.,supranote36,at27(theServicesmaybeneIitIromrequiringhigherstandardsonother
selectioncriteria(e.g.,beingahighschooldiplomagraduate,havinghigherAFQTscores)Iromrecruitswhorequire
|moralwaivers|IorentryintoService.UsingsuchIactorsinacompensatorymannerIorrecruitswhorequire|moral
20
servicemembersassignedtosensitiveoccupationsIoundthatseventypercentoIthosewho
receivedamoralwaiverperIormedintheupperhalIoItheArmedForcesQualiIicationTest
(AFQT)andwere,comparedtothosewhoenlistedwithoutawaiver,morelikelytobehigh
schoolgraduates.
96
Theauthorssurmisedthattheservicesarewillingtotakesomerisksin
accessingpersonnel|bygrantingmoralwaivers|...iIthepersonnelhavehigheraptitude
levels.
97
FocusingonNavyenlisteesIromCaliIorniaoveraseven-yearperiod,Frabuttdetermined
thatseventy-sixpercentoIrecruitswhoreceivedamisdemeanorwaiverandsixty-eightpercent
oIthosewhoreceivedaIelonywaiverwereinthemiddleAFQTcategoryorhigher.
98
Frabutt
alsoinvestigatedwhetherthetendencytograntwaiverstoindividualswithcompensatory
qualitiesresultsinhigherratesoIcriminalhistorynon-disclosureamongrecruitswithlower
AFQTscores.HeIoundthatrecruitswithapriorlegalencounter(PLE)inthelowerAFQT
categorieshaveahiddenPLEpercentagelevelninepointshigherthanthosewithaPLEinthe
upperAFQTcategories.
99
Recruiterstendencytobemorelenientwithhigher-qualityapplicants
wasdocumentedevenmoredramaticallyinLeonardEtchosstudyoImoralcharacterscreening
intheMarineCorps.In1991,EtchoIoundthatapproximatelysixty-IourpercentoImoral
waiverapplicantsinthehighestAFQTcategorywereapproved,comparedtoapproximately
twenty-ninepercentoIthoseinthelowestAFQTcategory.
100

waivers|IorentryintoServicewouldlikelyhelptobringattritionratesamongsuchindividualsmoreinlinewith
attritionratesIorthoseServicemembersthatdontrequirewaiversIorentry.(internalcitationomitted)).
96
SeeWiskoII&Dunipace,supranote94,at9-10.
97
Ia.
98
99
However,FrabuttalsoIoundthatmoralwaiverrecipientswerelesslikelytohavegraduatedIromhighschool,
whichheconsideredpuzzlinginlightoItheIactthattheNavycareIullyscreen|s|toenlistonlythosewhopossess
desirablecharacteristics.Ia.at26,32.
100
Etcho,supranote4,at28.
21
Numbersarenoteverything,though.Insomerespects,theabsolutequantityoImoral
waiversgrantedinagivenyearislessimportantthanthesubstantiveoIIensesunderlyingthose
waivers.Etchosstudyrecognizedthispossibility,distinguishingbetweenthethousandsoI
waiversgrantedIorminordrugandtraIIicoIIensesandthesmallpercentageatthetimeoI
Etchoswriting,approximately500peryearrelatedtoIelonyconvictions.Thelatter,he
argued,cannotbeexcusedastypicalyouthmischieI,
101
andneithercantheseriousnon-
traIIicoIIensesthat,asTable4shows,currentlyaccountIoraboutone-thirdoItheArmed
Servicesmoralwaivers.
102
AvailabledataultimatelyleaveuswithadramaticbutwoeIullyincompletepictureoIex-
oIIenderenlistmentintheArmedForces.Ononehand,itisclearthattheServiceshave
admittedtensoIthousandsoIrecruitsviamoralwaivers.Ontheotherhand,thenumberoI
waiverrecipientsIallsIarshortoItheactualamountoIenlisteeswithcriminalhistories.The
nextsectionexamineswhether,why,andtowhatextentthesetrendsmatter.
III.POLICY CONSIDERATIONSFORMILITARYRECRUITMENTOFEX-OFFENDERS
A.Ex-OffenaerEnlistment.RecruitQualitv.anaServicememberAttrition
AttritionistypicallydeIinedinthemilitaryastheseparationordischargeoIaperson,
Ioranyreason,priortothecompletionoItheIirsttermoIenlistment.
103
Inadditionto
diminishingIorcesizeandtroopmorale,attritionentailstheconsiderableexpenseoIrecruiting,

101
Ia.at25.
102
ThedatacontainedinTable4wasobtaineddirectlyIromtheDODIoruseinthisstudy.SeeDODMILITARY
RECRUITINGANDWAIVERS, supranote43,at4.Inthemoralwaivercontext,Ieloniesbasicallyretaintheirlegal
deIinition(andthereIoreincludecrimeslikearson,cattlerustling,criminallibel,grandlarceny,housebreaking,
kidnapping,andmurder):seriousnon-traIIicoIIenses,previouslycalledseriousmisdemeanors,includeoIIenses
likeassaultandpettylarceny:dischargingaIirearmwithincitylimitsandremovingpropertyIrompublicgrounds
areexamplesoIminormisdemeanors:thecategoryoIminornon-traIIicoIIensesencompassesinIractionslike
disorderlyconductandvandalism,drivingwitharevokedlicenseisanexampleoIaserioustraIIicoIIense,while
speedingisanexampleoIaminortraIIicoIIense. GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at2-3.
103
22
training,andthenreplacinglostservicemembers.
104
Attritionisincreasinglyamaiorproblem
throughoutthemilitary.
105
IntheMarineCorps,Iorexample,approximatelyone-thirdoIrecruits
attritebeIorecompletingtheirIirsttermoIservice.
106
UnsuitabilityisbyIarthemostcommonreasonIorservicememberattrition.
107
UnsuitabilityattritionusuallyreIlectsarecruitsIailuretomeetbasicstandardsoIperIormance
orbehavior.
108
WhenaservicememberseparatesIorunsuitabilityreasons,theassumptiontends
tobethatheorsheshouldneverhavebeenrecruitedintheIirstplacei.e.,thatthesystem
IailedtodetectaIatal,inherentIlawintheapplicant.Frequently,theundetectedIlawisbelieved
toresideintherecruitsmoralcharacter.
109
NearlyallresearchontherelationshipbetweenoIIensehistoryandunsuitabilityattrition
pointstotheunsurprisingconclusionthatrecruitswithcriminalbackgroundsaremorelikelyto

104
In1998,theDODestimatedthatitcosts$35,532torecruitandtraineachenlistee.U.S.GEN.ACCOUNTING
OFFICE,MILITARYATTRITION:BETTERDATA,COUPLEDWITHPOLICYCHANGES,COULDHELPTHESERVICES
REDUCEEARLYSEPARATIONS3(1998),availableat
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verbgetRecord&metadataPreIixhtml&identiIierADA354034. Recruitment
expensesaloneaccountIorasubstantialportionoIthisIigure.Apublicationreleasedin2005bytheRAND
CorporationreportedthatitcoststheU.S.Armyabout$15,000torecruitonesoldier,anditmustrecruit80,000to
90,000eachyear.BUDDIN, supranote89,atxiii(Iootnoteomitted).
105
OnerecentmemorandumIromaseniorArmypersonneloIIicialbrandedtheproblemamatteroIgreat
concern.JaIIe,supranote7:seealsoDONBOHN&EDWARDSCHMITZ,COMMANDER,NAVYRECRUITING
COMMAND,RESEARCHREPORT,WAIVERPOLICYANDATTRITION2-3(1996)(discussingNavalattrition):PUTKAET
AL.,supranote36,at1:DavidA.Anderson,First-TermAttrition.PerceptionJersusRealitv, MARINECORPS
GAZETTE,Feb.1998,at47-48(discussingMarineCorpsattrition).
106
SeeAnderson,supranote105,at47.
107
See.e.g.,Frabutt,supranote25,at24(12,535recruits,26percentoItheCaliIorniasampleinthisstudy,
receivedanunsuitabilitydischargebeIorecompletingtheirIirsttermoIservice.Anadditional10.2percentoIthis
groupweredischargedIorreasonsotherthanunsuitability,makingthetotalattritionrate36.2percent.This
suggeststhat71.8percentoIallIirst-termattritionresultsIromunsuitability.).
108
Ia.at7(UnsuitabilitydischargesincludepersonneldischargedpriortocompletionoItheirIirsttimeoI
enlistmentunderinterserviceseparationcodes...60through87and101-102.ThesecodesaredeIinedbythe
DepartmentoIDeIense....).
109
SeeAnderson,supranote105,at47(describingobserverswithintheMarineswhoareconvincedthattherootoI
the|attrition|problemisthetypeoIyoungmenandwomentheMarineCorpsisrecruiting.Thisperceivedproblem
originatesintheinordinatenumberoIyoungmenandwomenwhoentertheMarineCorpswithdrugormoral
waivers):cf.BUDDIN, supranote89,atxvi(Iactorslistedthatmake||adiIIerenceonIirst-termattritionIromthe
ArmyTimeinDEP|DelayedEntryProgram|:Genderandeducation:FTU|Iitnesstrainingunit|participation:
BCT|basiccombattraining|base/time:Occupation|inArmy|:ACF|ArmyCollegeFund|,bonus,enlistment
length:Recruitingenvironment:RecruitercharacteristicscontainsnoreIerencetomoralwaiversorcriminal
history).
23
bedischargedprematurelythanthosewithoutsuchbackgrounds.Asearlyas1965,astudyoI
approximately13,000AirForcemembersIoundhigherunsuitabilitydischargeratesIorrecruits
withmultiple,concealed,orseriousarresthistoryrecords.
110
Similarly,aseriesoIstudies
conductedinvariousbranchesthroughoutthe1980sIoundapositivecorrelationbetween
unsuitabilityattritionandreceiptoIamoralwaiver.
111
The1990ssawsustainedresearchonthe
relationshipbetweencriminalhistory,moralwaivers,andservicememberattrition.
112
Inall
relevantstudies,theimportantquestionwashowmuchnotwhetherpre-servicecriminal
historycorrelateswithpoorin-serviceperIormanceandunsuitabilityattrition.
113
AGAOreport
covering1990to1993revealedthat20.6oIindividualswithamoralwaiver,comparedto
13.3oIindividualswithoutamoralwaiver,separatedIromtheArmedForcesdueto
misconduct.
114
Similarly,researchershavediscoveredsigniIicantcorrelationsinstudies
relatingtotheArmy,
115
theNavy,
116
andtheMarines.
117

110
Lake,supranote79,at3.
111
Ia.at4.
112
EliS.FlyerisespeciallyresponsibleIorbringingresearchattentiontomoralwaiverpolicy.Flyersworkeven
spurredtheNavytoIormaworkinggroupespeciallydevotedtotheseissues.SeeEDWARDSCHMITZ&JOHN
HOPPER,U.S.NAVYRECRUITINGCOMMAND:THENAVYMORALWAIVERSTUDY(1996),availableat
http://www.iioa.org/imta96/paper30.html:seealsoBOHN &SCHMITZ, supranote105,at2-3(creditingFlyerwith
inspiritingresearchinterestregardingthissubiectwithintheNavy).
113
ThebigquestioninallthesestudiesistheseverityoIthediIIerenceinattritionratesIorrecruitswithmoral
waiversversusthosewithout.LyleD.Hall,AnalyzingSuccessoINavyEnlisteeswithMoralWaivers,at11(Sept.
1999)(unpublishedM.S.thesis,NavalPostgraduateSchool)(onIilewiththeNavalPostgraduateSchool,Monterey,
CaliIornia).
114
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,31-32.Servicememberswithoutamoralwaiverwerealsoalmost
twiceaslikelytoreenlistasservicememberswithamoralwaiverseventeenpercentoItheIormercategory
comparedtoninepercentoIthelatter.Ia.
115
In1994,FlyersArmystudyidentiIiedahighcorrelationbetweenmoralwaivers...andpre-serviceandin-
servicecriminalactivities.Lake,supranote79,at6-7.
116
A1995Navystudy,examiningtherelationshipbetweenpre-serviceandin-servicecriminalbehavior,determined
that28percentoImaleoIIendersweregrantedamoralwaiverIorentryintotheNavy.Approximately14percent
oIIemaleoIIenderswerealsograntedamoralwaiver.TheseproportionsarehigherthanIortheirnon-oIIender
counterparts:22.6percentoImaleoIIendersand10percentoIIemalenon-oIIenders.SeeLake,supranote79,at
30.FlyersownworkregardingNavalrecruitmentinCaliIornia,publishedin1996,Ioundthatrecruitswithan
arresthistoryhadamuchgreaterunsuitabilityattritionrate(41.8)thanrecruitswithnoarresthistory(22.9).OI
course,themilitarycountsconvictionsnotarrestsasthebasisoImoralwaiverrequirements:butFlyeralso
IoundanattritionrateoI41.4amongmemberswithamoralwaiver.BOHN&SCHMITZ, supranote105,at3.
TheseIindingsweresupplementedthatsameyearbyNavalresearchthatusedasmallersamplebutincludedmore
extensiveandaccurateinIormationaboutthesubiectscriminalhistories.Thisresearchascertainedadischargerate
24
Timeandagain,enlisteeswhoreceive(orshouldhavereceived)moralwaiversareshown
tobelesssuitablethanrecruitswithnoprioroIIensehistory.Butdoesthismean,assome
commentatorssuggest,thattheweakergroupshouldbescreenedoutbytougherrecruiting
standards?
118
Notnecessarily.EveniIex-oIIendersarepoorerlong-terminvestmentsthan
otherrecruits,thepriceoItheirinclusionintheArmedForcesmustbeweighedagainstits
multiplebeneIits.Thoughrarelydiscussedorevenacknowledgedintheattrition-related
literature,someoItheseadvantagestothemilitary,society,andex-oIIendersthemselvesare
nonethelessalwaysimplicitintheverydatausedtomakethecaseIormorestringentenlistment
andscreeningstandards.
First,theeIIectoIacriminalrecordappearstobestatisticallysigniIicantbuthardly
overwhelming.AlthougheachoIthestudiescitedaboveIoundapositivecorrelationbetween
pre-servicecriminalhistoryandunsuitabilityattritionorin-servicemisconduct,thediIIerence
betweenex-oIIendersandnon-oIIenderswasalmostalwayslessthantenpercent.
119
Thus,there
isnoreasontoexpectthatattritionrateswouldplummet,orevensubstantiallydecrease,iIthe

oIalmostIiIty-percentIormemberswithaIelonyhistory,about30percentagepointshigherthanthedischarge
ratesIorrecruitswithnooIIenserecordwhatsoever.Frabutt,supranote25,at24.A1997studyoItheeIIectsoI
pre-servicecriminalhistoryonin-serviceNavalpersonnelperIormanceIocusedonenlisteesIromIllinoisand
Floridaduringthe1980s,coveringsixandIourrecruitmentcohortsrespectively.IndividualswithanykindoI
Ielonyhistory(arrestorconviction)hadadischargeratethatwas,intheFloridasample,approximatelyseven
percentagepointshigherthantherateIorindividualswithoutacriminalhistoryand,intheIllinoissample,
approximatelytwelvepercentagepointshigher.Connor,supranote80,at39-40.Emphasizingthatattritionrates
arenottheonlymeasureoIin-serviceperIormance,thisreportalsoobservedthatrecruitswithacriminalhistory
arelesslikelytobepromoted...,lesslikelytobereenlistmenteligible,andlesslikelytoremainintheNavy
beyondtheirIirstterm.Ia.at56.Finally,astudyreleasedtheIollowingyearinvolvingsailorsdischargedIromthe
U.S.S.EisenhowerIrom1991to1997Ioundthatindividualswhoreceivedmoralwaiverswereeightpercentmore
likelytobedischargedIormisconductthanthosewithout:individualswithcriminalwaivers(i.e.,waiversIoractual
criminalconvictions)weretwelvepercentmorelikelytobedischargedIormisconduct.Hall,supranote113,at8
(citingDONBOHN,EVALUATIONOFTHENAVYS MORALWAIVERPOLICY:ACASESTUDYOFTHEUSS
EISENHOWER(1998)).
117
A1996studyIoundthatrecruitswhoenlistedintheMarineswithmoralwaiversin1988wereslightlymore
likely(byoversixpercentagepoints)tobedischargedIorunsuitability.Etcho,supranote4,at33-34.
118
BUDDIN, supranote89,atxxii.
119
See.e.g.,Hall,supranote113,at61.
25
ArmedForcesceasedgrantingmoralwaiversorceasedadmittingindividualswhohavecriminal
backgrounds.
120
Furthermore,thevastmaiorityoIindividualswhoentertheArmedForceswithacriminal
background,evenaIelonyconviction,arenotultimatelyunsuitableIormilitaryservice.Therate
oIex-oIIenderattritionneverreachedIiItypercentinanystudy,andinmostcasestheattrition
ratewassubstantiallylower.
121
InIact,theGAOsDOD-widereportIoundthatmoralwaiver
recipients,thoughmorelikelytobedischargedIorunsuitability,weremorelikelythan
individualswithoutmoralwaiverstocompletetheirtermoIservice.
122
InlightoIaIortypercent
overallcriminalrecidivismrate,
123
thetraiectoryoIex-oIIenderswhoenterthemilitarymaybe
moreaccuratelycharacterizedasasuccessstory.
Finally,manystudiesshowingacorrelationbetweenattritionandcriminalhistoryIound
thatothervariableswereconsiderablymoresigniIicant.Challengingtheusualspinonex-
oIIenderperIormanceandattrition,oneteamoIresearchersdiscoveredthattheimportanceoIa
waiverisnotasgreatasthatassociatedwithrace,education,AFQT,oreventimeinDEP.
124
AnotherstudyIoundthatunsuitabilitydischargeratescorrelatemuchmorestronglywithhigh
schoolgraduationstatusthanreceiptoIamoralwaiver.
125
Thus,unlesswearepreparedtosay

120
AsresearchersDonBohnandEdwardSchmitzconcluded,|e|xcludingapplicantsrequiringwaiverswillreduce
attritionbyaIewpercentagepointsbutthesavingswillbeIaroutweighedbythecosttorecruitadditional
qualiIiedapplicants.BOHN &SCHMITZ, supranote105,at9.
121
See.e.g.,Hall,supranote113,at61.
122
GAOMILITARYRECRUITING, supranote14,at31.Thekeydistinctionhereisbetweenattritiongenerallyand
attritionbydintoIunsuitability.A1983studyIocusingontheIormerdeterminedthatmoralwaiveraccessionsare
notmuchmorelikelythannon-waiveraccessionstoseparateIromserviceIorIailuretomeetbehavioralor
perIormancestandards.SeeConnor,supranote80,at8.OneIactorthatprobablyservestocounteractex-
oIIendersgreaterlikelihoodoIunsuitabilityattritionistheirlackoIIeasibleemploymentalternativesshouldthey
IailinmilitaryservicethereisapositivecorrelationbetweenoIIensehistoryandunemploymentinthecivilian
sector,seeinfraPartIII.B.2,andalsoapositivecorrelationbetweenunemploymentattimeoImilitaryenlistment
andlikelihoodoIcompletingonesIirsttermoIservice,seeBUDDIN, supranote89,at10-11.
123
SeeDoingMoreThanTime, supranote3,at10.
124
BOHN&SCHMITZ, supranote105,at6.
125
WiskoII&Dunipace,supranote94,at20:seealsoJAMESR.HOSEK&MICHAELG.MATTOCK,RAND,
LEARNINGABOUTQUALITY:HOWTHEQUALITYOFMILITARYPERSONNELISREVEALEDOVERTIME3(2003)(High
26
that,acrosstheboard,non-graduatesmakebadtroops,weshouldnotsaythatex-oIIenders
cannotmakegoodones.
B.SocialPolicvConsiaerations
Thissectiontreatswhattheexistingliteratureandresearch,surveyedabove,consistently
Iailstotakeintoaccount:theinterestsoIciviliansocietyperseinthequestionoIex-oIIender
recruitmentintotheArmedForces.Thoughmilitaryresearchershaveproducednumerous
studiesonthistopic,
126
theirworkIocusesalmostexclusivelyonex-oIIenderattritionandin-
serviceperIormance.Civiliansocietyhashardlypickeduptheslack.Criminalcorrections
expertsandpublicpolicymakersseemwhollyunawareoIthemilitaryoptionthatmanyex-
oIIendersactuallychooseandthatsomanymoremightdowelltoconsider.
127
Thetermex-oIIenderasusedinthissectiondoesnotreIertopersonsconvictedor
IinedIorpettyoIIenseslikelitteringorparkinginatow-awayzone.Rather,itreIersto
individualswhoareservingorhaveservedprisonsentences,includingconvictedIelons.This
Iocusisneitherradicalnorunwarranted.Asnotedearlier,thousandsoIIelonshavebeen
knowinglyadmittedintothemilitary,andseriousmisdemeanorsconstitutethesinglelargest
oIIensecategoryIorwhichmoralwaiversareactuallygrantedeachyear.Nevertheless,in
recommendingthatex-oIIendersbeconsideredmoreseriouslyandcandidlyIormilitary
recruitment,thisArticlecontemplatesonlyso-calledmoralqualiIications.OIIenders,
especiallymoreseriouscases,aremorelikelythanthegeneralpopulationtohaveintellectual,

schooldiplomagraduatesareIarmorelikelythanhighschooldropoutstocompletetheirIirsttermoIservice....
(citationomitted)).
126
See supraPartIII.A.
127
Forexample,duringrecentcongressionalhearingsonoIIenderrecidivismandrehabilitation,nooneoneither
sideoItheaisleevenmentionedthepossibility,actualorimagined,oIex-oIIenderrecruitmentintotheArmed
Forces.SeegenerallvConfrontingReciaivism.PrisonerRe-entrvProgramsanaaJustFutureforAllAmericans.
HearingBeforetheHouseComm.onGovtReform,109thCong.(2005)|hereinaIterHearings|.
27
mental,andevenphysicallimitationsthatwouldhindertheirenlistment,regardlessoIcriminal
history.
128
1.THERECRUITPOOL
In2001,theU.S.prisonpopulationexceededtwomillioninmatesIortheIirsttime.
129
Sincethisunprecedentedeventinthehistory...oIliberaldemocracy,
130
thenumberoI
Americansbehindbarshasremainedrelativelyconstant,
131
whilethepercentageimprisonedIor
violentcrimecontinuestorise.
132
AccordingtotheDOJ,|o|verall,theUnitedStates
incarcerated2,267,787personsat|year-end|2004,and|t|herateoIincarcerationinprisonat
|year-end|2004was486sentencedinmatesper100,000U.S.residents.
133
TheproportionoI
AIrican-Americanmenwhoareincarceratedissimplyastounding:3,218Iorevery100,000.
134
OIcourse,theprisondoorisrarelyaone-waypassage.HundredsoIthousandsoIpeople
exitprison,aswellasenterit,eachyear.Recordincarcerationrateshaveproducedrecord
releaserates.
135
In2003alone,morethan600,000inmatesapproximatelythepopulationoI
Washington,D.C.werereturnedtociviliansociety:about1,600peopleperday.
136
This

128
TheNationalAdultLiteracySurveyestablishedthat11percentoIinmates,comparedwith3percentoIthe
generalU.S.population,havealearningdisability,and3percentarementallyretarded.Petersilia,supranote2,at
66.
129
DavidGarland,TheMeaningofMassImprisonment, inMASSIMPRISONMENT:SOCIALCAUSESAND
CONSEQUENCES1(DavidGarlanded.,2001).
130
Ia.
131
SeeHearings,supranote127,at6(testimonyoIRep.Cummings).
132
PAIGEM.HARRISON&ALLENJ.BECK,BUREAUOFJUSTICESTATISTICSBULLETIN,PRISONERSIN2002,at10
(2003),availableathttp://www.oip.usdoi.gov/bis/pub/pdI/p02.pdI (AsapercentageoIthetotalgrowth|inState
inmatesbetween1995and2001|,violentoIIendersaccountedIor63oIthegrowth....)
133
PAIGEM.HARRISON&ALLENJ.BECK,BUREAUOFJUSTICESTATISTICSBULLETIN,PRISONERSIN2004,at1
(2005),availableathttp://www.oip.usdoi.gov/bis/abstract/p04.htm.
134
Thisiscomparedto1,220Hispanicmaleinmatesper100,000Hispanicmalesand463whitemaleinmatesper
100,000whitemales.Ia.at8.
135
NeverbeIoreinU.S.historyhavesomanyindividualsbeenreleasedIromprison.Petersilia,supranote2,at
66.
136
Ia.630,000wastheIigureRepresentativeCummingsusedbeIoreCongressin2005.SeeHearings,supranote
127,at6(testimonyoIRep.Cummings).
28
representsmorethanaIourIoldincreaseinannualprisonreleasessince1980.
137
Recognizing
thisdrasticchallenge,PresidentBushrecentlypleadedIorcompassiontowardthehundredsoI
thousandsoIpeopleannuallyreleasedIromprisonbackintosociety.
138
Formanyprisoners,theprisondoorisarevolvingone.
139
ApproximatelyIortypercentoI
ex-convictsintheU.S.arereincarcerated.
140
PartoIwhatmakesex-prisonerrecidivismso
distressingisthedemonstrableIailureoIthecorrectionssystemtoaccomplishitsnominal
purpose,nottomentiontheimmensewasteoIresourcesinherentinsuchIailure.Thus,itisno
surprisethat,withthespeciIicgoaloIreducingrecidivismrates,policymakers,correctional
systemadministrators,andotherconcernedpartiesarelookingIorwaystomoresuccessIully
reintegrateex-oIIenders.
141
TheextentoIincarcerationandprisonreleaseisimportantherebecause,Iirst,these
trendshaveasigniIicantimpactonthemilitaryrecruitmentpool.AccordingtotheDOJ,more
than50millionAmericanstwenty-ninepercentoItheadultpopulationhaveanarrest
record.
142
Thisnumberhasdoubledsinceadecadeago,
143
meaningthatyoungpeopleand
especiallyyoungmen,themostlikelytocommitcrimesandthemosteagerlysoughtmilitary

137
In1980,almost150,000inmateswerereleasedIromprison.U.S.GEN.ACCOUNTINGOFFICE,REPORTTO
CONGRESSIONALCOMMITTEES,PRISONERRELEASES:TRENDSANDINFORMATIONONREINTEGRATIONPROGRAMS3
(2001)|hereinaIter GAOPRISONERRELEASES|.
138
Hearings,supranote127,at32(testimonyoIRep.Davis).FormostoIthosereleasedIromprisontoday,the
extentoIthehelptheyneedisexacerbatedby
serious social and medical problems. More than three-Iourths oI the inmates scheduled Ior
releasein thenextyearreport ahistoryoIdrugand/oralcoholabuse.One-Iourthhavehistories
oIiniectiondruguseand16percentreportamentalcondition.Yetlessthanone-thirdoIexiting
inmatesreceivedsubstanceabuseormentalhealthtreatmentinprison.
Petersilia,supranote2,at66.
139
GAOPRISONERRELEASES, supranote137,at3(discussinghowreleaseesareoItensubsequently
reincarcerated).
140
Ia.at3.
141
Ia.at1-2.
142
143
Ia.
29
recruits,haveincreasinglyproblematiccriminalhistories.
144
Morethan13millionAmericans
areex-IelonssixpercentoItheadultpopulation,elevenpercentoItheadultmalepopulation,
andmorethanthirtypercentoItheadultAIrican-Americanmalepopulation.
145
Clearly,potentialrecruitswithspotlessrecordsbecomehardertoIindeachyear,both
proportionallyandinabsolutenumbers.Butcriminalactivitydoesnotalwaysentailacriminal
record.IIenlisteesintheArmedForceswereashonestwithrecruitersastheyarewith
researcherswhoensureconIidentiality,itislikelythatthevastmaiorityoIrecruitswouldrequire
moralwaivers.CriminologistshaveIoundthatalargepercentageoImaleswillbearrestedat
leastonceIorsomethingmoreseriousthanatraIIicinIraction:andanevenlargerpercentage,
approximatelyninetypercent,commitatleastonecriminaloIIense(whetherarrestedornot)in
theirliIetime,mostoItenintheiryouth.
146
Thecorrelationbetweenyouth,malegender,and
criminalityisastounding.
147
NearlyseventypercentoIpersonsarrestedIorseriouscrimesare
undertheageoItwenty-Iive,
148
andmenareanywhereIromIivetoIiItytimesmorelikelythan
womentobearrested.
149
TheeIIectoIsuchtrendsonwould-berecruitsisasunsurprisingasitis
inevitable:increaseddiIIicultyoImeetingthemilitarysmoralcharacterstandards.
150
2. WHYENLIST?THEEX-OFFENDERSSITUATION

AseasonedrecruiterrecentlytoldtheNewYorkTimesthat|t|heonlypeoplewhowant
toiointheArmynowhaveissues....Theyretroubled,withhealth,policeordrug

144
See infranotes146-50andaccompanyingtext.
145
Petersilia,supranote2,at68.Byex-Ielon,PetersiliameanspersonswhohadbeenconvictedoIaIelonyand
servedorarecurrentlyservingaIelonyprobation,parole,prison,oriailsentence.
146
JAMESQ.WILSON&RICHARDHERRNSTEIN,CRIMEANDHUMANNATURE146(1985).
147
MICHAELR.GOTTFREDSON&TRAVISHIRSCHI,AGENERALTHEORYOFCRIME123-153(1990).
148
DEPTOFCOMMERCE,ECONS.&STATISTICSADMIN.,BUREAUOFTHECENSUS,STATISTICALABSTRACTOFTHE
UNITEDSTATES199(1993),availableathttp://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1993-01.pdI.
149
WILSON&HERRNSTEIN, supranote146,at104.
150
REBECCAM.KILBURN&JACOBA.KLERMAN,RAND,ENLISTMENTDECISIONSINTHE1990S:EVIDENCEFROM
INDIVIDUAL-LEVELDATA25(1999).
30
problems.
151
Howeverhyperbolichisrhetoric,
152
therecruitersstatementreIerstoaveryreal
dilemma.Notonlyhasincreasedcriminalityamongyoungmenmadeacceptablerecruitsharder
toIind,individualswhohavebeenarrestedaresigniIicantlymorelikelytoenlistthanattend
college.
153
ThisincreasedpropensityexistsaespitetheprobabledeterrenteIIectsoIthe
militarysnominaldisqualiIicationoIIelons,itsattemptstoconductcriminalhistory
investigations,anditsextensivemoralwaiverprocedures.
154
Aswithanyrecruitpool,ex-oIIendersincreasedprobabilityoIenlistmentstrongly
relatestotheiroverallemploymentsituation.Ex-oIIendersmustovercometremendousobstacles
toIindingandmaintainingaiob.TheseobstaclessometimesariseIromsocialorintellectual
limitationsthatpreceded,andarerelativelyunrelatedto,theircriminalconduct.Mostinmates
lackmarketableskillsorsuIIicientliteracytobecomegainIullyemployed:
155
andbecausethey
havelittlepre-prisonexperienceasproductivemembersoItheworkIorce,
156
theydonotknow
themechanicsoIIindingpost-prisonemployment.
157
Thus,asRobertTaggertexplainedinThe
PrisonofUnemplovment,acriminalconvictiononlyexacerbatestheseindividualsearlier
employmentwoes.
158
IIex-oIIendershavecomparativelylesstooIIeremployersbywayoIskillsand
capabilities,itisatleastequallytruethatemployersoIIerandchoosetooIIerpreciousIew
opportunitiestoex-oIIenders.Customarily,onceparoledorreleased,|theex-convict|is

151
Cave,supranote77(internalquotationsomitted).
152
ThisrecruitersactualpercentageoIenlistmentswhowereknowntohaveaproblemthat|either|needed
concealingoramoralwaiverwasone-third.Ia.
153
KILBURN&KLERMAN, supranote150,atxvi-xvii.
154
Similarly,KilburnandKlermanIoundthathavingbeenarrestedorhavingaIriendwhohasbeenarrestedraises
thelikelihoodoIenlisting,whichissurprisinggiventhatthisvariablewasexpectedtoproxyIorhavingdiIIiculty
meetingthemoralrequirementsIorenlistment.Ia.at59.
155
156
One-thirdoIinmateswereunemployedatthetimeoItheirmostrecentarrest.Ia.
157
DEPTOFLABOR,EMPLOYMENTINFORMATIONHANDBOOKFOREX-OFFENDERS1(2005).
158
ROBERTTAGGARTIII,THEPRISONOFUNEMPLOYMENT:MANPOWERPROGRAMSFOROFFENDERS2(1972).
31
excludedIromanumberoIiobsandgivenlittlehelpinIindinghiswaybackintotheworldoI
work.
159
AsonetimeprisonerErrolCraigSullobservedinTheEx-InmatesGuiaetoSuccessful
Emplovment,|a|lmostanyonewhohasspenttimeinprisonhassomestorytotellabouthisor
herquestIoraiob(andaIreshstart)...andhowhisorherprisonrecordthwartedthatquest.
160
Andthemoreseriousonescrime,themorediIIicultitistoIindandmaintainemployment.In
therecentwordsoID.C.CongressionalDelegateEleanorHolmesNorton,aIelonyconvictionis
closetoadeathsentenceintheiobmarket.
161
Increasingly,legislaturesarethebodiesimposingthisiobmarketdeathsentenceby
statutorilybarringex-IelonsIromoneoccupationaIteranother.Evenasprisonsreduce
employment-relatedservicestopresentandIormerinmates,
162
agenerationsworthoIpunitive
stateandIederallawshavenarrowedtherangeoIiobsopentoex-oIIenders.
163
AttheIederal
level,inadditiontoanextensivearrayoIoutrightrestrictionsimposeduponex-oIIenders
employability,
164
certainkindsoIworklicensesarerevokedorwithheldIromindividuals
convictedoIvariouscrimes.
165
Also,iudgeshavesigniIicantlatitudetoimposeoccupational
prohibitionsaspartoIcriminalsentencing.
166

159
Ia.
160
ERROLCRAIGSULL,THEEX-INMATES GUIDETOSUCCESSFULEMPLOYMENT,at vii (4thed.2003).
161
Hearings,supranote127,at18.
162
163
Ia.
164
SeeCOLLATERALCONSEQUENCESUPONCONVICTION, supranote21,at2-8.
165
Ia.at4-5.
166
Forexample,
under 18 U.S.C. 3563(b)(5), 3583(d), and the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the
sentencing court may impose certain occupational restrictions as a condition oI probation or
supervised release. Restrictions are authorized when a reasonably direct relationship exists
betweenthedeIendantsoccupationandtheoIIenseconduct,18U.S.C.3563(b)(5),U.S.S.G.
5F1.5(a)(1): and the conditions are reasonably necessary to protect the public because there is
reason tobelieve that, absentsuchrestriction, thedeIendantwill continue toengageinunlawIul
conductsimilartothatIorwhichthedeIendantwasconvicted.U.S.S.G.5F1.5(a)(2).IIsuch
an occupational restriction is imposed, it must be imposed Ior the minimum time and to the
minimumextentnecessarytoprotectthepublic.U.S.S.G.5F1.5(b).
COLLATERALCONSEQUENCESUPONCONVICTION, supranote21,at4.
32
Ithasbeenarguedthatlegalimpedimentstoex-oIIendersemployabilitysupporta
regimeoIinvisiblepunishmentbecausetheireIIectiveness,impact,|and|implementation
areoItenhiddenIromthepubliceyeandarediIIiculttomeasure.
167
Thisinvisibilityis
reinIorcedbytheIactthatprivateindividuals,notlegislaturesorcourts,areprimarilyresponsible
Iortheiobmarketdeathsentence.Evenwhenhiringpoliciesdonotexplicitlyexclude
individualsconvictedoIacrime,thesameresultisoItenachievedmoresubtly.
168
Aboutsixty-
IivepercentoIemployersoIunskilledworkersinIivemaiorAmericancitieswouldnot
knowinglyhireanex-oIIender(regardlessoItheoIIense),andalmostIortypercentactively
investigatenewhirescriminalrecords.
169
Asoneemploymentmanualwarns,individualsIoundguiltyoIIeloniesmustanswer
yestoTHATquestion(WereyoueverconvictedoIaIelony?).
170
However,aswesaw
earlierinthemilitarycontext,manyapplicantswhotechnicallyshouldansweryesdecide,Ior
obviousreasons,tosayno.PrevaricationoIthissortissowidespreadandindeed,so
understandablethateventheDepartmentoILabormerelysuggeststhatex-oIIendersrespond
honestlywhenaskedabouttheircriminalhistories.
171
Itnearlygoeswithoutsayingthatex-
oIIendersarediscouragedIromevervolunteeringsuchinIormation.
172

167
JeremyTravis,InvisiblePunishment.AnInstrumentofSocialExclusion, inINVISIBLEPUNISHMENT:THE
COLLATERALCONSEQUENCESOFMASSUNEMPLOYMENT15,16(MarcMauer&MedaChesney-Lindeds.,2002).
168
TAGGART, supranote158,at84.
169
170
SULL, supranote160,ativ.
171
Totellornottotell.Itsuptoyou,butwerecommendhonesty.Theauthorscontinued,|o|ntheapplication
putwilldiscussininterviewratherthanalengthyexplanationoIpastconvictions.Inaninterview,keep
explanationsshortandstresswhatyoulearnedinprisonandwhatyourskillsandassetsare.Bepositive!DEPTOF
LABOR, supranote157,app.B.Interestingly,theInstituteoICriminalLawandProcedureatGeorgetown
UniversityLawCenterusedalmostexactlythesamelanguageTolieornottolieinareportonex-oIIender
employmentpublishedmanyyearsearlier.HERBERTS.MILLER&GEORGETOWNUNIV.LAWCTR.INST. OF
CRIMINALLAWANDPROCEDURE,THECLOSEDDOOR:THEEFFECTOFACRIMINALRECORDONEMPLOYMENTWITH
STATEANDLOCALPUBLICAGENCIESv(1972)(preparedIortheManpowerAdministration,U.S.DepartmentoI
Labor,underresearchcontractnumberK81-09-70-02,authorizedbyTitleIoItheManpowerDevelopmentand
TrainingAct.).
172
DEPTOFLABOR, supranote157,app.B(emphasissupplied).
33
ThedrasticallyreducedrangeoIoccupationalpossibilitiesavailabletoknownex-
oIIendershascreatedaveritablecriminalcloset:
173
Manyex-oIIendershaveneverhonestly
answeredthequestion,|h|aveyoueverbeenconvictedoIacrime?
174
EveSedgwicks
observationthatthedoublebindoIdisclosure/non-disclosureisoneoIthehallmarksoIthe
contemporaryregimeoIthecloset,
175
asthewordisusuallyunderstood,iscertainlytrueoIthe
ex-oIIendersexperience.
176
Asindividualswith|criminal|recordssoIrequentlyIindout,you
areeitherdamnediIyoudoanddamnediIyoudont.
177
Petersiliaexplainsthat|i|Iparolees
aretruthIulabouttheirbackgrounds,manyemployerswillnothirethem.IItheyarenottruthIul,
theycanbeIiredIorlyingiItheemployerlearnsabouttheirconviction.
178
GiventheIormidablebarrierstoIindingwork,themilitarysevidentwillingnesstogrant
moralwaiversmakesitanappealingoptionIormanyex-oIIenders.
179
ButthequantityoI
availableworkisnottheonlyIactorexplainingthedemonstratedpropensityoIex-oIIendersto
enlist:qualityalsomatters.WhentheonlyavailableiobsareoItenundemanding,unattractive,
andunrewarding,oIIeringtheoIIenderlittleinducementtoturn|away|Iromcriminal

173
NotethetitleoIaveryrecentMotherJonesarticledetailinganex-convictsemploymentsearchwoes.Sara
Catania,FreeaomSilence,MOTHERJONES,Sept.-Oct.2005,at16-17availableat
http://www.motheriones.com/news/outIront/2005/09/Ireedomsilence.html?welcometrue.
174
DEPTOFLABOR, supranote157,app.B.
175
EVEKOSOFSKYSEDGWICK,EPISTEMOLOGYOFTHECLOSET54(1990)(reIerringtothedoublebindsthatmake
thestakesinmattersoIdeIinitionalcontrol|so|extremelyhigh).
176
AsDavidJ.HardingobservedinJeanJalieansDilemma, ex-oIIendersmustcareIullymanagetheirdeviant
identitiesinthelabormarket.Institutionallimitationsimposedbyboththelabormarketandthecriminaliustice
systemaswellassubiectsinterpretationsoIstigmaplayimportantrolesindetermininghowtheychoosetopresent
themselvestoothers.DavidJ.Harding,JeanJalieansDilemma.TheManagementofEx-ConvictIaentitvinthe
SearchforEmplovment,DEVIANTBEHAVIOR,Nov.-Dec.2003,at571.
177
MILLERETAL.,supranote171,atv.
178
Petersilia,supranote2,at68:seealsoDEPTOFLABOR, supranote157,app.B(Ex-oIIendersmaybeIiredIor
IalsiIyinginIormationontheiriobapplication.).
179
PotentialrecruitstothemilitaryIaceachoiceamongIurthereducation,thecivilianworkIorce,workingathome,
andenlistinginthemilitary.PotentialrecruitsbalancetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoIeachalternativeto
choosethemostattractiveliIechoiceIorthemselves.MICHAELP.MURRAY&LAURIEL.MCDONALD,RECENT
RECRUITINGTRENDSANDTHEIRIMPLICATIONSFORMODELSOFENLISTMENTSUPPLY2(1999).SinceIurther
educationandthecivilianworkIorceareunlikelypossibilitiesIormostex-oIIenders,theremaybenogenuine
alternative(otherthanlessdesirableprivatesectoremployment)tomilitaryenlistment.
34
behavior,
180
theopportunitiesthatmilitaryserviceaIIordsmustappearespeciallyattractive.
Althoughpatrioticconsiderationsmaybeatplayinsomeindividualsenlistmentdecisions,
selI-interestedconsiderationstendtobeprimaryIormostoIthosewhoactuallyenterthe
Services.
181
TheseconsiderationswhichincludebeneIitssuchastechnicaltraining,anarrayoI
long-termcareeropportunities,andtheinculcationoIendurance,selI-reliance,andselI-
discipline
182
areboundtobeparticularlyimpressivetoex-oIIenderswithadesiretorestart
theirlives.Moreover,insuchalow-castepopulation,certainsymbolicrewardsaccompany
themorematerialadvantagesoImilitaryservice.
183
Theseincludepride,socialrespect,andeven
oIIicialgovernmentencouragementorapproval.
184
3. WHYRECRUIT?BENEFITSTOSOCIETY

WehaveseenwhyenlistmentisgoodIorex-oIIenders,andearlierweexploredwhyex-
oIIenderenlistmentmaybegoodIorthemilitary.
185
Nowwewillconsiderwhysuchenlistment
maybegoodIorsociety.Ultimately,thesamereasonsthathavebeenoIIeredtoencourage
militaryrecruitmentoIdisadvantagedAmericansmayapply,perhapsevenmorestrongly,to
ex-oIIenders:|M|ilitaryservicemaycompletethe|ir|integration...asproductive,selI-
respecting,andpatrioticcitizens.ByamelioratingthedeplorablesocialconditionsoIwhich

180
TAGGART, supranote158,at83.
181
AdrianM.S.Piper,TheRationalitvofMilitarvService, in CONSCRIPTSANDVOLUNTEERS:MILITARY
REQUIREMENTS,SOCIALJUSTICE, ANDTHEALL-VOLUNTEERFORCE126,127(RobertK.Fullinwidered.,1983)
(PatrioticconsiderationsareaddressedlessIrequentlytothosewhoaretobeconvincedtoenlistintheAll-
VolunteerForceitselI.TothoseyoungmenandwomenwhoareadiudgedtobethemostcapableoImakinga
contributiontothiscountryswelIarethroughtheirmilitarydeIenseoIit(ratherthan,say,throughtheirtechnicalor
proIessionalskillswithintheciviliansector,theirrolesasparents,ortheiranticipatedrolesaseducatedand
productivecitizensuponcompletionoItheireducation),appealismoreoItenmadetoselI-interestedconsiderations.
TheseconsiderationsrepresentmilitaryliIeasthemostattractiveoptionavailableIorpursuingpersonal
aspirations.)
182
Ia.at126-27.
183
StephenCohen,TheUntouchableSolaier.Caste.Politics.anatheInaianArmv, inRECRUITING,DRAFTING, AND
ENLISTING:TWOSIDESOFTHERAISINGOFMILITARYFORCES167-68(PeterKarstened.,1998).
184
Ia.
185
See supraPartsIII.A-.B.
35
mostcivilianinstitutionshaveapparentlywashedtheirhands,militaryservicemayhaveIurther
positiveconsequencesIorsocietyatlarge.
186
TheiobmarketswidespreadexclusionoIindividualswhohaveservedtheirsentences is
notonlyunIair:
187
byimpedingex-oIIendersreintegrationandrehabilitation,itisalsotragically
unwise.ThisisolationhasaproIoundimpactontheseindividualssubsequentcriminal
traiectories.
188
FindinggainIulemploymentiscriticaltosuccessIulreintegration.Employment
helpsex-oIIendersbecomeproductive,takecareoItheirIamilies,developvaluableliIeskills,
andstrengthentheirselI-esteemandsocialconnectedness.
189
IntheIaceoIconstant
employmentreiection,toomanyex-inmatesgiveup,thinktheycantworkwithinthesystem,
andgobackto...survivingtheonlywaytheythinkcanworkIorthemillegally.Theusual
result?BacktoprisonIoralongertime...orworse.
190
AlthoughitishardlynecessarytoiustiIysocietysinterestinreducingcriminal
recidivism,itshouldbenotedthatthisnecessitybecomesonlymorepressingeachyear.Asone
congressmanrecentlyobserved,rehabilitatingandreintegratingprisonersbackintosociety
continuestoloomasoneoIthegreatneedsoIourday.
191
ThisArticlesprimaryconcernisto
suggestthatex-oIIenderrecruitmentmaybe,andshouldbe,consideredbypolicymakersasone
wayoIaddressingthisneed.

186
Piper,supranote181,at137.
187
TraviseloquentlysuggestedthatthispracticeisvervunIair:
In this brave new world, punishment Ior the original oIIense is no longer enough: ones debt to
societyisneverpaid.Somecommentators,seeingparallelswithpracticesIromanothererawhen
convictsweresenttoIarawaylands,reIertothisIormoIpunishmentasinternalexile.Others
likenthisextremelabelingtothemarkoICain,andtheeIIectsoIthesesanctionsasrelegating
theoIIenderto thestatusoInon-citizen,almostapariah. TheNational CouncilonCrime and
Delinquency summarized the eIIects this way: Even when the sentence has been completely
served,theIactthatamanhasbeenconvictedoIaIelonypursueshimlikeNemesis.
Travis,supranote167,at19(internalcitationsomitted).
188
189
Ia.
190
SULL, supranote160,atvii.
191
Hearings, supranote127,at32(statementoIRep.Davis).
36
ThehypothesisthatproactivemilitaryrecruitmentoIex-oIIenderscouldhaveapositive
eIIectonrecidivismismainlybasedontworationales:(1)thatthemilitaryenvironment
removestheopportunitytocommitcrime:and/or(2)thatmilitarytrainingteachesresponsibility
anddiscipline,therebydeterringIuturecrime.
192
Withregardtotheserationales,|o|ne
potentiallycorrectiveinIluenceisthedrasticchangeinliIestylerequiredwhenenteringthe
military.
193
Althoughtherelationshipbetweencriminalityandisnotextensivelydocumented,
194
someexistingstudiesconIirmaninverserelationshipbetweenthetwo.
195
SomeoIthesestudies
havequiteanimpressivevintage.ArecentanalysisoIresearchconductedinthe1930sthrough
the1950sIoundthatiuveniledelinquentsweremuchmorelikelytobedishonorably
dischargedthannon-delinquents,butthatentryintothemilitarywasapositiveturningpoint
IorsomeintheIormercategory.
196
A1979studyIoundthatrecidivismwaslessprevalent
amongmenparoledintotheArmyduringtheSecondWorldWarandtheKoreanWarthanIor
thosewhowereparoledintociviliansociety,
197
andsubsequentresearchinvolvingVietnam
veteransIoundthatamongwhiteex-oIIenders,desistanceoccurredearlierinthosewhohad
militaryexperiencethanamongthosewhoneverenlisted.
198
Morerecently,a1999study
IoundthatdrugusedeclinedaItermilitaryenlistment,evenmorethanIorindividualswhostarted

192
LeanaAllenBouIIard&JohnH.Laub,JailortheArmv.DoesMilitarvServiceFacilitateDesistencefrom
Crime?, inAFTERCRIMEANDPUNISHMENT:PATHWAYSTOOFFENDERREINTEGRATION129,130(ShaddMaruna&
RussImmarigeoneds.,2004)(Themilitary...activelyseekstoinstil|l|structureanddisciplinewiththeinitial
basictrainingexperienceandwithcontinuedrigoroustrainingthroughoutthemilitarycareer.Itiscommonly
thoughtthatthisdisciplinedenvironmentwillencouragearesponsibleliIestyleanddiscouragecriminal
behaviour.).
193
Ia.
194
Ia.at146.
195
Ia.at133-34.
196
Ia.at132(discussingtheworkoISampsonandLaubin1993and1995).
197
SeeBouIIard&Laub,supranote192,at132(discussingthis1979study).
198
BouIIard&Laub,supranote192,at132-33(discussingRands1987research).
37
Iulltimeworkorenteredcollege.
199
Finally,anexploratorystudyconductedin2004indicated
thatthemilitarymayproducedesistenceIromcrime,especiallyIorthemostserious
oIIenders.
200
OIcourse,desistenceusuallydoesnotsimplymeantheabsenceoIcrime.InthecaseoI
ex-oIIendersrecruitedintothemilitary,themaiorityoIwhomsuccessIullycompletetheirterms
oIservice,desistencecomesalongwithpositivecontributionstosociety.Taggertlamentedthat,
alltooIrequently,especiallyinthecaseoIthose whoarearrested,Ioundguilty,
andsenttoiail,theireconomicandsocialpotentialissquanderedbythemandby
society....FromstarttoIinish,thepictureisoneoIwastedhumanresources
oIskillsandabilitieswhichareunderdevelopedandunderutilized.
201
ConcertedrecruitmentoIex-oIIenderswouldacknowledgetheveryrealpotentialthese
individualspossess,anditmightoItenyieldsomeveryrealcontributions.
202
V.CONCLUSION
EarlierinthisArticle,wesawhowanextensivemoralwaiversystemunderminesthe
ArmedForcesostensiblystringentpolicyonex-oIIenderenlistmentandpermitsthousandsoI
knowncriminalstoenlisteachyear.Relatedly,weexploredacharacterscreeningprocessthat
IailstodetectthecriminalbackgroundsoIapproximatelyhalIoIthosewhoshouldreceivea

199
JeraldG.Bachmanetal.,ChangingPattersofDrugUseAmongU.S.MilitarvRecruitsBeforeanaAfter
Enlistment,89AM.J.PUB.HEALTH672(1999).
200
BouIIard&Laub,supranote192,at147.
201
TAGGART, supranote158,at1-2.
202
ThepossibilityoIusingmilitaryenlistmenttoadvancesuchpolicyends,tothemutualbeneIitoItheArmed
Forcesandciviliansociety,isonethathasbeenrecognizedandimplementedbeIoreintheUnitedStates.For
example,
Secretary oI DeIense Robert S. McNamara initiated Proiect 100,000 in response to President
JohnsonsWaronPovertyunderwhichmenwhowouldhavebeendisqualiIiedbecauseoIIailure
tomeetmentalstandardsoreasilycorrectiblephysicaldeIectswereallowedtoenlist.Generally
reIerredtoastheNewStandardsmen,about320,000suchrecruitsenteredthemilitarybetween
1967and1971,whentheprogramwasabandonedbecauseoIdecreasedmanpowerrequirements.
The DOD report describes the rationale behind the program: We were convinced that a very
high proportion oI these men would qualiIy as Iully satisIactory servicemen exposed to the
moderninstructionaltechniquesusedintheArmedForces.Asaby-product,theirservicewould
preparethemIormoreproductiveliveswhentheyreturnedtocivilianliIe.
KIRBY &THIE, supranote23,at67n.6(internalcitationomitted).
38
waiver.Then,lookingatex-oIIendersin-serviceperIormance,welearnedthatsuchrecruitsare
somewhat(perhapsonlyslightly)lesslikelythannon-oIIenderstobesatisIactory
servicemembers,whilemostex-oIIendersadmittedintotheArmedForcesperIormwellenough
toatleastcompletetheircontractualtermoIservice.Finally,weexaminedsomeoIthesocial
policyissuesatstakeinthisquestion,includingtheincreasingproportionoIex-oIIendersinthe
militaryrecruitmentpool,therelativeattractivenessoIamilitarycareertoex-oIIendersmany
oIwhomIacesigniIicantdiIIicultiesIindingemploymentinanyIieldandthepotentialbeneIits
tosocietyoImilitaryserviceamongex-oIIenders.
ThisArticlehasaimedtoelucidateratherthanweighthesevariousconsiderations.Even
so,itishardlypossibletoreiterateeachoIthemaiorpointsraisedintheprecedingpageswithout
noticingthatacurrent,aefactoex-oIIenderrecruitmentpolicyexistswithintheU.S.Armed
Forces.Butbecausethispracticeischaracterizedasanexceptionratherthantherule,andis
accomplishedthroughasystemoIwinksandnods,almostnoresourceshavebeendevotedtothe
developmentoIstrategiesthatwouldmaximizethevariousinterestsatplaythoseoIthe
military,ex-oIIenders,anaciviliansociety.
AsideIromadmittedlyseriousethicalconcernssuchasIorceIullymaintainingtheline
betweenrecruitmentandconscriptionitiseasytoseewhyex-oIIendersandciviliansociety
wouldprobablybeneIitIromamoreIorthrightimplementationoIthisrecruitmentpractice.
203
It
isimportanttoemphasizethatthemilitarymightalsobeneIitpotentiallyinwaysthatare
directlyresponsivetotheattritionratesandperIormancedeIectslamentedintheexisting
literatureonex-oIIenderrecruitment.AIull,candidacknowledgementthatsuchindividuals
serveinthemilitarysrankswouldallowIorthedevelopmentoIprograms,bothpre-andpost-
enlistment,designedspeciIicallywiththeserecruitsinmind.Ultimately,iItheArmedForces

203
See supraPartIII.
39
weremoreIorthrightandproactiveinbalancingrecruitsstrengthsagainsttheirIelonies,thereis
reasontothinkwemightallbestronger.
40
Table1.CriteriaIorRequiringMoralWaiversbyOIIenseandService
204
NumberofOffensesRequiringMoralWaiver
OffenseLevel Army Navy Marines AirForce
Felony 1:nowaiver
allowedIormore
than1.
1ormore. 1:no
waiver
allowed
Iormore
than1.
1ormore.
Serious
Misdemeanor
2:nowaiver
allowedIor5or
more.
1or2:no
waiverallowed
Ior3ormore.
1to5:no
waiver
allowed
Ior6or
more.
1ormore.
Minor
Misdemeanor
Categorynotused. 3to5:nowaiver
allowedIor6or
more.
Category
notused.
1ormore.
MinorNon-
Traffic
3ormore:3
convictionsIora
combinationoI
misdemeanorsand
minornon-traIIic
oIIenses.
3to5:nowaiver
allowedIor6or
more.
2to9:no
waiver
allowed
Ior10or
more.
Dependingon
seriousnessoIoIIense:1
ormore:2inthelast
threeyears:or3ormore
inaliIetime.
Serious
Traffic
Categorynotused. Categorynot
used.
2ormore:
nowaiver
Ior6or
more.
Categorynotused.
MinorTraffic 6ormorewhere
Iineexceeded$100
peroIIense.
Withinthree
yearspriorto
enlistment,6or
moreinany
twelve-month
periodor10or
moreintotal.
5ormore. Dependingon
seriousnessoIoIIense:2
inlastthreeyears,or3
ormoreinaliIetime:6
ormoreminortraIIicor
IiveminortraIIicand
oneminornon-traIIic
oIIensesinanyone-year
periodwithinthelast
threeyears.

204
41
Table2.1990-1997WaiverGrantFigures
FiscalYear 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

ArmyMoralWaivers 5,989 5,648 5,186 4,301 3,304 3,203 2,260 2,394
PercentageofEnlistments 6.7 7.2 6.7 5.6 4.9 5.1 3.1 2.9

NavyMoralWaivers 11,890 9,016 7,244 8,028 5,759 6,248 7,323 6,554

MarineCorpsMoralWaivers 20,451 17,610 15,791 10,162 6,997 5,205 4,076 2,992

AirForceMoralWaivers 712 850 1,672 2,269 1,883 2,093 1,945 1,868

DODWaivers 39,042 33,124 28,893 24,760 17,934 16,749 15,604 14,808
DODTotalEnlistments 222,567 187,156 187,146 193,029 164,921 161,707 175,466 190,464
PercentageDODEnlistments 17.5 17.7 16.0 12.8 10.9 10.4 8.9 7.8
42
Table3.2003-2006WaiverGrantFigures
FiscalYear 2003 2004 2005 2006

ArmyMoralWaivers 4,918 4,529 5,506 8,129
PercentageofEnlistments 7.1 6.3 8.5 11.7

NavyMoralWaivers 4,207 3,846 3,467 3,502

MarineCorpsMoralWaivers 19,195 18,669 20,426 20,750

AirForceMoralWaivers 2,632 2,530 1,123 2,095

DODTotalMoralWaivers 30,952 29,574 30,522 34,476
DODTotalEnlistments 184,847 182,051 160,685 174,509
PercentageDODEnlistments 16.7 16.2 19.0 19.6
43
Table4.2003-2006WaiverGrantFiguresbyOIIenseCategory
FiscalYear 2003 2004 2005 2006

Felony 824 638 1,163 1,605
SeriousNon-TraIIic 10,324 9,235 10,523 13,895
MinorNon-TraIIic 1,824 2,533 1,840 2,446
SeriousTraIIic 1,699 1,413 929 466
MinorTraIIic 1,564 1,587 1,369 1,086
Drug 14,717 14,168 14,698 14,978
From: SP Pol Service Conditions Equal Opportunities 2
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Directorate of Service Personnel Policy
Level 7, Zone B, Desk 34
Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB
Telephone (Direct dial)
(Switchboard) 0207 218 9000
(Fax) 0207 218 9473
(GTN)
DG SPPol
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
Your Ref:
Our Ref: FOI Request 20-03-2007-
073852-002
Date 18 May 2007
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXX,
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Thank you for your FOI request dated 19 March 2007 regarding information
concerning impact studies that were conducted by the MoD following the lifting of the
ban on homosexuality in HM Forces, including statistics of resignations as a result of
the ban being lifted.
The information enclosed with this letter is:
Service Personnel Board Paper 12/02, entitled Tri-Service Review of the Armed
Forces Policy on Homosexuality and Code of Social Conduct.
This is the most recent study that has been conducted.
I should add that the Armed Forces have made great strides in recent years to
support diversity and inclusion and have robust policies in place. The Armed Forces
regard sexual orientation as a private life matter and Service personnel are free to
choose whether or not to disclose their sexual orientation.
If you are unhappy with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of
the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If
informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply
for an independent internal review by contacting the Director of Information
Exploitation, 6
th
Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB (email
Info-XD@mod.uk). Please note that any request for an internal review must be
made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal
resolution has come to an end.
If you remain unhappy following an internal review, you may take your complaint to
the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate
the case until the internal review process has been completed. Further details of
the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the
Commissioners website, http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXXX

(THISDOCUMENTISTHEPROPERTYOFHERBRITANNICMAJESTY'SGOVERNMENT)
SPB12/02
MINISTRYOFDEFENCE
SERVICEPERSONNELBOARD
TRI-SERVICEREVIEWOFTHEARMEDFORCESPOLICYON
HOMOSEXUALITYANDCODEOFSOCIALCONDUCT
(APaperbyDSPPolSC)
This paper reviews the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality and the introduction of
theArmedForcesCodeofSocialConductinthelightofthirtymonthsexperiencesince
bothwereintroducedin1an00.Itconcludesthattherehasbeennodiscernibleimpact
on operational efficiency and that the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct has been
well received. It considers that no further review of the Armed Forces policy on
homosexuality is currently judged necessary, as sexual orientation is now increasingly
anintegralpartofthepolicyondiversity.However,Servicepersonnelstaffswillneedto
remain watchful for any reversal of current attitudes of toleration. It further
recommendsthattheguidelinesforapplyingtheArmedForcesCodeofSocialConduct
requiresomerefinement.
INTRODUCTION
1. Following the ECHR iudgement against the MOD at Strasbourg on 27 Sep 99, and the
subsequentchangeoIpolicyonhomosexualityintheArmedForces,theliItingoIthebanon
homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces was announced by the Secretary oI State in
Parliamenton12Jan00.
AIM
2. The aim oI this paper is to review the revised policy on homosexuality and the
introduction oI the underpinning Armed Forces Code oI Social Conduct within the three
Services,inthelightoIthirtymonthsexperienceIollowingthechangeoIpolicy.
SCOPE
3.ThethreeServiceswereaskedtoexamineandreportontheIollowingmainareas:
(a)ToprovidetheviewsoICOsonthechangeoIpolicyonHomosexualityandthe
ArmedForcesCodeoISocialConduct.
(b)Single-Servicereactionstothepolicychange.
(c)IdentiIythemostcommonlyheldconcerns.
(d)TohighlightanypracticaldiIIicultiesanddetailsoIanyallegedcasesoIredress,
victimisationorharassmentIollowingthepolicychange.
(e)Single-Servicehandlingandreactiontohomosexualre-enlistments.
(I)OIIerIeedbackIromtheTri-ServiceEqualOpportunitiesTrainingCentre.
(g)TheimplicationsIordiversitypolicy.
BACKGROUNDTOTHEREVIEW
4. The change in policy was reviewed in the light oI experience in the Services during the
IirstsixmonthsoIoperation.TheconclusionsoIthereviewwerereportedtoMinisters
1
and
theHouseoICommonsDeIenceCommittee(HCDC)andareincludedatAnnexAIoreaseoI
reIerence. Although the handling oI the announcement and the subsequent change in policy
was generally hailed a success, and no real problems oI harassment or victimisation were
reported Iollowing its introduction, it was acknowledged that this may not have Iully
reIlected that the change in policy did not command the universal approval oI all Service
personnel. It was recommended that there should be second review to reIlect a Iurther two
yearsoIoperatingthechangeinpolicy,whichwouldbereportedtoMinistersandtheHCDC.

VIEWSOFCOMMANDINGOFFICERS(COs)ONTHECHANGEOF
HOMOSEXUALITYPOLICY
HOMOSEXUALITY
5.COsviewsIoreachServiceareasIollows:
a. The Naval Service. When Iirst announced the change in policy was not openly
welcomedbymany,butreactionwasgenerallymuted.Sincethenithasbeenwidely
agreedthattheproblemsinitiallyperceivedhavenotbeenencountered,andIormost
personnel sexual orientation is a non-issue. It is thought that such changes were
inevitableandlogicalastheyreIlectthesocietyinwhichArmedForcesserve.
b.TheArmy.ThegeneralmessageIromCOsis,thatthereappearstohavebeennorealchangesince
the new policy was announced. It appears that Iew homosexuals have decided to declare their sexual
orientationandthattheywouldpreIertokeeptheirorientationprivate.HoweverIeedbackIromIocus
groups is that this may well be a subiect that is dormant at present, but may need to be Iurther
consideredwhenpersonnelareonoperations.
1
D/SPPolSC/50/1dated24Aug02.
c. RAF. The overwhelming view oI RAF COs is that the change in policy was
overdue and represented recognition oI the diverse culture in which we all live. All
COsagreedthattherehadbeennotangibleimpactonoperationaleIIectiveness,team
cohesion or Service liIe generally. There had been no pink crusades or rushes oI
comingout.OneCOcommentedthatsamesexrelationshipshadcausedsomeinitial
concern,butthatthesituationhadbeenablymanaged.
THEARMEDFORCESCODEOFSOCIALCONDUCT
6. TheNavalService.Therevisedcodehasbeenwellreceivedanditisconsideredthatit
putshomosexualityneatlyintocontext,asitdoesnotiustcoverhomosexualrelationshipsbut
insteadprovidesclearguidanceonallIormsoIrelationships.
7. The Army. There has been a varied response Irom the COs and can be summarised as
being:
a. TheCodehasbeenwelcomedbyall.
b. While the Code provides useIul and balanced criteria against which to assess
social conduct, concern was raised at how the policy is implemented. The need Ior
consistency is viewed as essential. This may be diIIicult to achieve given that each
incident will need to be iudged on its own merits and the likelihood that diIIerent
parts oI the Services may apply diIIerent emphasis. The need Ior equity in
enIorcementisseenasaparticularchallenge.
c. A lack oI understanding and education, mainly with those who have
transgressed,oIwhyValuesandStandardsarenecessary.
8. RAF. Whilst the maiority oI comments were positive, they ranged Irom the negative
(caused problems in interpretation, highly subiective, not prescriptive enough), through the
neutral (little impact at Station level), to the positive (excellent tool that ensures parity oI
treatment, a sensible and pragmatic approach and an identiIiable baseline against which to
measuresocialconduct).ItshouldbenotedthattheRAFusestheServiceTestasayardstick
IoralltypesoIpersonnelcasework,notiustIorsocialmisconduct.
SINGLE-SERVICE REACTION TO THE CHANGE IN ARMED FORCES POLICY
ONHOMOSEXUALITY
THENAVALSERVICE
9.Officers. ThemaiorityviewisthatthenewpolicyhasnotmadeanysigniIicantchangeto
ServiceliIe.Itwasthoughtthat,iIasked,somewouldexpressdisapprovaloIthechangebut
many,particularlyyoungeroIIicers,wouldbeneutralorpositivelywelcomingoIthechange.
10. Senior Rates and Warrant Officers and SNCO. This stratum oI naval society is
considered to be one oI the most traditional and, correspondingly, there remains some
disquiet in the Senior Ratings Messes concerning the policy on homosexuality within the
Service. This has maniIested itselI in a number oI personnel electing to leave the Service,
although in only one case was the policy change cited as the only reason Ior going.
Nonetheless, homosexuality is not a maior issue and, to put the eIIect oI the policy change
intocontext,theintroductionoIPay2000andpaygradingcausedaIargreaterreaction.
11. 1unior Rates and Ranks. ThegeneralIeelingisthatJuniorRatesandranksaremore
acceptingoIhomosexuality,asthemaiorityhaveIriends/acquaintanceswhoarehomosexual,
although some were polarised in their views. There was a mixed reaction as to whether
homosexuals should be allowed to serve: some cannot understand why homosexuality is an
issueatall,whilstothersIeelthattheServicehascreatedadiIIicultandvolatilesituationIor
themtodealwith.
THEARMY
12. Officers. There is general acceptance oI the change amongst oIIicers with many
agreeingthattheimpactoIthepolicywillhavenosigniIicantimpactuponunits.Thereisa
view that oIIicers who have attended university have developed a more tolerant attitude to
homosexuality and some oIIicers also expressed a view that the eIIect oI the changes
introducedwillonlybenoticedoveraprolongedperiod.
13. WarrantOfficersandSNCOs.SomereluctanceamongstWarrantOIIicersandSNCOs
toacceptthechangehasbeennotedandtherehasbeenonerecentincidentoIahomosexual
WOs&SgtsMessmembercomingoutandthisgeneratedmuchdiscussion.Ageneral
viewisthatmostsoldiersstillhaveverylittledirectexperienceoIworkingalongside,or
socialisingwith,homosexuals,andIindthenotiondistasteIul.However,thegeneralattitude
isthatsocialacceptabilityismoredependentoncharacterandpersonalityratherthansexual
orientation,andthosewithdirectexperienceoIservingwithhomosexualsaremoreinclined
tobetolerant.
14. 1unior Ranks. Views amongst Junior Ranks were more diverse with some reluctant to
accept the policy change whilst the maiority recognise the need to adapt. In general, Junior
Ranks tend to be more liberal than their older colleagues although many have expressed
particular concern over room sharing. One CO expressed a view that there is a resigned
acceptance amongst Junior Ranks concerning the Armys homosexual policy, though there
remainsacontinuedsentimentacrossJuniorRanksthathomosexualityunderminesunit/team
cohesion.ThisviewwasparticularlyprevalentwithintheInIantry.
15. GeneralReactions.Theoverwhelmingconsensusisthatthispolicychangeappearsto
havehadlittleimpact.Thegeneralimpressionisthattherehasbeenlittlechangeinattitude
withthosewhowerehomophobicremainingso,albeitlessovertly,whilsttheviewsoImore
tolerant individuals is unchanged. Regardless oI policy, homosexuals are not yet readily
acceptedbyall,andthismayinIluenceanindividualindecidingwhethertoexposehisorher
sexualorientation.MoreseniorgroupsIeltthatthepolicyhadlittlepracticalimpactandwas
notacontentiousissue:teamdynamicsaremuchmoredependentonpersonalitythanonthe
sexual orientation oI the individual, whereas more iunior groups were more likely to Ieel
threatenedbythechangeinpolicy.Overallthereisrecognitionthatthechangeinpolicyisa
responseto European law, and there is little (or nothing) that can be done about it although
thepolicychangeisunlikelytochangepeoplesviewsonhomosexuality.Itisinterestingto
notethatatarecentInIantryCOs'ConIerence,themessagecameoutclearlythat18yearolds
ioining the InIantry, whilst not accepting homosexual behaviour, were largely indiIIerent to
it.
RAF
16. Officers. RepresentedbyCOsviewsabove(seePara5.c.).
17. Warrant Officers and SNCOs. There was some evidence that a small minority oI
individuals mainly SNCOs privately believed that homosexuals had no place in the
Service, but that they nevertheless adhered to the guidelines. The maiority oI COs believed
timeandeducationwouldresolvethisminorissue.
18. OtherRanks.TheissueoIhomosexualityisoldnewsandanon-issuewithotherranks.
ThisgrouptendstobeyoungerandreIlectsgreatersocietalacceptanceoIhomosexualissues.
19. General Reactions/Key Observations. The general reaction to the change oI policy
was muted. There remains a small minority who have not been receptive to the change in
policy,mostoIwhomappeartobeseniorNCOs.Thisisnotunexpectedgiventheirageand
lengthoIservice.YoungerpersonneloIallrankshaveapparentlyacceptedthechangeeasily.
MostoIthoseconsultedduringthisreviewagreedthatacceptancewouldimprovewithtime
andthatEqualOpportunities(EO)andDiversitytrainingwouldplayasigniIicantroleinthe
process.
SERVICEREACTIONTOTHEINTRODUCTIONOFTHEARMEDFORCES
CODEOFSOCIALCONDUCT
THENAVALSERVICE
20.Officers. CommentsreceivedweremostlypositiveandtheCodehasbeenwelcomedas
a positive beneIit. Its introduction was seen as a timely, considered and sensitive change to
address a new climate in terms oI relationships and issues oI personal behaviour and
sexuality. It has created an overall understanding oI the importance oI all relationships,
especiallyintheneedtorespect,valueandprotecttherightsoIothers.TheCodeisseenasa
good guide and regulator Ior all relationships, and brought maturity to personal behaviour
across the board. It has created a climate within which harassment, exploitation and sexism
canbechallengedanddealtwith.
21.SeniorratesandWarrantOfficersandSNCO. Nosubstantivecomment.
22.1uniorRatesandranks. Nosubstantivecomment.
THEARMY
23. Officers. OIIicers have a more active role in the application oI the Code oI Social
Conductandinthemainconsidereditapositivedevelopment.TheServiceTestisregarded
bymostasavaluableclariIication,althoughsomeoIIicersdid,however,expressconcernthat
the Service Test might be too vague and open to broad interpretation. They Ielt that this
might result in its eIIectiveness being undermined. This applied particularly to issues oI
socialmisconduct.
24. WarrantOfficersandSNCOs.WarrantOIIicersandSNCOsconsideredtheguidance,
sanctionsandcriteriatobehelpIul.TherewerestrongIeelingsamongstthisgroupthatyoung
soldiers should be taught the Armed Forces view on values and standards, as they are not
inherent within the pool Irom which the Armed Forces recruit. There is a perception that
commandersarenotapplyingtheCodewithsuIIicientconIidenceandthiscouldundermine
itseIIectiveness.
25. 1unior Ranks. Junior ranks generally accepted the Code on the basis that the Armed
Forcesneededtohavevaluesandstandardsthataremoreprescriptivethanthoseincivilian
society. Many JNCOs reIlect the attitudes oI society today, though they display greater
understanding oI the needs oI the Service than might be assumed. This group did not
necessarilyreIlectArmedForcesstandardswhenioining,buttheydohaveanawarenessthat
aIirmIrameworkoIconductexistsandthatitshouldbemaintained.Aperceptiondoesexist
thatoIIicersandWOs/SNCOsIrequentlybreachtheCodewithoutactionbeingtakenagainst
them.
RAF
26. Officers.RepresentedbyCOviewsabove(seePara8).
27. WarrantOfficersandSNCOs.Nosubstantivecomment.
28. OtherRanks.Nosubstantivecomment.
29. General Reactions. The introduction oI the Code oI Social Conduct was generally
consideredtobeapositivestepbyalllevelsoIRAFpersonnel.Nevertheless,therewassome
concern expressed that the guidelines were open to interpretation and subiective decision
making,resultingininequitableapplicationacrosstheServiceoIthepolicyandanyresulting
sanctions.Thisviewwas,however,intheminorityandtheRAFalreadyhasinhandareview
oI the administrative system oI warnings and special reports to ensure equitable treatment
irrespectiveoIrank.
MOSTCOMMONLYHELDCONCERNS
30. The Naval Service. There are a Iew commonly held concerns, and none that is
signiIicantinthemindsoInavalpersonnel.ThemostimportantconcernisthelackoIprivacy
on board a ship or submarine, particularly in the conIined living conditions in single sex
messes,andanxietyoverhavingtotakecommunalshowers.
31. The Army. Generally, there has been an acceptance oI the need Ior change and,
notwithstandingtheIactthatsoIartherehasbeennostrongtestoIthepolicy,itissimplyno
longer regarded as a maior personnel issue. One unit commented on the Iact that the policy
had given serving homosexuals more conIidence, in that there was not a culture oI
harassment and unacceptability with regard to their liIestyle. Nevertheless, many COs
commented that homosexuals would not necessarily come out. There are some commonly
heldconcerns,whichinclude:
a.Heterosexualsdonotwanttoshareroomswithhomosexuals.
b. Privacy should be mutually respected and soldiers should not be compelled to
shareaccommodationwithpersonsoIadiIIerentgenderorsexualorientation.
c.ThereisastrongIeelingthattoiletsandshowersshouldbeseparatedaspermale
and Iemale arrangements (a concern that should be overcome with Single Living
Accommodation).
d.AperceptionthatoperationaleIIectivenessmightbeunderminediIlivinginclose
proximitywithhomosexualsonoperations.
e. The eventual policy on partners entitlement (with the homosexual dimension) to
pensions and quartering is viewed as more socio-political, rather than a military
initiative,andwillrequirecareIulmanagementiIitisnottobedivisive.
32. RAF.ItwasgenerallyIeltthatconcernsoverchangewouldcontinuetoIadeovertime.
However, the greatest concern expressed by married personnel was the possibility that, at
some stage, same sex couples would occupy SFA and gain access to the same beneIits and
entitlements as married personnel. To a certain extent, these concerns (impressionable
children growing up next door to a same sex couple and the erosion oI Iamily values) has
beenbroughttotheIorebythedebateonunentitledpartners.BywayoIbalance,itwasalso
recognisedbysomepersonnel,however,thatthisreIlectedthediversesocietyIromwhichthe
RAFseekstorecruit.Nevertheless,giventhenumberoIStationsthathaveraisedtheissueoI
samesexpartnersandtheirinclusioninthewiderRAFcommunity,itwasIelttheseconcerns
should be highlighted in this review. The RAF Chaplaincy Services have suggested that,
whilst there may be some heterosexuals expressing discomIort about the change in policy,
there has been a decrease in homosexual personnel presenting with problems. There is a
strongimpressionthatliIeisnoweasierIorhomosexualpersonnel.
PRACTICALDIFFICULTIESANDDETAILSOFANYALLEGEDCASESOF
REDRESS,VICTIMISATIONORHARASSMENTFOLLOWINGTHEPOLICY
CHANGEONHOMOSEXUALITY
THENAVALSERVICE
33. No practical diIIiculties have been encountered, although it has been suggested that
training in interrogation involving strip-searching might cause diIIiculties. There has been a
lowleveloIincidentsinvestigatedbytheSIBthatinvolvedactivitythatmightberegardedas
homosexual (in the context oI assaults and threats), but this has not caused any statistical
increasecomparedtoearlieryears.
THEARMY
34.TherehavebeennopracticaldiIIicultiesexperiencedbymostCOs:nearlyallobserved
thatthepolicyhadyettobeIullytested.TheliItingoIthebanwasgenerallyunwelcomeat
thetime, however it has now been accepted thatithasmadelittleornoimpact.Therehave
been isolated incidents with accommodation: prior to the policy soldiers asked to be moved
to diIIerent accommodation Ior personality clash reasons but since the change oI policy
there has been greater openness. For example, there has been an incident where a soldier
askedtobemovedbecausehedidnotgetonwithaknownhomosexualinatwomanroom.
Whenhemovedtoanotherroom,theunitwasIacedwithseekinganothervolunteertoshare
theroom.Tohaveplacedanotherhomosexualintheroomwouldhavegivenrisetopartner
issues and leaving the homosexual in a room on his own would have been seen as
preIerentialordiscriminatorytreatment.
35. Bullying/Victimisation/Harassment. Other than one serious case in 2001 concerning
sexual assault, the unanimous response to the question on bullying was that it has not
occurred,thoughoneCOdidmakethepointthatthisisasubiectthatsoldierswillnotreadily
discuss.
RAF
36. The general issue oI accommodation was oI some concern within the RAF, but
comments related also to mixed sex accommodation, which was Ielt to be oI equal
importancetomixedsexualitysharing.
37. There had been one complaint oI an unwanted homosexual approach that had been
swiItlyandeIIectivelydealtwithatunitlevel.TherehadalsobeenoneinstanceoIcomplaint,
Iollowing the breakdown oI a same sex relationship, but this was resolved amicably. There
hadbeennoreportedinstancesoIharassmentongroundsoIsexualorientation.

SERVICEHANDLING/REACTIONTOHOMOSEXUALRE-ENLISTMENTS
38. TheNavalService.ItisknownthattwooIIicersandoneratinghavereioinedtheRN,
and all are now progressing well. Another application Irom an oIIicer is currently being
staIIed. Shortly aIter the Lustig-Prean decision, staII recalled several telephone enquiries
Irompersonnelwhohadbeendischarged.TheIocusoItheseenquiriesappearedtobetogain
inIormation to assist in a loss oI earnings claim. Those who did make an application to re-
ioin,weregenerallymoreconcernedabouttheeIIectsoItheirpreviousservice,whethertheir
seniority would count, training and their Iuture employment. Their sexual orientation was a
very minor issue, and has been a non-issue Irom the appointing draIting perspective. It was
suggested that, provided individuals are Iit and able to carry out their duties in Iull, they
shouldbeencouragedtoreioinorremainintheService.
39. The Army. Although COs reported no known re-enlistments, the Army Personnel
Centre were able to report that up to a dozen homosexuals who were discharged during the
banonhomosexualityhadappliedIorre-enlistment.OIthese,onlyonehadactuallyaccepted
theoIIertoreioin,anditcanbeconcludedthattheothersweresimplytestingthepolicy.
40.TheRAF. TheRAFsetouttotreatre-entrantstotheServiceaIterbeingdischargedon
grounds oI homosexuality in exactly the same way as all other candidates Ior entry and re-
entry. Sexual orientation was not an issue in considering applications, unless the applicant
raised the subiect. There is, thereIore, no Iormal record oI such re-entrants and such
knowledge as exists is based on collective corporate memory. It is known that two
individualssuccessIullyappliedtore-iointheRAF:alsothatanotherindividualwasreIused
entry because his Iormer trade was in surplus. Min(AF) directed that this criterion Ior re-
entry should be waived, but it was subsequently discovered, during the normal recruitment
process, that the individual was below the required medical standard Ior re-entry. Min(AF)
thereIore accepted a recommendation that he should not re-enter the RAF. Those units that
havereceivedre-enlistedpersonnelreportednoadversereaction.
TRI-SERVICEEQUALOPPORTUNITIESTRAININGCENTRE(TSEOTC).
41. The MoD policy on homosexuality is discussed during Senior OIIicers Seminars and
EO Advisers courses. The overwhelming maiority oI attendees now see homosexuality
withintheArmedForcesasanon-issueandarecontentwiththepolicyandthemanagement
implications.Occasionally,personalreservationsareexpressedindiscussion,butsuchviews
arenotrepresentativeoIthemaiority.TherehavebeenveryIewmanagementordisciplinary
problems highlighted by attendees, and it is evident that in the vast maiority oI units across
the services, sexual orientation is viewed as irrelevant. The Armed Forces Code oI Social
Conduct is regarded as a sensible and pragmatic management tool and the concept oI
behaviour,ratherthansexualorientation,beingthekeyIactorisawidelyacceptedprinciple.
IMPLICATIONSFORDIVERSITYPOLICY
42. Recognition of the Armed Forces Lesbian and Gay Association (AFLAGA). The
ServicesareagreedthatthereisnoharminengagingwithorganisationssuchasAFLAGAin
a Centre-led dialogue when the need arises. However, oIIicial Departmental recognition oI
AFLAGA would set a precedent and potentially open the door to a range oI other minority
and special interest groups to seek similar recognition. The Services Ieel, thereIore, that
oIIicialrecognitionIorsuchgroupsshouldberesisted.
43. PositiveRecruitmentintheGaypress.ServiceattitudevariedasIollows:
a.TheNavalService.TheNavalServiceconsiderthatcurrentrecruitmentpolicies
and practices are adequate. In view oI the general press interest in Armed Forces
issues, and the activities oI certain pressure groups, homosexuals are now generally
aware that the three Services are Iully committed to diversity and that they are
welcome to apply Ior recruitment. A greater recruiting proIile in the pink press
might run the risk oI upsetting the generally balanced attitude towards recruitment
within the Naval Service and generate unhelpIul coverage in the more salacious
newspapers.
b. The Army. In terms oI recruitment, the Army Ieel there is a need to target
resourcesIorthegreatestimpact.TheArmyareintendingtoconductawide-ranging
scoping study to determine the size oI the potential recruiting pool and the general
attitudes prevalent in society towards service in the Armed Forces beIore deciding
whetheritwouldbeworthwhileactivelyrecruitingIromthehomosexualpopulation.
The issue remains sensitive, and the Army would have to consider the wider
ramiIicationsoIadoptingsuchapolicy.
c.RAF.TheRAFIeeltheremaybesomemeritinplacingrecruitingadvertisements
in the gay press iust as, Ior example, they advertise through various media aimed at
ethnicminoritycommunities
On balance, there is muted enthusiasm and little need to target male or Iemale homosexual
personnelinrecruitmenteIIorts.TheServicesdiversitypolicysendsaclearmessagethatthe
ArmedForcesdonotdiscriminateonthegroundsoIsexualorientation.
ProvisionofSpecialistWelfareSupport
44.ServiceviewsareasIollows:
a. The Naval Service. The change in policy had not been an issue Ior the Naval
Personnel Family Services (NPFS), and the transitional arrangements went remarkably
well. NPFS observes non-discriminatory practices, and co-operated in distributing and
displaying AFLAGA posters. Since the change in policy, oI 4000 general reIerrals to
NPFS(West)s oIIice, there has been only one approach Irom a serving person who
soughtadviceaboutthepolicyonhomosexuality.TheNavalSupportLinealsoreceives
very Iew calls Irom personnel seeking advice about homosexual issues. OI the 2952
questions dealt with by staII since the service began in May 1999, only 14 related to
genderissues,acategoryunderwhichquestionsabouthomosexualitywouldhavebeen
recorded. However, this category is not restricted to homosexual issues, and it is not
possible to provide data speciIically about questions relating to homosexuality. In light
oI this evidence, it is considered that there is no requirement Ior specialist welIare
supportpurelyIorhomosexualpersonnel.
b. The Army. It is assessed that there is no requirement to provide any additional
welIare support Ior homosexuals. The Army are conIident that existing provision is
adequate,withouttheneedtosingleoutanyminoritygroup.
c.RAF.Intherecruitingcontext,therehavebeennoreportedinstancesoIcandidates
asking Ior advice on welIare support available to homosexual personnel. Within the
Service, there is no data available to conIirm or deny a speciIic need Ior any social
support provision over and above that which already exists. The RAF has adopted a
sociallyinclusiveviewoIitscommunityand,assuch,theprovisionoIsocialsupport
is Ior everyone regardless oI sexual orientation or status. As part oI the overall
support package, the Community Support Website has a direct link to the AFLAGA
Website.Thegeneralviewisthat,intheabsenceoIevidencetothecontrary,thereis
norequirementIorspecialistwelIaresupportIorhomosexualpersonnel.
SUMMARYOFSERVICEVIEWS
THENAVALSERVICE
45.Theoverallresponseappearstobeapositiveone,particularlytotheArmedForcesCode
oI Social Conduct. Initially, there was a mixed reaction to the change oI policy, but the
change has been accepted with Iew problems experienced. The personal experiences oI
Service homosexuals, however, is that in general they still Ieel isolated and unsupported by
anorganisationwhichhasnorealunderstandingoItheirparticularneedsandnoconvictionto
reinIorce policy by providing practical support to homosexual personnel. It is believed that
continuededucationandtimewillresolvetheseissues.
THEARMY
46. Homosexuality. The change in policy on homosexuality has been accepted by the
maiorityoIranks,althoughmanyremainsuspiciousoIhomosexualityingeneral.Theactual
impactoIthechangehasbeenverylow,duelargelytomaintenanceoIthestatusquo,andthe
anticipatedconsequencesoIchangebeingexaggerated.Accommodationisasensitivesubiect
andcausesconcernamongstthoseinvulnerablesituations,andinunitswherecombatteams
mayoperateinisolation,suchastheInIantry,whereasunitsIromthesupportingArmsseem
more able to tolerate the inclusion oI homosexuals. Many Ieel that the policy has still to be
Iully tested, and that there is a possibility oI greater problems arising during High Intensity
Operations.SomeoIIicershavesuggestedthathomosexualityshouldbediscussedaspartoI
the EO programme iI we are to gradually increase the willingness to integrate homosexuals
intotheArmy.TheArmedForcesCodeoISocialConducthasprovidedtimelyassistancein
dealing with issues associated with homosexual misconduct, while ensuring that they are
iudgedonthesamecriteriaasanyotherIormoIunacceptablesocialbehaviour.
47. IntroductionoftheArmedForcesCodeofSocialConduct.TheArmedForcesCode
oI Social Conduct has been welcomed by all as the line in the sand that is there Ior all to
see. Everyone is in agreement that the practical and common application oI the Code is
criticaltothemaintenanceoIoperationalstandardsandServiceethosintheIaceoIchanging
social conditions. The inherent strength oI the Code is its application too all with complete
diversity whatever colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Not all see its application as
equitableorconsistent.
RAF
48. Within the RAF, the general view was that the change in policy was inevitable and is
yesterdays news. The response to the Armed Forces Code oI Social Conduct and its
Service Test was mixed, but the amendments to the RAF system oI warnings and special
reports should rectiIy a number oI underlying concerns. A small minority oI staII remain
unconvincedabouthomosexualsservingintheRAF,butarenotovertintheirviewsandthis
is Ielt to be largely a generational issue. Finally, the need to highlight the concerns oI the
widerRAFcommunitywithregardtothepossibleIutureintegrationoIsamesexcouplesinto
ServiceFamiliesAccommodation(SFA)wasastronglyheldopinion.Thiscouldbeamaior
source oI concern when the partners issue is openly debated and there is a need to be
preparedIorareactioniIsamesexcouplesareincluded.
CONCLUSIONS
49. COs oI all three Services generally concur that there has been no tangible impact on
operational eIIectiveness, team cohesion or Service liIe as a result liIting the ban on
homosexualsservingintheArmedForces.
50.TheArmedForcesCodeoISocialConducthasbeenwellreceived.Someconcernswere
expressed that guidance notes Ior COs may not be prescriptive enough and may, thereIore,
leadtosomeinconsistencyinitsapplication.
51. All personnel have accepted that a change in policy was inevitable and has had little
impactonServiceliIe.Whilstsexualorientationremainsaprivatematter,littlediIIicultyIor
the Iuture is Ioreseen. Team dynamics were deemed to be more dependent on personality
thansexualorientation.
52.ReportedcasesoIbullyingorharassmentinvolvingactivitiesthatmightberegardedas
homosexualareveryrare.
53.ThoseIewpersonnelpreviouslydischargedbecauseoItheirsexualorientationwhohave
since reioined the Armed Forces have been re-assimilated into Service liIe with little
diIIiculty.
54.NospeciIichomosexualissueshavebeenraisedbySeniorOIIicesorstudentsattending
EObrieIingsorcoursesatTSEOTC.
55. Concerns have been registered that, should same sex couples be granted the same
entitlementsasmarriedheterosexualcouples(inparticulartoSFA),theremaybesigniIicant
educational and presentational issues to be addressed to avoid a homophobic reaction Irom
otherSFAresidents.
56. No Iurther Iormal review oI the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality is currently
iudged to be necessary as sexual orientation is increasingly part oI Armed Forces diversity
business. However, Service personnel staIIs should remain watchIul Ior any reversal oI
currenttoleration.
57. No special welIare provisions are required Ior homosexual personnel the existing
welIareinIrastructureprovidesaninclusiveserviceIorall.
RECOMMENDATIONS
58.ItisrecommendedthattheSPB:
a.NotestheconclusionsoItheReview.
b.Agreesthattri-ServiceworkisputinhandtoreviewtheguidancenotestoCOsin
applyingtheArmedForcesCodeoISocialConduct.
c.AgreesthattheconclusionsoItheReviewarereportedtoMinistersandthe
HCDC.
Annex:
A. Conclusions oI the Aug 00 review oI the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality and
CodeoISocialConduct.
ANNEXATO
SPBPAPER12/02
CONCLUSIONS OF THE AUG 00 REVIEW OF THE ARMED FORCES POLICY
ONHOMOSEXUALITYANDCODEOFSOCIALCONDUCT
1.Theresultswerereportedtobeencouraging.TheprincipalconclusionswereasIollows:
a. ThechangeoIpolicyhasbeenintroducedsmoothlyandwithIewerproblems
thanmighthavebeenexpected.
b. CommandingoIIicershavenotreportedanysigniIicantissuesandtherevised
policyhasbeenassimilatedintoServiceliIewithoutanyperceivedadverseimpactor
eIIectonoperationaleIIectiveness.
c. ThenewCodeoISocialConductIortheArmedForces,withitsassociated
Servicetest,hasbeenwellreceivedandisprovingauseIultoolIorcommandersin
dealingwithissuesoIpersonalbehaviour.
d. ThesuccessoItheDepartmentalcommunicationsstrategyre-aIIirmedthe
needtotreatthepresentationalaspectsoIpotentiallycontroversialpolicydecisionsor
announcementsasanintegralpartoItheoverallpolicyprocess.
e. NochangestotherevisedpolicyonhomosexualityortheCodeoISocial
Conductareconsiderednecessaryatthepresenttime.
I. NoIurtheractionisrequiredonthecontentoItheServiceeducationor
trainingcoursesatthepresenttime.
g. AIurtherlowkeyreview,basedontri-Servicemanagementassessments,is
recommendedtotakeplaceintwoyearstime.

Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian
Forces: Appraising the Evidence
Report Prepared For:
The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
University of California at Santa Barbara
belkinmsscf.ucsb.edu
www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu
(805) 893-5664
Aaron Belkin` and 1ason McNichol``
April, 2000
`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

A new study oI gays and lesbians in the Canadian military has Iound that aIter Canada`s
1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed Iorces, no negative
consequences occurred. The study, titled 'EIIects oI the 1992 LiIting oI Restrictions on
Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence, was
sponsored by the Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military at the
University oI CaliIornia, Santa Barbara.
Key Iindings are as Iollows:
LiIting oI restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to
any change in military perIormance.
SelI-identiIied gay, lesbian, and transsexual members oI the Canadian Forces
contacted Ior this report who have served since the ban was liIted describe good
working relationships with peers in supportive institutional environments where
morale and cohesion are maintained.
The percent oI military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46
aIter the ban was liIted. While there were several reasons why sexual harassment
declined, one Iactor was that aIter the ban was liIted women were Iree to report
assaults without Iear that they would be accused oI and subsequently discharged Ior
being a lesbian.
BeIore Canada liIted its gay ban, a 1985 survey oI 6,500 male soldiers Iound that
62 said that they would reIuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room
as a gay soldier. AIter the ban was liIted, however, Iollow-up studies Iound no
increase in disciplinary, perIormance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation
problems.
None oI the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces Irom November, 1992 (when
the ban was liIted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to
the sexual orientation oI one oI the parties.
The study was written by Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol. Belkin is Director oI the
Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military and Assistant ProIessor oI
Political Science at the University oI CaliIornia, Santa Barbara. McNichol is Doctoral
Candidate in Sociology at the University oI CaliIornia, Berkeley and Director oI ELM
Research Associates, a non-partisan research Iirm located in Berkeley. The research was
Iunded by the Compton Foundation, located in Menlo Park, CaliIornia.
2
II. INTRODUCTION
Prior to 1988, gays and lesbians were prohibited Irom serving in the Canadian Forces
(CF).
1
Openly gay recruits were prevented Irom enlisting, and soldiers who were discovered to
be homosexual were dismissed. Any personnel who suspected another member oI being gay was
required to inIorm his or her commanding oIIicer. This policy was relaxed slightly in 1988 by
removing the order to inIorm, and by declining to dismiss soldiers who were discovered to be
gay.
2
Those soldiers who did not quit, however, were denied access to promotions, security
clearances, transIers, and re-enlistment. Canada`s Department oI National DeIence argued that
the special mission oI the Forces necessitated an exclusionary policy. Military personnel Ieared
that gay and lesbian soldiers would compromise operational eIIectiveness, as well as damage
'cohesion and morale, discipline, leadership, recruiting, medical Iitness, and the rights to privacy
oI other members (NDRI 1993: 76).
This report draws together prior research on gay military issues, press coverage,
Canadian Forces data, and interviews with senior oIIicers, academic observers, policy experts,
and enlisted personnel to provide a multi-method appraisal oI how the Canadian Forces have
been aIIected by the1992 decision to allow equal and unrestricted participation by sexual
minorities. Eight years aIter the policy was Iinally overturned, there is no evidence that any oI
the outcomes Ieared by proponents oI the ban have occurred. The policy change has not resulted
in increased levels oI sexual misconduct, human rights violation complaints, or rates oI sexual
harassment. Further, the range oI data collected Ior this study provides strong systematic and
interview evidence that the liIting oI restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian
Forces has not led to any identiIiable change in military perIormance. To the degree that the
current evidence does suggest any trend, it would be toward more eIIective individual and unit
1
Original research and analysis conducted Ior this report were Iurnished by ELM Research Associates, an
independent, non-partisan research consultancy.
2
For overviews, see Kinsman (1996), Park (1994), and Rayside (1998).
3
perIormance as sexual minorities Iocus more on their work and new conIlict resolution programs
improve pre-existing tensions over racial, gender-related, and other interpersonal problems in the
Forces more generally.
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 Canadian Forces. Sources and methods included: identiIication,
retrieval, and analysis oI all prior research bearing on homosexual service in the Canadian Forces
conducted by governmental, academic, and policy-Iocused organizations in North America:
content analysis oI Nexis/Lexis search retrievals Ior all North American news articles and wire
service dispatches relating to homosexual service in the Canadian Forces beIore and aIter the ban
was liIted (1987-1999: n172 articles): interviews undertaken with relevant Canadian Forces
units and their senior representatives (n10 individuals): snowball identiIication and interviewing
oI maior academic, non-governmental, and policy observers Iamiliar with gay-military issues in
Canada since the ban was liIted (n10 individuals): and interviews with sexual minority
participants in the Canadian Forces who were located through the cooperation oI leading non-
governmental and military human rights organizations (n9 individuals). Canadian 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.
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 that the universe oI sources drawn upon
4
Ior the study was complete by repeatedly asking expert 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
CF,
3
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. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
A. Canadian Forces Policy Towards Homosexuals Before 1988
The policy oI the Canadian Forces beIore 1988 was outlined in regulation CFAO 19-20,
entitled 'Homosexuality-Sexual Abnormality-Investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal.
This administrative order stated that, 'Service policy does not allow homosexual members or
members with a sexual abnormality to be retained in the Canadian Iorces (Vienneau 1989). The
Canadian Forces would not permit openly homosexual men and women to enlist, and any soldiers
discovered to be gay or lesbian were to be dismissed. The order Iurther required other personnel
to inIorm on Iellow service members who they suspected were homosexual. The military
handled investigations oI suspected service members` sexual orientation through its Special
Investigations Unit .
4
3
A senior oIIicial within the CF told one oI the study authors that she believed additional longitudinal data
on recruitment patterns might exist, but she was unable to veriIy the possibility (Beaton, personal
communication, February 10, 2000).
4
For an overview oI the history oI military policy towards homosexuals in Canada, see Kinsman (1996)
and a discussion oI Kinsman`s work in Bronskill (98). For an overview oI the history oI homosexuality in
Canada, see Adam (1993).
5
B. Legal And Political Pressure For Change
The CF policy on homosexual service members came under increasing iudicial and
political scrutiny aIter the passage oI the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) in 1978 and the
Canadian Charter oI Rights and Freedoms in 1985.
5
While the Canadian Human Rights Act did
not explicitly cover sexual orientation, it required employers to iustiIy exclusionary or restrictive
policies. The Canadian Charter oI Rights and Freedoms, considered analogous to the U.S. Bill oI
Rights, also did not include sexual orientation in its enumerated list oI prohibited grounds oI
discrimination. Section 15 oI the Charter did, however, enable the restriction oI other Iorms oI
discrimination iI so ruled by the courts (Park 1994).
A review oI Iederal regulations in 1985 by the Justice Department determined that the
Canadian Forces were potentially in violation oI the equal rights provisions oI the Charter in a
number oI areas, including its discrimination against gays and lesbians (Gade et al. 1996).
6
In
response to the Justice Department`s Iindings, the Department oI National DeIence conducted a
survey oI 6,580 soldiers to assess the potential impact oI a removal oI the ban on homosexual
soldiers. The survey Iound that military personnel, particularly men, were strongly against
removing the ban. Service members expressed concern about all aspects oI serving with gays and
lesbians: 62 oI male soldiers stated that they would reIuse to share showers, undress or sleep in
the same room as a gay soldier, and 45 declared that they would reIuse to work with gays.
Many also stated that they would reIuse to be supervised by a gay or lesbian soldier (Zuliani
1986). The Department oI National DeIence`s Charter Task Force recommended in its Final
Report that the exclusionary policy toward homosexuals be retained, arguing that the unique
character and purpose oI the Armed Forces necessitated the restriction oI gays and lesbians.
Given the aversion toward homosexuals in the military, the report concluded that the 'the
5
While the Charter became part oI the Canadian Constitution in 1982, Section 15 came into eIIect in 1985
to give the diIIerent legislatures and government bodies time to adapt to the change. See Rayside (1998).
6
See also Park (1994).
6
presence oI homosexuals in the CF would be detrimental to cohesion and morale, discipline,
leadership, recruiting, medical Iitness, and the rights to privacy oI other members. It Iurther
declared that 'the eIIect oI the presence oI homosexuals would |lead to| a serious decrease in
operational eIIectiveness (NDRI 1993: 76).
7

C. Development Of An Interim Policy
In response to the Final Report, a new Minister oI DeIence announced his intention in
January 1988 to modiIy the existing policy only slightly. Under the change, the Canadian Forces
would not knowingly enroll homosexuals. II servicemen or women were discovered or
announced themselves to be gay, they would be asked to leave, but they would not be dismissed.
Those who chose to stay would not be eligible Ior training courses, security clearances, transIers,
promotions or reenlistment.
8
The Canadian Forces had already removed the obligation oI service
members to report on suspicions that another solider may be homosexual (Park 1994).
9

In spite oI the measures taken by the Department oI National DeIence, pressure to change
the policy on homosexuals continued to increase. As court decisions
10
extended the rights oI gays
and lesbians under both the Charter oI Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Act, Michelle
Douglas
11
and Iour others Iiled separate suits against the Canadian Forces that directly challenged
its policy toward homosexuals. In August 1990, the Security Intelligence Committee ruled that
7
See the Gazette (1992) Ior Canadian-wide attitudes about homosexuality.
8
See Farnsworth (1991), Ulbrich (1993), and Lancaster (1992).
9
According to Department oI National DeIence statistics, 60 homosexual service personnel were
discharged between 1986 and the removal oI the ban, and an additional 15 servicemen and women had
restrictions placed on their advancement because oI sexual orientation (Hustak 1993).
10
See Walsh (1992) and Rayside (1998) Ior a detailed discussion oI other court cases.
11
See Bindman (1900, 1990a, 1992, 1992a) and Toronto Star (1990, 1990a) Ior details oI the Michelle
Douglas case.
7
the military ban against homosexuals violated the Charter and Iound in Ms. Douglas` Iavor
(Bindman 1990). The Committee concluded that the military had not established that Ms.
Douglas` sexual orientation made her a security risk: instead, a 'simple association with a
suspected lesbian was enough to make her 'a potential threat to the security oI Canada. (Toronto
Star 1990). The Committee also criticized the military`s 'deplorable conduct in its investigation
against Ms. Douglas (Bindman 1991a).
12
In preparing its appeal in the Douglas case, the Department oI National DeIence
concluded that it could not meet the standard oI prooI required Ior a 'reasonable limitation
argument under Section 1 oI the Charter (NDRI 1993). While the ChieI oI the DeIence StaII
General John de Chastelain privately inIormed members oI Parliament that the ban was about to
be liIted late in 1991, the Iederal government delayed in the wake oI an adamant reIusal by some
Conservative MPs to support the policy change (Harper 1991).
13
Finally, Iacing a case it knew it
could not win and lacking the leadership needed to deIend its policy, the Department oI National
DeIence agreed to settle the case against Michelle Douglas in October oI 1992. In so doing, the
military acknowledged that its policy oI exclusion violated the Charter oI Rights and Freedoms,
and it consented to the immediate repeal oI that policy (U.P.I. 1992: Bindman et al. 1992).
12
For an extensive discussion oI the relevant legislative and iudicial history, see (Rayside 1998). See
Wintemute (1995) Ior an in-depth analysis oI the Canadian Charter oI Rights and Freedoms as it relates to
sexual orientation. See Pugliese (1992) Ior Iurther court decisions.
13
See 'Tory MP`s Revolt Scuttled Statement, in The Jancouver Sun, October 26, 1992, quoted in Pond
(1993), Ior a Iull quotation oI the General`s suppressed press statement. See also Watson (1991), Bindman
(1991), Harper (1992) and The Ottawa Citizen (1991).
8
V. REMOVAL OF THE BAN AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL
SOLDIERS
The policy change in October 1992 concerning gay and lesbian soldiers in the Canadian
military was less an aIIirmative order than a dismantling oI existing policy. General de Chastelain
issued a press report that declared:
The Canadian Forces will comply Iully with the Federal Court`s decision.
Canadians, regardless oI their sexual orientation, will now be able to serve their
country without restriction.
14
(cited in NDRI 1993: 77)
In a communiqu entitled 'Homosexual Conduct, the ChieI oI DeIence revoked CFAO 19-20
and all related interim policies. The military would henceIorth make no distinction between its
heterosexual and homosexual soldiers. He expressed his 'Iull support oI the Federal Court`s
decision and stated his expectations oI support oI the policy change within the chain oI command.
General de Chastelain also declared that 'inappropriate sexual conduct by members oI the Iorces,
whether heterosexual or homosexual, was unacceptable (cited in NDRI 1993: 78: see also Park
1994).
National DeIence Headquarters issued a 'Questions and Answers sheet Ior use within
the CF that explained the change in policy. This message included likely concerns and
emphasized that homosexual and heterosexual soldiers would be held to the same standards oI
behavior:
Q31: Will such activities as dancing, hand holding, embracing between same/sex
members be accepted at mess social Iunctions?
A31: Standards oI conduct Ior homosexual members will be the same as those
Ior heterosexual members. Common sense and good iudgement will be applied
and required oI all members. (cited in NDRI 1993: 78)
No accommodation exceptions Ior homosexual or heterosexual troops were allowed, since it was
decided that gay and heterosexual service-people could share living quarters (Swardson 1993). A
'Post-Announcement Action was issued by the Assistant Deputy Minister oI Personnel to
provide military leaders with guidance to 'communicate the rationale Ior the change, encourage
14
See also Greenway (1993).
9
its acceptance, and respond to the personal concerns oI the CF members (cited in NDRI 1993:
78), and a CF Personnel Newsletter was also disseminated that described the policy change.
Because the courts provided the impetus Ior change, senior leaders endorsed the change
and encouraged the members` sense oI duty. Senior political and military leaders believed that
reliance on equal standards Ior the conduct oI gays and heterosexuals was the best chance Ior
success oI the policy, since it Iocused on behavior rather than a transIormation oI individual
values or belieIs. The military made no eIIort at the time to change individual members` attitudes
about homosexuality. Instead, the CF promoted the policy change through unequivocal answers
to speciIic questions about appropriate behavior (Park 1994).
In December 1992, the CF issued a new regulation (CFAO 19-36) entitled 'Sexual
Misconduct. CFAO 19-36 was to be used with an amended version oI personal harassment
regulations to detail what constituted inappropriate sexual conduct Ior both homosexual and
heterosexual soldiers. Sexual misconduct was deIined as 'an act which has a sexual purpose or is
oI a sexual or indecent nature and which . constitutes an oIIence under the Criminal Code or the
Code oI Service Discipline (cited in NDRI 1993: 423). Under the personal harassment
regulations (CFAO 19-39), sexual harassment was deIined as '. a type oI personal harassment
that has a sexual purpose or is oI a sexual nature including, but not limited to, touching, leering,
lascivious remarks, and the display oI pornographic material (cited in NDRI 1993: 431).
The revocation oI the ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers did not, however, settle the
issue oI the soldiers that had been dismissed or denied promotions because oI the Iormer policy.
Each case was reviewed separately by the Canadian Forces.
10
VI. EVOLUTION OF THE POLICY CHANGE SINCE 1993
A. SHARP Anti-Harassment Program
The Canadian Forces did not institute a separate program to handle same-sex sexual
harassment or personal harassment based on sexual orientation. The Standards Ior Harassment
and Racism Prevention (SHARP) program was implemented by the Department oI National
DeIence in 1996 to increase general awareness among its civilian and military workIorce about
harassment and racist conduct, including harassment based on sexual orientation. The program
was mandatory Ior all personnel and included separate courses Ior employees, those in leadership
and managerial positions, and investigators and mediators. The program provided inIormation
and exercises designed to eIIectively prevent, recognize, and handle harassment and racist
conduct.
The SHARP phase oI harassment awareness has been completed, and the CF has now
entered the second phase oI its anti-harassment eIIort. The second phase oI the program, which
Iocuses more extensively on skills to handle harassment situations, is being developed by the
Directorate oI Gender Integration and Employment Equity and is due sometime during the
summer oI 2000.
15
The SHARP materials provide a useIul window into how issues oI same-sex harassment
have been incorporated into the CF anti-harassment policy. The SHARP workbook lists sexual
orientation in its explanation oI prohibited grounds oI harassment. It Iurther states that:
.harassment on the grounds oI sexual orientation and hazing are not speciIied in
DND`s civilian policy although both these behaviours are clearly prohibited. It is
15
The Canadian Forces 1998 survey on harassment Iound that the SHARP training program had
substantially increased awareness oI the harassment policy. In 1998, 97 oI the CF personnel surveyed
stated that they were aware that the CF has a harassment policy, compared to 84 oI women and 80 oI
men in 1992. The survey Iurther revealed that three-quarters oI the CF respondents had a harassment
advisor Ior their unit (Adams-Roy 1999).
11
more important to recognize a behaviour as harassment than attempt to
categorize it. (SHARP 1996: 9)
In its discussion oI systemic harassment, which is deIined as '.behaviours which could
constitute harassment yet which are considered acceptable behaviour (normalized) in the
workplace (SHARP 1996: 10), the SHARP workbook and companion video use an example
related to sexual orientation. It provides snippets oI dialogue among Iour subordinates, including
such comments as 'He`s the best sergeant I ever had. He can`t be no Iag, and 'He could be a
Iag: he`s got those big ears so a guy could hold him Irom behind. The workbook then asks a
series oI questions related to the dialogue, Iollowed by a declaration oI the prohibition against
harassment based on sexual orientation:
This video shows not only how systemic harassment is perpetuated, it also
depicts examples oI harassment based on sexual orientation. Despite how you
Ieel about someone`s sexual orientation, you do not have the right to harass them
at work. There is no reason why one`s sexual orientation would aIIect iob
perIormance. However, harassment negatively aIIects the iob perIormance oI a
gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Every member oI an organization has to Ieel that he or she is a valued member oI
the group. II an employee does not Ieel valued, then that employee will not
produce at his or her highest level. Regardless oI one`s sexual orientation,
everyone deserves an 'even playing Iield. Skill and ability should be the only
criteria upon which people are iudged. (SHARP 1996: 11)
The SHARP section on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct uses gender- and
orientation-neutral terms in describing speciIic behavior that would be classiIied as harassment or
misconduct. Examples such as leering, requests Ior sexual Iavors, derogatory name calling and
sexually suggestive gestures are listed without regard Ior the gender oI either the harasser or the
target. Sexual harassment by someone oI the same sex, or abusive comments about one`s sexual
orientation, Iall under the general sexual harassment Iramework. The sexual harassment
exercises include an example oI same-sex interaction and anti-gay comments. In the answer
section Ior this example, the workbook highlights the problem oI comments which 'perpetuat|e|
12
the myth that all homosexual men will make sexual advances toward them (SHARP 1996: 47).
It Iurther emphasizes that sexual harassment is not limited by sexual orientation.
Sexual harassment can be exhibited by anyone, regardless oI their sexual
orientation. UnIortunately, the men in this video do not recognize that the
behavior they Iear Irom the homosexuals is the same behavior that they exhibit
toward the Iemales. (SHARP 1996: 47)
B. Extension of Benefits
On June 13, 1996, a Canadian Iederal human rights tribunal ordered the Iederal
government and Iederally-regulated companies to provide the same medical, dental and other
beneIits
16
to gay and lesbian couples as heterosexual common-law couples. The tribunal Iurther
ordered the government to review its statutes and regulations within 60 days to identiIy any
provisions that discriminated against same-sex couples. The Treasury Board announced in July
that it would not appeal the ruling, although it did seek iudicial review oI the time period allotted
Ior review oI the statutes (May 1996: May and Bindman 1996).
17

The CF Human Resources OIIice distributed a memo in December 1996 outlining the
policy oI granting same-sex partner beneIits to Canadian Forces personnel. Same-sex partner
beneIits were to include: compassionate leave, leave without pay Ior spousal accompaniment,
military Ioreign service regulations, isolated post regulations, and relocation regulations. Same-
sex partners would also be entitled to dental care and health care plans as dependents.
Compassionate leave and leave without pay Ior spousal accompaniment were immediately
implemented at this time, since the expansion oI these beneIits could be achieved through a
broader application oI existing regulations. Other beneIits required Iormal changes in the
Queen`s Regulations and Orders and are still in the process oI being implemented.
16
The tribunal case did not cover pension beneIits.
17
See also Maclean`s (1996) and the Toronto Star (1995) Ior a discussion oI other court decisions.
13
The December 1996 memorandum stated that same-sex partners would be considered
dependents Ior the purpose oI beneIits. To be entitled to beneIits, a same-sex relationship would
be recognized iI:
...Ior a continuous period oI at least one year, a member has lived with a person
oI the same sex in a homosexual or lesbian relationship, publicly represented that
person as his/her liIe partner and continues to live with that person as his/her liIe
partner. (CanIorgen 1996: 2)
Canadian Forces members with same-sex partners could obtain beneIits by completing a
Iorm similar to that used Ior common-law spouses. These Iorms, included in a January 1997
memorandum, required service personnel to inIorm the CF oI their request Ior recognition oI the
relationship: to provide their names, ranks and addresses: and to 'solemnly declare that: 1) the
partners are oI the same sex: 2) that they have resided together 'in a homosexual or lesbian
relationship Ior a continuous period oI at least one year: 3) that they publicly represent each
other as liIe partners: and 4) that they continue to live together as liIe partners. The Canadian
Forces also provide Iorms Ior the notiIication oI a change in relationship status due to death,
separation or cessation oI co-habitation, and Ior the reinstatement oI a relationship that had been
oIIicially terminated (Hurl 1997).
In April 1999, a report by the National DeIence revealed that 17 claims Ior medical,
dental and relocation beneIits Ior gay and lesbian partners oI soldiers had been Iiled in 1998. All
oI the requests were made by women. The Iirst claims were made in 1997, although Iigures Ior
that year are not available (The Eamonton Sun 1999). The number oI requests appears low even
given the military`s own estimates that 3.5 oI its service personnel were gay and bisexual even
beIore the ban was liIted (Wenek 1995). Michelle Douglas, whose suit against the Canadian
Forces precipitated the liIting oI the remainder oI the ban, suggested that the low Iigures were
likely due to a hesitancy by service members to out themselves by requesting beneIits. She
declared that '|Gays and lesbians| have operated in a climate that has not been very inviting to
them, nor encouraging, nor supportive, Ior a very long time (The Eamonton Sun 1999).
14
In June 1999, the Iederal government agreed to settle cases beIore the Canada Pension
Plan appeals board to allow same-sex partners to receive survival beneIits, including military
pensions. Ten days earlier, Canada`s Supreme Court declared that the Ontario Family Law Act
was unconstitutional because it limited the term 'spouse to heterosexual partners (The Gazette
1999). More recently, members oI the CF Legislative and Regulatory Service have been at work
with legislators on the language Ior Bill C-23. The bill, iI passed, would require that same-sex
partners be considered common-law partners under the law. This would enable the military to
handle all common-law relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, with the same
paperwork. All remaining beneIits relating to 'dependents' in the existing military regulations
could also be extended to same-sex partners (LaBelle, personal communication, February 24,
2000).
18

VII. EVIDENCE OF OUTCOMES FOR THE CANADIAN FORCES
A. Initial Evaluations
The Canadian military itselI did not undertake an initial assessment oI the
implementation oI its new policy concerning homosexuals. Because the idea oI allowing gays to
openly serve in the military became an issue in the United States soon aIter Canada`s removal oI
the ban, however, several analyses were conducted by organizations on behalI oI the U.S.
Congress and military. These included studies by the National DeIense Research Institute
(RAND) and the GAO, as well as a report by a retired Canadian corporal Ior the U.S. Army
Research Institute. These analyses, as well as iournalistic accounts, suggested that the transition
was a smooth one. Despite concerns that service members would resign, harassment would
18
Only a Iew minor beneIits, such as those related to transIers, have not yet been made available to same-
sex couples. The military has not been able to make changes in its regulatory language without permission
Irom the Iederal government.
15
increase, and morale would suIIer, the reports could Iind no evidence that any aspect oI military
liIe had been negatively aIIected. While many heterosexual service members were unhappy with
the removal oI the ban, they responded proIessionally in the months Iollowing the policy change.
Few homosexual soldiers, however, took the opportunity to explicitly state their sexual
orientation during this time.
1. RAND`s National Defense Research Institute Report
19
RAND researchers conducted interviews with Canadian military personnel several
months aIter the removal oI the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers. They Iound no evidence that the
policy change had had any appreciable eIIect on any aspect oI military liIe or perIormance. The
oIIicials with whom researchers spoke:
. kn|e|w to date oI no instances oI people acknowledging or talking about their
homosexual relationships, no Iights or violent incidents, no resignations (despite
previous threats to quit), no problems with recruitment, and no diminution oI
cohesion, morale, or organizational eIIectiveness. (NDRI 1993: 79)
Canadian oIIicials oIIered several reasons Ior the smooth transition. First, the military
leadership had acknowledged the inevitability oI the change in policy. Because the process had
occurred over time, the military had been able to acculturate itselI to the idea oI including openly
homosexual soldiers. Second, the military adopted a conscious leadership strategy in the
implementation phase. Highest priority was give to ensure compliance with the policy change.
Military leaders decided that it was not appropriate to try to change the belieIs or attitudes oI
individual personnel: they did, however, prioritize acceptance oI the policy to minimize possible
Iriction. Third, military oIIicials emphasized the Iact that the implementation had been
accomplished in a low-proIile Iashion, without numerous public pronouncements or media
scrutiny. Finally, oIIicials cited the content oI the policy itselI as a reason Ior the smooth
19
RAND`s report was begun at the request oI U.S. Secretary oI DeIense Les Aspin sometime aIter January
29, 1993 and completed beIore July 19, 1993.
16
change. OIIicials pointed out that the policy change itselI did not Iormally institute a policy on
gay and lesbian conduct: rather, it established new equitable policies that applied to homosexuals
and heterosexuals alike (NDRI 1993).
2. The U.S. GAO Report
A U.S. General Accounting OIIice (GAO) analysis oI the Iirst six months oI Canada`s
new policy also Iound no problems associated with the change. In their interviews with members
oI Parliament, gay advocacy groups, a veterans` umbrella group, the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, the Department oI National DeIence, and the Department oI Justice, the researchers
could Iind no one who had received any reports oI resignations, lower recruitment, morale or
cohesiveness problems, or gay-bashing incidents. In addition, the GAO Iound no reports oI open
displays oI homosexual behavior.
CF oIIicials reported that the greatest advantage oI the change in policy was that gay and
lesbian soldiers no longer had to Iear being discovered and discharged Irom the armed Iorces.
These oIIicials Ielt, however, that many gay and lesbian soldiers would not publicly express their
orientation because they would see no advantage in doing so. The military leadership`s public
support Ior the removal oI the ban and its uniIied Iront were cited as signiIicant reasons Ior the
smooth transition (U.S. GAO 1993).
3. U.S. Army Research Institute Research Report
At the request oI the Deputy ChieI oI StaII oI the U.S. Army, the U.S. Army Research
Institute Ior the Behavioral and Social Sciences issued a report in January oI 1994 authored by an
outside consultant evaluating early outcomes oI the liIting oI the ban in Canada. The report
surveyed all publicly available literature to describe the original impetus to liIt the ban as well as
17
the consequences oI the 1992 policy change on a broad array oI perIormance outcomes in the
Canadian Forces. It its summary oI Iindings, the report states:
The impact oI the policy change has been minimal. Negative consequences
predicted in the areas oI recruitment, employment, attrition, retention, and
cohesion and morale have not occurred in the 6-month period since revocation oI
the exclusionary policy. (Pinch 1994: vii-viii)
The report author also speculated that, to the degree that long-term implications oI the removal oI
the ban may become apparent in the Iuture, problems would more likely have to do with
questions oI compensation and beneIit support Ior same-sex Iamilies than any problems with
'cohesion, morale, and eIIectiveness (Pinch 1994: 46).
4. U.S. Congressional Testimony
Testimony on allowing gays to serve in the U.S. military beIore the Senate Armed
Services Committee included a session on the policies oI other nations. At this session,
proIessors Charles Moskos, David Segal, and Judith Stiehm spoke about research on Ioreign
militaries` policies concerning gays in the military. Moskos did not discuss the Canadian case.
Segal
20
and Stiehm brieIly touched on Canada. Both stated that the removal oI the ban in Canada
had not caused any problems with resignations, recruitment or harassment. Stiehm stated:
Granted in |Canada and Australia|, the bans have been liIted Ior less than one
year. But, iI mass resignations were to occur, we would have seen them by now.
II codes oI conduct were being blatantly violated, we would have heard about it.
II known gay people had been beaten up, we would know. (Senate Armed
Services Committee 1993: 394)
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Calvin Waller, who had commanded troops during Desert Storm, also
testiIied at the Armed Services Committee hearing about the policies oI other nations. With
respect to Canada, Lt. Gen. Waller pointed out that the policy change occurred aIter Canada`s
20
Dr. Segal also testiIied at the House Armed Services Committee hearing that occurred on May 4 and 5,
1993.
18
engagement in Kuwait had ended. Because Canada had not been involved in armed conIlict since
the enactment oI the new policy, 'we really do not know what those results are going to be
(Senate Armed Services Committee 1993: 399).
The record Ior this hearing also included a report on a comparative survey oI Ioreign
military polices on homosexual service. From a review oI secondary literature, the report
concluded: 'The reality is that a maiority oI the military most likely did not like the Iact that the
ban was liIted but that its liIting was simply no big deal (Pond 1993: 82). Pond Iurther
elaborated on the elements oI the policy change in Canada:
Despite threats and warnings about mass resignations or military unwillingness to
put the new policy into eIIect, nothing oI the like happened. Even soldiers
unhappy with the change saw it to be disloyal not to eIIectuate the change and
MAKE |emphasis his| it work. (Pond 1993: 84)

5. 1ournalistic Accounts
Like oIIicial reports prepared on the policy change, iournalistic accounts and citations oI
commentaries by soldiers oIIered no indications oI any resignations, problems with morale,
violence, or harassment due to the policy change. In the several months Iollowing the removal oI
the ban, Canadian oIIicials publicly declared that the transition was going smoothly. Captain
Marc Rouleau, a spokesman Ior the Canadian Armed Forces, said that '|o|ur indication is that the
implementation has gone very well. There have been no indications oI any physical abuse (The
Washington Times 1993). Captain Brett Boudreau, a Department oI National DeIence
spokesman, stated, 'We have had no resignations to date |at the end oI January| as a result oI the
policy. We also have had nobody standing up and declaring their sexual preIerence. He added:
I think people have come to the realization that a change in policy doesn`t mean
the Iloodgates are open and that homosexuals will be coming en masse into the
military. . There has been no noticeable impact on our operational eIIectiveness
or anything else. (Ulbrich 1993)
Maior Donald Oullette declared that the policy change had had no eIIect on his base in St. Jean.
'Morale on the base is the same. No one`s quit, no one`s complained, no one has been harassed,
19
no one has come out oI the closet. There`s been absolutely no diIIerence (Hustak 1993). In
addition, eight months aIter the ban was liIted, Rear Admiral Richard C. Waller, the commander
oI the West Coast naval Iorces in Canada, stated on the record that he had 'heard oI no
harassment cases on one side or another (Schmitt 1993).
While press coverage Iollowing the liIting oI the ban portrayed an uneventIul transition,
several pieces illustrated that not everyone in the military welcomed the change. An anonymous
Black Watch (RHR) oIIicer in Montreal was quoted as stating:
There are a lot oI guys in uniIorm who hate homosexuals, and don`t want them
around in the service. A lot oI men are disgusted with the court ruling, but they
have to live with it. They don`t want to speak up. They`re iust keeping their
heads down. (Hustak 1993)
Lt. Col. Susan Rodgeman, an administrative oIIice Ior the Petawawa base, thought that about
75 oI her Iellow oIIicers on the base had concerns about admitting gay soldiers, but the base
had not experienced any anti-gay incidents (Swardson 1993).
The clear-cut policy directive Irom the military leadership did appear to have a strong
eIIect on the behavior oI those opposed to the policy change. Master Cpl. Mike Simic, who Ielt
that gays and lesbians could disrupt the critical teamwork necessary in the military, kept his
opinions to himselI. 'My attitude is, grin and bear it. There`s a lot in the military that`s out oI
your hands. The policy is very clear (Swardson 1993). Finally, Captain Dave Folkins, oI the
Royal Montreal Regiment, admitted that the policy change was a sensitive issue with personnel in
the months aIter the removal oI the ban. He argued, however, that '|t|he Americans have blown
it all out oI proportion. They`re making such a big deal Ior such a small minority (Hustak
1993).
B. Recent Assessments And Observations: An Emerging Consensus
To date, the Canadian Forces have still not Iormally evaluated the eIIects oI the Iull
removal oI the ban on gay and lesbian service in 1992. OIIicials that were contacted Ior this
20
report oIIered several reasons Ior the lack oI Iormal analysis. First, senior oIIicers repeatedly
stated that, Ior all the concern, the actual policy change had not been very eventIul. Because very
little oI note actually occurred, there was not much to study.
21
Further, CF oIIicials Ielt that
making any distinction between homosexual and heterosexual soldiers, even Ior the purposes oI
data collection, would itselI be a violation oI the CF policy oI treating everyone equally without
regard to sexual orientation. A gay soldier reIlected on this concern:
. |T|hey were aIraid iI they did do any tracking, it would be considered
potentially discriminatory. Because there`s been other backlashes in other
segments oI the community as a whole where someone has tracked. ... I think
part oI it has been that we`re very sensitive about doing this stuII. (Forget,
personal communication, February 8, 2000)
Finally, substantial budget cuts precluded any possible study oI the integration oI gays and
lesbians in two ways: 1) the department that studied longitudinal data on the Forces was
disbanded: and 2) a multitude oI changes in the CF, as described below, have dramatically
obscured the sexual orientation issue.
Despite the lack oI Iormal analysis conducted by the CF, however, additional resources
do exist that shed light on longer-term consequences oI the Iull liIting oI the ban. The Iollowing
section brings together the quantitative and interview evidence available on the long-term eIIects
oI the Canadian Forces` removal oI the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers. Like the initial reports,
the data provide no evidence oI any ill eIIect oI the policy on the Canadian Forces. There have
not been any reported problems with harassment, violence, resignations, or recruitment associated
with the policy since its inception.
21
Academic and public opinion experts contacted Ior input into this report also made the same observation
(see below).
21
1. 1995 Briefing Note on Removal of Ban
Although the Canadian military has never undertaken a Iormal assessment oI the policy
change toward sexual minorities, a brieIing note on the removal oI the ban was written by the
Section Head Ior Human Rights Policy (a bureau oI the Canadian Department oI National
DeIence) in 1995. Two and one halI years aIter the removal oI the ban, the note still could not
Iind any indication that the policy change had had a negative eIIect on the Canadian Forces. The
1995 note was originally prepared in response to a request Ior inIormation by U.S. lawyers
deIending a discharged Navy lieutenant under the U.S. military`s policy on homosexuals.
Although the CF oIIicial was ultimately prohibited Irom oIIering an aIIidavit Ior the U.S. case, he
took the opportunity to the share data he had gathered with the CF command. He wanted to let
them know that, 'Despite all the anxiety that existed through the late 80s into the early 90s about
the change in policy, here`s what the indicators show no eIIect (Director oI Policy Analysis
and Development, personal communication, January 20, 2000).
The brieIing note examined all available behavioral data related to possible policy
eIIects. A search oI the military police staII`s database indicated that none oI the 905 assault
cases Irom November 1992 to August 1995 could be identiIied as involving 'gay bashing or be
attributed to the sexual orientation oI one oI the parties. OI the 544 cases oI sexual misconduct
between December 1992
22
and August 1995, 22 involved same-sex conduct.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission reported that three oI the 213 complaints
reported between November 1992 and August 1995 concerned sexual orientation. OI these three,
two pertained to diIIerential treatment and release beIore the policy change. The third complaint
dealt with the eligibility oI same-sex couples Ior Iinancial beneIits. Those responsible Ior
military grievances at National DeIence Headquarters did not have an accurate count oI
grievances involving sexual orientation, since grievances are not categorized in a way that would
allow retrieval oI such inIormation. They were, however, Iairly conIident that no more than a
22
Statistics were Iirst collected at this time.
22
dozen oI the approximately 2,000 grievances handled between Irom the removal oI the band until
August oI 1995 included sexual orientation as a signiIicant Iactor.
The brieIing note also cited a 1993 attitudinal survey on quality oI liIe issues which asked
members, among other items, to describe how satisIied they were with the Canadian Forces`
policy on sexual orientation.
23
Out oI 3,202 respondents, 43.3 were either satisIied or very
satisIied with the policy, 24.4 stated they were neutral, 28.5 were either dissatisIied or very
dissatisIied, and 3.8 had no opinion. The 1995 note compared these Iindings to a question on
employing women in all units and occupations. In response to the question on Iemale
involvement, 44.1 stated they were either satisIied or very satisIied, 21.0 were neutral, 32.9
were either dissatisIied or very dissatisIied, and 2.1 had no opinion. The Human Rights policy
oIIicer noted that acceptance oI the military`s policy toward gays and lesbians was quite similar
overall to attitudes about the inclusion oI women. Analysis oI the 1993 survey Iurther revealed
that Iemale service members were generally more accepting than males oI the sexual orientation
policy (although no Iigures were provided), and senior oIIicers were overall the most dissatisIied
(37.5) and iunior non-commissioned oIIicers were the least dissatisIied (25.7) with the policy.
In his conclusion to the 1995 brieI, the CF oIIicer declared that 'behavioral and conduct
data . yield little or no evidence to suggest that allowing homosexuals to serve in the Canadian
Forces has been problematic, either in terms oI their behavior or their treatment by other
members (Wenek 1995: 3). He qualiIied his statement, however, by noting that no inIormation
was available to estimate the extent to which gay and lesbian service personnel were actually
disclosing their sexual orientation.
24
The concluding note went on to add:
It is assumed that homosexual members generally reIrain Irom making their
sexual orientation known, in which case behavioural and conduct indicators
23
The survey did not speciIy or describe the policy.
24
Taking data Irom anonymous large-sample surveys oI Canadian Force personnel in 1986 and 1991, the
note estimated that, in the years leading up to the liIting oI the ban, 3.5 oI the members disclosed that
they were bisexual or homosexual.
23
might not be reliable and the eIIect oI the policy change on such variables as unit
cohesion and morale would be extremely diIIicult iI not impossible to measure.
(Wenek 1995: 3)
2. 1998 Personal and Sexual Harassment Data
25
More recent statistical inIormation is available Ior harassment data generally, since the
Canadian Forces conducted research in 1998 to assess the eIIectiveness oI its harassment policy.
26
When compared with inIormation Irom a 1992 study, this data reveals changes in harassment
levels beIore and aIter the removal oI the ban.
27
The data strongly suggest that Iears oI a
substantial increase in personal
28
or sexual harassment due to the policy change were
unwarranted, since the rate oI selI-reported harassment
29
actually decreased overall during this
period (Adams-Roy 1999). The percentage oI service members who reported experiencing
25
Results oI the 1998 Iollow-up study are detailed in Adams-Roy (1999).
26
The 1992 survey was administered to 5,642 service members, with a 72.7 response rate (Hansen 1993).
The 1998 survey sampled 2290 service members and got a 48 response rate. The author oI the 1998
study notes that sample sizes Ior sexual harassment were small given relative inIrequency. Sexual
harassment Iigures thereIore have higher margins oI error and 'should be interpreted with caution (Adam-
Roy 1999: 9).
27
The study was conducted in October 1992. The survey, like the 1998 survey, asked service personal
about harassment experiences during the prior 12 months. The 1992 study thereIore provides data Ior the
year prior to the removal oI the ban.
28
Under the CF deIinitions oI harassment, 'gay-bashing or other abuse directed at someone because oI
their sexual orientation Ialls under personal, rather than sexual, harassment. Personal harassment includes
all harassment directed at a person because oI an identiIying characteristic, such as race or gender. See
Adams-Roy (1999: 8) Ior the complete list.
29
The Canadian Forces breaks harassment down into Iour categories: abuse oI authority, personal
harassment, sexual harassment, and hazing.
24
sexual harassment in the previous 12 months declined Irom 11 in 1992 to 6 in 1998.
30
SelI-
reported personal harassment rates decreased Irom 24 in 1992 to 18 in 1998
31
.
With respect to sexual harassment, the greatest change occurred among women. Among
service women, 14 reported in 1998 that they had experienced sexual harassment within the
past 12 months. This is a decrease oI 12 percentage points Irom 1992 levels, when 26 oI those
surveyed reported incidents oI sexual harassment. Rates Ior men remained quite low, rising Irom
2 in 1992 to 3 in 1998. While the categories used to measures types oI sexual harassment are
not identical, an examination oI comparable categories
32
suggests that the overall distribution oI
types oI sexual harassment has not substantially changed over time: teasing, iokes and remarks
remain the most common Iorm oI sexual harassment, and actual or attempted rape oI sexual
assault was reported as the least common type oI sexual harassment in both surveys (Adams-Roy
1999: Hansen 1993).
Because the 1992 survey did not speciIically include sexual orientation in its break-down
oI types oI personal harassment, rates oI harassment due to sexual orientation cannot be
compared over time. OI those who had experienced personal harassment in the year prior to the
30
A study oI reserve Iorces, who were not surveyed in 1992, was also conducted in 1998. While a
comparison over time is thereIore not possible, sexual harassment rates were lower Ior reserve Iorces as
compared to regular Iorces. One percent oI men and 11 oI women reported that they had been sexually
harassed during the last 12 months. The question on incidence oI harassment was answered by 687 men
and 254 women (Adams-Roy 1999a).
31
Harassment rates Ior service members as a whole are derived Irom incidence rates broken down by sex.
(Adams-Roy 1999: 13)
32
Data based on type oI sexual harassment is not identical in the two studies, since the question in the 1992
survey asked whether a type occurred , while the 1998 study asked how Irequently a type has occurred. The
classiIication oI type oI behavior is also not identical.
25
1998 study,
33
sexual orientation ranked 13
th
out oI 14 listed types
34
Ior men and 9
th
out oI 14 Ior
women in terms oI Irequency. Nine percent oI the men and 10 oI the women who reported
experiencing personal harassment had been harassed about their sexual orientation.
35
In
comparison, 48 oI the men and 50 oI the women reported harassment based on physical
characteristics, 32 oI the men and 28 oI the women complained oI harassment due to their
age, and 92 oI the women who reported personal harassment had been harassed because oI their
sex.
Five percent oI the service men who reported personal harassment had experienced
harassment rarely or occasionally due to their sexual orientation. Four percent reported
Irequent/oIten harassment based on sexual orientation. Among service women, 7 reported
rarely or occasionally experiencing harassment due to their sexual orientation, while 3 reported
that they Iaced harassment Irequently or oIten due to their sexual orientation (Adams-Roy
1999).
36

Neither the 1992 nor the 1998 survey divided harassment responses and outcomes down
by type oI harassment.
33
This included 96 men and 73 women.
34
The list oI types oI personal harassment included: physical characteristics, mannerism, age, national or
ethnic origin, marital status, disability, other personal characteristics, Iamily status, race, sex, religion, skin
color, sexual orientation, and conviction or oIIense Ior which a pardon has been granted.
35
Individuals could report more than one type oI harassment.
36
Among reserve personnel, sexual orientation ranked 14
th
out oI 15 Ior men and 9
th
out oI 15 Ior women
among types oI personal harassment experienced. Six percent oI the men who reported personal
harassment had rarely or occasionally been harassed because oI their sexual orientation, and none
mentioned Irequent harassment. Twelve percent oI the women who reported personal harassment had been
harassed Ior their sexual orientation rarely or occasionally, and 4 experienced harassment based on sexual
orientation Irequently or oIten (Adams-Roy 1999a).
26
3. Assessments And Observations Of Senior CF Officials
The CF oIIicers and personnel with whom we spoke repeatedly (all listed below in the
bibliography) stated that the policy change had had minimal impact. No one could name any
incidents oI recruitment or other problems related to the issue oI sexual orientation. And while
the oIIicers could think oI no way to measure morale or cohesion, they had no reason to believe
that the change has aIIected the eIIicacy oI working relationships. OIIicers were matter-oI-Iact in
their assessment oI the removal oI the ban:
It`s not that big a deal Ior us |including gays and lesbians in the military|.. On a
day-to-day basis, there probably hasn`t been much oI a change. People who were
typically high perIormers beIore are typically high perIormers now. (Leveque,
Another CF oIIicial emphasized the continuity in the policy change: 'The actual transition was
relatively quiet. People realized that there had always been gays in the CF. They certainly didn`t
make an issue oI it beIore, and they don`t make an issue oI it now (MacKay, personal
communication, January 18 and February 28, 2000).
Further, senior CF oIIicials we contacted agree that the removal oI the ban is minor
compared with other transIormations oI the recent past. Like most Western militaries, the
Canadian Forces has undergone substantial changes since the end oI the Cold War. The CF has
experienced a reduction oI size and a reconceptualization oI its mission that has resulted in deep
changes throughout the organization. As one oIIicial stated:
.|T|here are so many changes that have been occurring in the last IiIteen years,
with massive downsizing and so on, that incidents like these changes in policy
have been greatly overshadowed by budget cuts, downsizing, changes in
operational roles, operational tempo. This issue oI the acceptance oI
homosexuals into the Iorces pales into insigniIicance . it`s a non-issue. (Wenek,
personal communication, January 20, 2000)
This oIIicial went on to use the experience oI a conservative British review team to underline the
smooth transition oI the Canadian Forces to its anti-discriminatory policy. The British Ministry
oI DeIense sent reviewers in 1996 to study a number oI militaries that allowed homosexual
27
soldiers to actively serve. While the reviewers seemed to the CF oIIicial to arrive with a negative
attitude toward the possibility oI removing their own restrictions, their interaction with CF
personnel soon changed their minds:
One team came here, and oI course they exhibited the kinds oI attitudes I guess
that reIlected their oIIicial policy mind. ... One oI the things they asked to do was
speak with commanding oIIicers or people who had been in commanding oIIicer
roles since the policy had changed, and also people who had been in senior non-
commissioned member roles in line unit ... So essentially they did Iocus groups
with these two groups oI people, and they iust asked them about their experiences
and their opinion had anything happened and so on. Anyway, as a result oI this
process, those people who were part oI that team . said, 'We believe we could
change our policy, based on your experience, and what we heard in terms oI
candid comments Irom Iormer commanders. (Ibid)
The British team inIormed the CF oIIicial, however, that they did not believe a more inclusive
policy would be politically salable at home.
37
CF oIIicials also emphasized the diIIerence between attitudes and behavior. ProIessional
behavior was expected oI all service members, regardless oI sexual orientation. This did not
mean that everyone had to agree with one another, or like each others` personal choices. One CF
oIIicial addressed the attitudinal cleavages among heterosexual service members:
The 1986 survey showed among other things that there was a group oI members
who had deeply-held attitudes against homosexuality. They couldn`t accept it,
and they were unlikely to change. Another group had been socialized into
stereotypes, but this group could change. (MacKay, personal communication,
January 18 and February 28, 2000)
In general, older service members were more likely than younger members to have strong moral
obiections to homosexuality. While training promoted a more tolerant military culture Ior some
younger soldiers, the belieIs oI those with strong Ieelings on the subiect would not be imposed
upon. Service members could work together in spite oI those diIIerences by showing respect Ior
each other as individuals, and by deIerring to the rule oI law:
The issue oI Iollowing the law is important in the military, and it comes up in
many instances. But in this case, it is also a deeply moral issue and that is a real
37
Although we attempted to reach the reviewers who conducted the British study, we were not able to
speak with them. We thereIore cannot conIirm the CF oIIicial`s assessment oI their attitudes.
28
complication. I think the issue oI Iear oI the unknown, more than moral outrage,
has been prevalent in some people`s minds in regard to homosexuals in the
armed Iorces. But our experience did not iustiIy such apprehension. . Within
the Forces people have been generally considerate oI others` Ieelings and
privacy. What we had in the past was a matter oI institutional discrimination.
Even though some have Iound it diIIicult, loyal members changed their behavior
when the institution changed. (MacKay, personal communication, January 18 and
February 28, 2000)
The ability to work proIessionally even with persisting diIIerences is borne out by the
experience oI those working speciIically in military directorates that deal with harassment and
conIlict resolution. These oIIicials report that sexual orientation is not an area oI concern Ior
them. A Manager in the Executive Directorate on ConIlict Resolution, when asked iI mediation
cases involving sexual orientation issues presented more or less oI a problem than other types oI
cases, responded:
I can`t answer that, because we haven`t seen any. . Now, we . don`t see all oI
the cases that get dealt with. We see a good chunk oI them, but we don`t see all
oI them. But we have our Iinger on the pulse oI what else is going on in the
department. To my knowledge there haven`t been, and iI there have been
they`ve been very, very Iew. And I had a look oI our |nation-wide| data oI types
oI cases that we`ve dealt with the other day, and there certainly |are| no . sexual
orientation issues. (Leveque, personal communication, February 4, 2000)
The Iormer head oI the SHARP training program
38
argued that the removal oI the ban on
gays and lesbians has been a good move Ior the CF in terms oI its recruitment eIIorts. Because
the overall population base is getting smaller, opening recruitment to homosexuals allows the
Forces to Iind qualiIied service members who previously would have been excluded. He stated:
From a long-term recruiting perspective, I think this was a necessary step Ior us,
as were all oI our other cultural types oI initiatives in terms oI recruiting, because
the population base that we`re working with in terms oI recruiting is shrinking.
So by broadening the . population base and making things more acceptable,
with some oI our social policies, what we`re doing in eIIect is preserving the
long-term quality oI the Canadian Forces, because there are only so many white,
Anglo-Saxon males that you can recruit. (Leveque, personal communication,
February 4, 2000)
38
This is the same person as the present Training and Operational Development Manager in the Executive
Directorate oI ConIlict Management.
29
4. Observations from Scholars, NGOs, and Political Observers
As is the case with Canadian Forces data, scholarly and policy investigations that directly
measure perIormance outcomes associated with the liIting oI the ban are scanty. Longstanding
observers oI Canadian politics and military issues argue that his lack oI inIormation is a
consequence oI the very low salience oI gay military concerns in both public and political circles
since the change in policy (personal communications with Leebosh, February 10, 2000: Rayside,
January 19, 2000: Kinsman, February 5, 2000: and Fisher, February 2, 2000). However, a
number oI these scholars and policy observers have continued to monitor press releases,
governmental activity, and Ieedback Irom Canadian Forces personnel since the ban was Iully
liIted.
For purposes oI this study, two oI the most cited scholars oI gay-military issues in
Canada were interviewed to assess their opinions regarding outcomes associated with the liIting
oI the ban.
39
Both proIessors described concern over the policy change as a short-lived and Iairly
minor event in the context oI broader Canadian political debates and conIlicts. When asked about
their appraisal oI any consequences that may have arisen as a result oI the new policy, neither
could identiIy any problems since 1992 related to perIormance issues. As ProIessor David
Rayside oI the University oI Toronto commented regarding concerns raised beIore the ban was
liIted: 'There has not been since that day |when the ban was liIted| a suggestion Irom any
quarter, including the military, in public, that this change has damaged morale (Rayside,
personal communication, January 19, 2000). Because a number oI organizations and individuals
39
The two proIessors, David Rayside oI the Department oI Political Science at the University oI Toronto,
and Gary Kinsman oI the Department oI Sociology/Anthropology at Laurentian University, have each
produced academic monographs and studies relating to gay-military issues in Canada widely cited by other
experts contacted Ior this study and in the media (e.g., Kinsman 1996, Rayside 1998). Both scholars have
also been retained by private and public parties to provide additional expertise Ior national surveys or maior
court cases relating to sexual minorities in the military (see, Ior instance, Rayside, 1990)
30
highly antagonistic to the ending oI the remaining ban would most certainly seek to publicize any
deleterious consequences associated with the policy change, both scholars are reasonably
conIident oI their assessments.
While both scholars noted that several problems bearing on perIormance and morale
remain evident in the Forces, they emphasized that these problems have been centered almost
exclusively around racial tensions and treatment oI women, not homosexuality. InIormal and
possibly institutional Iorms oI discrimination against homosexual members do still exist, but the
ending oI the remaining limitations by itselI has not contributed to an undermining oI military
perIormance. Gary Kinsman, oI Laurentian University, believes that:
..|I|n terms oI however you might want to work it out, perIormance evaluation
or operational eIIiciency oI the military, the change in 1992 has not led to any
detrimental consequences. The Canadian Forces actually has a number oI its
own internal problems, in terms oI Iiascoes, in terms oI racism, what it did in
Somolia....|But| all oI the evidence points out that there haven`t been problems in
terms oI recruitment or whatever on this basis. They may have had other
problems with recruitment, but certainly...ending that policy |limiting
homosexual service| has not led to any detrimental consequences. (Kinsman,
When pressed by the interviewer to identiIy other problems that might have emerged Irom the
policy change, both scholars noted that the evolution oI additional policy developments arising
Irom the liIting oI the ban, such as the extension oI spousal beneIits, has not been entirely
smooth. They emphasized that these diIIiculties relate to Iormal and public resistance to the
extension oI equality rights rather than to military perIormance.
The director oI EGALE, the premier national organization in Canada Iocusing on Iederal
equality rights Ior gays and lesbians, made similar observations (Fisher, personal communication,
2000). While he believes that general social attitudes toward equality rights Ior gays and
lesbians in Canada are still mixed, he is conIident that Iears over perIormance outcomes raised
by opponents oI the policy change have not come to pass:
I`m quite conIident that , in the six to seven years since the policy was changed,
had there been anybody that said it was a problem, we certainly would have
heard about it, and EGALE would have been one oI the Iirst groups that would
31
have been made aware iI there were concerns as a result oI the public policy
change. It`s been a complete non-issue Ior us. (Fisher, February 2, 2000)
Mr. Fisher also observed that virtually all media coverage and inquiries regarding morale and
cohesion in the Canadian Forces during the past Iive years has Iocused on inappropriate
heterosexual behavior or racial misconduct, not gay service issues.
Interviews conducted with leading public opinion analysts and political observers paint a
similar picture. While none oI these individuals was aware oI speciIic inIormation relating to
military perIormance issues aIter the ban on homosexual service was liIted, they all observed
that recent debates over military perIormance and cohesion have had nothing to do with the
liIting oI the ban. As Derek Leebosh, a longstanding observer and survey expert on public
opinion issues, remarked:
We heard all sorts oI stories. Canada had all sorts oI soldiers in Bosnia and
Kosovo, |and| I never saw a single article that said this |homosexual service| was
an issue. I`ve never heard a single story, I`ve never heard anything. I iust think
there`s so many other issues that are more oI a problem. There`s probably been
more threats to unit cohesion and eIIicacy oI the armed Iorces iust because their
pay is so low. That would be much more oI an issue. (Leebosh, personal
communication, February 10, 2000)
When asked to coniecture based on his expertise why the liIting oI the ban has been so
unremarkable, Mr. Leebosh suggested that changing attitudes among younger generations,
combined with an understanding that personal discomIort does not iustiIy Iailing to do one`s iob,
have helped make working alongside sexual minorities a relative 'non-issue in the military.
Comments made by staII representatives oI Members oI Parliament and other prominent
citizens historically involved with gay military issues reinIorce the lack oI problems associated
with the removal oI the ban. Senior staII members Ior MP Svend Robinson, who was at the
center oI the Parliamentary debate over the military ban in the 1980s and early 1990s, have not
received nor are aware oI any disclosures or reports that military perIormance has been aIIected,
either Ior the better or Ior the worse, as a result oI the liIting oI the remaining ban (Siksay,
personal communication, February 10, 2000). Other observers active in military or para-military
32
public policy matters concur (Pepper, D., personal communication, February 10, 2000: Cousens,
C., personal communication, February 5, 2000).
5. Perspectives of Sexual Minorities Who Have Served in the Canadian Forces
While Iormal assessments oI senior CF oIIicials and other experts provide a dispassionate
and consistent appraisal oI outcomes associated with the policy change, the experiences oI
enlisted personnel who identiIy themselves as sexual minorities provide additional insight to the
real-world eIIects oI the policy implementation. For purposes oI this study, we interviewed nine
current and Iormer active CF personnel who identiIy themselves as gay, lesbian, or transsexual.
Six oI these individuals have served in the CF since the remainder oI the ban was liIted in
October oI 1992, while three leIt the service shortly beIore the policy change. The six recently
serving members include a gay captain currently stationed at the National DeIence Headquarters
(NDHQ) in Ottawa, an a gay staII sergeant seaman with a current posting at the NDHQ, a post-
operative male-to-Iemale transsexual technical communications specialist, a reserve maior, a
recently retired lesbian sergeant and candidate Ior promotion to warrant oIIicer at the Canadian
Forces Logistics School, and a gay staII sergeant who has served with the Royal Air Force,
NORAD, and United Nations ships. The three Iormer personnel include a retired maior, a Iormer
captain in a security position who was discharged in 1979 Ior being a homosexual, and the Iormer
air Iorce lieutenant (Michelle Douglas) whose suit led to the removal oI the ban.
The six members who have served since the new policy was implemented have described
diverse personal experiences, reIlecting diIIerences in the time and place oI their service: personal
decisions about how, when, and where to come out: and gender identity and orientation. While
most oI them have encountered situations where particular individuals have either accidentally or
deliberately made derogatory remarks in their presence, all six reported a generally positive and
33
unremarkable experience navigating work and relationships with peers and superiors.
40

41
Common to all oI their stories was an emphasis on how military culture in general, and the
implementation oI the new policy in particular, places paramount importance on 'getting the iob
done and respecting the chain-oI-command, regardless oI one`s opinion oI others. As one
member put it:
II you can do your iob and do it properly, well there you go, that is what matters.
When there`s a combat situation and you have to deIend a position, or you have
to go on patrol or whatever, then the most important thing here is to be able to
achieve the order you receive. The sexual orientation doesn`t have anything to
do with that. Not Ior one Iraction oI a second. ... When an order is issued, you`re
going to Iollow it. You have to. The iob has to be done, you have to do your iob,
and that`s the end oI it. (Durand, personal communication, February 5, 2000)
The six recently-serving members all acknowledged that homophobia and personal discomIort
around gays is no doubt still present among their peers, but they Iirmly believe that shared
military values about IulIilling one`s duties have prevented any occasional dislike Irom aIIecting
perIormance. One captain remarked:
I do suspect there are more people who are uncomIortable about us, but they`re
proIessional enough to keep their opinions to themselves. . II you don`t like it,
that`s Iine, I don`t have to like you to do my iob either. The bottom line is that
the iob gets done, and let`s get on with it. (Forget, personal communication,
February 8, 2000)
40
One member we contacted described her experience with other personnel in a training class as they
watched news Iootage oI the announcement regarding the liIting oI the ban. Seen on television was
Michelle Douglas, alongside her Iemale attorney. Remarking on her classmate`s reactions to seeing Ms.
Douglas with the other woman, the interviewee commented, 'There were no negative comments in the
classroom. The only thing some people said was, how does she get a girlIriend who looks that good? It
was her lawyer, but oI course no one in the class knew that, except Ior myselI. It was actually quite ironic.
(Kelly, personal communication, January 26, 2000)
41
Both lesbians interviewed about their experiences aIter the ban was removed commented that, while they
do not believe their sexual orientation has aIIected their work environment or evaluations, they have both
occasionally experienced continued incidents oI gender-based discrimination or harassment. Interestingly,
both believe these incidents would still occur even iI they were heterosexual.
34
Supporting the claims made by CF oIIicials regarding the policy`s success, the personnel
interviewed also repeatedly pointed to the relatively pro-active positions taken by higher-level
oIIicers and administrators to ensure that discriminatory or disruptive conduct be minimized.
The SHARP program, coupled with the steady expansion oI beneIits accorded to gay and lesbian
personnel through Iederal legislative change, has helped create a relatively saIe working
environment where social anxieties and tensions have eased. The expansion oI beneIits has also
led most oI the personnel we interviewed to speculate that their work perIormance, as well as that
oI their peers, may have improved as a result oI the liIting oI the ban. Without the Iear oI 'being
Iound out on their minds, and with greater access to support services (such as bereavement leave
and counseling), sexual minorities Ieel they can better concentrate on their iobs. The Iour service
personnel interviewed who served in years prior to the policy change agreed with this sentiment,
noting that the anxiety and stress they experienced beIore the ban was liIted was morally,
psychologically, and even physically disabling.
While the service-members we spoke with all identiIy themselves as sexual minorities,
all nine also described their 'public personas as proIessional, relatively private, and discrete. In
other words, while many still serving in the Forces have availed themselves oI new liberties, such
as conIiding in close Iriends without Iear oI reprisal, or inviting their partners to military
Iunctions, they nonetheless do not Ieel the need to 'out themselves in any Iormal way. Most oI
the respondents remarked that their lower-proIile public position reIlects a dedication to simply
doing a good iob and minding one`s own business. As Michelle Douglas commented regarding
Iears among prior supporters oI the ban over a possible Ilood oI conspicuous homosexual
activity: 'It iust doesn`t happengay people have never screamed to be really, really out. They
iust want to be really saIe Irom not being Iired (Douglas, personal communication, January 23,
2000). That being said, most oI the currently serving members we spoke with believe that at least
some members oI their units know oI their status as sexual minorities.
35
VIII. CONCLUSION
The CF removal oI the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers occurred only aIter a number oI
years oI iudicial and political struggles. Senior Department oI National DeIence personnel and a
sizable number oI heterosexual soldiers worried that a change in policy would seriously
compromise the mission oI the Canadian Forces. Fears oI sexual harassment by homosexual
soldiers, increasing rates oI gay-bashing, resignations, and reIusals to work with homosexuals
spurred continuing support Ior exempting the military Irom the protections proscribed under the
Charter oI Rights and Freedoms. Because the CF is entrusted with the Iundamental task oI
putting soldiers` lives on the line to protect the interests oI Canadian citizens, both at home and
abroad, military personnel were wary oI a policy change that they Ielt could compromise the
operational eIIectiveness oI the armed services.
Once the demise oI the ban was imminent, however, ChieI oI DeIence General
Chastelain and other military leaders took decisive steps to create a smooth transition. They
dissolved any distinction in the regulations between heterosexual and homosexual soldiers. They
made it clear that the policy change had the Iull support oI the CF leadership. The Department oI
National DeIence outlined the standards oI behavior that would be expected oI all military
personnel, regardless oI sexual orientation, and it widely distributed both those standards and the
changes in regulations. Perhaps most importantly, the military leadership emphasized the
distinction between belieIs and behavior. The personal attitudes and decisions oI individual
soldiers would be respected, but soldiers would be expected to put personal Ieelings aside to
accomplish military obiectives and to uphold the law.
In the years since the removal oI the ban, the CF has continued to move Iorward in its Iull
integration oI gay and lesbian soldiers, and it has done so as part oI a larger eIIort to reduce
harassment and discrimination oI all types among its personnel. In these eIIorts, sexual
36
orientation has been neither singled-out nor ignored as a potential source oI conIlict. Among
other obiectives, the SHARP program strove to overturn common stereotypes about gays and
lesbians, and the CF is now developing more sustained anti-harassment training. In keeping with
Iederal mandate, the military has also been amending its regulations to ensure equivalent beneIits
Ior same-sex soldiers.
The success oI these steps has been borne out by all oI the available evidence. An
examination oI all oI the studies conducted in the year aIter the removal oI the ban revealed not a
single reported case oI resignation, harassment, or violence because oI the change in policy.
Follow-up with the oIIicials in charge oI sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and human rights
complaints have reported Iew iI any incidents related to sexual orientation. Sexual and personal
harassment rates have actually decreased between 1992 and 1998, and a conIlict management
oIIicial has declared that he knows oI no recently Iiled cases related to sexual orientation. CF
oIIicials, military scholars, involved non-governmental and political leaders, and gay soldiers
have all concurred that the removal oI the ban has had, to their knowledge, no perceivable
negative eIIect on the military. The issue oI gay and lesbian soldiers in the Canadian Forces has
all but disappeared Irom public and internal military debates.
While the removal oI the ban may not be universally liked among heterosexual soldiers,
it does appear to be universally accepted. Despite potential diIIerences, personnel appear to be
able to get their iobs done in a manner that does not compromise their eIIectiveness. For sexual
minorities who serve, the change has been less about publicly declaring their sexual or
transgender orientation than about being able to do their work well without Iear oI 'being Iound
out or losing their iobs. The removal oI the ban has resulted in a decrease oI Iear and anxiety
and improved access to personnel support systems Ior soldiers who selI-identiIy as sexual
minorities. For the military as a whole, the non-discrimination policy has also increased its
potential pool oI qualiIied recruits.
37
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, Barry D. 1993. 'Winning Rights and Freedoms in Canada. In The Thira Pink Book,
edited by A. Hendriks, R. Tielman, and E. Veen. BuIIalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Adams-Roy, Maior J.E. 1999. Harassment in the Canaaian Forces. Results of the 1998 Survev.
Ottawa: National DeIence Headquarters.
Adams-Roy, Maior J.E. 1999a. Harassment in the Primarv Reserves. Results of the 1998 Survev.
Ottawa: National DeIence Headquarters.
Bindman, Stephen. 1990. 'Air Force Lesbian Wins Back Her Job. in The Toronto Star
(Toronto). August 16: A3.
Bindman, Stephen. 1990a. 'Dismissed Lesbian Suing Military. in The Toronto Star (Toronto).
February 5: A3.
Bindman, Stephen. 1991. 'Military to Delay LiIting Restrictions on Hiring Gays. in The Gazette
(Montreal). October 11: B1.
Bindman, Stephen. 1991a. 'Military Opens its Arms to Gays: New Policy LiIts Ban on Hiring,
Promotion, oI Homosexuals. in The Gazette (Montreal). October 10: B1.
Bindman, Stephen. 1992. 'Lesbian Forced to Quit Loses Bid Ior Old Job: Military Reiects
Recommendation to Re-Hire Ex-Air Force Lieutenant. in The Jancouver Sun (Vancouver).
May 11: A3.
Bindman, Stephen. 1992a. 'Military ReIuses to Reinstate Lesbian. in The Toronto Star
(Toronto). May 11: A4.
Bindman, Stephen, Southam News and Herald StaII. 1992. 'Military Gives OK to Gays,
Lesbians. in Calgarv Herala. October 28: A1.
Bronskill, Jim. 1998. 'Study Urges Ottawa Apologize Ior Gay Purge: Public Careers Ruined
During Cold War. in The Gazette (Montreal). November 24: A11.
CanIorgen. 1996. 'Same-Sex Partner BeneIits. Ottawa: National DeIence Headquarters.
Eamonton Sun (The). 1999. 'Few Soldiers Claiming Same-Sex BeneIits. April 12: 13.
Farnsworth, Clyde. 1991. 'Canada Ending Anti-Gay Rules. in The New York Times (New York).
October 11: A3.
Gade, Paul A., David R. Segal, and Edgar M. Johnson. 1996. 'The Experience oI Foreign
Militaries. In Out in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv, edited by G. Herek, J. B.
Jobe, and R. M. Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press.
Gazette (The). 1992. '66 oI Canadians Would Allow Homosexuals in Armed Forces.
December 14: A7.
38
Gazette (The). 1999. 'Gays Get Survivor BeneIits. June 1: A9.
Greenway, Norma. 1993. 'Clinton Faces Political Bloodbath Over Gays Issue. in The Gazette
(Montreal). January 28: B6.
Hansen, Maior R.J. 1993. Personal Harassment in the Canaaian Forces. 1992 Survev.
Willowdale, Ontario: Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit.
Harper, Tim. 1991. 'Ban on Gays in Military Still in Place, PM Says. in Toronto Star (Toronto).
October 11: A11.
Harper, Tim. 1992. 'Tories Give Up on Plans to Let Gays in Military. in The Toronto Star
(Toronto). January 25: A3.
House Armed Services Committee. 1993. Policv Implications of Lifting the Ban on Homosexuals
in the Militarv. May 4, 5.
Hurl, D.J. 1997. 'Same-Sex Partner BeneIits. Ottawa: National DeIence Headquarters. January
14.
Hustak, Alan. 1993. 'OIIicials Fear U.S. Furore |sic| Over Gays Could AIIect Canadian Troop
Morale. in The Jancouver Sun (Vancouver). February 8: A4.
Kinsman, Gary. 1996. The Regulation of Desire. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Lancaster, John. 1992. 'Many Allies Allow Gays in the Military: Canada, Australia Are Latest to
Drop Exclusionary Policy. in The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.). May 11: A3.
Macleans. 1996. 'A Tortuous Road: Quietly, Gays Are Making Progress on Rights. May 13:
24-5.
May, Kathryn. 1996. 'Ottawa Accepts Ruling on Gays: Same-Sex Partners oI Civil Servants Get
BeneIits. July 16: A1.
May, Kathryn and Stephen Bindman. 1996. 'Gay Public Servants Cheer BeneIits Victory: Ruling
Expected to Have Impact in Private Sector. June 14: A1.
National DeIense Research Institute (NDRI). 1993. Sexual Orientation ana U.S. Militarv Policv.
Options ana Assessment. RAND, Santa Monica.
Ottawa Citizen (The). 1991. 'Human Rights: Federal WaIIling ShameIul. December 9: A10.
Park, Rosemary. 1994. 'Opening the Canadian Forces to Gays and Lesbians: An Inevitable
Decision but Improbable ReconIiguration. in Gavs ana Lesbians in the Militarv. Issues.
Concerns. ana Contrasts, edited by W. J. Scott and S. C. Stanley. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Pinch, F. C. 1994. 'Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian Forces. U.S. Army
Research Institute Ior the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.
39
Pond, Frank. 1993. 'A Comparative Survey and Analysis oI Military Policies with Regard to
Service by Gay Persons. in Policv Concerning Homosexualitv in the Armea Forces. hearing
held by Senate Armed Services Committee. April 29.
Pugliese, David. 1992. 'Gay Ruling Has No EIIect on Forces. in The Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa).
August 8: A4.
Rayside. 1990. 'Memo to Harriet Sachs and Clayton Ruby, Re: Douglas vs. H.M. The Queen.`
December 3, 1990.
Rayside, David. 1998. On the Fringe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Senate Armed Services Committee. Policv Concerning Homosexualitv in the Armea Forces.
April 29.
SHARP. 1996. 'Standard Ior Harassment and Racism Prevention. Course materials provided by
the Canadian Forces.
Schmitt, Eric. 1993. 'Gay Soldiers No Problem Elsewhere, Experts Say. in The New York Times
(New York). April 30: A16.
Swardson, Abbe. 1993. 'No Problem with Gays in Ranks: Military's Restrictions LiIted Last
Fall. in The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.). July 6: A8.
Toronto Star (The). 1990. 'Secret War on Gays. August 19: B12.
Toronto Star (The). 1990a. 'Lesbian Battles Ottawa over Security Clearance. March 26: A9.
Toronto Star (The). 1995. 'Ottawa Grants Gay StaII Some Spousal BeneIits. November 24:
A11.
U.P.I. 1992. 'Canadian Court Says Military Must Accept Gays. October 27.
Ulbrich, JeIIrey. 1993. 'Canada LiIted Ban on Gays in Military Without a Ripple. in The
Associatea Press (Toronto). January 29.
U.S. General Accounting OIIice (GAO). 1993. 'Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and
Practices oI Foreign Countries. United States General Accounting OIIice, Washington D.C.
Vienneau, David. 1989. 'Human Rights / Key Charter Fights Gay Fights Ior Career in Military.
in The Toronto Star (Toronto). April 15: D5.
Walsh, Mary Williams. 1992. 'Canada Now Far Ahead oI U.S. in Recognizing Gay Rights:
Justice: Nearly Two-Thirds oI the Provinces Prohibit Discrimination. The Military Now
Accepts Homosexuals. in Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles). December 29: A1.
Washington Times (The). 1993. 'Canada Example Cited on Gays in the Military. January 28:
A2.
Watson, Laurie. 1991. 'Canada to Allow Gays in Military. in UPI (Ottawa). October 10.
40
Wenek, Karol. 1995. 'BrieIing Note Ior Director oI Public Policy. Ottawa: Canadian Forces.
August 25.
Wintemute, Robert. 1995. Sexual Orientation ana Human Rights. The Unitea States Constitution.
the European Convention. ana the Canaaian Charter. OxIord: Clarendon Press.
Zuliani, R. A. 1986. 'Canadian Forces Survey on Homosexual Issues. Charter Task Force,
Department oI National DeIence, Ottawa.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Adams-Roy. Maior, Canadian Forces. Human Resources Research and Evaluation. January 24,
2000.
Beaton, Sharon. Captain, Canadian Forces. Recruiting Enrollment Training School Headquarters.
February 5, 2000.
Beler, Steven. Maior Sr., Canadian Forces. Directorate oI Military Gender Integration and
Employment Equity. January 21, 2000.
Bissonette, Alain. Captain, Canadian Forces. Provost Marshal Spokesperson. January 19, 2000.
Cousens, C. Reserve Maior, Canadian Forces. February 5, 2000.
Douglas, Michelle. Former Lieutenant, Canadian Forces. January 23, 2000.
Durand, Sylvia. Sergeant, Canadian Forces. Technical Communications Specialist. February 5,
2000.
Fisher, John. Director, EGALE (Canada). February 2, 2000.
Forget, Marcel. Captain, Canadian Forces. February 8, 2000.
Granatstein, J.L. Director, Canadian War Museum. February 3, 2000.
Harrington, Lynn. Retired Corporal, Canadian Forces. February 8, 2000.
Herek, Gregory. ProIessor, University oI CaliIornia at Davis. January, 26, 2000.
Kelly, Rosemary. Retired Sergeant, Canadian Forces. January 26, 2000.
Kinsman, Gary. ProIessor, Laurentian University. February 5, 2000.
Kristianson, Connie. ProIessor, Carleton University. January 28 and February 13, 2000.
LaBelle, Diane. Civilian, Legal Counsel. Legislative and Regulatory Service. February 2 and 24,
2000.
Leebosh, Derek. Environics Research, Toronto. February 10, 2000.
Leger, Paul. StaII Sergeant, Canadian Forces. February 8, 2000.
41
Leveque, Steve. Civilian, Canadian Forces. Executive Directorate on ConIlict Resolution.
February 4, 2000.
MacKay, D.S. Captain, Canadian Forces. Directorate oI Military Gender Integration and
Employment Equity. January 18 and February 28, 2000.
MacLennan, Rose Marie. LCdr, Canadian Forces. Directorate oI Military Gender Integration and
Employment Equity. January 21, 2000.
Morton, Desmond. ProIessor, McGill University. February 3, 2000.
Pepper, David. Ottawa Carleton Regional Police Department. February 10, 2000.
Rayside, David. ProIessor, University oI Toronto. January 19, 2000.
Reid, Tim. Former Captain, Canadian Forces. February 11, 2000.
Stiehm, Judith. ProIessor, Florida International University. January 27 and 28, 2000.
Siksay, Bill. Assistant to MP Svend Robinson (British Columbia). February 10, 2000.
Wenek, Karol. Civilian, Canadian Forces. Directorate oI Policy Analysis and Development.
January 20, 2000.
Wild, William. LCdr, Canadian Forces. Directorate oI Human Resource, Research and
Evaluation. January 24, 2000.
42
washingtonpost.com > Columns
Bigotry That Hurts Our Military
By Alan K. Simpson
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
AsaliIelongRepublicanwhoservedintheArmyin
Germany,Ibelieveitiscriticalthatwereview--and
overturn--thebanongayserviceinthemilitary.Ivoted
Ior"don'task,don'ttell."Butmuchhaschangedsince
1993.
MythinkingshiItedwhenIreadthatthemilitarywas
Iiringtranslatorsbecausetheyaregay.Accordingtothe
GovernmentAccountabilityOIIice,morethan300
languageexpertshavebeenIiredunder"don'task,don't
tell,"includingmorethan50whoareIluentinArabic.
ThiswhenevenSecretaryoIStateCondoleezzaRicerecentlyacknowledgedthenation's
"IoreignlanguagedeIicit"andhowmuchourgovernmentneedsFarsiandArabicspeakers.Is
therea"straight"waytotranslateArabic?Istherea"gay"Farsi?MyGod,we'dbetterstart
talkingsensebeIoreitistoolate.Weneedeveryable-bodied,smartpatriottohelpuswinthis
war.
Intoday'sperilousglobalsecuritysituation,therealquestioniswhetherallowing
homosexualstoserveopenlywouldenhanceordegradeourreadiness.Thebestwayto
answerthisistoreconsidertheoriginalpointsoIoppositiontoopenservice.
First,America'sviewsonhomosexualsservingopenlyinthemilitaryhavechanged
dramatically.ThepercentageoIAmericansinIavorhasgrownIrom57percentin1993toa
whopping91percentoI18-to29-year-oldssurveyedinaGalluppollin2003.
MilitaryattitudeshavealsoshiIted.Fully
three-quartersoI500vetsreturningIromIraq
andAIghanistansaidinaDecemberZogby
pollthattheywerecomIortableinteracting
withgaypeople.Alsolastyear,aZogbypoll
showedthatamaiorityoIservicemembers
whoknewagaymemberintheirunitsaidthe
person'spresencehadnonegativeimpacton
theunitorpersonalmorale.Seniorleaders
suchasretiredGen.JohnShalikashviliand
Lt.Gen.DanielChristman,aIormerWest
Pointsuperintendent,arecallingIorasecond
look.
Second,24nations,including12inOperation
EnduringFreedomandnineinOperationIraqiFreedom,permitopenservice.Despite
controversysurroundingthepolicychange,ithashadnonegativeimpactonmorale,
cohesion,readinessorrecruitment.Ouralliesdidnotdisplaysuchacceptancebackwhenwe
votedon"don'task,don'ttell,"butweshouldconsidertheircommon-senseexample.
Third,therearenotenoughtroopstoperIormtherequiredmission.TheArmyis"about
broken,"inthewordsoIColinPowell.TheArmy'schieIoIstaII,Gen.PeterSchoomaker,
toldtheHouseArmedServicesCommitteeinDecemberthat"theactive-dutyArmyoI
507,000willbreakunlesstheIorceisexpandedby7,000moresoldiersayear."ToIillits
needs,theArmyisgrantingarecordnumberoI"moralwaivers,"allowingevenIelonsto
TOOLBOX
COMMENT
0 Comments
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED
Links to this article
Resize Print
E-mail
WHO'S BLOGGING
Find Your Dream Job Now!
Jobs by SimplyHired
FEATURED ADVERTISER LINKS
Lawsuit: Cochlear Implants, Toyota, Yaz Gallbladder, Fracking,
Hydroxycut
Erin Brockovich, Mesothelioma, Asbestos & Vets, Lung Cancer,
Boilers
Roll over your old 401(k)s to Fidelity Investments.
Get peace of mind now with Equifax ID Patrol.
Russia Now: In-Depth Coverage of Russia News, Business, and
More.
Why Is Your Retirement Account Now Growing? Get Vanguard's
Best Funds to Own Now
Business Jobs
Computer Jobs
Construction Jobs
Education Jobs
Engineering Jobs
Healthcare Jobs
Legal Jobs
Management Jobs
Media Jobs
Non-Profit Jobs
Sales Jobs
Science Jobs
keywords location
Sign In | Register Now
TODAY'S NEWSPAPER
Subscribe | PostPoints
SEARCH: | Search Archives
NEWS POLITICS OPINIONS BUSINESS LOCAL SPORTS ARTS & LIVING GOING OUT GUIDE JOBS CARS REAL ESTATE RENTALS
CLASSIFIEDS
enlist.Yetweturnawaypatrioticgayandlesbiancitizens.
TheUrbanInstituteestimatesthat65,000gaysareservingandthatthereare1milliongay
veterans.ThesegayvetsincludeCapt.CholeneEspinoza,aIormerU-2pilotwhologged
morethan200combathoursoverIraq,andMarineStaIISgt.EricAlva,wholosthisrightleg
toanIraqilandmine.Since2005,morethan800personnelhavebeendischargedIrom
"criticalIields"--iobsconsideredessentialbutdiIIicultintermsoItrainingorretraining,
suchaslinguists,medicalpersonnelandcombatengineers.AsideIromallowingustorecruit
andretainmorepersonnel,permittinggaystoserveopenlywouldenhancethequalityoIthe
armedIorces.
InWorldWarII,aBritishmathematiciannamedAlanTuringledtheeIIorttocrackthe
Nazis'communicationcode.HemasteredthecomplexGermanencipheringmachine,helping
tosavetheworld,andhisworklaidthebasisIormoderncomputerscience.Doesitmatter
thatTuringwasgay?Thisweek,Gen.PeterPace,chairmanoItheJointChieIs,saidthat
homosexualityis"immoral"andthatthebanonopenserviceshouldthereIorenotbe
changed.WouldPacecallTuring"immoral"?
Since1993,IhavehadtherichsatisIactionoIknowingandworkingwithmanyopenlygay
andlesbianAmericans,andIhavecometorealizethat"gay"isanartiIicialcategorywhenit
comestomeasuringamanorwoman'son-the-iobperIormanceorcommitmenttoshared
goals.Itsayslittleabouttheperson.OurdiIIerencesandpreiudicespalenexttoourhistoric
challenge.Gen.Paceisentitled,likeanyone,tohispersonalopinion,eveniIitiscompletely
outoIthemainstreamoIAmericanthinking.Butheshouldknowbetterthantoassertthis
opinionasthebasisIorpolicyoIamilitarythatrepresentsandservesanentirenation.Letus
end"don'task,don'ttell."ThispolicyhasbecomeaseriousdetrimenttothereadinessoI
America'sIorcesastheyattempttoaccomplishwhatisarguablythemostchallenging
missioninourlongandcherishedhistory.
ThewriterwasaRepublicansenatorfromWvomingfrom1979to1997.

9
diggs
digg it
More ways to share this Article...
Reddit Twitter
myspace del.icio.us
NewsTrust Stumble It!
Related
Can the Republicans win in November with a
negative strategy?
TOPIC A | Can the Republicans win in November with a
negative strategy?
From Our Partners
Shafer: What Ross
Douthat Overlooks About
Conspiracy Theorists
Why Do Investors Keep Making Bad
Bets Against Obama?
Strange YouTube Trend: The Girls Who Want To
Show You the Clothes They Just Bought
China Strikes Back at Google
Companies Get Paid To Use Less Energy. Why Not
Homeowners Like Me?
Obama's Bold Plan To Fix America's Lousy Internet
Connection
North Korea Runs an International Restaurant
Chain?
Help! My Fiance Thinks I'm a Gold Digger.
Most Viewed Opinion Articles
Can Butler win? Could Milan?
Tiger's back (already), but is he a changed man?
The Boys Of Bummer: Here We Go Again
Donovan McNabb traded to Redskins
Top 35 Opinion Articles
Most Popular on washingtonpost.com
Mr. Cantor declines to comment
The Canteyville omen
4
Shar e
2007 The Washington Post Company
Sponsored Links
Crohn's Disease Symptoms
Take the CD Symptoms Quiz. Consult Your Doctor About the Results.
www.LivingwithCrohnsDisease.com
Business On Main
Join The Community of Ideas, Tools, & Resources, Connected by Sprint!
www.BusinessOnMain.com
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
www.AwesomePennyStocks.com
Buy a link here
washingtonpost.com: Contact Us | Work for Us | Advertisers | Site Map | Search Terms | Topics Index | Make us your homepage | Newsletters | Mobile | RSS | Widgets
The Washington Post: Subscribe | Home Delivery Service | Advertisers | PostPoints | e-Replica | Online Photo Store | The Washington Post Store | About The Post
The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites
NEWS | POLITICS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | LOCAL | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE | RENTALS |
CLASSIFIEDS
Copyright 1996- 2010 The Washington Post Company | User Agreement and Privacy Policy | Rights and Permissions Help | Contact Us
SEARCH: Search Archives
1
DepartmentoIDeIenseINSTRUCTION
NUMBER1332.14
SUBJECT:EnlistedAdministrativeSeparations
ENCLOSURE3
REASONSFORSEPARATION

8.HOMOSEXUALCONDUCT
a.Basis
(1)HomosexualconductisgroundsIorseparationIromtheMilitaryServices
underthetermssetIorthinsubparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosure.Homosexual
conduct is includes engagingin,attemptingtoengagein,orsolicitinganothertoengage
inahomosexualactoracts,astatementbyaServicememberthatheorsheisa
homosexualorbisexual,orwordstothateIIect demonstratesapropensityorintentto
engageinhomosexualacts,ormarriageorattemptedmarriagetoapersonknowntobe
oIthesamebiologicalsexahomosexualmarriageorattemptedmarriage. Astatement
byaServicememberthatdemonstratesapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexual
actsisgroundsIorseparationnotbecauseitreIlectstheServicememberssexual
orientation,butbecausethestatementindicatesalikelihoodthattheServicemember
engagesinorwillengageinhomosexualacts. AServicememberssexualorientation
isconsideredapersonalandprivatematter,andisnotabartocontinuedserviceunder
thisparagraphunlessmaniIestedbyhomosexualconductinthemannerdescribedin
subparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosure.
(2)AServicemembershallbeseparatedunderthisparagraphiIoneormoreoI
theIollowingapprovedIindingsismade:
(a)TheServicememberhasengagedin,attemptedtoengagein,orsolicited
anothertoengageinahomosexualactoracts,unlessthereareapprovedIurther
IindingsthattheServicememberhasdemonstratedthat:
1.SuchactsareadepartureIromtheServicemembersusualand
customarybehavior:
2.Suchactsunderallthecircumstancesareunlikelytorecur:
3.SuchactswerenotaccomplishedbyuseoIIorce,coercion,or
2
intimidation:
4.UndertheparticularcircumstancesoIthecase,theServicemembers
continuedpresenceintheArmedForcesisconsistentwiththeinterestoItheArmed
Forcesinproperdiscipline,goodorder,andmorale:and
5.TheServicememberdoesnothaveapropensityorintenttoengagein
homosexualacts.
(b)TheServicememberhasmadeastatementthatheorsheisahomosexual
orbisexual,orwordstothateIIect,unlessthereisaIurtherapprovedIindingthatthe
Servicememberhasdemonstratedthatheorsheisnotapersonwhoengagesin,attempts
toengagein,hasapropensitytoengagein,orintendstoengageinhomosexualacts.A
statementbyaServicememberthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexual,orwordsto
thateIIect,createsarebuttablepresumptionthattheServicememberisapersonwho
engagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasapropensitytoengagein,orintendstoengagein
homosexualacts.TheServicemembershallbeadvisedoIthispresumptionandgiven
theopportunitytorebutthepresumptionbypresentingevidencedemonstratingthatheor
she doesnotisnotapersonwhoengagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasveapropensityto
engagein,orintendstoengageinhomosexualacts.Propensitytoengageinhomosexual
actsmeansmorethananabstractpreIerenceordesiretoengageinhomosexualacts:it
indicatesalikelihoodthatapersonengagesinorwillengageinhomosexualacts.In
determiningwhetheraServicememberhassuccessIullyrebuttedthepresumptionthathe
orsheisapersonwhoengagesin,attemptstoengagein,orhasapropensityorintentto
engageinhomosexualacts,someoralloItheIollowingmaybeconsidered:
1.AstatementunderoathbytheServicememberthatheorsheisnota
personwhoengagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasapropensitytoengagein,orintendsto
engageinhomosexualacts:
21.WhethertheServicememberhasengagedinhomosexualacts:
2.TheServicememberscredibility:
3.TestimonyIromothersabouttheServicememberspastconduct,
character,andcredibility:
4.ThenatureandcircumstancesoItheServicemembersstatement:
5.AnyotherevidencerelevanttowhethertheServicememberislikelyto
engageinhomosexualacts.(Thislistisnotexhaustive:anyotherrelevantevidencemay
alsobeconsidered.)
3
(c)TheServicememberhasmarriedorattemptedtomarryapersonknownto
beoIthesamebiologicalsex(asevidencedbytheexternalanatomyoIthepersons
involved).
b.BurdenoIProoI.Seesubparagraphs8.d.(5)and8.d.(6)oIthisenclosureIor
guidanceastotheburdenoIprooIandwhenaIindingregardingretentionisrequired.
c.CharacterizationorDescription.CharacterizationoIserviceordescriptionoI
separationshallbeinaccordancewiththeguidanceinparagraph3oIEnclosure4.When
thesolebasisIorseparationishomosexualconduct,acharacterizationunderotherthan
honorable(OTH)conditionsmaybeissuedonlyiIsuchacharacterizationiswarranted
underparagraph3oIEnclosure4,andiIthereisaIindingthatduringthecurrenttermoI
servicetheServicememberattempted,solicited,orcommittedahomosexualact.
CircumstancesthatwarrantconsiderationoIanOTHincludeaIindingthattheService
memberattempted,solicited,orcommittedahomosexualactasIollows:
(1)ByusingIorce,coercion,orintimidation.
(2)Withapersonunder16yearsoIage.
(3)Withasubordinateincircumstancesthatviolatecustomarymilitarysuperior-
subordinaterelationships:
(4)Openlyinpublicview.
(5)Forcompensation.
(6)AboardamilitaryvesseloraircraIt.
(7)Inanotherlocationsubiecttomilitarycontrolunderaggravatingcircumstances
notedintheIindingthathaveanadverseimpactondiscipline,goodorder,ormorale
comparabletotheimpactoIsuchactivityaboardavesseloraircraIt.
d.Procedures.TheAdministrativeBoardprocedureunderparagraph3oIEnclosure6
shallbeused,subiecttotheIollowingguidance:
(1)SeparationprocessingshallbeinitiatediIthereisprobablecausetobelieve
separationiswarrantedundersubparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosure.ForpurposesoI
makingthisprobablecausedetermination,thestandardssetIorthinsubparagraphs2.c-I
oIEnclosure5areapplicable.
(a)OnlyacommanderintheServicememberschainoIcommand,inthe
gradeoIO-7orhigher,isauthorizedtoinitiateseparationproceedingsonthebasisoI
4
allegedhomosexualconduct.
(b) ProceduresIorinquiriesintohomosexualconductareoutlinedinEnclosure
5.
(2)TheAdministrativeBoardshallIollowtheproceduressetIorthin
subparagraph3.e.oIEnclosure6,exceptwithrespecttotheIollowingmatters:
(a)IItheBoardIindsthatoneormoreoIthecircumstancesauthorizing
separationundersubparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosureissupportedbyapreponderance
oI theevidence,theBoardshallrecommendseparationunlesstheBoardIindsthat
retentioniswarrantedunderthelimited circumstancesdescribedinthatparagraph.
(b)IItheBoarddoesnotIindthatthereissuIIicientevidencethatoneormore
oIthecircumstancesauthorizingseparationundersubparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosure
hasoccurredissupportedbyapreponderanceoItheevidence,theBoardshallrecommend
retentionunlessthecaseinvolvesanotherbasisIorseparationoIwhichtheService
memberhasbeendulynotiIied.
(3) InanycaseinwhichcharacterizationoIserviceunderotherthanhonorable
conditions isnotauthorized,theseparationauthoritymaybeexercisedbyanoIIicer
designatedundersubparagraph2.d.(1)oIEnclosure6.Theseparationauthoritydisposing
oIthecaseshallbeageneralorIlagoIIicer,oIequalgradeorseniortothecommander
initiatingaIact-Iindinginquiryorseparationproceeding,intheServicememberschain
oIcommandorservingasaService-designatedcentralizedseparationauthority.
(4)TheseparationauthorityshalldisposeoIthecaseaccordingtotheIollowing
provisions:
(a)IItheboardrecommendsretention,theseparationauthorityshalltakeone
oItheIollowingactions:
1.ApprovetheIindinganddirectretention:or
2.ForwardthecasetotheSecretaryconcernedwitharecommendationthat
theSecretaryseparatetheServicememberundertheSecretarysplenaryauthorityin
paragraph15oIthisenclosure.
(b)IItheboardrecommendsseparation,theseparationauthorityshalltakeone
oItheIollowingactions:
1.ApprovetheIindinganddirectseparation:or
5
2.DisapprovetheIindingonthebasisoItheIollowingconsiderations:
a.ThereisinsuIIicientevidencetosupporttheIinding:or
b.Retentioniswarrantedunderthelimited circumstancesdescribedin
(c)IItherehasbeenawaiveroIBoardproceedings,theseparationauthority
shalldisposeoIthecaseinaccordancewiththeIollowingprovisions:
1.IItheseparationauthoritydeterminesthereisnotsuIIicientevidenceto
supportseparationundersubparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosure,theseparationauthority
shalldirectretentionunlessthereisanotherbasisIorseparationoIwhichtheService
memberhasbeendulynotiIied.
2.IItheseparationauthoritydeterminesthatoneormoreoIthe
circumstancesauthorizingseparationundersubparagraph8.a.(2)oIthisenclosureis
supportedbyapreponderanceoItheevidencehasoccurred,theServicemembershallbe
separatedunlessretentioniswarrantedunderthelimited circumstancesdescribedinthat
subparagraph.
(5)TheServicemembershallbeartheburdenoIprovingthroughoutthe
proceeding,byapreponderanceoItheevidence,thatretentioniswarrantedunderthe
limited circumstancesdescribedinsubparagraphs8.a.(2)(a)and8.a.(2)(b)oIthis
enclosure.
(6)FindingsregardingwhetherornotretentioniswarrantedarerequirediIthe
ServicememberclearlyandspeciIicallyraisessuchlimited circumstancesasdescribedin
(7)Nothingintheseprocedures:
(a)LimitstheauthorityoItheSecretaryconcernedtotakeappropriateactionin
acasetoensurecompliancewiththisissuance:
(b)RequiresthataServicememberbeprocessedIorseparationwhena
determinationismadeinaccordancewithregulationsprescribedbytheSecretary
concernedthat:
1.TheServicememberengagedinacts,madestatements,ormarriedor
attemptedtomarryapersonknowntobeoIthesamebiologicalsexIorthepurposeoI
avoidingorterminatingmilitaryservice:and
6
2.SeparationoItheServicememberwouldnotbeinthebestinterestoIthe
ArmedForces.
(c)PrecludesretentionoIaServicememberIoralimitedperiodoItimeinthe
interestsoInationalsecurityasauthorizedbytheSecretaryconcerned:
(d)AuthorizesaServicemembertoseekSecretarialreviewunlessauthorized
inprocedurespromulgatedbytheSecretaryconcerned:
(e)PrecludesseparationinappropriatecircumstancesIoranotherreasoninthis
Instruction:or
(I)Precludestrialbycourts-martialinappropriatecases.
7
ENCLOSURE5
GUIDELINESFORFACT-FINDINGINQUIRIESINTOHOMOSEXUALCONDUCT

1.RESPONSIBILITY
a.OnlyaServicememberscommanderintheServicememberschainoIcommand,
inthegradeoIO-7orhigher,isauthorizedtoinitiateIact-Iindinginquiriesinvolving
homosexualconduct.AcommandermayinitiateaIact-Iindinginquiryonlywhenheor
shehasreceivedcredibleinIormationthatthereisbasisIordischarge.Commandersare
responsibleIorensuringthatinquiriesareconductedproperlyandthatnoabuseoI
authorityoccurs.
b.AIact-Iindinginquirymaybeconductedbythecommanderpersonallyorbya
personheorsheappoints,buttheappointeemustbeinthegradeoIO-5orhigher,or
civilianequivalent. It TheinquirymayconsistoIanexaminationoItheinIormation
reportedoramoreextensiveinvestigation,asnecessary.
c.TheinquiryshouldgatherallcredibleinIormationthatdirectlyrelatestothe
groundsIorpossibleseparation.InquiriesshallbelimitedtotheIactualcircumstances
directlyrelevanttothespeciIicallegations.
d.IIacommanderhascredibleevidenceoIpossiblecriminalconduct,heorsheshall
IollowtheproceduresoutlinedinReIerence(o)andimplementingregulationsissuedby
theSecretariesoItheMilitaryDepartmentsconcerned.
e.TheguidelinesinthisenclosuredonotapplytoactivitiesreIerencedinDoDI
5505.8(ReIerence(t)).
2.BASISFORCONDUCTINGINQUIRIES
a.AcommanderwillinitiateaninquiryonlyiIheorshehascredibleinIormationthat
thereisabasisIordischarge.CredibleinIormationexistswhentheinIormation,
consideringitssourceandthesurroundingcircumstances,supportsareasonablebelieI
thatthereisabasisIordischarge.AdeterminationismadebasedonarticulableIacts,not
iustabelieIorsuspicion.
b.AbasisIordischargeexistsiI:
(1)TheServicememberhasengagedin,attemptedtoengagein,orsolicited
8
anothertoengageinahomosexualactoracts.
(2)TheServicememberhassaid madeastatementthatheorsheisahomosexual
orbisexual,ormadesomeotherstatementthatindicatesapropensityorintenttoengage
inhomosexualacts wordstothateIIect:or
(3)TheServicememberhasmarriedorattemptedtomarryapersonknowntobe
oIthesamebiological sex.
c.CredibleinIormationdoesnotexist,Iorexample,when:
(1)TheindividualissuspectedoIengaginginhomosexualconduct,butthereisno
credibleinIormation,asdescribed,tosupportthatsuspicion:or
(2)TheonlyinIormationistheopinionsoIothersthataServicememberis
homosexual:or
(3)Theinquirywouldbebasedonrumor,suspicion,orcapriciousclaims
concerningaServicememberssexualorientation:or
(4)TheonlyinIormationknownisanassociationalactivitysuchasgoingtoagay
bar,possessingorreadinghomosexualpublications,associatingwithknown
homosexuals,ormarchinginagayrightsrallyincivilianclothes.Suchactivity,inand
oIitselI,doesnotprovideevidenceoIhomosexualconduct.:or
(5)TheinIormationdoesnotcomeIromareliableperson.
d.CredibleinIormationexists,Iorexample,when:
(1)AServicememberstatestoapersonoIseniorgradeandauthoritywithinhisor
herchainoIcommandthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexual,orwordstothateIIect:
or
(21)Areliablepersonstates, underoath,thatheorsheobservedorhearda
Servicememberengageingin,attempttoengagein,orsolicitanothertoengagein a
homosexualactoracts,orsayingthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexualorismarried
toapersonoIthesamesex:or
(32)Areliablepersonstates, underoath,thatheorshewastoldbyheard,
observed,ordiscoveredaServicememberthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexual,or
wordstothateIIectmakeaspokenorwrittenstatementthatareasonablepersonwould
believewasintendedtoconveytheIactthatheorsheengagesin,attemptstoengagein,
orhasapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualacts:or
9
(4)Areliablepersonstates,underoath,thataServicememberhasmarriedor
attemptedtomarryapersonknowntobeoIthesamebiologicalsex.
(3)Areliablepersonstatesthatheorsheobservedbehaviorthatamountstoanon-
verbalstatementbyaServicememberthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexual:i.e.,
behaviorthatareasonablepersonwouldbelievewasintendedtoconveythestatement
thattheServicememberengagesin,attemptstoengagein,orhasapropensityorintentto
engageinhomosexualacts.
e.Areliablepersonissomeonewhowouldbeexpected,underthecircumstances,to
provideaccurateinIormation.ExamplesoIapersonwhomaynotbeareliableperson
are:
(1)ApersonwithapriorhistoryoIuntruthIulnessorunreliability:or
(2)Apersonwithamotivetoseekrevengeagainstortocausepersonalor
proIessionalharmtotheServicemember speciIically,ortocausepersonalor
proIessionalharmtopersonssuspectedoIbeinghomosexualgenerally:or
(3)ApersonwithapriorhistoryoIconIlictwiththeServicemember.
I.TheIollowinginIormationshallnotbeconsideredevidenceoIorbeusedIor
purposesoIIact-Iindinginquiriesorseparationproceedingsregardinghomosexual
conduct,unlesstheServicememberconsentsinwritingthattheinIormationmaybeused:
(1)InIormationconsideredprivilegedpursuanttoRule502(Lawyer-client
privilege),Rule503(CommunicationstoClergy),orRule513(Psychotherapist-
patientprivilege)oItheMilitaryRulesoIEvidence:
(2)InIormationprovidedbyaServicemembertoamedicalproIessionalin
IurtheranceoImedicaltreatment,ortoapublichealthoIIicialinthecourseoIapublic
healthinquiry:
(3)InIormationprovidedbyaServicememberinthecourseoIseeking
proIessionalassistanceIordomesticorphysicalabusesustainedbytheServicemember
orbyamemberoIhisorherhousehold:
(4)InIormationaboutaServicememberssexualorientationorconductobtained
inthecourseoIapersonnelsecurityinvestigation,inaccordancewithandtotheextent
protectedbyDoD5200.2-R(DepartmentoIDeIensePersonnelSecurityProgram).
10
3.PROCEDURES
a.InIormalIact-Iindinginquiriesandadministrativeseparationproceduresarethe
preIerredmethodoIaddressinghomosexualconduct.Thisproceduredoesnotprevent
disciplinaryactionortrialbycourts-martialwhenappropriate.
b.CommandersshallexercisesounddiscretionregardingwhencredibleinIormation
exists.TheyshallexaminetheinIormation, thesourceoItheinIormation,andthe
circumstancesunderwhichtheinIormationwasobtainedanddecidewhetheraninquiry
iswarrantedorwhethernoactionshouldbetaken.
c.CommandersorappointedinquiryoIIicialsshallnotask,andServicemembers
shallnotberequiredtoreveal,whetheraServicememberisaheterosexual,a
homosexual,orabisexual.However,uponreceiptoIcredibleinIormationoI
homosexualconduct(asdescribedinparagraph2oIthisenclosure)commandersor
appointedinquiryoIIicialsmayaskServicemembersiItheyengagedinsuchconduct
aIteradvisingServicememberoItheDoDpolicyonhomosexualconductandtheirrights
underArticle31oItheUCMJ,Appendix2oIReIerence(o),iIapplicable.Shouldthe
ServicememberchoosenottodiscussthematterIurther,thecommandershouldconsider
otheravailableinIormation.NonegativeinIerencemaybedrawnIromaService
membersdecisionnottodiscussthematter.Nothinginthisprovisionprecludes
questioningaServicememberaboutanyinIormationprovidedbytheServicememberin
thecourseoItheIact-Iindinginquiryoranyrelatedproceeding,nordoesitprovidethe
ServicememberwithanybasisIorchallengingthevalidityoIanyproceedingortheuse
oIanyevidence,includingastatementbytheServicemember,inanyproceeding.
d.AtanygivenpointoItheinquiry,thecommanderorappointedinquiryoIIicialmust
beabletoclearlyandspeciIicallyexplainwhichgroundsIorseparationheorsheis
attemptingtoveriIyandhowtheinIormationbeingcollectedrelatestothosespeciIic
separationcriteria.
e.AstatementbyaServicememberthatheorsheisahomosexualorbisexualcreates
arebuttablepresumptionthattheServicememberengagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasa
propensitytoengagein,orintendstoengageinhomosexualacts.TheServicemember
shallbegiventheopportunitytopresentevidencedemonstratingthatheorshedoesnot
engagein,attempttoengagein,orhaveapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexual
acts.
I.TheServicememberbearstheburdenoIproving,byapreponderanceoIthe
evidence,thatheorsheisnotapersonwhoengagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasa
propensitytoengagein,orintendstoengageinhomosexualacts.
11
4.LEGALEFFECT.Theproceduresinthisenclosurecreatenosubstantiveorprocedural
rights.
12
GLOSSARY

bisexual.Apersonwhoengagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasapropensitytoengagein,
orintendstoengageinhomosexualandheterosexualacts.
commander.AcommissionedorwarrantoIIicerwho,byvirtueoIrankandassignment,
exercisesprimarycommandauthorityoveramilitaryorganizationorprescribed
territorialareathat,underpertinentoIIicialdirectives,isrecognizedasacommand.
conveningauthority
Theseparationauthority:or
AcommandingoIIicerwhohasbeenauthorizedbytheSecretaryconcernedto
processacaseexceptIorIinalactionandwhootherwisehasthequaliIicationstoactasa
separationauthority.
discharge.CompleteseveranceIromallmilitarystatusgainedthroughenlistmentor
induction.
entry-levelstatus.Uponenlistment,aServicememberqualiIiesIorentry-levelstatus
during:
TheIirst180daysoIcontinuousactivemilitaryservice:or
TheIirst180daysoIcontinuousactiveserviceaIteraservicebreakoImorethan92
daysoIactiveservice.AServicememberoIaReserveComponentwhoisnotonactive
dutyorwhoisservingunderacallorordertoactivedutyIor180daysorlessbegins
entry-levelstatusuponenlistmentinaReserveComponent.Entry-levelstatusIorsucha
ServicememberoIaReserveComponentterminatesasIollows:
OnehundredeightydaysaIterbeginningtrainingiItheServicememberisordered
toactivedutyIortrainingIoronecontinuousperiodoI180daysormore:or
NinetydaysaIterthebeginningoIthesecondperiodoIactivedutytrainingiIthe
ServicememberisorderedtoactivedutyIortrainingunderaprogramthatsplitsthe
trainingintotwoormoreseparateperiodsoIactiveduty.ForthepurposesoI
characterizationoIserviceordescriptionoIseparation,theServicemembersstatusis
determinedbythedateoInotiIicationastotheinitiationoIseparationproceedings.
homosexual.Aperson,regardlessoIsex,whoengagesin,attemptstoengagein,hasa
propensitytoengagein,orintendstoengageinhomosexualacts.
13
Ahomosexualactmeansanybodilycontact,activelyundertakenorpassively
permitted,betweenaServicememberandanotherpersonoIthesamesexIorthepurpose
oIsatisIyingsexualdesiresandanybodilycontact(Iorexample,hand-holdingorkissing,
inmostcircumstances)thatareasonablepersonwouldunderstandtodemonstratea
propensityorintenttoengageinsuchanact.
AstatementthataServicememberisahomosexualorbisexual,orwordstothat
eIIect,meanslanguageorbehaviorthatareasonablepersonwouldbelievewasintended
toconveythestatementthattheServicememberisapersonwhoengagesin,attemptsto
engagein,or hasapropensitytoengagein,or intent intends toengageinhomosexual
acts.ThismayincludestatementssuchasIamahomosexual,Iamgay,Iama
lesbian,Ihaveahomosexualorientation,andthelike.
AhomosexualmarriageorattemptedmarriageiswhenaServicememberhas
marriedorattemptedtomarryapersonknowntobeoIthesamebiologicalsex.
PropensitytoengageinhomosexualactsmeansmorethananabstractpreIerenceor
desiretoengageinhomosexualacts:itindicatesalikelihoodthatapersonengagesinor
willengageinhomosexualacts.
homosexualconduct. Engagingin,attemptingtoengagein,orsolicitinganotherto
engageinahomosexualactoracts:astatementbytheServicememberthatheorsheisa
homosexualorbisexual,orwordstothateIIect:ormarriageorattemptedmarriagetoa
personknowntobeoIthesamebiologicalsex.Ahomosexualact,astatementbythe
Servicememberthatdemonstratesapropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualacts,or
ahomosexualmarriageorattemptedmarriage.
Servicemember.AnenlistedoroIIicerServicememberoIaMilitaryService.
militaryrecord.AnindividualsoverallperIormancewhileaServicememberoIa
MilitaryService,includingpersonalconductandperIormanceoIduty.
releaseIromactiveduty.TerminationoIactivedutystatusandtransIerorreversiontoa
ReserveComponentnotonactiveduty,includingtransIertotheIRR.
respondent.AServicememberwhohasbeennotiIiedthatactionhasbeeninitiatedto
separatetheServicemember.
separation.Ageneraltermthatincludesdischarge,releaseIromactiveduty,releaseIrom
custodyandcontroloItheArmedForces,transIertotheIRR,andsimilarchangesin
ActiveorReservestatus.
separationauthority.AnoIIicialauthorizedbytheSecretaryconcernedtotakeIinal
14
actionwithrespecttoaspeciIiedtypeoIseparation.
sexualorientation.AnabstractsexualpreIerenceIorpersonsoIaparticularsex,as
distinctIromapropensityorintenttoengageinsexualacts.
(1)
HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY RELATING
TO THE DONT ASK, DONT TELL POLICY
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:51 a.m. in room SH
216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman)
presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Ben
Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, Burris, Kaufman, McCain, Sessions,
Chambliss, Thune, and Collins.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff di-
rector, and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant;
Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; and Roy F. Phillips, professional staff
member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Michael V. Kostiw, professional staff member; Diana
G. Tabler, professional staff member; Richard F. Walsh, minority
counsel; and Dana W. White, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Christine G. Lang,
and Breon N. Wells.
Committee members assistants present: James Tuite, assistant
to Senator Byrd; Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Ann Premer,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Patrick Hayes, assistant to Sen-
ator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Jennifer
Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Sen-
ator Hagan; Lindsay Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Roo-
sevelt Barfield, assistant to Senator Burris; Halie Soifer, assistant
to Senator Kaufman; Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assist-
ants to Senator Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Chip Ken-
nett and Meghan Simonds, assistants to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody.
Were going to come to order, but were then going to recess for
10 minutes, until 10 oclock, andfor the benefit of colleagues, be-
cause we have an order of speaking, here, as to whos actually here
when the gavel bangs. This will count. So, this will be the order
VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:54 Mar 25, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\BORAWSKI\DOCS\10-23 JUNE PsN: JUNEB
2
well establish, and well pick up that order at 10 oclock, when we
will begin our hearing.
But, we are going to recess now until 10 oclock or a few minutes
thereafter.
And we will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman LEVIN. Committee will come to order.
We meet this morning to continue to receive testimony on the
Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy on gays in the military.
The Secretary of Defense testified before this committee, on Feb-
ruary 2nd, that he supported the Presidents decision to work with
Congress to repeal the law known as Dont Ask, Dont Tell, and
said that, quote, The question before us is not whether the mili-
tary prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for
it.
At the same hearing, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, expressed his personal belief that allowing gays and les-
bians to serve openly could be the right thing to do. He said, quote,
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, he said, it comes down to integrity,
theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.
Today, we will hear testimony from witnesses who do not rep-
resent the Department of Defense, although each of them has
served with distinction in the military.
We welcome General John Sheehan, United States Marine
Corps, retired. While on Active Duty, General Sheehan served in
various command positions, ranging from company commander to
brigade commander in both the Atlantic and Pacific theater of oper-
ations. General Sheehans combat tours included duty in Vietnam
and Desert Shield/Desert Storm. His last assignment was as Su-
preme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S.
Atlantic Command.
Michael Almy served as an Active Duty Air Force officer for 13
years before he was discharged in 2006 under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. He deployed to the Middle East four times during his Active
Duty career, serving in Operation Desert Fox, Operation Southern
Watch, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was named Officer of the
Quarter and Officer of the Year several times throughout his ca-
reer, and in 2005 was named the top communications officer for the
Air Force in Europe and was recommended for promotion to lieu-
tenant colonel prior to his discharge in 2006.
Jenny Kopfstein, a Naval Academy graduate, served on Active
Duty in the Navy for nearly 3 years. She revealed her sexual ori-
entation to her commanding officer during her first shipboard as-
signment. Apparently, knowledge of her sexual orientation had no
impact on her duty performance, as she was sent on a second de-
ployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. She earned
several awards and honors, and was promoted during her service.
Significantly, two of her commanding officers testified at her sepa-
ration hearing that, while they understood she was a lesbian, she
was an excellent officer who should remain in the Navy. Despite
3
that testimony, Ms. Kopfstein was discharged under Dont Ask,
Dont Tell in 2002.
Cases like this make it clear to me that we should repeal this
discriminatory policy. I do not find the arguments used to justify
Dont Ask, Dont Tell convincing, I did not find them convincing
when it took effect in 1993, and they are less so now, as made evi-
dence by the experiences of Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein and so
many like them. What matters is a willingness and an ability to
perform the mission, not an individuals sexual orientation.
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 gays and lesbians are, in fact, serving in
our military.
As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John
Shalikashvili, who supports ending the policy, has pointed out, the
majority of troops already believe they serve alongside gay or les-
bian colleagues. Its hard to know for sure, but one recent study es-
timated that 66,000 gays and lesbians are serving today, forced to
hide their orientation, at a constant risk of losing the chance to
serve.
Supporters of the current Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy argue
that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would damage unit
cohesion and morale, crucial factors in building combat effective-
ness. But, there is no evidence that the presence of gay and lesbian
colleagues would damage our militarys ability to fight. Gay men
and women are serving now, and their fellow servicemembers often
know that they are serving with them. Their service is not dam-
aging unit cohesion and morale.
Other nations have allowed gay and lesbian servicemembers to
serve in their militaries without discrimination and without impact
on cohesion or morale. The most comprehensive study on this was
conducted by RAND in 1993. RAND researchers reported on the
positive experiences of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Neth-
erlands, and Norway, all of which allowed known homosexuals to
serve in the Armed Forces. Weve asked the Department to update
that 1993 report.
Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein were discharged, not because of
their duty performance, not because their presence interfered with
unit cohesion, and not because their sexual orientation com-
promised the military mission; they were discharge solely on the
basis of who they are, what their sexual orientation is.
Senator Lieberman has introduced the Military Readiness En-
hancement Act of 2010, of which I am cosponsor, that would re-
place the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed
Forces with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual ori-
entation.
I hope we can move quickly and deliberately to maximize the op-
portunity for all Americans to serve their country. We can and
should do that in a way that honors our Nations values while mak-
ing us more secure.
The committee has received many statements for the record.
Some of them are from the American Veterans for Equal Rights,
the Center for American Progress Action Committee, the Associa-
4
tion of the Bar of the City of New York, Service Members United,
the Human Rights Campaign, and the Service Members Legal De-
fense Network. They and other statements that are relative to this
subjectrelevant to this subject will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]]
Chairman LEVIN. Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN
Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I join you in welcoming our witnesses, thanking each of
them for their military service and their willingness to share their
views with us today.
As we all know, the committees focus today is on the Dont Ask,
Dont Tell policy, which, since 1993, has not barred gay and les-
bian individuals from serving in the Armed Forces. It has not
barred gay and lesbian individuals from serving in the Armed
Forces, but its prevented them from doing so openly. We will hear
testimony for and against the policy based on our witnesses mili-
tary experience. I look forward to listening with an open mind, and
learning from each of them. I urge all my colleagues to do the
same.
Since early February, our committee has received testimony on
this issue from Secretary Gates and the Service Secretaries, echo-
ing the desire of the President, a campaign commitment, to have
Congress repeal the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy. Weve also heard
the moving personal views of Admiral Mullen and several of the
combatant commanders during their posture-hearing testimony.
Finally, weve heard from the Service Chiefs, who have responsi-
bility under law for the organization, training, and overall readi-
ness of their forces, and for providing their best military advice to
the President on matters that might affect their ability to ensure
sufficiently trained and ready forces. Each of the Service Chiefs has
expressed his support for the comprehensive high-level review that
Secretary Gates has directed. However, each has indicated that he
is not prepared to support a repeal of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell
policy at this time. Each has also testified that he opposes your
suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of a moratorium on discharges while the
review is being conducted.
Based on their testimony, I urge my colleagues to await the com-
pletion of the review in order to give the Service Chiefs the infor-
mation they have asked for before any attempt is made to legislate
a change for political reasons that our military leaders will be re-
quired to implement.
I will strongly oppose any attempt to change the current law
based on an incomplete and inadequate review of this policy. And
I appeal to all my colleagues to take this approach in the interest
of national security.
With respect to the review itself, I have expressed my concerns
about its focus and scope. Unfortunately, in his testimony to this
committee, Secretary Gates described the mandate as a, quote, A
review of the issues associated with properly implementing a re-
peal of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy. The guiding question, as
Secretary Gates put it, should not beshould be not whether the
military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for
5
it. This is consistent with the Presidents goals, but it gets things
backwards.
The current Pentagon review should be an objective study of the
relevant military issues, not an implementation plan. This issue
that Congress must decide, and the issue the Service Chiefs should
be asked to give their best military advice about, is whether the
Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy should be repealed. We should ask
that question to our service personnel at all levels, and their fami-
lies and genuinely consider their views in our debate. Clearly there
are many policy and logistical challenges that would have to be
overcome if the law is repealed, but that should not be the primary
focus of this review.
I will continue to insist that we use the next 8 months to study
not how to implement a change to the current policy, but wheth-
er and why the men and women of the Armed Forcesthe gen-
erals, the officers, the NCOs, and the privatessupport or oppose
such a change. I would then expect, and I think the American peo-
ple have every right to expect, the views of the Service Chiefs to
incorporate this critically important information.
As I have stated before, I am proud and thankful for every Amer-
ican who chooses to put on the uniform of our country and serve
this Nation, particularly in this time of war. The Dont Ask, Dont
Tell policy is not perfect, but it reflects a compromise achieved
with great difficulty that has effectively supported military readi-
ness. However imperfect, the policy has allowed many gay and les-
bian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service. I
honor their sacrifices. And I honor them. We should not change the
current policy until we are confident, from a military standpoint,
with the informed advice of the Service Chiefs, that such a change
is consistent with military effectiveness.
I would ask, also, withoutfor unanimous consent, that copies of
arecently passed resolutions from the American Legion, the larg-
est veterans service organization, with a membership of 3 million
veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, with
a membership over 1,500,000, recommending against repeal of the
current law, to be included in the record.
Chairman LEVIN. They will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator MCCAIN. Finally, in summary, and I would say to my
colleagues, we have the best-trained, best-equipped, best-most
professional military that I have known in the many, many years
Ive had the honor of serving and knowing men and women in the
United States military. Retention and recruitmentit is an all
time high in the history of the All-Volunteer Force. We are in two
wars. And before we implement a change in policy that clearly, by
objective indicators, seems to have given us a best military that we
have had in the history of this country, that we ought to have a
careful and thorough review, not only of the views of the men and
women in the military who serve at the top, but the views of the
men and women who are serving today in harms way.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
[COMMITTEE INSERT]
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
6
Well now turnfirst, General Sheehan.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN J. SHEEHAN, USMC (RET.),
FORMER SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, ATLANTIC, AND
FORMER COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. ATLANTIC COMMAND
General SHEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And if
you have no objections, Id like to read my statement
Chairman LEVIN. Thatd be fine. Is your mic on?
General SHEEHAN. It is. Yes, sir.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you.
General SHEEHAN. First, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before this committee on a very complex issue. Im here not out of
any political conviction, because I was by this committee to share
my views as part of the debate in this issue. From my previous ex-
periences with this committee, I know this committee is charged
with an awesome responsibility that is, in part, shared with the
Commander in Chief, but the Constitution commits, exclusive to
the Congress and this body, the responsibility to raise and regulate
this Nations Armed Forces.
My point of view and convictions were formed from my experi-
ence during 35 years of service as a Marine Corps infantry officer
who has served in combat, led a platoon, three companies, and in-
fantry battalion, and an infantry regiment. My career also includes
command of units from 26 different nations.
My basic belief is that everyone can and should serve this great
country in some way. We also know and agree that not everybody
is qualified or eligible to serve in the military, for a variety of rea-
sons, including age, health, education, and so on.
The 1993 review, which resulted in the adoption of Section 654,
arrived at a number or findings. The most important in my mind,
that there is not constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces.
The findings of 1993 also confirmed something that my family and
I already knew and accepted, which is that military life is fun-
damentally different from civilian life, and that military society is
characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, in-
cluding numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not
be accepted in normal civilian life.
I can acknowledge that popular culture has changed in many
ways. However, the nature and requirements of military life have
changed very little. Military culture is deliberately developed and
structured to mold individuals from all walks of life into a coherent
group that willingly sacrifices self for the strength of the unit. In
fact, the cohesion of a unit is predicated, in part, on the lack of in-
dividuality of its members. No special accommodations need to be
afforded to anyone of them. To the degree possible, we try to make
marines interchangeable. This makes the military a unique institu-
tion within the broader American society. It asksno, it really de-
mandsthat individuals put aside individual interests and behav-
ior for the good of the unit. Self-sacrifice is the cornerstone of the
unit cohesion that builds effective combat organizations.
The Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy, however awkward and dif-
ficult, reinforces the critical maxim that, first and foremost, you are
a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. Your preferences and desires
7
are not relevant. Effectiveness in training and mission accomplish-
ment on the battlefield are the standards that you judge them by.
Because the military is a human institution, it is, by definition,
imperfect, and there are some who fail to maintain their eligibility
after entry, thus rendering them ineligible for further service. The
past good work of servicemembers who are attracted to the same
sex is an indication of only one thing: that they have been able to
serve well prior to becoming ineligible.
To my knowledge, nobodys making the argument that a man or
woman being attracted to the same sex debilitates them, either in-
tellectually or physically. The question under review is whether the
behavior of a person who openly declares a sexual attraction to the
same sex directly or indirectly contributes to theor detracts
frommilitary cohesion. Make no mistake, this is not about consid-
eration being given to someone who wants to serve in the military
despite being attracted to the same sex, this particular argument
has to do with the supposed right to declare oneself to be sexually
attracted to a particular segment of the population, and insist on
continuing to live in the most intimate proximity with them.
If this committee were able to clearly demonstrate that this
change would improve military effectiveness, then the change
should be implemented. But, if someone were to insist on imple-
mentation because of an ulterior motive other than clear evidence
and there was an uncertainty about the effect it would have on the
unit cohesion, then that is a risk I would not recommend or sup-
port in todays environment.
As we sit here today, U.S. Forces are deployed in Iraq and Af-
ghanistan, fighting an armed enemy sworn to destroy our way of
life. Our enemies respect and fear the United States combat capa-
bility. Unfortunately, our enemies, especially the extremists, do not
care how enlightened or progressive our culture may be. The only
thing that matters is the effectiveness on the battlefield.
For over 200 years, the Marine Corps and other elite combat for-
mations, like Special Forces, Airborne, and Ranger units, have de-
veloped training and performance-based systems that breed success
in the battlefield. Effective units need to act as a coherent unit. As
the law says, military life is fundamentally different from a civilian
life. This is a difficult reality to accept for individuals who have
never served or had such exposure to our Armed Forces. It goes
well beyond just wearing a uniform to work on a daily basis. More
than once, during my military career, the unacceptable behavior of
one selfish marine has created a single point of failure for his unit
and endangered lives. In every instance unit polarization occurred
because of this selfish behavior.
I also know that some will argue that the circumstances of war-
fare are different. I would argue that, in many ways, theyre very
similar. Selfish behavior in Vietnam, Khafji, Fallujah can affect en-
tire units and detract from the success of combat missions. To state
the obvious, warfare is difficult, ugly business. Congress should not
impose more uncertainty in a battlefield that is already complex
enough.
Each member of this committee must, in his or her own mind,
feel absolutely certain that the change of the current law will im-
prove this Nations combat effectiveness and minimize the risks our
8
young men and women face in todays battlefield. The change must
also reduce the current environment of a hostile workplace that ex-
ists and is increasing today.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of General Sheehan follows:]
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Almy.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. ALMY, FORMER MAJOR, U.S. AIR
FORCE
Mr. ALMY. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman LEVIN. Make sure your mic is on, if you would.
Mr. ALMY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, Sen-
ators.
My name is Mike Almy. I served as an officer in the United
States Air Force for 13 years and attained the rank of major, until
I was discharged under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Im honored to be
here this morning to tell you a little of my story.
I come from a family with a rich history of military service. My
father is a West Point graduate, taught chemistry at the Air Force
Academy, flew helicopters in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a
senior officer from the Air Force. One of my uncles retired as a
master gunnery sergeant from the Marine Corps, with service in
World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Another one of my uncles, also
with service in Korea, retired from the Army.
My familys military service inspired me to follow suit. When I
was growing up, I didnt really know what civilians were, I just
knew I would always follow in my fathers footsteps and become a
military officer. As such, I joined Air Force ROTC in 1988, and
shortly thereafter earned a scholarship through ROTC. In 1991, I
went through Army Airborne training at Fort Benning and earned
my jump wings. In 1992, I graduated from ROTC in the top 10 per-
cent of all graduates nationwide. In 1993, I came on Active Duty,
just as Dont Ask, Dont Tell was becoming a law, and was sta-
tioned in Mississippi. Following this I was stationed in Texas, Illi-
nois, Oklahoma, where I was named the top officer of my year
top officer of my unit for the year, out of a group of about 1,000
people. Following this, I was one of six officers from the entire Air
Force selected to attend Professional Military Education at
Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia. After this, I was stationed
in Germany for 4 years, where I led the communications direc-
torate of an air control squadron.
During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times in
support of our efforts in Iraq. In my last position in the Air Force,
I led a team of nearly 200 men and women, whose mission was to
operate and maintain the systems used to control the airspace over
Iraq. On this deployment, we came under daily mortar attack, one
of which struck one of my airmen and also caused significant dam-
age to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment, I was
named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air
Force.
During my time in Iraq, the Air Force restricted access to all pri-
vate emails. Therefore, we were authorized to use work emails for
personal and morale purposes. Shortly after I left Iraq, someone in
9
the unit that had replaced mine was conducting a routine search
and discovered my personal emails written to family and friends
from the stress of a combat zone. The file was clearly labeled per-
sonal, and, as such, there was no military or work-related reason
to search these emails. The commander in Iraq, during the height
of the insurgency, ordered a search of my personal emails solely to
determine if I had violated Dont Ask, Dont Tell, and to gather
whatever evidence could be used against me.
These emails were forwarded to my commander back in Ger-
many. He next called me into his office and demanded that I give
him and explanation for these emails. I refused to discuss the na-
ture of these emails, because I considered them personal and pri-
vate. And I told my commander I would not make a statement
until I had first consulted with a lawyer.
I was relieved of my duties, leading nearly 200 airmen; my secu-
rity clearance was suspended; part of my pay was terminated. Even
as my commander was relieving me of my duties, he assured me
that this was in no way a reflection of performance or my abilities
as an officer.
After that day, I was in limbo for 16 months. I was still in the
Air Force, but I was given a meaningless make- work job, while the
process slowly ground forward. In my discharge, proceedings sev-
eral of former troops and one the squadron commanders that I had
served with there on the base all wrote letters on my behalf, urging
that I be retained in the Air Force. They expressed the greatest re-
spect for me as an officer, they all wanted me back on the job as
their leader, and they were all horrified at how the Air Force was
treating me.
Ultimately, after 16 months, I was discharged from the Air
Force. The severance pay that I received from the Air Force was
half what I would have received had I been discharged for any
other reason.
As a final insult, on my last day of Active Duty, I was given a
police escort from the base, as if I were a common criminal or a
threat to national security.
Dont Ask, Dont Tell failed me, despite the fact that I upheld
my end of this law by never disclosing my private life. Never once,
in my 13-year career, did I make a statement to the military that
violated Dont Ask, Dont Tell, despite pressure from my com-
mander to do so.
The law also failed the Air Force. There was considerable disrup-
tion to my squadrons unit cohesion after I was fired and replaced
by a more junior officer with less experience. This had a negative
effect on morale and unit cohesion, and the mission suffered as a
result.
Approximately a year after I was relieved of my position, my
wing commander recommended that I be promoted to lieutenant
colonel, even as the Air Force was actively pursuing a discharge
against me.
Being relieved from my duties as a 13-year career officer, and
during a 16-month administrative legal proceeding, and finally
being discharged, was completely devastating to me. I felt betrayed
by my country and treated as a second-class citizen, even as I had
repeatedly risked my life on foreign soil. I understood the con-
10
straints of living under Dont Ask, Dont Tell, and never imagined
that I would become a statistic, since I abided by its basic premise
of never disclosing any aspect of my private life.
My DD214 discharge paperwork from the military categorizes
the reasons for my separation as homosexual admission. I refused
to sign this, because I never acknowledged anything to the mili-
tary. Anytime I have applied for a Federal job, potential employers
now see this on my record. I am now considered unfit for military
service at a time when our Nation has actively recruited convicted
felons, drug abusers, and high school dropouts. As a result of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell and how the Air Force discharged me, I am
now forced to reveal aspects of my private life to complete strang-
ers, or once again lie about why I left the military.
I only recently decided to come forward with my story as an ex-
ample of a career of service to our country cut short by this dis-
criminatory law. Multiply my story by nearly 14,000, and you begin
to understand the magnitude of this law. Since Ive gone public
with my story, Ive received emails thanking me for my service, my
story, and, more importantly, for giving a voice to those who have
none on this issue. Some of these servicemembers are currently
serving in harms way.
My greatest desire now is to return to the Air Force as an officer
and a leader, protecting the freedoms of a Nation that I love, free-
doms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while I was serving
in the military. This is my calling in life. I hope that you will allow
this to happen.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Almy follows:]
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Almy.
Ms. Kopfstein.
STATEMENT OF JENNY L. KOPFSTEIN, FORMER LIEUTENANT
JUNIOR GRADE, U.S. NAVY
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain,
Senators.
My name is Jenny Kopfstein. I joined the Navy in 1995, when
I entered Naval Academy. At the Academy, I majored in physics,
and I was commissioned in 1999. I served openly as a lesbian offi-
cer for 2 years and 4 months before I was discharged under Dont
Ask, Dont Tell in 2002.
The Naval Academy teaches you about honor and integrity. It
places a special emphasis on these values. On the very first day,
they give you uniforms, shoe polish, Brasso, and begin teaching you
about the Academys Honor Concept. The Honor Concept starts out,
Midshipmen are persons of integrity. They do not lie, cheat, or
steal.
When I was a senior midshipman, I was an investigator for the
Honor Staff. I investigated midshipmen who were accused of vio-
lating the Honor Concept. This experience brought home to me the
importance of integrity and just what it means not to lie.
I graduated from the Naval Academy and became a surface war-
fare officer. I received orders to the cruiser U.S.S. Shiloh. I was ex-
cited and happy to go serve on a combatant ship.
11
It was difficult being on the ship and having to lie, or tell have
truths to my shipmates. Under Dont Ask, Dont Tell, answering
the simplest questions can get you kicked out. If a shipmate asks
what you did last weekend, you cant react like a normal human
being and say, Hey, I went to a great new restaurant with my
partner. You should try it. An answer like that would have gotten
me kicked out of the Navy. But, if you dont interact like that with
your shipmates, they think youre weird and it undermines working
together as a team.
So, after being on the ship for a while, and feeling deeply con-
flicted between the requirements of Dont Ask, Dont Tell and the
Navys core values, I wrote a letter to my commanding officer and
told him I was a lesbian, because I felt like I was being forced to
lie. I didnt not want to get out of the Navy, and I said so in my
letter. I wanted to stay and serve honorably, and to maintain my
integrity by not lying about who I was.
After I wrote the letter, I continued to do my job on the ship to
the best of my ability. We went on a 6-month deployment to the
Middle East. I qualified as Officer of the Deck, and was chosen to
be Officer of the Deck during general quarters. It is a great honor.
During all this time, Im proud to say, I did not lie. I had come
out in my letter officially, and I came out slowly over time to my
shipmates. I expected negative responses. I got none. Everyone I
talked to was positive, and the universal attitude was that Dont
Ask, Dont Tell was dumb. I served openly for 2 years and 4
months.
One thing that happened during that time was the captains
choosing me to represent the ship in a ship-handling competition.
I was the only office chosen from the ship to compete. My orienta-
tion was known to my shipmates by this time. Nobody griped about
the about the captain choosing someone being processed for dis-
charge under Dont Ask, Dont Tell to represent the ship. Instead,
a couple of my fellow junior officers congratulated me and wished
me luck in the competition. I competed by showing the admiral my
ship-driving skills, and won the competition.
During the time I was serving openly, I earned my Sea Service
Deployment ribbon, and my Surface Warfare Officer pin. During
my pin ceremony, the captain took his own pin off his uniform and
pinned it on mine. That was one of my proudest moments.
My open service had a positive impact on the ships morale. I
was able to treat my shipmates like human beings, and we could
interact on a personal level. One time I was walking down the pas-
sageway on the ship and the senior chief petty officer stopped me
and asked, Maam, may I speak to you for a minute? And my first
thought was, Uh-oh, what is this going to be about? We stepped
into an empty room, and he pulled out his wallet. He showed me
a picture of a teenage boy, This is my son, and hes gay. And Im
really proud of him. I was so shocked I didnt know what to say.
Finally, I said, Wow. Thank you, Senior Chief. We could not have
had that interaction if I was not out. Normal people interact and
talk about their families.
My commanding officer wrote, in my fitness report in 2002, that
my sexual orientation has not disrupted good order and discipline
onboard the U.S.S. Shiloh. Dont Ask, Dont Tell has long been
12
defended as necessary to preserve good order and discipline. It
seems to me that the captain of a ship in the United States Navy
is the most qualified judge of good order and discipline among his
crew.
On my assignment after I left the ship, my new commanding offi-
cer awarded me the Navy and Marine Corps achievement medal,
which is an individual award. He knew about my orientation from
the first moment I arrived at his command, but it made no dif-
ference to him.
During my service on the ship, I had two captains, because there
was a change of command while I was there. Even though they
were four grades above me, both of them came and testified at my
Dont Ask, Dont Tell discharge hearing to say they were opposed
to kicking me out.
So, 2 years and 4 months after coming out in my letter and serv-
ing openly, I was discharged under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. I should
not be forced to hide who I am. When I was closeted, the pain ate
away at the core of my being. The crew of my ship was my ex-
tended family, and being in the military is not a 9-to-5 job. A lot
of the time, when stationed on board a ship, going home is not even
an option. I lived, worked, ate, slept, and went on liberty with that
crew. Keeping parts of my life secret and separate was an incred-
ible burden. It is an unnecessary burden, and no American soldier
or sailor should be forced to bear it.
I made a commitment to the Navy when I joined, to serve 5 years
after graduation from the Naval Academy. Ive only gotten to serve
3 and a half so far. I want the opportunity to live up to my commit-
ment and serve out the rest of my time with honor. The way I see
it, I owe the Navy a year and half more.
There are 66,000 lesbian and gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines who are currently serving this country in our Armed
Forces. They couldnt be here today, because they are forced to be
silent. I am here before you as living proof that this law is wrong
and being forced to serve in silence is wrong. Its time for a change.
I love the Navy. And I would still be serving, but for this law.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kopfstein follows:]
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Ms. Kopfstein.
Lets try awhat, 7 minutes? Okay? Lets try a 7-minute first
round.
We thank all of you for your testimony.
Mr. Almy, should somebody be forced to be silent about their sex-
ual orientation in theirin the military?
Mr. ALMY. In my opinion no, Senator. I think the Dont Ask,
Dont Tell law is inherently in conflict with the Services core
value, as Admiral Mullen reflected in his testimony before this
hearing a month ago.
The principal core value of the Air Force is, Integrity First. And
Dont Ask, Dont Tell says that gays and lesbians can serve in the
military as long as theyre not who they are; as long as they lie
about who they are. And to me, personally, that was in direct viola-
tion of the core values of the Air Force.
13
Chairman LEVIN. So, while you were willing to keep thatyour
orientation private, you dont feel it is the right policy or a fair pol-
icy. Is that correct?
Mr. ALMY. Correct, Senator.
Chairman LEVIN. Now, would you like to return to the military,
if you could?
Mr. ALMY. Absolutely. Its my greatest desire. Idits
Chairman LEVIN. All right.
Mr. ALMY.its my calling in life, and I miss the military consid-
erably.
Chairman LEVIN. General, youve been a NATO Supreme Allied
Commander, and I assume that, as NATO Commander, that you
discussed the issue with other military leaders of our allies. Is that
correct?
General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir. I have.
Chairman LEVIN. Did youor, did they tell youthose allies who
allow open service of gay and lesbian men and women, did they tell
you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems?
General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir, they did. And if you dontbeg the
indulgence.
Chairman LEVIN. Sure.
General SHEEHAN. Most of this committee knows that current
militaries are a product of years of development. They reflect soci-
eties that theyre theoretically paid to protect. The European mili-
taries today are a product of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Na-
tions, like Belgium, Luxembourg, the Dutch, et cetera, firmly be-
lieved there was no longer a need for an active combat capability
in their militaries. As a result, they declared a peace dividend and
made a conscious effort to socialize their military. That included
the unionization of their militaries. It included open homosexuality,
demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peace-
keeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were
going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.
That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case
and point that Im referring to is when the Dutch were required to
defend Srebenitsa against the Serbs. The battalion was under-
strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the
soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and exe-
cuted them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World
War II.
Chairman LEVIN. And did the Dutch leaders tell you it was be-
cause there were gay soldiers there?
General SHEEHAN. It was a combination
Chairman LEVIN. But, did they tell you that? Thats my question.
General SHEEHAN. Yes.
Chairman LEVIN. They did.
General SHEEHAN. They included that as part of the problem.
Chairman LEVIN. That there were gay soldiers
General SHEEHAN. That their
Chairman LEVIN.among
General SHEEHAN. The combination
Chairman LEVIN.the Dutch force.
General SHEEHAN.was the liberalization of the military, a net
effect of, basically, social engineering.
14
Chairman LEVIN. Theyou said that no special accommodations
should be made for any member of the military.
General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir.
Chairman LEVIN. Are members who are straight, who are hetero-
sexual, allowed, in our military, to say that they are straight and
heterosexual? Are they allowed to say that without being dis-
charged?
General SHEEHAN. Are they allowed to
Chairman LEVIN. Yeah.
General SHEEHAN.declare the sexuality?
Chairman LEVIN. Yes. Are they allowed to say that, Hey, Im
straight. Im heterosexual? Can you say that without being dis-
charged?
General SHEEHAN. Theres no prohibition, to my knowledge.
Chairman LEVIN. Is that special accommodation to them?
General SHEEHAN. I wouldnt consider it special accommodation.
Chairman LEVIN. Why would it be a special accommodation,
then, to someone whos gay, to say, Hey, Im gay? Why do you call
that special? You dont call it special for someone heterosexual
or straight. Why do you believe thats a special accommodation to
somebody who is gay?
General SHEEHAN. I think the issue, Senator, that were talking
about really hasnt a lot to do with the individuals. It has to do
with the very nature of combat. Combat is not about individuals,
its about units. Were talking about a group of people who declare,
openly, sexual attraction to a particular segment of the population,
and insist and continue to live in the intimate proximity with
them. That, by law
Chairman LEVIN. But, you allow that for heterosexuals.
General SHEEHAN. Yes.
Chairman LEVIN. You dont have any problem with that.
General SHEEHAN. Dont have a problem with that.
Chairman LEVIN. You dont have
General SHEEHAN. But, that
Chairman LEVIN.any problem with men and women serving to-
gether, even though they say that theyre attracted to each other.
General SHEEHAN. Thats correct.
Chairman LEVIN. Thats not a special accommodation.
General SHEEHAN. No.
Chairman LEVIN. Okay. But, it is special to allow
General SHEEHAN. It is, because it identifies a group as a special
group of people who, by law, make them ineligible for further serv-
ice.
Chairman LEVIN. But, the whole issue is whether it ought to
bethey ought to be ineligible. Whether we ought to keep out of
from our
General SHEEHAN. That
Chairman LEVIN.service
General SHEEHAN. Thats the debate. The current
Chairman LEVIN. Right.
General SHEEHAN.the current law clearly says
Chairman LEVIN. I know what the law says. The question is
whether we ought to change the law.
General SHEEHAN. My recommendation is no.
15
Chairman LEVIN. No, I understand. And can you tell us what
Dutch officers you talked to who said that Srebenitsa
General SHEEHAN. I
Chairman LEVIN.was in part caused because there were gay
soldiers in the Dutch Army?
Chairman LEVIN. The Chief of Staff of the Army, who was fired
by the Parliament because they couldnt find anybody else to
blame.
Chairman LEVIN. I mean, whatand who was that?
General SHEEHAN. Hank Von Bremman.
Chairman LEVIN. Pardon?
General SHEEHAN. Hank Von Bremman.
Chairman LEVIN. All right. Why is the burden to end a discrimi-
natory policy based on people who would end the discriminatory
policy? Why do you say that people who want to end the policy
have to show that it would improve combat effectiveness? If were
satisfied it would not harm combat effectiveness, and for many who
would be allowed to serve, that itthey would be then permitted
to serve without discrimination and without harm, why is that not
good enough for you?
General SHEEHAN. Because the force that we have today is prob-
ably the finest fighting force in the world.
Chairman LEVIN. And maybe we could have an equally fine or
even a better force, but if its
General SHEEHAN. No
Chairman LEVIN.equal
General SHEEHAN.I think the
Chairman LEVIN.if its equally
General SHEEHAN.burden of
Chairman LEVIN.fineif wereif you could be satisfied that
there would be no harm to combat cohesion or effectiveness, would
that be satisfactory to you?
General SHEEHAN. No, I think it has to be demonstrated, Sen-
ator.
Chairman LEVIN. That itsthat there be an actual improve-
ment.
General SHEEHAN. That we arean actual improvement.
Chairman LEVIN. No
General SHEEHAN. The reason
Chairman LEVIN.harm wouldnt be good enough for you.
General SHEEHAN. No, the reason I
Chairman LEVIN. Pardon?
General SHEEHAN.the reason I say that, Senator, is because
weve gone through this once before during our lifetimeyou were
in the Senate at the time; it was called The Great Societywhen
it was deemed that we could bring into the military Category IVs
and Vs, and help the military out, and make it part of a social ex-
periment. Those Category IVs and Vs almost destroyed the mili-
tary.
Chairman LEVIN. I dont know what that has to do with this
issue.
General SHEEHAN. Well, it has to do with the issue of being able
to demonstrate that the change in policy is going to improve things.
We were told that this was going to help out combat strength
16
combat deployable strength. It didnt. It did just the opposite. It
drove people out. So, I think the burden has to be on dem-
onstrating that something is going become better, not hoping that
itll become something better.
Chairman LEVIN. Yeah. Well, I think the burden of peoplebur-
den to maintain a discriminatory policy is on the people who main-
tain the policy, not on the people who want to end it.
Senator McCain.
Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses.
Id like to ask all three witnesses, Do you have any objection to
a thorough, complete review of the present implications of the
issue, as to whether its working or not, and whether it needs to
be changed, and, if so, how?
Do you have a problem thatwithMs. Kopfstein?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, Senator. I dont have a problem with a re-
view. I think its clear that the law does need to be changed, be-
cause its unevenly
Senator MCCAIN. But, you dont have a problem with a review.
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, sir.
Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Almy?
Mr. ALMY. Senator McCain, actually I do. From the standpoint
that this
Senator MCCAIN. You have a problem with a thorough re-
view
Mr. ALMY. I have problem with
Senator MCCAIN.conductedlet me finish the question, if I
couldthe thorough review, taking the input of the men and
women in the military, the views of the Service Chiefs, as to
whether it will enhance battle effectiveness or harm battle effec-
tiveness, whether it should be maintained or not. You have a prob-
lem with that review.
Mr. ALMY. I do, Senator. From the stand
Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr. ALMY. From the standpoint that weve not done this on any
other issues of change with the military, as far as, most recently,
putting women in submarines, women at the Service Academies.
We did not survey the forces then, under those issues. And the
military is not a democracy. I dont see this issue as any different,
Senator.
Senator MCCAIN. Thank you.
General, let me get to the heart of the question here thats being
posed by those who want this policythis law reversed. Why isnt
it sufficient to argue that sexual orientation is irrelevant to combat
skills, and that, with proper training and leadership, openly gay or
lesbian soldiers or marines can be relied on to perform as well as
any other soldier or marine?
General SHEEHAN. Senator, in my experience, homosexual ma-
rines create problems on the battlefield. Let me give you a case and
point.
Early years of Vietnam, 9th Marines, West of Da Nang, rifle
company on a ridgeline combat outpost, the intelligence was that
the North Vietnamese were going to attack, that night. The unit
was put on 50-percent alert, which meant one slept, one stood on
17
watch. About 1 oclock in the morning, a fight broke out in a fox-
hole because the young marine was being molested by his squad
leader. To the right of that foxhole, there was a machinegun sec-
tion that opened up and almost killed a combat patrol that was out
in the front.
Now, the natural question is, Okay. Well, fine, dont you have
rules that deal with assault? and the answer to thats yes.
The real issue, though, was that, after we sorted this whole thing
out, the sergeantthe squad leader essentially said, Look, I was
just adjusting his equipment, waking him up because theI
thought there was something out to the front. He denied it hap-
pened. The young PFC, who was new to the organization, said,
Wait a minute. This really happened to me. He was molesting
me. The unit took sides, naturally. The squad leader was a pop-
ular person, been around for a while. The PFC was a new kid. For
about 3 days, that unit divided down the middlethose that sup-
ported the popular squad leader, those that kind of thought the
new kid might be believable.
The only reason we sorted the issue out was because the ser-
geant committed the offense about 3 days later. But, the real trag-
edy of this story is, the young PFC continually insisted, for a long
period of time, that nobody in his organization believed it hap-
pened. He lost faith in his chain of command.
So, I would argue the case that, if you look atand you can say
that Im some old guy thats been around for a while, and been
probably been around for too long. But, I read
Senator MCCAIN. Youre not the only one that
General SHEEHAN. Wellbut, I read the Defense Departments
recently released sexual assault report. And the thing that really
bothers me about this issue is that the report saysand this is last
years reporttheres been an overall 11-percent rise in sexual as-
saults in the military; 16-percent rise in Afghanistan and Iraq; 32-
over 3200 cases of sexualwere not talking about sexual harass-
ment, were talking about sexual assault. Seven percent of those
thats about 226male on male assaults, where rape and sodomy
took place. And the Department of Defense will clearly indicate
that thats an underreporting.
I would stipulate that, from my days in Vietnam in the early
60s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol
killed, that a226 male soldiers and marines who are molested
that theres something wrong with our sexual behavior policy.
Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, General.
Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein, each of you was commissioned at
a time ofthe Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy was in effect. While
I understand you disagree with the policy and its effect, do you
think you were confused about its meaning and potential applica-
bility to you at the time you began your service?
Mr. ALMY. Senator, when came in on Active Duty in 1993, I will
admit, I think there was a lot of confusion, on a personal level, for
myself, as well for the Nation and the military as a whole. I dont
think
Senator MCCAIN. There was confusion about the
Mr. ALMY. I think
Senator McCain:Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy?
18
Mr. ALMY. I think the policy, when it was first implemented in
1993, was not well understood. And I think there are still issues
where its not.
Senator MCCAIN. And did you understand it later on?
Mr. ALMY. After I was relieved of my duties. Yes, Senator.
Senator MCCAIN. No. Did you understand it in the
Ms. Kopfstein, did you? Were you confused or misled about the
meaning and applicability of Dont Ask, Dont Tell at the time you
began your service?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, Senator. I thought that I would be able to
live under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Unfortunately, I found out oth-
erwise, because of the conflict between the core values of the
Navyhonor, courage, and commitmentand the Navy teaching
me how wrong it is to lie. To be an officer with integrity means
that you tell the truth, and you tell the whole truth, even if its un-
popular.
Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Although no onemy under-
standing of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy is, you are not asked.
But
Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. But, what I am confused
about here is why there seems to be an objection to a complete,
thorough, objective review conducted not just on the basis of how
repeal the law, which seems to be what the Secretary of Defense
stated, and what seems to be some sentiment here, butwere in
two wars. I wonder why anyone would object to a thorough, com-
plete review as to assess the impact on our military, on our battle
effectiveness in two wars, and then allow the Service Chiefs to
render their best judgment. And to continue to suggest a, quote,
moratorium, which is basic to repeal, before that review is con-
ducted is something, frankly, that I do not understand in a time
that we are in two wars.
I will continue to argue and fight and do whatever I can to make
sure that we have a thorough and objective review of the impact
on the military of a change of this law. I think the men and women
who are serving in the military deserve nothing less.
I thank you for the time. I yield.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the three witnesses before us today, because I
think that the testimony youve given and the different points of
views you have on the proposal that Im privileged to cosponsor
with others, to repeal Dont Ask, Dont Tell, really helps to eluci-
date the differences here. And so, its been ato my way of think-
ing, a constructive discussion.
Ive said before in different places, and Ill say here, that it seems
to me that, at a time in our country when some of the great institu-
tions of country are held in disrespectgovernment, business,
even, to some extent, religious institutionsthe military continues
to earn and get great respect. Part of it is because of the call to
service, the bravery, the success of our military. But, also, a big
part of it is that the American military is a unique institution
which really lives, probably more than any other institution I know
of in our society, by values. Nobodys perfect, so people within the
19
military break those values, violate them periodically, and theyre
held to account, under military disciplinegood order and dis-
cipline standards and procedures.
One of the values is integrity. Weve talked a lot about that. It
seems to me that one of the other values, which the American mili-
tary has historically embraced is e pluribus unumyou know,
one out of many. The common cause, in defense of our security and
freedom, is the goal that overcomes every diversity. Because the
American people are inherently diverse. And so, over our history,
immigrant groups and, more recentlywell, a little bit further
back, racial differenceswere overcome in our military. There was
a time that there were great fears about what it would mean if Af-
rican Americans served next to Caucasian Americans in our mili-
tary; or women served next to men.
Today, any of us whove been privileged to visit bases or battle-
fields know that the distinctions are gone, for the major reason
Id quote from General Sheehan, Military culture is intentionally
structured to mold individuals from all walks of life into members
of a unit willing to sacrifice themselves for shared tasks, end of
quote.
And that, I think, is what were trying to do here with repeal of
Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Its to have gay and lesbian Americans who
want to serve their country, and incidentally are not being asked
I say this respectfully General Sheehanlike those Category IVs
and Category Vs to go into the military as some kind of social ex-
periment. They have been held, and they will be held, to the same
high standards. In fact, as Major Almy said, maybe higher stand-
ards in a lot of cases, than others who are applying for the mili-
tary.
But, the point I want to get toand this, I think, is key, and I
think the various leaders of our military, civilian and uniformed,
that have come before us have made this pointthat repeal of the
current Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy and law must maintainit
can only happen if it maintains the high standards of unit cohesion
and personal conduct that makes our military so effective.
So, Major Almy, Lieutenant Kopfstein, theyre not asking for spe-
cial treatment. Theyre asking to be treated like every other soldier,
basically the way they perform in uniform.
And so, heres the question I want to get to. The episode you
gave of the sexual assault, General Sheehan, betweenwith one
man assaulting another mancould have course easily, and unfor-
tunately does, happen more with a man assaulting a woman in
uniform. And, in fact, by your numbers, ina 3200-cases increase
in sexual assaults last year in our militaryyou said 7 percent of
them were homosexual. That means 93 percent were heterosexual.
And so, I know there may be fears that if we repeal Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, therell be behavior inconsistent with good order and
discipline, including sexual assault. But, if that happens theyll be
held to the same account and discipline.
So, I wanted to ask all three of you to react to that statement,
that all the rules of conduct in the military will apply, except that
theyll not be forced to live a life of lies. Theyll be held accountable,
as every other marine, soldier, sailor, Air Force person is held ac-
countable.
20
General Sheehan, why dont you start first.
General SHEEHAN. Senator, thats a very thoughtful question.
And my only answer, notthat I would have to give you is that
when you talk about the integration of forcesand I used the cur-
rent DOD statistics; I havent seen the details, because all Ive seen
is the summaryI think you have to keep in mind that there is
a combat exclusion for women. We do not put women in a combat
situationfoxholes, bunkers, and whatever have you. And so, if
were talking about a 7-percent male-on-male type of a problem
and as you say, the remainder is male-on- femaleand we put that
whole group into a combat environment, I think those numbers
would significantly increase. Thats my speculation, based on my
experience.
So, I think we need to be very careful about moving to some-
where that we dont know what the outcome is. We do know that
the incident rate of assaultsexual assault, not just harassment
is on the increase. I think we need to clearly understand why those
assaults are taking place.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
General SHEEHAN. Something is fundamentally different today in
the military, and I dont know why. I dont know whether its be-
cause the people who are coming in dont know what their bound-
aries are. I dont know whether its the educational system that
were putting people through. But, clearly when you have 16-per-
cent increase in
Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes.
General SHEEHAN.sexual assault, theres something that needs
to be fixed.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, lookitsobviously, its a very impor-
tant question. It may have to do with the stress of battle. But, I
agree with what you said, just to come back to the bottom line.
Weve got the best military in the world. We probably have the best
military weve ever had. And ifI dont think, respectfully, theres
any basis for saying that, if we repeal Dont Ask, Dont Tell, the
number of homosexual assaults will go up. You may be right, but
if it goes up, theyll be disciplined.
My time is up, but I wonder if I could just, Mr. Chairman, ask
for a quick response from Major Almy and Lieutenant Kopfstein,
to my general premise here.
Mr. ALMY. There is no place in the military today for inappro-
priate conductharassment, assaultstraight or gay. And that
wont change once Dont Ask, Dont Tell is repealed. IIve seen
very similar scenarios to what the general described between men
and womenin fact, probably far more soand they were dealt
swiftly and appropriately and with discipline and punishment. And
repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell will have absolutely no effect on
that.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Lieutenant Kopfstein?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. I agree with Major Almy. The Uniform Code of
Military Justice applies to everyone, gay and straight. And mis-
conduct and inappropriate behavior is dealt with in the military.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you Senator Lieberman.
21
Senator Chambliss.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Sheehan, Mr. Almy, and Ms. Kopfstein, Id first like to
thank each of you for being here today and appearing before the
committee. This is an issue that is very sensitive, and, frankly, it
takes courage for all three of you to be here to talk about this in
public. And as this debate continues, itll be imperative that we
hear from many other folks who share the same thoughts as each
of you do. Again, thank you for coming. Thank you for your service
to our country. And the fact that all of you served honorably should
not be lost in this discussion.
Mr. Chairman, you alluded, earlier, to some polling numbers of
the general public in America. Let me share with the committee,
and enter into the record, some polling numbers of United States
military members.
The Army Times, in February of 2010, just last month, published
a poll of a survey conducted in November. Heres what they found:
54 percent of military members thought the current policy was ef-
fective in maintaining order and discipline; 21 percent thought it
was ineffectivea 33 percent differential. Fifty-three percent of
military members thought the current policy was effective in main-
taining unit cohesion; 22 percent thought it was ineffectiveagain,
a 31 percent differential. Fifty percent of military members said
they would be uncomfortable sharing a small tent or combat out-
post with openly homosexual soldiers; 36 percent said they would
be comfortable. Fifty-two percent of military members said they
would be uncomfortable sharing a barracks room with openly ho-
mosexual soldiers; 35 percent said theyd be comfortable. Fifty-two
percent of the military members said they would be uncomfortable
sharing the bunk above or below an openly homosexual soldier; 34
percent said they would be comfortable.
In todays political world, anyone who wins by 10 percent is con-
sidered to have had a landslide victory. And on each one of those
questions asked to the military, the people that truly count in this
equation and on this issue, the margin of distinction is obviously
significantly different.
Let me ask a question to each one of you. Id like to give you an
opportunity to answer this. My fundamental argument against re-
pealing this policy has been that it will likely negatively affect mo-
rale, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and readiness.
Lets start with you Ms. Kopfstein. Whats your opinion on that
particular aspect of service to our military?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Well, Senator, Im not an expert on polling, but
I do know the Army Times poll was conducted in a nonscientific
way.
Ill give you an example from my personal experience. When I
was on the ship, I had two captains; there was a change of com-
mand. So, we had a change-of-command party at my first captains
house. And he came into the wardroom, he announced the party,
and he said, Everyones invitedevery officer is invited and every-
one is allowed to bring their spouse or date. And I didnt think too
much of that at the time. I was open at that pointI was serving
openly, because I had already come out, and he specificallythe
captain of my ship specifically came up to me, after making that
22
announcement in the wardroom, and said, Ordo, because I was
the ordinance officer, youre allowed to bring whoever you want to
bring to the party at my house. And I was stunned. But, since it
came right out of the mouth of my commanding officer, I took my
partner to that party. When we arrived at the front door, the cap-
tain and his wife were standing at the door, greeting each guest
as we came in. And they greeted us warmly. We went inside, got
a plate of food and a cocktail, and all of my fellow officers and their
spouses were very pleased that we were there. Not all of them had
met my partner at that point. They all wanted to talk to us. And,
frankly, we were the life of the party. [Laughter.]
I met my new commanding officer at that party, and he was very
happy to meet me and my partner. And it was a very normal cock-
tail party. And that was my experience. My shipmates were very
accepting of me.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you.
Mr. Almy?
Mr. ALMY. Senator, in my experience, what had a far more nega-
tive effect in my unit was when I was relieved of my duties.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Im sorry. Cancould you justtalk just a
little louder, please?
Mr. ALMY. Yes, Senator. What had a far greater effectnegative
effect on my unit was when I was relieved of my duties. Subse-
quentlywhile its true that I was not out to my entire unit, sub-
sequently, afterwards, when I had some of troops write letters of
reference for me, it was a complete nonissue for my troops. They
all wanted me back on the job as their leader, and didnt care one
bit.
The young men and women that are coming into the military
today, fresh out of high school or college, have grown up with gay
and lesbian characters on TV, haveknow gays and lesbians in
their schools, in their communities, on their sports teams, and most
assuredly in their military. Nearly everyone in their 20s and 30s
today serving in the military know of at least someone whos gay
or lesbian in their unit, and oftentimes these people are serving
openly, with no negative or detrimental effects to their unit.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Okay.
General.
General SHEEHAN. You know, Senator, as I have testified, from
personal experience in leading units in combat, this is a very risky
proposition of anincluding openly gay homosexual people in com-
bat organizations.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Do you have any reason to believe that that
is unique to the Marine Corps, versus other branches of the mili-
tary?
General SHEEHAN. I used to be thewhat they call, 2IC, second
in charge, Whiskey Company, O1 Commando, Royal Marines, and
I was a physical fitness instructor with Special Operations at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina. And I can assure you, those two organiza-
tions, from personal experience, share my views.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Yeah. General, in my view, many of our po-
tential military recruits come from traditional families whose reli-
gious and moral beliefs likely conflict with practice of homosex-
uality. If the military allows open homosexual service in the core
23
group of our military, who, by and large, have a traditional world
view, are now pressured to accept such conduct, and conduct it in
in conduct itconsider it normal, and accommodate it within the
military, what effect might that have on recruiting and retaining
individuals from that core group?
General SHEEHAN. Senator, I cant comment on hypothetical situ-
ations. I know that speculative people have talked about mass exo-
dus, et cetera, but I have no data to say that. My instincts say that
there is an element of truth in your statement, but I have no hard
data that would indicate I could give you a number orbut I do
know it notit would not sit well. But as the Major has indicated,
there is an increasing acceptance of homosexuals in the military.
People do know homosexuals. The real issue is not about the indi-
viduals; its the effect on combat cohesion and performance in the
battlefield.
Senator CHAMBLISS. Yeah.
Well, my time is up.
Major Almy, I would simply say to you that you came in the mili-
tary knowing what the rules were, and you tried to abide by the
rules, and its unfortunate that, as you were trying to abide by the
rules, that, because of personal intrusionor intrusion into your
personal email account, this arose; otherwise, you probably would
still be serving, under current law, very valiantly.
And, again, to all of you, thank you for your service.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Hagan.
Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I, too, want to just thank you for your testimony today, and
your service.
Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein, although the policy is referred to
as Dont Ask, Dont Tell, as the law is currently written, members
of the Armed Forces are involuntarily separated, regardless of how
their sexual orientation is disclosed. And under existing law, the
quality of your service does not serve as the criteria for retention
due to a presumed disruption to unit cohesion and discipline. Dur-
ing your discharge proceedings what impact did the impact rec-
ommendations from your leadership within your chain of command
have on the decision to involuntarily separate you from your serv-
ice? And I think, Mr. Almy, you were speaking about that.
Mr. ALMY. Thank you, Senator. To my knowledge, it made abso-
lutely no effect whatsoever on the Air Forces decision to retain me.
I had commanders that I had served with. I had superiors, peers,
and subordinates, all alike, who knew my record, who knew my
achievements as an officer, and supported me, and, even though
they knew the full story, still wanted me retained in the Air Force,
and still wanted me back as their leader. And, to my knowledge,
that had zero affect on the Air Forces decision whether or not to
retain me.
Senator HAGAN. Maam?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, in my case, I was honored and lucky
that both of my commanding officers came to my discharge board.
They were not required to do so. They took time out of their busy
schedules to come and testify on my behalf.
24
The boardunder Dont Ask, Dont Tell, its hands were basi-
cally tied. I had made an admission. And despite the vociferous rec-
ommendations of both of my commanding officers, two O6s, the
boards hands were tied and they had to vote to discharge me.
Senator HAGAN. Mr. Almy, in your earlier discussion, I think you
were talking about almost like a generational feeling of acceptance,
more from the younger generation than the older generation, for
homosexuals in the military. Do youcan you elaborate on that?
And, Maam, too.
Mr. ALMY. Senator, I think you probably hit the nail on the head
there. Iin my mind, in my personal experience, this is a
generational issue. I have great respect for General Sheehan, for
his leadership and his sacrifice to our Nation. From what Ive seen,
a lot of senior officers, senior military leaders from that generation,
are the one that are holding on to maintaining Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, with notable exceptionsAdmiral Mullen, General Powell,
General Shalikashvili.
In my experiences, and that of my peers, the young men and
women coming into the military today, the 20-somethings and most
of the 30-somethings, which is the large demographic in the mili-
taryfor that group of people, this is largely a nonissue. There
obviously there are some exceptions, but, as I stated earlier, that
generation of men and women are far more comfortable with gays
and lesbians, because chances are that they know one.
Senator HAGAN. General Sheehan, do you have any feelings on
the generational attitudes?
General SHEEHAN. I absolutely admit that I am old
[Laughter.]
Senator HAGAN. We all are.
General SHEEHAN.and that my views are formed by 35 years
of leadership in a multinational environment, U.S. troops, all serv-
ices. And I think that, to say that those points of view count less
than a younger generation, doesnt really look at the issue in its
totality. I think that the points that Senator McCain made, about
the necessity for a real, true reviewa true review of whatthis
issuewould be very helpful, because there are an awful lot of
opinions. Some of my opinions are exactly what they are, theyre
my opinions, based on experience, but they dont, in all cases, re-
flect what reality really is.
So, I think that, as we go through this process, as I said in my
remarks, if you can demonstrate this, that it would improve combat
capability, clearly demonstrate, then change the law. But, it ought
to be based on fact. And
General SHEEHAN.those facts come from junior people, senior
people, especially people at the company gunnery sergeant, first
sergeant level, who lead these kids on a day-to-day basis.
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I agree with Major Almy. The younger
generation definitely has a different view on this issue.
And Ill give you a personal story. And I certainly dont have the
Generals experience, but, on September 11th, 2001, my ship was
in port, in Seal Beach, California, when thiswhen we were at-
tacked. And I was standing in the wardroom, watching the tele-
25
vision, watching events unfold. And one of the young petty officers
that worked for me ran into the wardroom and said, Maam.
Maam. Request permission to load the guns. I was the ordinance
officer, so I was responsible for our antiaircraft and self-defense
weapons. So, I turned to the captain, and I said, Sir, request per-
mission to load the guns. And he said, Permission granted. And
we did. And I can tell you, for a fact, in that moment, neither my
captain nor the petty officer that worked for me cared one whit
about my sexuality.
Senator HAGAN. Thank you.
The phrase Dont Ask, Dont Tell implies a mutual agreement,
where the services would not inquire about the sexual preferences
of our members, and the military personnel would not publicly ar-
ticulate your sexual orientation. However, under Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, we still have instances of avery capable servicemembers
being involuntarily separated due to investigations initiated on tips
provided by third parties.
And thisMr. Almy, in your situation, do you believe that pri-
vate correspondence, via email, while deployed constitutes a breach
of the existing policy? Or do you believe that your case serves as
an illustration of how the policy is flawed?
Mr. ALMY. Senator, I think its probably a little of both. I didnt
tell, the Air Force asked. And I refused to answer the question. So,
I think, while its true I never made a personalor a public state-
ment to the military, I was still thrown out, I think that illustrates
a flawed implementation of the current law. And my understanding
of what Secretary Gates has called for review, as far as the so-
called third-party outings, would have had a direct bearing on my
case. In all likelihood, I would still be on Active Duty.
Beyond that, I think it also illustrates that this law is just mak-
ing our Nation and our military weaker by discharging qualified
men and women who are patriotic and whose only crime happens
to be that they might be gay or lesbian. All the while, were ac-
tively recruiting people who are under-qualified to fill some of
those vacancies.
Senator HAGAN. Thank you, all of you.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Thune.
Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for your distinguished service to our
country and for your willingness to appear today in front of us and
give us your thoughts on this very important matter.
I think its aas has already noted, we are fighting two wars.
We have to, I think, be very concerned about readiness, combat ef-
fectiveness, cohesion, recruitment, retention all those issues. And
this does, of coursewould, of course, represent very significant
change from a policy thats been well established for some time,
and by all indications, with some exceptions, has worked quite
well. And so, its something that I think needs to be very carefully
considered before any sort of a change is made.
And I would ask this question of you, General Sheehan. Sec-
retary Gates, last month, established thisas we all know, a high-
level working group within DOD to review the issues associated
with properly implementing a repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
26
And the working group is to produce its findings and recommenda-
tions in the form of an implementation plan by December 1 of this
year. And Secretary Gates subsequently provided what he called
the terms of reference for this working group. And I dont know
how familiar you are with those, but do you believe that the terms
of reference that are provided by the Secretary will permit a fair
review of the issue, or are there elements that, in your opinion, are
missing from the terms of reference, that should be included?
General SHEEHAN. Senator, I have not read the terms of ref-
erence for that particular report. My only comment would be is,
on an issue that is this serious, it clearly has to be a fair, honest,
open evaluation.
The second comment I would make is that, as this report comes
close to finalization, that there be a genuine dialogue between the
Service Chiefs, this committee, and the Secretary, so this doesnt
become a sensationalized event. This is too serious an event to be
left to a political event.
So, number one, the report has to be absolutely scrupulously
above-board, not biased. And asand, again, I have to assume that
Senator McCains correct, because he usually is in most of these
issuesis that if the report is biased toward how to, then I think
its flawed to begin with.
Senator THUNE. Yes.
Let me direct this question to the entire panel. And Admiral
Mullen has made it clear that he supports the repeal of Dont Ask,
Dont Tell, but weve also heard from some of the Service Chiefs
that they want the current policy to remain in place. General
Conway, whos the Commandant of the Marine Corps, said, in tes-
timony before this committee, that, and I quote, My best military
advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and the President,
would be to keep the law such as it is, end quote. General
Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, has said that, and I
quote, This is not the time to perturb a force that is stretched by
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and important mis-
sions elsewhere, without due deliberation, end quote. And General
Casey has also weighed in on that issue in that direction.
And I guess the question I would ask of all of you is, How should
we weigh the fact that there isnt a consensus among the Service
Chiefs with regard to the issue of repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell?
And, General, if you want to start
General SHEEHAN. I think thats the value, Senator, of having
this unbiased report. That starts the basis of a real dialogue. And,
as I said before, I would hope that as the report becomes final, that
it becomes a real discussion between this committee, the Service
Chiefs, and the secretariat. And so, I would hope, out of that proc-
ess, you would then be able to make an informed decision thats
based on fact, not opinion.
Senator THUNE. Thank you.
Major?
Mr. ALMY. Senator, andmy understanding is that Secretary
Donley, the Secretary of the Air Force, has basically contradicted
General Schwartz and said that now is the time for repeal. And I
understand that there is some disagreement among the Service
Chiefs, among the Secretaries. Secretary Gates and Admiral
27
Mullens have both called for repeal, as well as for the study of how
to repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
From my own limited understanding of this, theres been ample
research, both within the military and academia, from the mili-
taries of foreign nations that have dealt with this issue, and they
all showed that this was basically a nonissue. If you talk to the
leadership of foreign militaries that have already dealt with this
and have implemented repeal, they will all tell you that it was a
great success. And I think that to say that America is any less,
that we have a less capable military of dealing with this issue, or
a less professional force, I just think its simply not true. I think
weclearly we have the greatest military in the world, and I think
that this is an issue that we can deal with. And, quite frankly, I
think its going to bea few years from now were going to look
back on this and say, What was all the fuss about?
Senator THUNE. Ms. Kopfstein.
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I agree that our military is the most
professional, most capable military in the world. Thisrepeal of
this law will be a nonevent. The Service Chiefs have recommended
repeal, and there may be some division, but Congress is the final
decisionmaker. The law is wrong, and its unevenly applied. And
were Americans too, and we just want to serve.
Senator THUNE. Well, I think the Service Chiefs haveas I have
noted here, aretheres consensus among the Service Chiefs that
it should not be repealed. And there may be others in the adminis-
tration, I know Im aware of, that have a different view of that, but
thatsI think, is an important consideration obviously we have to
weigh too as we evaluate this.
General, at the same time that Secretary Gates has stood up this
working group to study thehow to implement repeal of Dont
Ask, Dont Tell, hes also asked DOD lawyers to come back in 45
days with proposed changes on how to, within existing law, enforce
this policy in a more humane and fair manner. That is a sort of
different approach to this issue, and that is, that we should be
seeking ways to update or improve Dont Ask, Dont Tell, rather
than throw it out. Are there any approaches that we, as Congress,
could take to improve the Dont Ask, Dont Tell statute, rather
than taking what would be a very significant and dramatic depar-
ture from existing policy and repeal it altogether?
General SHEEHAN. Senator, I think that, because of the scope of
the responsibility of this committee, you have a lot of opportunities,
in various bills and things that come before this committee, to do
three things. First, I think that, as weve discussed, and in this
terms of reference for this study, to make sure its absolutely
scrupulously honest and organized.
Second is that Dont Ask, Dont Tell, as a policy, is very, very
imperfect. I think the Congress recognized that when it passed the
1993 law. They knew there were going to be ambiguities, and they
knew that is was going to led to beled to beproblems, and
thats why it didnt include it in the law.
Over the last 5, 10 years since it was passed, there has been
being built, in the publics mind, a perception of inevitability that
this law is going to get changed. That, I think, in turn, leads to
young men and women who think theyre going to come into the
28
military and the laws going to be changed on their watch. It may
ultimately be changed, but not necessarily on their watch. And that
puts them in a very difficult position, because they come in with
the expectation that this law is going to change.
And I think that one of the things this committee could do is
take a neutral position that says, Were examining this law that
says, It should beor notor that itto investigate whether it
isshould be changed, not that is going to be changed, because
youre creating, in the minds of young Americans, anot a false ex-
pectation, but a hope that may not be realized.
The last comment I would make is that, in order to understand
sexual behavior in the military, you cant do that in just the isola-
tion of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell clause. As I said earlier in my
remarks, there is something thatgoing on within the American
military today that is fundamentally flawed, when you have a 16-
percent increase in sexual assaults in a combat zone. I dont know
what the cause of that is, but as you investigateall of things kind
of come together in one pot. So, if you try to parse this out and just
deal with this, deal with this, deal with this, I think youll come
up at an imperfect solution.
I think this committee has a tremendous responsibility and a tre-
mendous opportunity to rise above the political debate and do
something that is really helpful to the American military.
And so, I would recommend those three things: one, a clear state-
ment of what the purpose of this study is; two, tampen down the
expectations what allows young kids to come in, thinking that
somethings going to be different tomorrow morning, when it may
not be; and three, understandtruly understand where were going
with the sexuality in the American military, because it is a prob-
lem, a real problem.
Senator THUNE. Welland we need as candid and honest of as-
sessments as we can possibly get about the impacts. In my judg-
ment, bottom line is readiness, effectiveness, all those issues is
as we evaluate this.
So, we appreciate yourall of your candor, and youre here
today.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Senator Burris.
Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to add my thanks to all three witnesses, who certainly
have served this country well, and protected us. And I just want
to try to raise some questions.
General, Imwill challenge you and the rest on age. Im pretty
much your age. If youve served 35 years in, I think that you
have
General SHEEHAN. Sir, Ill concede to you.
Senator BURRIS. Im sorry?
General SHEEHAN. I will concede age to you.
[Laughter.]
Senator BURRIS. Thank you. And I can remember, General, when
I was attorney general of my State, how difficult it was for me to
make a change. But, on my staff there werethere was a young
lesbian lady who would sit down with me each day and explain to
29
me the problems, of persons who were lesbian or gay, that never
occurred to me because I grew up in a different era. We talked
about them, we laughed about them. It was something, Eh, djib,
djib, djib, djib, djib, you know, it was all these derogatory terms
that we used to use.
And, General, it also deals with the racial question. Do you know
a fellow named Jackie Robinson? You ever heard of him? You talk
about the bright and the best. We dont know if weve got the
bright and the best serving in our military service until we let ev-
eryone serve with their best distinction, best ability. The bright
and the best may not be.
You hear of a fellow namea couple tennis players named the
Williams Sisters? You ever heard of the young man who had a lit-
tle personal problem called Tiger Woods? We didnt know how golf
really could be until a black person got into the competition. They
were all eliminated from the game of golf. They were all eliminated
from the game baseball, General. They were all eliminated from
type of sports which was for whites only. Now, were saying the
military is for straits only.
General, I think that we need, you know, to put a moratorium
on this situation right now. Dont let anyone be discharged from
the military because of their sexual orientation until we can change
this law, which Im certainly supporting, a cosponsor on Senator
Liebermans bill to change the law.
But, General, could you give me a little insight of your back-
ground. Did you ever command black soldiers under your com-
mand?
General SHEEHAN. Sir, the American military has been inte-
grated since President Truman was a President of the United
Senator BURRIS. 1947, by executive order, sir.
General SHEEHAN. I have never commanded a unit that there
were not Hispanics, blacks, whites, and Orientals. At one time dur-
ing the Vietnam war, as both Senator Lieberman and the Chair-
man will remember, 65 percent of my rifle companies were black.
They sustained 40 percent of the casualties in Vietnam. They un-
derstand what it means to be in harms way. So, race in the mili-
tary is not an issue. This institution that I represent
Senator BURRIS. Pardon me, General, I have to interrupt you.
General SHEEHAN.has the finest record of integration than any
institution in this country of ours.
Senator BURRIS. Absolutely. How long agohow long did it take
that to take place? What happened in World War II, with my un-
cles and my uncles-in-laws when they were discriminated against?
Prisoners were being brought back from Germany, and the black
soldiers that were guarding them couldnt even ride in their cars,
they were put back in the back cars, because of the color of their
skin. Thats far America has come. For you to now command those
men, and theyre fighting and dying for us, and at one time, be-
cause of this, the color of their skin, they could not serve this coun-
try. And they fought and clawed to get there, to have an oppor-
tunity to serve. These are the same thing with the gay and lesbian
people. They want to serve. Thats all theyre asking.
Continue, General, Im sorry.
30
General SHEEHAN. Well, Senator, I think that if you go back to
the 1993 discussions and hearings on Dont Ask, Dont Tell,
theres a very rich history of discussion with Cal Waller, Colin Pow-
ell, and the committee about this very issue, when Congressman
Pat Schroeder was trying to equate this to a racial issue. Both Cal
Waller and Colin Powell objected strenuously to the analogy. And
many of the black leaders and the black marines that I was with
at the time objected to the concept that their civil rights movement
was being hijacked by gays and lesbians. Im not an expert on this
issue. But, I will only defer to both Cal Waller and Colin Powell,
and refer this good Senator to their testimony back in 1993.
Senator BURRIS. And do you know what Colin Powells position
is now on gays serving in the military, General?
General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir, I do. He has said that he thinks its
time to conduct this review. He has deferred to the Service Chiefs
on their position and essentially says, If theyreare for changing
the law, he will support that.
Senator BURRIS. Im sorry. I think we just have correction on the
record. My understanding is, the General says that its time to end
this Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy. Thats what my understanding
of the retired Joint Chief of Staffs position is. Andbut, we can
certainly double check that and
Do you have any statistics, General, on how many homosexual
I mean heterosexual rapes there are in the military?
General SHEEHAN. The last report I saw, Senator, was the num-
bers that I quoted, that 87 percent of the 3303,200-something
were male-on-female.
Senator BURRIS. And so, then there could be male-on- male or fe-
male-on-male. In other words
General SHEEHAN. The male-on-male is 7 percent of that
Senator BURRIS. Yeah.
General SHEEHAN.number. And sobut, again, as DOD says,
thats an underreported statistic, so the numberthe actual num-
ber may be
Senator BURRIS. Sure.
General SHEEHAN.a lot larger.
Senator BURRIS. Youre probably correct. And based on that, Gen-
eral, there are heterosexual rapes in the military, as well as there
probably would be ifthat takes place under young people as in
our natural society. Theyre still human beings. God forbid, there
will be probably homosexual, unfortunately, rapes in the military.
I mean thats not any reason for them people not to be able to serve
openly and forthrightly.
My time is up, but Im going to hope theres a second round, Mr.
Chairman, because this is something that
And I want to commend these two brave men and women who
put their life on the line and, for no reason of their own, theyre
now being discharged from the military because of their sexual ori-
entation. I suggest that we have a stop order issued on anyone else
being discharged at this point until this situation is satisfied.
And, very quickly, Major, would you agree to that, that we prob-
ably should stop right now, so that none of your colleagues who are
being investigated right now should be discharged?
31
Mr. ALMY. I would agree, Senator. Any further man or woman
thats discharged justunder Dont Ask, Dont Telljust because
of who they are, I think is an unacceptable loss to our military.
Senator BURRIS. And how would you say, Lieutenant?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I agree. No one should be separated
from the military anymore because of this antiquated law, but it
does need to be repealed in full.
Senator BURRIS. Thank you.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Burris.
Senator Webb.
Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, justI think the data you just used needs some clari-
fication, in terms of African American casualties in Vietnam. And,
with all due respect to everyone who servedand I grew up in the
military. I grew up in athe military at a time when it had been
racially integrated. Im very proud of everybodys service. But, Ive
done a lot writing and reporting on this issue, including 4 years on
the Veterans Committee as a committee counsel years ago. And the
statistics that we had at that time were that African Americans
were about 13 percent of the age group, about 12 percent of the
people in the military, and about 12 percent of the casualties, and
about 10 percent of thethose killed in action. So, they certainly
did their share, along with everyone else. But, if youre saying 40
percent, you may be talking about one rifle company at one par-
ticular piece of time, or something. I dont know where that came
from.
General SHEEHAN. No, sir. I wasthe 40 percent number comes
from a study that was done on those that were inducted into the
military during the Project 100,000 era.
Senator WEBB. So, youre talking about
General SHEEHAN. Im talking about a specific group of people
during that
Senator WEBB. The Project 100,000
General SHEEHAN. Project 100,000
Senator WEBB.draftee
General SHEEHAN.draftees that were brought
Senator WEBB.the casualties among that
General SHEEHAN. Yeah.
Senator WEBB.group.
General SHEEHAN. Right.
Senator WEBB. Well, now what Im talking abouts the over
all
General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir. I
Senator WEBB.casualties. So, now
General SHEEHAN. Yes
Senator WEBB.this is
General SHEEHAN.yes, sir.
Senator WEBB.its clearly not a hearing about that issue, but
inI knowI think that what you said could have been misunder-
stood by a lot of people walking out of the room, and
General SHEEHAN. Okay.
Senator WEBB.need to be clear on it.
General SHEEHAN. Thank you for
32
Senator WEBB. Let me
General SHEEHAN.the correction.
Senator WEBB. Let me get into the subject of our discussion
today.
First, Id like to express my appreciation for all of you for your
testimony. I think the issues that were being discussed from your
two perspectives are very much the issues of integrity, which is
what Admiral Mullen was bringing to the table. Ive known him
since I was 18 years old. I have a great respect for his views on
this. And Ive known General Sheehan for many years. And I think
the validity of discussing the unique culture and environment in
the military, and particularly the operational military, is some-
thing that really has to be also put on the table here.
And there can be nothing more important, in my viewand I
think John McCain and I share this concernthan ensuring that,
in this type of a process, that the military be allowed to report to
the political side.
And, General Sheehan, youll recall when you were Deputy Sec-
retary Tafts military aid and I was Secretary of the Navy. I had
come under a number of questions, during my confirmation hear-
ing, about my views on women in combat. And Ia big part of my
frustration during that period was the political process telling the
military how to do its functionsits actual functions. And so, I con-
vened a study: 14 males, 14 females, officer and enlisted, who went
out and examined this issue and then reported, not back to me, but
through the warfare chiefs, then to the CNO. And all of them re-
portingthe military reported to the political process. And we
opened up more billets to women than any Secretary of the Navy
in history. But, we did it in a way where the military itself was
invested in the end result.
And thats why I believe that the nature of this survey that has
been announced, defining it is so vital to addressing this issue. And
I think we need to review the state of play here so that we know
were on the table.
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, when they announced their
decision in front of our committee, they did say they wanted to take
this time period to examine the issue and then report to this com-
mittee about whether this law should be appealed. Thatand I
asked them, after they had made their testimony, if that was clear.
And the answer was yes, that this was clear.
So, General, your comment about our body, here, ensuring that
we would be viewed objectively is very important.
And the other part of this is, the study that was done in 1993
did not really examine attitudes in the military. Weve had a lot
of anecdotal comments todayand theyre valuable, in terms of un-
derstanding the issuebut we need the data, we need to be able
to see, not in a political way, and not simply as to how this policy
would be implemented, but in a way that we can understand the
attitudinal characteristics in playby age, by officer or enlisted, by
service; in many cases, I think, by occupational specialtiesso we
will truly have a matrix here in terms of understanding attitudes
in the military.
I dont know where that will go. It may surprise you, General.
Iyou know, I have no idea where its going to go. But, its a vital
33
piece, in my view, of moving this issue forward in the right way.
And based on that, I believe we can come to a considered and intel-
ligent decision. And they may even go into distinctions based on
types of units, General, something that you were referring to. Im
notI dont want to predict at all where this is going to go. I just
think that it is vital that we can say to the people in the military,
and the American people, that weve been responsible in terms of
how a decision has been made.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Webb.
Senator Udall.
Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, to all three of you. This is a delicate and sensitive
topic. I commend the courage all three of you have shown in com-
ing here today and sharing your point of view.
But, General, before I direct a set of questions at you, and then
follow with Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein, I wanted to just make an
editorial comment from one Senator. I am in the camp that thinks
its time to repeal Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Its not whether, its how
and when. And I understand the need to study Dont Ask, Dont
Tell in order to implement it. But, I share a deep concern that,
if we continue the policy thats in place, hearing the stories Ive
heard today, you have to ask the question who is going to be the
last servicemembermaybe I should say patriot, franklyto be
discharged under what I thinks an outdated policy. I just want to
make that clear for the record.
General, let me turn, as I suggested I would, to you. AndIm
aware of about a dozen studies, that go back at least two decades,
tothat show thatno scientific evidence to back the assertion
that open service is a detriment to unit cohesion and good order
and morale. Are you aware of any reputable scientific study that
does? Is there a study out there, to say it another way, from a rep-
utable source, that lays out and gives weight to your belief that
gays and lesbians are a threat to the military and its readiness?
General SHEEHAN. Senator, the answer to that is no. Myas I
said in my statement, my conclusions are based on combat experi-
ence and leadership.
Senator UDALL. You said that we ought to prove that open serv-
ice improves military effectiveness, and you did also mention this
shouldnt be about enlightenment, and there is a different standard
to serve in the military than there is, if you will, to be a United
States citizen. I agree completely, this isnt, for me, about feeling
good or feeling like were pushing society to be more open. For me,
it is that were in a situation where we have 14,000 Americans who
have been discharged, whove served honorably and with great ef-
fectiveness.
But, back to my questionso, I was saying youyou were saying
we need to prove that open service improves military effectiveness.
Has anybody proved that the current law improves effectiveness?
General SHEEHAN. Not that I know of, Senator.
Senator UDALL. I appreciate your frank answer.
Let me turn to the Major and the Lieutenant. Picture of our
Armed Forces that General Sheehan paints is a very different one
than I see. Hes suggesting that the patriotic young Americans who
34
serve their country are afraid of gay servicemembers and lack the
professionalism to focus on the task at hand. As I said, I agree with
him that theres no constitutional right to serve, and that some
people are excluded, for any number of reasons. Where we differ is
that I see all of reasons for exclusion as performance-related, ex-
cept for sexual orientation. And I believe were dealing with a gen-
eration of people who know the difference between body weight or
educational qualifications, for instance, and someones essence, who
they are, at their core.
In your numerous years of service, did you see anything that led
you to believe that General Sheehans view of our Armed Forces is
based on todays realities? Lieutenant, maybe Ill start with you,
and then turn to the Major.
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, Senator. In my experience, I only had posi-
tive experiences with my shipmates and the people I served with.
Nobody had any complaints about taking orders from me or the
quality of my work product orand no one asked to be moved out
of sharing a stateroom with me. All of the feedback I got after I
came out was positive. People were happy and thankful that I was
being honest with them, and that I could share parts of my life
with them, and that we could actually be friends, that there wasnt
a wall between us. And that helps teamwork, frankly, because we
could communicate with each other on a level that was human and
positive.
So, no, I had no negative experiences with anyone in the mili-
tary.
Senator UDALL. Lieutenant, if I might pursue that before I turn
to the Major. Reading your very powerful, moving testimony, and,
even more, hearing you deliver it, it seemed to me you were mak-
ing the case that actuallywhen you live a lie, morale isnt as high
as it could be, not only for you, as the individual involved, but for
those with whom you serve, whether theyre subordinates or supe-
riors. Is that a fair way to characterize it
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator UDALL.at least your
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Absolutely.
Senator UDALL.impression?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. People can sense when youre not being fully
honest with them, and they get the sense that youre holding back
and that theres something strange about you. And thatnot only
does that make them curious, but it makes them not necessarily
trust you completely. And trust is something that you have to have
for unit cohesion and morale. If there is no trust, there is no team-
work.
Senator UDALL. As youve
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. And under Dont Ask, Dont Tell, it is very dif-
ficult to have trust.
Senator UDALL. And it undercuts the element of trust which,
yeah, as you point out, is really the crucial element, is it not?
Major, I want to make sure I dont run out of time before you
can also comment.
Mr. ALMY. Senator, from my own personal experience, Dont
Ask, Dont Tell is often the subjectits a bit of a running joke or
the subject of mockery, from gays and straits alike in the military,
35
from the standpoint that everyone knows gays and lesbians are
serving in the military today, and oftentimes they are serving
openly, they are valued and patriotic members of their units who
make tremendous contributions. And I think the general con-
sensus, or the general attitude, among the population, at least the
ones that I served, was that they all understand this law is a re-
flection, not upon an individuals characteristics, their traits, their
performance, but solely based upon who they are. And so, as I said,
its a bit of a running joke, because theyregays and lesbians are
already serving.
Senator UDALL. To that point, you served in 13 years of Active
Duty, I think, alongside forces that did provide for gay
servicemembers.
Mr. ALMY. Correct, Senator.
Senator UDALL. Did that affect the cohesion or morale, in your
opinion?
Mr. ALMY. Not at all. And what Ive just stated, I found that atti-
tude to be true, not only among the Air Force, but in my time serv-
ing with the Marine Corps, the Army, the Navy. Ive worked with
all four branches. I have served for 4 years in Europe with our al-
lies, whonone of whom have this discrimination anymore. In fact,
the U.S. military is a bit of a joke among our allies, solely because
of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, on this issue. Its a complete nonissue
for our allies, as well as allies that I have served with over in Iraq.
Senator UDALL. I mean, my times going to expire, but last ques-
tion to the two of you. I think its a yes-or-no answer, but dont let
me require that. Its been argued that: Dont Ask, Dont Tell is
working, so why change? Do you believe Dont Ask, Dont Tell is
working, Major?
Mr. ALMY. I do not believe Dont Ask, Dont Tell is working, be-
cause it throws out qualified men and women who just want to
serve their country.
Senator UDALL. Lieutenant?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Its absolutely not working, Senator.
Senator UDALL. Thank you.
And I know, General, you believe its working. If it isnt broken,
fix it. I appreciate you being here as well, today.
So, thank you, to all three of you, again.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall.
Well have a second round now. Why dont we start with about
3 minutes each, if we can, and then we can have a third round,
if thats not enough.
General, we now serve with the Dutch in Afghanistan. And you
made reference to the Dutch Army a couple decades ago. The
Dutch allow their troops to serve openly asif theyre gay or les-
bian. Were fighting alongside with them now. Do you know of any
problem with that relationship?
General SHEEHAN. I have no firsthand experience of
Chairman LEVIN. Have you heard of any problem?
General SHEEHAN. I have not.
Chairman LEVIN. Did you ever, when you were NATO Supreme
Allied Commander, command gay servicemembers?
General SHEEHAN. I never asked for the sexual
Chairman LEVIN. But
36
General SHEEHAN.orientation
Chairman LEVIN.did you know whether or not you did?
General SHEEHAN. No. I neverI
Chairman LEVIN. You werent aware of it.
General SHEEHAN. No.
Chairman LEVIN. Okay.
I just want to readlet me read Secretary Gatess statement, be-
cause there was some question here, and Senator Burris, I think,
asked a question, which elicited a response that was notwell,
anyway let me read what Secretary Gates has said. I fully support
the Presidents decision. The question before us is not whether the
military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for
it. So, its not, in Secretary Gatess view, a question of whether,
but a question of how. So, I agree with what Senator Burris was
saying, there, in terms of what Secretary Gatess position relative
to this is.
And, in terms of General Powell, he basically supports, he said,
Secretary Gatess decision. They obviously support a study, but the
study is not a study of whether; its a study of how we are going
to implement a repeal. Thats just clarifications for the record.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Major Almy, I wanted to ask youperhaps I missed itbut what
do you think was the motivation of the individual who went
through your personal computer and then found these messages?
In other words, was hedid he have a gripe with you about some-
thing else, was he antigay, or was he just looking for trouble?
Mr. ALMY. Senator, I really cantI dont know, for certainty.
But, I can speculate that either this person just had a bias against
gays and lesbians serving in the military or perhaps he was of the
mindset that this was a law, and he was
Senator LIEBERMAN. Yeah.
Mr. ALMY.he was being a good a good troop and following the
letter of the law.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Yeah. But as
Mr. ALMY. Maybe a combination of both.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. But, did you know him? Or happen
to
Mr. ALMY. Very briefly. This was an individual in the unit that
replaced mine in Iraq, so I had a brief overlap with this
Senator LIEBERMAN. Sobut, as far as you know, there was no
conflict between you or anything of that kind.
Mr. ALMY. None that Im aware of, Senator.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay.
Let me ask Major Almy and Lieutenant Kopfstein this question.
I think weve dealtwhen you got aa policy of discrimination in
the United States, the burden has to be on those who are defending
it. Thereve been arguments made about effect on morale, effect on
unit cohesion. I think weve dealt with those very well, relevance
to military values.
One of the other arguments, which Senator Chambliss referred
to, is the effect on recruiting, on the argument that a lot of people
coming into the military, perhaps disproportionate numberI dont
know what the numbers arecome from areas of the country that
37
are more conservative, in terms of social values, et cetera. I know
youre not expert in this, but you have come out of experience in
the military. Whats your judgment, the two of you, about what im-
pact a repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell will have on recruitment?
Mr. ALMY. Senator, Im not aware of any particular studies or
polls on that very question you ask. But, I am aware of the experi-
ences of foreign militaries, and there were similar predictions of
gloom and doom on recruiting and retention once they repealed
their bans on open service. And none of that came to fruition. In
other words, if you talk to all the senior leadership of these mili-
taries today, they will tell you that repealing their ban had abso-
lutely no effect upon their recruiting and retention.
So, I think we can draw similar analogies in our own military.
That, as well asI would like to say thatthe militarys diverse
cultureone of the strengths of our military is, we bring men
andyoung men and women from diverse backgrounds and bring
them together and basically tell them that they have to be profes-
sional and work with people that are different from themselves. Of-
tentimes, these young men and women have never experienced an
interaction, professionally, with someone from a different race,
from a different background, from a different country of origin. And
thats one of the strengths of our military. In fact, our military cele-
brates in our diversity, and its true. And I see this as just one
more aspect of our diverse military culture.
Lieutenant, do you have a judgment on that?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I believe that repealing this law will ac-
tually improve recruiting. I know that there are many patriotic
Americans who do not want to work for an organization that dis-
criminates. So, in that respect, I believe that recruiting will be im-
proved. Also, when youre talking about recruiting, youre talking
about the 18-to-24-year-old demographic. Todays generation, most
likely, are likely to know someone who is gay. And when you know
somebody, personally, itsyoure much less likely to fear them.
And I think that most discrimination is based on fear.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much.
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. So, its my opinion
Senator LIEBERMAN. You know, I just remembered something.
This was a while back, on another issue, but related. I was talking
to an executive of a Fortune 100 company, and he was saying that
he felt, when his company goes out to recruit on college cam-
pusesthis is to validate your pointthat it is a positive to say
that they, essentially, have employment nondiscrimination based
on sexual orientation.
Thank you.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much.
Senator Burris.
I just want to say for the record that, you know, Im not trying
to base all of my questions on race. Its just a framework to try to
get people to start thinking beyond that.
And Id like to raise a question with General Sheehan. In your
3 years, as you served as Supreme Allied Commander, command of
the Atlantic, you oversaw NATO troops from many diverse nations.
38
Would you say that your choresyour forces bonded and were suc-
cessful in the missions that they carried out? Did they have any
problems in carrying out their missions, General?
General SHEEHAN. The answer to thats no. And the reason why
thats no is because NATO clearly understood the U.S. military was
present, that we had the capability and the rules of engagement in
place to do things that they could not do. You see, still, manifesta-
tions of thiswithholds or caveats in the use of troops in Afghani-
stan todaythat is still problematic.
Senator BURRIS. And, General, Im sure that you, over the course
of your service, have seen many units bond, with the purpose of
working as a cohesive group. Can you tell me howwhat parts of
Major Almys service record affected his unit negatively, or affected
his readiness? Can you have any
General SHEEHAN. I do not have a detailed knowledge of Major
Almys record. I do appreciate his service to this Nation. Both of
them are to be congratulated for that service.
As I said during my testimony, my experience in a combat envi-
ronment essentially was that, when a homosexual marine molested
another marine, the real problem with the unit, not that it was the
discipline to the individual, but what it did to the cohesion of the
organization. First off, because the young PFC didnt believe that
he was being supported; second, that people took sides. And you
cannot afford to take a unit out of combat for 3 to 4 days while you
sort out these type of issues. The enemy doesnt allow you the lux-
ury of taking units off the line.
Senator BURRIS. And, Major, would you say yourhow was your
effectiveness, in terms of you operatingyour readiness and your
any negativism under your command?
Mr. ALMY. I would say, Senator, that certainly my being relieved
of my duties had a negative impact upon my unit.
Senator BURRIS. So, the release ofthe releasing you.
Mr. ALMY. Correct. That had a negative impact on the mission,
the unit cohesion. And certainly, as I told some of my troops what
was going on, they allit was a complete nonissue for them, to the
point that they all wanted me back on the job as their leader.
Senator BURRIS. And Lieutenant, how about you, in terms of
when you said you got the ordersthe captainto load up the bat-
teries, and you said it had no impact, whether you were lesbian or
not, as to just what the situation was. Is that correct?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Thats right, Senator.
Senator BURRIS. Now, did you experience any negative attitude
when you came out in open? Was there anything negative that you
experienced?
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, I only had positive experiences.
Senator BURRIS. For being honest, forthright, and living up to
the Navy
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Absolutely. I believe my fellow sailors appre-
ciated my honesty.
Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Burris.
Mr. ALMY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if I could offer one quick
comment.
Chairman LEVIN. Sure.
39
Mr. ALMY. I wanted to go back to your question to the General
regarding the Dutch military. I have served alongside the Dutch
military, I have been in a field exercisean exercise in field condi-
tions, in the Netherlands, where my unit served alongside the
Dutch military, both officers and enlisted. And the subject of sexual
orientation, or Dont Ask, Dont Tell, was a complete nonissue to
both the Americans as well as the Dutch. And that was within the
past 5 years.
Chairman LEVIN. Well, I think we all remember Srebenitsa, but
I think that any effort to connect that failure on the part of the
Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals, or did allow homo-
sexuals, I think, is totally off target, and Ive seen no suggestion
of that. Ive seen the failures that you talk about, General, in terms
of their training being peacekeeping and their not being trained to
do the kind of work that needed to be doneis accurate. But, in
terms ofany attribution to the fact that they had allowed gays in
the military is no more on point than the fact that they may have
allowed AfricanDutch-Africans or women, if there were women.
I think its just
General SHEEHAN. My comment
Chairman LEVIN. And well check it out
General SHEEHAN. My
Chairman LEVIN. Were going to
General SHEEHAN.comment was that it was the liberalization
that caused
Chairman LEVIN. I know, but theI agree with the - - liberaliza-
tion can
General SHEEHAN. I am
Chairman LEVIN.mean that the
General SHEEHAN. I am just repeating
Chairman LEVIN.you dont train people to
General SHEEHAN.what was told me.
Chairman LEVIN.engage in combat. You dont train people to
haveto engage in the kind of activity that you have to do to en-
force the law. I agree with that. They werent good in that respect.
They were trained to be peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. I totally
agree with that.
But, to slip overslide over from that into a suggestion that it
had something to do with fact that homosexuals were allowed in
the Dutch Army suggests that somehow or other homosexuals are
not great fighters. And I think that is totally
General SHEEHAN. I didnt say
Chairman LEVIN.wrong.
General SHEEHAN.they werent great fighters.
Chairman LEVIN. Well
General SHEEHAN. What I said was the liberalization of the
Dutch military was a contributing factor to their failure in
Srebenitsa.
Chairman LEVIN. The Dutch military, as you point out, were
peacekeepers and not peace enforcers. I agree with that. But, what
the heck that has to do with the issue before us is what mystifies
me. Itbecause I dont think it has anything to do with the issue
in front of us. But, Ill
40
Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I mayand I dont want
to prolong this, but I just do want to saylook, our closest military
allies in the world, the Brits, have a policy by which homosexuals
serve openly, and, you know, theyve got a great record. The British
military, we would work very closely with them. They are side by
side with us today in Afghanistan. And, in fact when I was last
there, in January, with Senator McCain, we were briefed by British
General Carter, whos overseeing his tactical direction of a large
number of forces, including marinesU.S. Marines in the south
in Helmand Province, in the south of Afghanistanso just to offer
evidence, with which I would guess that youd agree, that the Brit-
ish military is a great military, and great allies of ours, notwith-
standing their policy on homosexuals serving openly.
General SHEEHAN. Sir, not to prolong the discussion, but
Senator LIEBERMAN. I did.
General SHEEHAN.just for the matter of record. The decision, to
allow openly homosexual people to serve in British military, was
not done by the British government, or by the British people. It
was done because the U.N.or the European Union court imposed
it on the British. So, depending on who you talk to within the Brit-
ishand I lived in London during the time of this process, the
basically, the British military was told just to shut up and accept
it. And so, thereit is not an open-and-shut case that there isnt
some tension over the issue.
The issue, in terms of working for British general and Iand I
and both of you know this, because weve gone through this discus-
sion on previous times when Ive been heretheres a difference
we dont allow, because of incidents like dual-key, American forces
to becomeunder the operational control of non-U.S. commanders.
We give them tactical control.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Tactical, right.
General SHEEHAN. And tactical control does not affect much more
than just a tactical activity. So, again, these are minor points in
the discussion, and I have no problem with your analogy that the
Brits are good soldiers.
Chairman LEVIN. And I would add the Canadians and a bunch
of other allies to that. Iwe visited the Canadians down in south-
ern Afghanistan, in Helmand Province, and theyre doing one hell
of a job, and they allow people to serve openly regarding their sex-
ual orientation. So, I just think weve got to be careful that you
dont stereotype people because theyre gay or lesbian, that some-
how or other they are lesser fighters. And that was the problem in
Srebenitsa, is that you didnt have people there that were fighting
to enforce the law against some people who were terrorizing and
killing others. It had nothing to do with their sexual orientation;
it had to do with their training and their rules of engagement.
Let me close the hearing now withfirst of all, with thanks to
each of you for your service, as well as for your appearance here
today. I think every one of us have thanked you for both your serv-
ice to our country, as well as your willingness to appear today.
Just one example of how ending this discriminatory policy could
contribute to our militarys effectivenessand I think the most im-
portant way itll contribute, it will allow patriots who are willing
41
to fight and put the uniform on, of this country, to join the cause.
And thats, to me, vitally important in this kind of a pluralistic and
diverse democracy that we have.
But, we have lost I dont know how many linguists, just to give
one example, who speak Arabic and Farsi, whove been forced out
of the military because of this policy. And we desperately need
those folks. Now, I think we need all people who are willing to put
on the uniform, and I use that as just one example. We probably
have lost 13,000 or more Americans who are willing to serve, and
that, to me, is a real loss of military effectiveness. But, just that
one example, maybe, can highlight how were really damaging our
own capabilities and our own effectiveness when we have a dis-
criminatory policy.
I also believe its unconscionable, when the Commander in Chief
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both said we should re-
peal a policy, for us to continue to discharge people solely because
of their sexual orientation, during a period when theres a study
going on as to how to implement that policy. Not whether to im-
plement it; if you look at the policy guidance, its how to imple-
ment a new policy. And it just violates my conscience.
Im in favor of repeal, and theres no issueno doubt about that.
Ive made that clear. Ive cosponsored Senator Liebermans bill.
But, thats, for meas important as that is, theres this interim
problem we have, that people are going to be discharged, appar-
ently, pursuant to this policy, after the Commander in Chief has
said they shouldnt be discharged, and after the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs has said they shouldnt be discharged, and while we
are having a study underway as to how to implement a repeal.
That strikes me as unconscionable and unfair, and I hope we can
repeal this policy promptly.
But, in the interim we surely ought to suspend the discharges
until the completion of that study. And if we cant get this re-
pealedand I hope we canat a minimum, I hope we can suspend
the discharges under these circumstances.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Chairman Levin, just frommade me think
about what Lieutenant Kopfstein said at the beginning. We made
a big investment in her, and she owes us a year and a half. So,
I want to give her
[Laughter.]
Chairman LEVIN. And we intend to get it back. I want you to
know that, too.
[Laughter.]
Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Im happy to give it, sir.
Chairman LEVIN. Well, no, we are very grateful to all of you for
coming forward, and weve had a good, lively discussion. And thats
a part of this democracy of ours, too. Hopefully, we cannot only
reach the right conclusion, but reach it promptly, and have an in-
terim solution which is fair, as well.
We will stand adjourned, with thanks to everybody.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
Home Video U.S. World Politics Justice Entertainment Tech Health Living Travel Opinion iReport
Transcript Providers
Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NEWSROOM
New Allegation about John Edwards; Nasty Winter Blast in Virginia;
Haiti Medevac Flights Suspended; Obama Brings Up Don't Ask,
Don't Tell in SOTU; William Cohen Discusses Don't Ask, Don't Tell &
China; Window Manufacturer Mentioned in SOTU Address
Discusses Business; NFL Fights Over "Who Dat"
Aired January 30, 2010 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL
FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: A basketball game turns into a press
conference with the president taking charge. And CNN is there.
The Haiti recovery effort hits a serious road block putting people's lives in jeopardy. We're live.
And a major winter storm trampling parts of the country, snow, ice, no electricity, just small parts of the problem.
Hello, everyone, thanks for joining us. We start tonight, though, with revelations about a man who could had been your president, and
Washington insiders say could had put the Democratic Party in political jeopardy.
This week, John Edwards former Democratic presidential contender admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock after lying to
everyone, the American public, about it. The lurid details, all released today in a book called, "The Politician." It is authored by
Edwards' longtime confident Andrew Young. Young spoke to ABC News about how he, Edwards and Edward's mistress Rielle Hunter
had supplanted for young to claim that he was the baby's father.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW YOUNG, FORMER AIDE TO JOHN EDWARDS: There wasn't a lot of time sit back and to contemplate, hey is this logical?
Was it logical? No. Was it stupid? Yes. Did we do the right thing morally? No. Absolutely not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Let's bring in our CNN's Mark Preston. He's our editor here. You know, Mark, here's the interesting thing. Edwards told ABC
News that their were lies in the book and he said Young was motivated by money but this is certainly explosive and imagine if
Edwards had been either appointed to office or elected to office now it would be a huge fallout.
MARK PRESSOR, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: It would be huge fallout. And you know something, either Young acknowledges that in
fact he is motivated in part by the money. He writes that in the book. He says that John Edwards was going to take care of him
financially. That John Edwards' rich friends were going to take care of him financially for taking the fall for saying that he was the father
of Rielle Hunter's daughter as well as everything else he had done as John Edwards was pursuing the presidential campaign.
However, he says, that John Edwards pulled back and really left him hanging. So in part, he said, he's writing the book for financial
gain but also he said, he's trying to write the book to try to spell it out to his children, explain exactly what happened.
LEMON: But here's the interesting thing, too. Also in the ABC interview and in the book, you hear about Elizabeth Edwards, who had
cancer at the time during this alleged affair, which I guess I understand admitted to now, that she in some way knew about this and
may have known about it more than the American public would have thought or more than they led onto at the time.
PRESTON: And that's a sticking point because Elizabeth Edwards, you know, contends that she did not know all -- all about what was
going on with John Edwards and Rielle Hunter during the time he was seeing her in this extramarital affair. However in this book,
Andrew Young says, in fact she did know. And that he was the point person that set up these liaisons along the campaign trail while
John Edwards was out trying to gain support for that presidential bid.
LEMON: I want to read to you really quickly, Mark, we're getting a statement in here, I'm just getting it here, from Edwards' attorneys and
here's what it says. This is from Edwards' attorney says, John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth have legally separated and John
Edwards' lawyer release a statement saying that earlier reports about the book indicate that there are problems with Young's
accounts while we have not had an opportunity to view the interview or read the book. We urge extreme caution by everyone involved.
That's what his attorneys wrote. And again, as I said (AUDIO GAP), Edwards saying, that Young was motivated by money.
But here's the question and I said this to you at the top, what if this man had been? Because not only was he a vice presidential
contender, this affair took place after, but he also ran for president. Then there was talk about him possibly being appointed to office or
what have you. What mindset and I don't know if you can answer this, would you have to have to believe that this would never come
out, that you would have someone do this and get away with it? So unfolding to the American public this would have been some real,
real trouble here.
PRESTON: Some real, real trouble and it's amazing that somebody would have that much gall to think that in fact that they could run
for president, at the same time carrying on an affair. And by reading this book and I am sure some reporters will look back covering
him at the time and say, boy, things were a little bit strange on that campaign trail at the time but what was he thinking that, Don, that in
SWITCH TO: CNN INTERNATIONAL Sign up Log in
NewsPulse Money Sports
4/ 5/ 2010 CNN.com - Transcript s
archives.cnn.com/ / cnr.07.ht ml 1/ 9
fact that he could get away with it. You know something I was talking to democratic insiders when he came out and acknowledged
having the affair some time ago. They were furious. They said who does he think he is? What if he had won the democratic
nomination, he would have torn the party apart. What if President Obama had picked him to be the vice president?
LEMON: That was my next question. Has anyone in the Obama administration said anything about this or even behind the scenes that
they acknowledge this? Because I imagine at the time, if they had gotten wind of this, they may have -- they probably were furious.
PRESTON: Well, you know, who knows what they knew during the vetting process anyway when they were actually looking at who they
wanted to put on the ticket. But I will tell you at that time talking to some advisers, they were furious about John Edwards. They said
that he was selfish. They can't believe he would do that. You know, at this point now, John Edwards' political career is probably over.
You know, I don't often say that in politics because you can always reinvent yourself, but let's assume that these allegations are true in
this book, very damming.
LEMON: Our Political Editor Mark Preston. Mark, thank you very much. Mark, we know that you've been working on this all night. You
read the entire book, you stood up and read the book and then wrote about it on CNN.com. So, thank you Mark. Make sure that you
check out CNN.com, it's actually on our home page and it's one of the trending topics there and it's also the trending topic today, Mark,
you should know on Twitter. A lot of people are talking about this. Thank you, sir.
PRESTON: Thanks Don.
LEMON: President Barack Obama faces critics head-on in person, and both sides are claiming victory today. Mr. Obama attended a
retreat of house republicans yesterday in Baltimore. Taking questions from some of his toughest critics for almost an hour and a half
and it was all carried live right here on CNN. As a matter of fact, I was sitting here and Tony Harris as well anchoring and it was
amazing to see this taking place in Baltimore and the president standing there in front of his harshest critics and answering the
questions. They talked about health care. They talked about the budget, the atmosphere in Washington really was the top topic, talking
about the mood there and the tone. It was mostly cordial. At times it was funny and in a few instances it was a little tense. Take a look
at how things went on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm using this as a specific example. So let me answer your question. You
asked a question, I want to answer it. There's got to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. I've got to hold
myself accountable and I guarantee you the American people will hold themselves -- will hold me accountable. If what I'm selling
doesn't actually deliver.
REP. JEB HENSARLING (R), TEXAS: Your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next ten years.
Surely you don't believe ten years from now, we will still be mired in this recession and propose new entitlement spending and move
the economy -- the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy. Now very soon, Mr. President, you are due to submit a
new budget, and my question is...
OBAMA: Jeb, I know that there's a question in there somewhere because you're making a whole bunch of assertions half of which I
disagree with and I'm having to sit here listening to them. At some point, I know you will let me answer them.
When you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the annual -- or a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual
deficit led by republicans, that's factually just not true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: President Obama took in one of his favorite pastimes, check that out. Today in Washington, it was a snowy Washington, D.C.
It's a college basketball game between Georgetown and Duke. He even sat down with the TV broadcasting for a short time adding his
own analysis for sports fans who were watching it at home, he also talked about meeting with those GOP leaders yesterday in
Baltimore. And of course, he's known for being a big basketball fan and he's playing at least a dozen pickup games with friends and
members of his staff since becoming president. President Barack Obama at the game today and then going down talking to the
commentators as well, taking some tough questions there.
All right. So, make sure that you join us in the newsroom for our political roundtable at 7:00 p.m. Eastern right here in the CNN
NEWSROOM.
U.S. Military suspending medical flights out of Haiti. I'll say it again, the U.S. Military is suspending medical flights out of Haiti. Another
big story here on CNN. We're going to tell you why it all comes down to an argument over money.
And Toyota says a fix is on the way for millions of recalled cars. We'll tell you when your dealership will get it.
Also, join our conversation tonight, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace or iReport.com. I'm going on right now. Go look at your comment, put
some of them on the air.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: It's always a good evening to spend inside if you are watching us but especially so in the eastern part of the country. Stay
inside. An icy blast is slamming much of the region. It's happening right now as we're on the air. Virginia's seeing some of its worst
yet. It's a foot of snow expected there. In D.C., officials are telling everyone to stay off the roads. The Carolinas are under an ice storm
warning until midnight. And Governor of Beverly Perdue has declared a state of emergency.
Let's move to East from areas like this in Southeast Missouri, it left quite a bit of mess behind. Some parts of Missouri got more than
nine inches of snow. And further to the west, we want to look at Oklahoma City. Got a coating of ice. It was so bad, the airport had to
shutdown for a while. (WEATHER REPORT)
LEMON: Hey, we have some developing news to tell you about, the U.S. military suspending medical flights out of Haiti. We'll tell you
why it all comes down to an argument. It's really over dollars and cents. Who's going to pay for it? Our Susan Candiotti joins us live in
just a minute. Just off of the phone with the White House with their reactions, she's going to explain to you next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Some developing news just into CNN. Fredricka Whitfield reported this but there's a new development because the U.S.
military suspended flights evacuating Haitians out of Haiti, the quake victims there. It boils down to dollars and cents, flights carrying
the injured from Haiti to Miami. It ended on Wednesday after Florida Governor Charlie Crist asked the federal government to help with
the expense.
CNN's Susan Candiotti following the story very closely. Susan, the situation is dire. I understand you just got off the phone with the
White House?
SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's kind of hard to understand all of this, Don, because obviously I've been down
to Haiti. We've seen all of the pictures from there. The situation is very difficult to say the least. There are a lot of people in need and
there are only so many doctors to go around but here is what the White House is telling me. The White House said in a statement and
this is from a spokesperson telling me that there has been no policy decision by anyone to suspend evacuee flights. The situation
arose, this spokesman says, as they started to run out of room. Now, as you indicated, there are flights that had been going. Many
people have been flown out so far.
The problem now, according to the military is that they can't take them out because in their words and we have a direct quote here
from a spokesperson for the U.S. military, if we can show that to you now. They're telling us that they cannot fly people out if hospitals
won't take them. And they said, some states are apparently unwilling to allow entry for Haitian nationals for critical care.
So then, we went back to Florida and say, what is the problem? And the problem, according to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, it's
obviously expensive to take care of people in their hospital rooms, in the ER rooms and the trauma rooms and so they're turning to the
federal government for help. But Florida Governor Charlie Crist denies that he said, don't send us anymore people. And here's what
he said about it just today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. Charlie Crist (R), FLORIDA: They're not stopping coming into Florida. I wrote a letter to Secretary Sebelius expressing that
federal assistance would be helpful to us and if we could share that with some of our sister states, it would make a big difference.
Obviously, because of Florida's proximity to Haiti, we've really borne the brunt of it but we're happy to continue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Candiotti: So, Florida Governor's Crist is asking the federal government's, specifically health and human services to come up with
more emergency funding, Don. But fact of the matter is for now, no other Haitians are allowed to go out right now.
LEMON: Susan, I have to ask you this for clarification because when I came to you in New York, I said that it was suspended. It had
been suspended starting Wednesday and your statement from the White House says, it hasn't been. So, what's the truth here? What's
happening?
Candiotti: Well, it's hard to figure all that out right now, Don.
LEMON: OK. So I imagine you're...
(CROSSTALK)
Candiotti: For now, it is what it is but I guess what the White House is saying, we don't have a policy decision. We're trying to come up
with enough beds in the United States if they can, but if not, to try to work out getting more doctors on the ground there to expand the
facilities on the "USS Comfort," which is offshore. And to try to get more doctors in, more beds into Haiti, if they can, to try to keep
people there as best as they can.
LEMON: All right, Susan, hey, keep working on this because we need to get clarification about what exactly is happening because
viewers want to know. There's a lot of interest in this story, as there should be. So lets us know if it is suspended, if it's not, who's
telling the truth, the White House, the governor, or Governor Charlie Crist. Susan Candiotti, thank you very much for that.
Meantime, grants, not loans, would help Haiti rebuild debt-free there. This week two U.S. senators unveiled the Haiti reconstruction
package. In it and emphasis to help the country rebuild both its infrastructure and its economy. Tad Agoglia was one of our top ten
CNN heroes in 2008. He's the founder of a nonprofit organization called First Response Team of America. It is an NGO you're seeing
there if you want to donate. He's been in Haiti about a week.
He's joining us live now from Port-au-Prince. You're there to help with the rebuilding, the reconstruction of Haiti, so and then especially
around Port-au-Prince.
Since you have been on the ground, we spoke to you last weekend, you were about to go, what have you seen and what have you
accomplished?
TAD AGOGLIA, FIRST RESPONSE TEAM OF AMERICA: Well, Don, from being on the ground, you know, we've quickly realized, we're
just on the brink of the rebuilding. There are still so many people. There are hundreds and thousands of folks that need food, that
need water, that need temporary shelter, that need to get into some safe and secure environment within the next six to nine months,
so actually our equipment is going to be used to help get aid into areas.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: And I want to say, this is your equipment. We've got video, Tad, of your equipment coming in. How did it get over there, and
again, these are pictures, your equipment coming in, so once it got there, take us through what happened.
AGOGLIA: Well, Don, once it's gotten here, we've taken it off of the barge. We've put it into a safe and secure area. We've decided that
we're going to bring the equipment to a city called city Saleh, where there's 200,000 people over a 70 percent of the people, were
unemployed even before the quake hit. There's a need to get doctors in there and medical supplies and food and water and tents.
We've identified a compound where there's a wall that has fallen. We're going to clear that area. Use local workers to build a new wall
and then an organization called Samaritans first, is going to set up a medical facility there and bring in the emergency supplies that
that community needs.
LEMON: So, Tad, listen, you know, you do disaster recovery. This is your thing. This is why we honored you as a hero here on CNN.
Just honestly, personally, what -- when you saw the devastation there, what was your response? What do you think of this? And can it
compare to any other disaster that you've seen?
AGOGLIA: Well, it can't compare to any disaster I've seen. The suffering can. I mean, obviously even what we saw in the states in
Katrina, suffering is suffering. When people are hurting and when people need help, we've got to respond. We've got to help. But, yes,
I'm sure, you know, you've heard it many times, this is just a catastrophic, devastating situation that we're dealing with here. The
amount of people that are displaced, the amount of people that are in need of emergency care is -- it's almost hard to wrap your mind
around it.
LEMON: Yes. Having done this, give us -- I don't know if you can -- an assessment of how long you think it will take before it at least
has some semblance of normalcy.
AGOGLIA: Well, Don, I would say, you know, we could begin to see some normalcy within a year or two. But a real rebuilding, a real
reconstruction of the community would probably take about ten years. I'm so moved. Everywhere I go, I see so many young people, so
many people on the streets trying to sell what they can. I see an interest in commerce, an interest in working hard.
I would hope that in this rebuilding process that wouldn't just taken through the account, the buildings and the infrastructure and the
sewage and the water, but we take into account the potential commerce here. You know, farming, biodiesel, you know, tourism. I think
that should really be part of the long-term process of rebuilding here. Something towards sustainability for this people, because I'm
really moved at the welcome we've received here and the wonderful people that we meet everywhere we go.
LEMON: Hey, Tad, that's why we -- you're a CNN Hero, a CNN Hero of 2008. His organization is called First Response Team, again
it's an NGO. Look it up online. Tad, please keep in touch with us and thank you for taking, you know, a moment to come because we
know that you are very busy there. I want to tell you tonight 8:00 p.m. Eastern, right there, Hero Special is going to be on the air tonight,
8:00 p.m. Eastern.
Make sure you join us here on CNN, also if you know an extraordinary person, someone like Tad, a hero, you can nominate him or her
by going to CNN.com/hero. Click on the nominate tab. And while you are there, you can check out CNN's here of the week again, 8
p.m. right here on CNN, there's going to be a Hero Special hosted by our very own Anderson Cooper.
OK. So, if the Obama administration has its way, the pentagon will allow gays to serve openly in the military. Former Defense
Secretary William Cohen will be our very special guest to discuss this controversial policy and whether or not it should be repealed or
can be repealed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: OK, you want to pay close attention to this. We're talking about the state of our nation, but this is going to be a huge story in
the coming weeks and months here in the United States. It's called -- its nickname Dadt, which is "Don't ask, Don't tell." Since 1993
it's been the official U.S. policy towards gays serving in the military. Next Tuesday, the top two military leaders in the Obama
administration will go before Congress to make the case that it is time to scrap the policy and let gays serve openly in the military.
CNN's Ted Rowlands sat down with three gay active duty service members who say, Dadt, "Don't ask, Don't tell" is the same as
"Living a Lie."
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Three active members of the U.S. military, all gay, all possibly risking their careers
talking to us. That's why we're not showing their faces. An army sergeant with ten years of service who's done a tour in Iraq, a female
army mp who's been in for five years and has always been to Iraq and a navy sailor who joined a year and a half ago. They all argue
that despite what's going on in the world including two wars now is the time to change "Don't ask, Don't tell" and listen to what they say
about "Living a Lie."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: I am terrified that somebody in my chain of command is going to find out. There's always that pressure.
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: I agree. It is a near constant thing because you're almost always putting up some sort of a front of a band of
brothers that everybody talks about. I'm kind of that brother with the secret and yes, it does wear on you.
ROWLANDS: Why did you do this interview?
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: Well, this institution doesn't mean you don't tell when it is broken. We're just giving voices. You know, some
screwed up here.
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: We really think it is the best thing for the military, all services and the best thing for this country for this to be
repealed.
ROWLANDS: Why now? Why do we need to deal with this now?
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: It is a problem now. I think that our soldiers deserve to have their fore rights.
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: Gays, lesbians, transgenders are in the military now. People know about it and the people who are against
it who don't want to take a shower with us, that stuff already happens. It's not going to change.
ROWLANDS: And do you find that people through the process of elimination figure you are gay?
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: I've been aware of people who knew that I was gay. And I never really felt like I was threatened. I never felt
like I had to keep watching over my shoulder for, you know, the witch hunters to come after me with their forks and pitchforks.
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY: I would say everybody in my group where I work, they all know that I am gay. If, you know, I can be open with
them, I would be able too trust them more and they would know that they could trust me because I trust them with something so you
know important.
ROWLANDS: Would you all come out right away if "Don't ask, Don't tell" was lifted?
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY SERVICEMEMBER: I wouldn't go up to everybody saying, hey, I'm gay. But you know, the people who were
important, clearly important to me, they will know.
UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY SERVICEMEMBER: I will not hang a rainbow in my office but I will definitely have a coming-out-party.
ROWLANDS: All three say they're pleased and surprised that the president mentioned repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell in his State of
the Union address. They're hoping it actually leads to a change so they can stop living a lie.
Ted Rowlands, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: All right. It is certainly a very interesting story. So let's go right away to William Cohen. He dealt directly with this controversial
policy as defense secretary under President Bill Clinton. Today, he's the chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group, which represents
defense contractors. He joins us from Washington.
Good to see you.
WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY & CEO, CHAIRMAN, COHEN GROUP: Good to see you, Don.
LEMON: So you heard the two service members there, the gentlemen there, saying this is already happening, already showering with
people. Everyone already knows. So what is the big deal? Is that so? And is that so, and is that a case, an argument to repeal Don't
Ask, Don't Tell?
COHEN: Well, I suspect what they say -- or have said is true. The lead-in to the story was that these three people were risking their
careers by going on television, therefore, you had to camouflage their identities. The reality is they're risking their lives every day to
serve this country. and that's something we have to come to grips with. This is why I think the president said it is time, after 17 years,
to review the policy and repeal it if it can be done. So I think the time issue is not one that's really the desposited (ph) case. We're
having two wars, that's true. But when the policy was adopted, there were no two wars going on at that time. It was relatively calm in
terms of the international scene as far as the United States. And yet the issue has always bring it's not time yet. The time has come to
look at it and say that people should be able to serve honorably.
The key issue should be capability and the key issue should be conduct. How have they conducted themselves? Are they conducting
themselves as men and women who were patriotic, dedicated and carrying out their mission? That ought to be the test.
LEMON: You are saying it shouldn't be about sexuality, should be about whether you can do the job, just as in private, in everyday life
and in everyday companies, jobs?
COHEN: We should try to eliminate discrimination whenever we can. If you went back and looked at how discriminatory policies have
evolved over the years, going back to the time when blacks in this country were segregated and they said, well, it would disrupt unit
cohesion if they were allowed to be integrated or we couldn't have women in combat aircraft. That didn't take place until 1994, when
the first woman was able to fly in a combat aircraft. Well, talk to Tammy Duckworth now to see whether or not women are capable of
flying combat aircraft.
I think what's great about our country is we're able to evolve, we're able to look at a situation, say, you know, there are some inequities
here. We can deal with this. We can implement regulations. We can control conduct. And if people are not measuring up to those
conduct standards, they can be dismissed. But the notion that someone can be gay in the military and not anyone know it, you can
sacrifice or she can sacrifice their lives, but if they say they're gay, then they're out. I think that's a policy which needs to be reviewed.
And I would advocate to be repealed.
LEMON: Let me ask you quickly. Did you, at the time when you were working with Clinton administration, was this your stance? Did
you believe this then?
COHEN: Well, we had just passed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule when I was in the Senate, as a matter of fact. And that was the
testimony at the time. And I supported the rule at the time. And so it really didn't become a major issue when I got to the Pentagon
because it had been relatively new.
LEMON: So you think that now we've evolved beyond that and you feel that it should be repealed?
COHEN: Well, I think that there is new -- I think that society itself has evolved. You had the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, John
Shalikashvili, call for a review. And I would suggest a revision -- some years ago.
LEMON: Hey, hey real quickly, I have a very short amount of time. Do you know Ike Skelton, who is a Democrat and worked with you 17
years ago, and said, don't do it, don't repeal it, it would be detrimental.
COHEN: Yes. Listen, my friend, John McCain, feels the same way. This is an issue that is going to be controversial, but I think it's time
to have it brought before the Congress and have a full airing of the issue and see whether it can be reviewed.
LEMON: OK. I have to go. Do you think that it'll be repealed? If you can give me a yes or no answer?
COHEN: I don't know. I think we'll have to wait and see.
LEMON: OK. I have to move on. But I want to ask you about something because I have you here. I want to change the topic for a
moment and ask you, the Obama administration announced a nearly $6.4 billion arms package for Taiwan and that move has China
outraged. Leaders in Beijing announced China was suspending military and security contracts with the U.S. and will impose
sanctions. So what do you make of this?
COHEN: Well, it's an age-old problem that we have in dealing with China. We have two policies. One, a one-China policy, and we also
have support for the Taiwan Relations Act. That means that we are committed to helping Taiwan to defend itself by supplying them
with equipment they need.
The real answer is for China not to pose a military threat to Taiwan. They are evolving. They are getting together. I think they'll be a
peaceful reconciliation between the mainland and Taiwan. It's happening already. And so this is an unnecessary confrontation.
The easiest thing to do would be for China to pullback its median-range ballistic missile, stop pointing so many at Taiwan, and then
you wouldn't have the necessity for Taiwan to be requesting defensive equipment that Congress would them be providing for them. It's
easier -- I think it's an emotional issue but it's one that can be resolved without confrontation.
LEMON: Secretary William Cohen, thank you, sir.
COHEN: Great to be with you.
LEMON: Toyota owners, I want you to listen up here. The carmaker has some contrite words and some new parts that you'll want to
know about.
And we'll hear the best-known song that was sung at the Obama inauguration. Now the son of an American diva says she is sick, big-
time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: I want to update you now on some of our top stories. If you own one of those millions of recalled Toyotas, your fix is on the
way. A Toyota spokesman tells CNN that the company has met with federal regulators to talk over a repair plan. Now the company has
to replace millions of sticking gas pedals. Toyota is planning an announcement soon. But wouldn't give a time line for when the fix will
be ready. Meantime, Toyota's president has apologized for the whole mess, telling customers, quote, "We're extremely sorry."
Rival automaker, Honda, has some problems of its own tonight. The company is recalling 141,000 of its fit cars right here in the U.S.
Some of the 2007 and 2008 models have faulty power windows. They have switches that could pose a fire hazard.
Singer Etta James is seriously ill with a staph infection. That is according to her son. She's been in a Los Angeles hospital since last
week with MRSA. MRSA, it's an infection resistant to antibiotics. The 72-year-old singer was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease last
year. She's best known for her 1961 hit "At Least," which was sung at President Barack Obama's inaugural ball.
Imagine watching the State of the Union address and hearing the president mention you. It actually happened to a Philadelphia man.
and we're going to talk to him. Wait till you hear his story.
And a lot of people are sporting these shirts around New Orleans. But the NFL really doesn't care for the fashion statement.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right, so this week, during the State of the Union address, President Barack Obama boasted a bit about his stimulus plan,
and he had this to say. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I talked to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia, who said he used to be
skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: We know we have had our stimulus project all week long here on CNN and our stimulus desk, so we decided that we would
track down this window manufacturer. Here's his name. His name is Alan Levin, and I got the chance to talk to him right after that
speech, the day after. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, Alan, it must have been pretty exciting hearing the president mention you?
ALAN LEVIN, WINDOW MANUFACTURER BUSINESS OWNER: It was truly amazing. We were completely excited, overjoyed, giddy,
everything.
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: You know what, here's the interesting thing. You were skeptical about this process, about the stimulus, you were not sure it
would get to the right people and help at all, and now?
LEVIN: I'm a believer. We were very skeptical that we were mortgaging the future. But we've seen the benefits by the job hirings. And
we see the people, the families that we're feeding.
LEMON: Yes. So if this stimulus had not been given out, if you had not received this stimulus, I should say, where would your
business, where do you think that your business would be now?
LEVIN: We'd be struggling like the rest in the industry was before. The industry was off 30 percent before the stimulus act.
LEMON: Uh-huh. And how was your business before the stimulus act?
LEVIN: We were fighting to keep down 10 percent.
LEMON: To get your cost and everything down 10 percent. You had 180 -- is it 185 employees last year, right?
LEVIN: Correct.
LEMON: And now?
LEVIN: 285.
LEMON: So you've added 100 employees in just one year. How much does that -- how much of that can be attributed to the stimulus?
LEVIN: I'd say a large part of it. I would say the majority.
LEMON: Yes. And also it's not just the stimulus. You've added 100 employees. You're doing much better now. But you've said,
because of the tax credits that may have helped more than just getting the stimulus money to repair windows in Philadelphia housing.
LEVIN: Correct. They put in that 30-30 Act, which was a U value (ph) below .30, and a solar heat gain below. 30, and allowed the
homeowner to get up to a $1,500 tax credit if they put in a high- energy-efficient window.
LEMON: And so how much business have you gotten from that?
LEVIN: We're up over 30 percent this year.
LEMON: Ah, that's really good. Listen, you have a 15-year-old daughter named Sydney, 15-year-old son, Austin, wife, Fran, high school
sweetheart you met at 15 years old. She helps in the business as well. You were really sort of -- you epitomize America, right, with
owning your own business, the American dream.
So if you can explain to our viewers, in a way that they can relate, if you're a business out there struggling about the stimulus money, I
would imagine your message would be, there's hope? I'm not sure. I don't want to put words into your mouth.
LEVIN: No, absolutely. It's truly the American dream. My business that my father, Earl Levin, started back in 1975 and, with
perseverance, quality products and service, if you keep fighting, you know, it does pay off.
LEMON: Yes. Anything else you want to say to the people of America, who may be watching, your family members, who've helped you
throughout all of this, and maybe even the president for mentioning you in his speech.
LEVIN: Keep buying energy-efficient products and lower your energy costs.
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: Right. So listen, not is it we're only talking about housing and urban development, but it's also about clean energy, green
energy, saving energy and money. So you know you are hitting a whole lot of points here.
Alan, we really appreciate it. Best of luck to you, OK?
LEVIN: Thank you, don.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: Great guy. Nice family. Thank you so much for that interview, Alan.
You know the best foods to keep your heart healthy? Do you know what they are? Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta offers up a top-ten, it's a new
top-ten, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: There are a whole lot of claims out there about foods that are good for your heart. Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta is here to separate
fact from fiction as part of our series, "Fit Nation."
(FIT NATION)
LEMON: All right, Sanjay.
"The Situation Room" with Mr. Wolf Blitzer straight ahead.
Wolf, what do you have for us?
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM: Don, coming up at the top of the hour, we'll do something very special. It was an
extraordinary meeting on Friday, the president met with Republican House members in Baltimore. Television cameras were allowed
inside. The president had some tough exchanges with Republican Congressmen. We're going to play it for you. It was a rare moment.
You'll see it all right here in "The Situation Room." That's coming up in a few moments.
Don, back to you.
LEMON: We'll be watching. Thank you very much, Wolf.
You know, it is something New Orleans Saints have been chanting for years and really many people in New Orleans have been
chanting for a long, long time. "Who Dat", right? They're at the center of a legal fight right now. Those words, we'll tell you about that,
what's going on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SINGING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: That's from 1980. That's the original "Who Dat" video. It is written by a man, the original song, Steve Monaster. There is Aaron
Neville performing. Again, this is courtesy of YouTube.
You know, this is a huge controversy down in Louisiana. It has gotten all the way to the NFL. "Who Dat" is something that New Orleans
Saints fans have been chanting for years. And with the Saints headed to the Super Bowl, it is popping up on lots of T-shirts, right? So
the NFL, the National Football League, not amused by this, telling retailers to stop selling the shirts. But a spokesman denies the NFL
is trying to stop people from using the phrase "Who Dat." He says, quote, "We are not seeking to exclude all uses of "Who Dat" on
merchandise. But in connection with the Saints, we do have to protect the rights of licensees with prior authorization to produce
merchandise with the logo." He went on to say " "Who Dat" on a green or white T-shirt by itself is not an issue for us. But the inclusion
of the Saints helmet, logo or colors, becomes an issue. And we do not..."
Go ahead because we -- do we have to say this whole statement?
Anyway, they are basically saying, as long as it is not on the black and gold shirt.
Rick Harrow, help me out here. Who owns this?
RICK HARROW, CNN BUSINESS SPORTS ANALYST: "Who Dat" going to own that shirt, right?
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: Yes.
HARROW: The bottom line of it all is that it is pretty complicated legal theory. It is based on common sense. If it is in the public
domain, then, you know, nobody can all of a sudden say we own it, we'll charge for it. And if it is not, it is OK.
So it is probably a negotiated settlement with "Who Dat" not being owned by the NFL. But the Saints likeness being owned by the NFL.
So then they may have to change the pattern of the shirt.
However, it is in this political environment, maybe there is a compromise where the shirt is there and the money has been given to
charity. The NFL is pretty strong on certain things. Even with churches televising the Super Bowl at big parties to raise money, they
didn't allow that a few years ago so...
LEMON: I can understand the restriction and they want to, you know, sort of keep it in their realm and they want to protect the rights or
whatever. But the NFL -- and this is just for someone growing up there -- the NFL did not start "Who Dat". And the Saints didn't start it
either. That was started back in the '60s and the '70s, Southern Jaguars, in Baton Rouge, another university, Baton Rouge, the
Southern in Baton Rouge and there's LSU in Baton Rouge. People at the Southern Jaguar games would start to say "Who Dat" and it
caught on at LSU. And then it caught on with the Saints and it caught on in other places. And there is also -- in New Orleans as well,
an African-American high school, it started there as well.
So the Saints don't really own it either. I think it is owned by the people. If anyone, it is the Southern Jaguars or the boys who were at
St. Aug High School.
HARROW: Don Lemon giving us unique historical perspective of his boyhood home.
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: I'm telling you the truth.
HARROW: Yes, but the point is I don't think there is turns on who owns "Who Dat". This turns on using the Saints likeness in the same
shirts. And, frankly, look, the NFL feels really strongly about Katrina relief. We've seen a lot of that, the Drew Brees Foundation, Peyton
Manning from there. I think there is controversy is probably well founded, but will be over very quickly is my point.
LEMON: OK. Yes, and it is also millions of dollars probably in merchandising dollars. But one person who, you know, may agree with
that, it is owned by the people is David Vitter who is, you know, had some very strong words. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DAVID VITTER, (R), LOUISIANA: I am personally printing "Who Dat" shirts and I'm going to make them widely, commercially
available. So if they're going to start suing people, they need to put me on the list.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So there you go. That's how people in Louisiana feel because they feel that they own that.
Rick Harrow, again, as I said, probably the NFL and the team, because we're talking about millions and millions of dollars of
merchandising, and it is -- you know, there is a controversy in a time when it is a good thing for the city, that the Saints are going to the
super bowl, and it is a really good time for the Saints as well.
HARROW: And kudos to Senator Vitter, but also to the NFL. I think this will be worked out and we'll see what happens when we go to
the Super Bowl next week. And I'll see you tomorrow.
LEMON: I'll see you next week. Thank you.
"Who Dat" talking about beating them Saints? "Who Dat." "Who Dat."
We have someone from New Orleans dancing in the studio now. Can you get her on camera?
You want to do that dance.
(LAUGHTER)
Come on. "Who Dat" talking about beating them Saints? "Who Dat"? "Who Dat"? You're from New Orleans, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Who Dat." Yes!
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: We're back with your comments in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: OK, it's time to read some of your comments. And we have been so busy, I didn't have a chance to go through a lot of them.
But here's a -- a lot of people weighing in on "Who Dat".
Don11 says, "If you look at trademark law, the NFL is required to aggressively protect their trademarks."
Here's what dvcaz says, "DADT" -- talking about Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- "needs to be ended. Any American willing to risk their lives for
this nation deserves everyone's respect."
Let's go down and see another one.
Here's from sophmom, she says, "DADT isn't the same as living a lie, it is living a lie. Not the same. It is living a lie."
"Edward's story explosive, watched twice last night. Don't care what Edwards' attorney says. Seems mostly credible. Tiger can go
home now."
All right. And more, on and on and on about that.
"The story on John Edwards has me smiling now. It is a mess. I think the Obama administration found out and that's why he wasn't
part of the administration."
Make sure you join our conversation. You can log on to social networking sites.
I'm Don Lemon in Atlanta. Thank you for joining us. See you back here at 7:00 p.m.
"THE SITUATION ROOM" with Mr. Wolf Blitzer, right now
Weather forecast
CNN en ESPAOL | CNN Chi l e | CNN Expansi on | | | |
CNN TV | HLN | Transcri pts
2010 Cabl e News Network. Turner Broadcasti ng System, Inc. Al l Ri ghts Reserved.
Terms of servi ce | Pri vacy gui del i nes | Adverti si ng practi ces | Adverti se wi th us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Hel p
Home | Vi deo | NewsPul se | U.S. | Worl d | Pol i ti cs | Justi ce | Entertai nment | Tech | Heal th | Li vi ng | Travel | Opi ni on | i Report | Money | Sports
Tool s & wi dgets | RSS | Podcasts | Bl ogs | CNN mobi l e | My profi l e | E-mai l al erts | CNN Radi o | CNN shop | Si te map
GAYS AND LESBIANS AT WAR: MILITARY SERVICE IN IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN UNDER ~DON`T ASK, DON`T TELL
By Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Center Ior the Study oI
Sexual Minorities in the Military, University oI CaliIornia, Santa Barbara.
September 15, 2004

The Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military is an oIIicial research unit
oI the University oI CaliIornia, Santa Barbara. The Center is governed by a distinguished
board oI advisors including the Honorable Lawrence J. Korb oI the Council on Foreign
Relations, Honorable Coit Blacker oI StanIord University and ProIessor Janet Halley oI
Harvard Law School. Its mission is to promote the study oI gays, lesbians, and other
sexual minorities in the armed Iorces. More inIormation is available at
www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu.
1
Contents
Finaings 3
Overview & Parameters 5
Historv 6
Methoaologv 7
Section I Bonaing. Morale & Cohesion 9
Section II Access to Support Services 19
Section III Privacv 23
Section IJ Leaaership. Enforcement & the Rule of Law 32
Section J Talent & Retention 38
Conclusion 42
Biographical Sketch 44
SelectBibliographv 45

2
Findings
1. Gays and lesbians serve on the Irontlines oI Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom, taking combat and combat-support roles as oIIicers
and enlisted personnel in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. Despite the
prohibitions oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell, don`t pursue, many serve openly or are
known to a maiority oI the troops in their unit. When gays are out, they report
greater success in bonding, morale, proIessional advancement, levels oI
commitment & retention and access to essential support services.
2. Nearly all the gay and lesbian service members interviewed Ior this study reported
that the 'don`t ask, don`t tell policy impeded their capacity to bond with their
peers, to develop trust within their units, to discuss basic personal matters, and
to achieve maximum productivity in their working lives as Iighters and
support personnel. Reported hardships were exacerbated during deployment,
when support networks and resources outside the military are less accessible.
Many reported that, due to the policy`s strictures on expression, they
sometimes avoided socializing with their comrades, and were perceived by
others as anti-social.
3. None oI the gay and lesbian interviewees reported any impairment oI unit
cohesion as a result oI their homosexual identity being known during
deployment. Some reported that the 'don`t tell clause oI the policy
undermined unit cohesion and impeded their ability to reach their potential.
Some members reported minor disruptions resulting Irom anti-gay sentiment
which were comparable to other kinds oI tension resulting Irom gender- or
race-based interpersonal conIlicts.
4. Privacy does not appear to be aIIected by the presence oI openly gay troops in the
wars in AIghanistan and Iraq. Despite widespread knowledge oI the presence
oI gay service members, a norm oI discretion prevails, and most gays and
lesbians who come out voluntarily do so quietly and to close conIidantes.
5. Troops described a wide variety oI sleeping and showering arrangements,
including open showers, communal shower tents and makeshiIt showers that
were used beIore sites in Iraq and AIghanistan were improved, as well as
single-stall showers and private bathrooms. No particular arrangement was
seen to have impaired unit cohesion or undermined combat eIIectiveness.
3
6. EnIorcement oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom is inconsistent and oIten arbitrary, and is largely
dependent on the discretion oI individual commanders. It appears to be tied to
troop strength needs rather than privacy or unit cohesion. In many cases, the
unpredictability oI enIorcement appears to have undermined respect Ior
military law. The message oI policy itselI, which states that homosexuality is
'incompatible with military service, nurtures anti-gay sentiment, which some
commanders endorse and perpetuate. Service members also reported uneven
distribution oI training on the 'don`t ask, 'don`t tell and 'don`t harass
tenets oI the policy.
7. The attitudes oI younger recruits were reportedly more accepting oI
homosexuality than those oI older and senior military personnel. Some
indicated that enIorcement oI and support Ior the ban on openly gay service
came primarily Irom older members oI the military who had served when an
outright ban was in place. Service members who had served both beIore and
aIter the current policy was adopted said a signiIicant evolution in Ieelings
about homosexuality had occurred since 1993.
8. The policy Irequently deprives gay and lesbian service members oI access to
support services, including medical care, psychological assistance and
religious consultations, because they have no guarantee that personnel in these
oIIices will hold their words in conIidence.
9. Some gay troops cut their service short, declined to re-enlist or were discharged
due to 'don`t ask, don`t tell in the midst oI Operation Enduring Freedom or
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Discharges have declined since the start oI Operation
Enduring Freedom, which is consistent with the historical trend oI dwindling gay
discharges during wartime. Nevertheless, gays continue to be expelled in 161
diIIerent occupational specialties, including linguists, intelligence personnel,
engineers, administrative specialists, transportation workers and military police.
Cases were also reported in which service members came out in order to get out
oI their service obligations.
4
Overview & Parameters
This study assesses the qualitative experiences oI gay, lesbian and bisexual service
members who were deployed as part oI Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) between October 7, 2001 and September 1, 2004. It is designed to
evaluate the impact oI the 'Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell policy on the capacity oI gay troops to
perIorm their duties as part oI an eIIective military Iorce. To make these assessments,
analyses addressed the eIIects oI the policy on morale, cohesion, privacy and retention, as
well as the eIIects oI leadership and policy enIorcement on gay troops.
A study oI this nature is important Ior several reasons. The rationale Ior a policy banning
openly gay troops has been that letting avowed gays serve in the military would
compromise the privacy, morale and unit cohesion that are essential to an eIIective
Iighting Iorce.
1
Social scientiIic data supporting these claims have been scant, and much
oI the public debate on this issue has relied on anecdotal evidence and political rhetoric.
In addition, most oI the discussion about how and whether to limit gay service has been
carried out Irom the perspective oI straight service members, with little attention to the
impact oI actual and potential gay and lesbian recruits. Finally, U.S. military Iorces have
been engaged in maior combat operations in the Middle East Ior the Iirst time since
'don`t ask, don`t tell was adopted, aIIording the opportunity to assess the impact oI the
policy in the Iield. An investigation oI this sort is particularly valuable during a period
when military Iorces are stretched thin, and the stakes Ior national security oI well-
designed personnel policies are high.
This study is based on thirty in-depth interviews with gay, lesbian and bisexual service
members who were deployed to the Middle East, as well as Iield observations made
stateside. It draws additionally on secondary research and interviews with government
oIIicials, academics and other experts on military aIIairs (see section on Methoaologv,
below, and attached bibliography). Subiects Ior the study were drawn Irom the Army,
Navy, Marines and Air Force. They include active duty, Reserves and National Guard,
enlisted and oIIicer corps, male and Iemale, combat, combat-support and service-support
(e.g. administrative) specialties. They represent all regions oI the country and diverse
racial, ethnic, class, age and educational backgrounds. Straight service members were
consulted Ior background inIormation, but in-depth interviews were limited to those who
identiIy as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Previous studies have assessed attitudes oI straight
service members, although these studies are limited and more qualitative research is
needed to accurately assess the values, belieIs and attitudes oI straight troops with regard
to gay service.
2
1
USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces: See also the comments oI
Charles Moskos, principal architect oI the policy, in Nathaniel Frank, 'What`s Love Got To Do With It: The
Real Story oI Military Sociology and Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell` in Lingua Franca, October, 2000.
2
For example, one study reporting on attitudes oI straight troops about gay service relied on convenience
sampling methods rather than strict probability sampling to select respondents, and it did not include senior
oIIicers. It is thereIore not possible to generalize their results to the entire military population. See 'Sexual
Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessments, National DeIense Research
Institute, 1993, pp215-216.
5
Historv
The current policy on gays in the U.S. military, commonly known as 'don`t ask, don`t
tell, allows gays and lesbians to serve so long as they reIrain Irom stating their sexual
orientation or engaging in homosexual conduct. In 1993, President Clinton, seeking to
IulIill a campaign promise to liIt the ban on gay troops, ordered his DeIense Secretary,
Les Aspin, to review the military`s existing regulation on gay troops, a Carter-era ban
which was Pentagon-wide but had no basis in Iederal law.
3
The directive stated that the
review should 'end the present policy oI the exclusion Irom military service solely on the
basis oI sexual orientation.
4
The action prompted intense opposition Irom members oI Congress and senior military
leaders, including the Joint ChieIs oI StaII. AIter meeting with law-makers and senior
military leaders, President Clinton suspended enIorcement oI the Pentagon`s existing ban
on gay troops, but said he would not issue an executive order liIting the ban until
interested parties had a chance to review and debate the merits oI the plan.
5
Congress held hearings on the matter in the spring oI 1993, aIter which the President,
along with military and Congressional leaders, agreed to a compromise policy in which
gays would be allowed to serve iI they were not open and iI they did not engage in
homosexual conduct.
6
The policy was written into law in November, 1993, and the
Department oI DeIense promulgated its implementing regulations the Iollowing month.
7
Both discharge Iigures and reports oI anti-gay harassment increased substantially in the
years Iollowing the implementation oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell. But other aspects oI the
impact oI serving under the policy have not been adequately investigated.
8
This study
aims to assess the qualitative experiences oI gay and lesbian troops who have served in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom under 'don`t ask, don`t tell.
3
Les Aspin Memorandum to the Joint ChieIs oI StaII on 'Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed
Forces, July 19, 1993.
4
Weekly Compilation oI Presidential Documents, vol. 29 (Jan. 29, 1993): pp. 108-112.
5
New York Times, Jan. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 1993: Weekly Compilation oI Presidential Documents, vol. 29
(Jan. 29, 1993): pp. 108-112.
6
'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Hearings BeIore the Committee on Armed
Services, U.S. Senate, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Hearing 103-845 (1993).
7
USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces: New York Times, Dec. 23,
1993.
8
'Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell,` Servicemembers Legal
DeIense Network, 2003.
6
Methodologv
A study assessing the impact oI military policy on gay and lesbian service members Iaces
a number oI methodological challenges. Because it is illegal Ior service members to state
that they are gay, it is not possible to conduct random selection surveys oI gay troops, and
it is diIIicult to reach large numbers oI gay and lesbian troops. In addition, quantitative
surveys on this topic are limited in their ability to generate reliable inIormation because
responses may be swayed by the knowledge that there is a ban on openly gay service
members. The language oI the Iederal statute, which says that known homosexuals
'would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards oI morale, good order and
discipline essential to the military, sends the message that gay people are unwelcome in
the military and 'good soldiers may be inclined to echo the tone set at the top.
9

Since random selection surveys were both impossible and oI limited use, subiects Ior this
study were recruited in three ways: First, calls Ior interviewees were placed in the
Advocate.com, the website oI the nation`s largest gay and lesbian news magazine.
Second, calls Ior subiects were sent out via email lists and listserves oI organizations oI
gay veterans, gay advocacy and gay research groups. These groups included CSSMM
(Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military), AVER (American Veterans Ior
Equal Rights), SLDN (Servicemembers Legal DeIense Network), MEI (Military
Education Initiative), LCR (Log Cabin Republicans), the Liberty Education Forum and
the Military Freedom Proiect. Third, mindIul oI a possible bias produced by relying on
willing interviewees who might be eager to respond to advertisements and Iormal
postings in gay-oriented publications or websites, participation was also solicited Irom
service members identiIied through Iriends, acquaintances and other peers oI initial
respondents. Roughly IiIteen percent oI interviewees comprise this group oI subiects
who did not reply to Iormally posted calls Ior interviews, but were contacted through
private avenues.
The limitations oI this sampling strategy are that it is not possible to generalize about the
entire military Irom a non-random selection oI interviews. The interview strategies used
Ior this study can nevertheless yield highly useIul inIormation about the impact oI
deploying to combat while serving under 'don`t ask, don`t tell. In order to draw
conclusions Irom in-depth interviews, a similar set oI questions was asked to all
respondents covering the Iollowing areas: (1) personal background, (2) military iob and
rank, (3) observed attitudes oI military personnel toward homosexuality, (4) degree oI
privacy, (5) nature oI living arrangements, and (6) impact oI the policy. Because oI the
limitations oI a non-random sampling strategy, this study incorporates a number oI other
methodological approaches to check identiIied patterns against social science data Irom a
wide body oI literature corresponding to these areas. This procedure allowed Iurther
assessment oI the validity and reliability oI a variety oI subiective conclusions, so that
meaningIul and relevant Iindings could be derived. These additional sources oI data are
discussed within the text oI the study as appropriate, and include (1) government
9
USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.
7
documents, (2) polling data, (3) newspaper and magazine articles, (4) expert opinions, (5)
scholarly studies and (6) books (see attached bibliography).
8
Section I -Bonding, Morale & Cohesion
The 'don`t ask, don`t tell policy and the rhetoric supporting it repeatedly cite 'morale
and 'unit cohesion as essential ingredients to an eIIective military. In the text oI the law,
Congress Iinds that 'one oI the most critical elements in combat capability is unit
cohesion, which it deIines as 'the bonds oI trust among individual service members that
make the combat eIIectiveness oI a military unit great than the sum oI the combat
eIIectiveness oI the individual unit members. The rationale Ior banning openly gay
service, according to the law, is that allowing it would 'create an unacceptable risk to the
high standards oI morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
essence oI military capability. Throughout the Congressional hearings surrounding the
passage oI the law, supporters oI a ban argued that cohesion and morale would be harmed
iI gays were allowed to serve openly.
10

During the debates over gay service, parties on both sides oI the issue acknowledged that
gays and lesbians already served in the military, oIten with distinction, and normally
without incident. Almost nothing, however, was said about what impact a gay ban had on
these service members, or on how bonding, morale or cohesion oI units might be aIIected
iI new regulations were implemented governing gay expression and conduct.
This study has been designed to ask those questions directly oI gay and lesbian service
members deployed to combat. The data collected suggest that the 'don`t ask, don`t tell
policy signiIicantly impairs bonding between gay troops and their straight and gay
comrades. Interviews with gay troops reveal both the centrality oI social ties to military
deployment and the special burden gay troops Iace under the restrictions on personal
expression under the policy, particularly while deployed overseas.
One oI the most Irequent responses in interviews about the impact oI serving under
'don`t ask, don`t tell was that gay and lesbian service members were compelled to shut
down in an environment in which Iorming close bonds was encouraged. Many
respondents described long hours oI 'down time, even in combat zones, during which
people passed the time by talking inIormally and discussing Iriends, Iamily and other
personal matters. During these moments oI social bonding, some gay troops had to
censor themselves, remain silent or opt out oI conversations altogether. The result was
that these troops were seen as alooI, uncaring or uninterested.
11
'It can`t be all business all the time, said an Army JAG oIIicer who was Iormerly
deployed Ior OEF as part oI the Naval Coastal WarIare community. 'You have to be able
to talk about your liIe, you have to be able to bond with the people, and I could never do
that.
12
An enlisted man said that in some units, he Ielt comIortable enough to come out
to most oI his co-workers. But when he was in a unit where people did not know his
10
USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces: 'Policy Concerning
Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Hearings BeIore the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
103rd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Hearing 103-845 (1993).
11
FD Interview: AN Interview.
12
SH Interview.
9
sexuality, 'it makes it harder to Iorm interpersonal relationships to the point where people
can go to war together.
13
One Petty OIIicer First Class in the Navy explained the added strains created by the gag
rule. 'II I have to sit there and hide my liIe, he said, 'that is stressIul. Because people
talk: when you`re at work, do you sit there and talk about work all the time? When I
can`t sit there and talk about my liIe and my Iamily, it does get stressIul. The sailor
recounted a rumor that circulated aIter he was spotted in a Starbucks with his civilian
boyIriend. The next day at work on the ship, it was reported that they had been holding
hands, which was untrue. Wishing to conIront people and correct the record, he opted
instead to lay low so as not to draw attention to himselI in a matter relating to sexuality.
The silence took a toll. 'Their closed minds iust make me into a very impersonable
person here at work, he said.
14
A Senior NCO in the Air Force who has served Ior eighteen years said the squadron is
like a Iamily, which serves as a support group away Irom home. 'II you can`t be yourselI
or reveal too much about yourselI, you`re still going to be odd man out, he said.
15
A
senior airman said she avoided get-togethers with co-workers Ior Iear oI battling
awkward moments in conversation: 'That`s like your Iamily when you`re |deployed|, so
iI you can`t be open with them and trust them, it`s kind oI like you`re out there by
yourselI. She said it was hard to be deployed because, due to the gag rule, 'you don`t
really have anybody to talk to.
16

Another Petty OIIicer First Class in the Navy said the command leadership deems it
important to build comradery through Iamily Iunctions. During deployment 'a lot oI
wives get together and help support each other back home, he explained, with childcare,
emotional support and socializing. He said he avoids command Iunctions 'because they
always try to involve the Iamilies, too, and I don`t like showing up by myselI, because
then I get a rash oI questions about why he has not brought a wiIe or girlIriend.
'Because I stay away Irom command Iunctions, he concluded, 'I don`t bond with
anyone at work anymore.
17
A Navy Lieutenant, currently studying aeronautical engineering at the Air Force Institute
oI Technology, said the ban 'ends up driving more oI a wedge |between gays and
straights| than really helping. The policy, in his view, 'makes very sharp distinctions.
but iI everyone were able to be out, there wouldn`t be such sharp distinctions. As a
result oI the policy, 'I don`t socialize as much with the people I work with because I can`t
be out to them, and that`s not good Ior cohesion. II he were able to be out, he said, he
would probably socialize more with his peers, which is especially important among
oIIicers in the squadron, who Iunction 'like your little social group. He called the ban
'detrimental and said it was exhausting 'to keep up appearances, and to pretend to be
interested in girls on a regular basis. The Lieutenant was out to over a dozen other gay
13
IN Interview.
14
WA Interview.
15
DN Interview.
16
SA Interview.
17
TR Interview.
10
sailors. 'It makes it a little bit more sane Ior my state oI mind that there are a Iew people
who know and you don`t have to be secret Irom everyone, he said.
18
A Iormer Army
StaII Sergeant agreed, saying that 'it became easier to talk to people once I was open
with them.
19
Some service members Iound that the policy aIIected not only gays and lesbians but
members oI the Iorce at large. The Army JAG oIIicer said she had to avoid reIerring to
social occasions and activities in normal conversation. At these moments, 'there were
only certain things I could say. One oI the ways I concealed was to become more
detached, more cold, which is not a good thing in the military because we`re supposed to
be laying our lives down Ior one another. She said that taking these steps was
manageable while in the inactive Reserves but took a greater toll while deployed. 'It`s so
ingrained in military culture to bond on a social level that it takes away a Iundamental
stress release and a Iundamental bonding experience to have to hide who you really are,
she said. 'Either you become a cold, detached person, or you`re a liar. It`s such a
disservice to do that to other service members.
20
Austin Rooke, an Army Captain trained in Counterintelligence and working as a liaison
oIIicer Irom SOCCENT (Special Operations Command Central), corroborated that the
policy burdens not only gay troops but members oI the Iorce at large. Rooke came out to
a Iew co-workers to a very positive response. But when Iriends oI gay troops know oI a
soldier`s homosexuality, either through a direct acknowledgment or through inIormal
signs, statements and innuendo, the straight service members become accomplices.
'When you come out to someone, Rooke said, 'you put them in an uncomIortable
position, you burden them, because they now have knowledge that you are serving
illegally. Thus gay troops are Iorced to choose between bonding eIIectively at the cost
oI burdening their comrades or shutting down at the cost oI eIIective bonding. So long as
the law bans people Irom revealing their homosexual orientation, they will not be able to
bond eIIectively without both violating the law and placing their peers in uncomIortable
positions.
21
Rooke said that when stationed in Qatar, the gag rule 'deIinitely prevented me Irom
Ieeling like I could make a connection with the people I was working with. He
struggled with whether or not to come out to his roommate, who he thought might be
accepting, but who had apparently not been exposed to many gays beIore. He decided
not to tell him he was gay, but recalled a need to have 'that kind oI human connection
when I was away Irom my support network.
22
18
Matthew Interview.
19
Brian Muller Interview.
20
SH Interview.
21
Austin Rooke Interview: One Petty OIIicer First Class in the Navy explained the diIIiculty concealing
sexual orientation even iI one conIorms to the silence provision: 'Some people can iust Iigure things out,
especially iI they`re Irom the more liberal states like CaliIornia, places where they may have been around
gay people beIore, WA Interview. A senior NCO recounted one individual who 'didn`t really have any
choice but to be openly gay, because he was very eIIeminate. He said, however, that he was 'treated with
dignity and respect, a result he attributed to the service member`s eIIort to 'always go above and beyond
and do the best iob possible. DN Interview.
22
Austin Rooke Interview.
11
Many people do not initially appreciate what the policy will require them to do
throughout the duration oI their service. As one soldier explained, the policy prohibits
gays Irom revealing or discussing their sexuality even to one another, depriving them oI
one oI the essential sources oI support which other members oI minority groups enioy.
He went Iurther, saying the ban eIIectively hampers all kinds oI bonding among members
oI the same sex. 'We`re not allowed to experience any sort oI relationship with people oI
the same gender, he said, including non-sexual intimacy.
23
'It requires a conscious
eIIort to avoid the situation where that |sexual orientation| would come up, said another,
'or it requires outright deception.
24
Another illustration oI the unIoreseen burdens oI the policy comes Irom a Surgical
Technician in the Navy who came out to his parents, and Iaced an unsettling silence Irom
them Ior a period oI time. Visibly upset but unable to explain why, he was asked by
concerned supervisors what was troubling him and why he had not received emails Irom
his parents lately. AIter evading their solicitations, he eventually came out to his Leading
Petty OIIicer, who, despite his violation oI the policy, was Iully supportive. He was told,
'I know how you Ieel and iI you need any help, let me know. His Leading Petty OIIicer
added, 'I don`t believe the military should have this policy. We really like you here and
we want to keep you here and we`ll help you out.
25
For many service members, the silence requirement raised doubts about whom to trust as
'real Iriends, and planted concerns that comrades they hoped would accept them might
eventually reiect them iI they Iound out their secret. 'I had a lot oI close Iriends but
constantly wondered iI they would be my Iriends even aIter I told them, said a
Psychological Operations StaII Sergeant working in Kirkuk, Iraq.
26
An Army Captain in
charge oI battle plans and operations in Iraq, who was out to most oI his Iriends in the
military, nevertheless was constantly 'terriIied that the remaining Iriends who didn`t
know he was gay 'would Iind out and that they wouldn`t be my Iriends anymore. He
explained that the gag rule aIIected his ability to get close to the people who didn`t know
his sexuality, especially while deployed in Iraq. 'You want to be able to share with
people and to talk to people, especially when you`re in the Iield, like when we were in
Baghdad: you want to be able to talk to people and blow oII steam and get to know
people, he said. 'II you`re not out, you`re in essence lying. He said that everyone who
knew he was gay accepted it without problem, which made it easier to Ieel at-ease in his
unit. 'I talk to most oI my Iriends and they accept it and I can be open with them and that
means so much to me, he said.
27
While the prospect oI Iacing reiection is a Iact oI liIe
Ior gays irrespective oI the policy, the ban on coming out can exacerbate these concerns
by Iorcing people into the closet and creating additional Iear and uncertainty.
A lower enlisted service member, who did not want to mention his service branch,
elaborated on how the policy can compromise the development oI trust between people in
23
IN Interview.
24
AN Interview.
25
RO Interview.
26
SM Interview.
27
FD Interview.
12
a unit. 'A great deal oI military service is being able to trust people around you, he said,
'being able to be comIortable enough around them that you can trust someone with your
liIe. Having to conceal something like this can make you doubt the personal bonds and
proIessional bonds that you have with people. The policy inIlicts damage beyond its
impact on individual gay personnel by institutionalizing the presence oI dishonest troops.
By requiring that gay people conceal basic inIormation about themselves, the policy
assures troops that people in their midst are misleading them. They are told there are
people in their midst whom they should not trust. 'It`s a Iorced lack oI integrity on your
part, continued the service member. 'II you`re living a lie, |your peers| are not trusting
you, they`re trusting a picture oI you that you put in their head.
28

A Sergeant First Class working in Psychological Operations said the strictures against
discussing one`s personal liIe yielded an eIIect similar to that oI a repressive marriage.
'You`d probably be a better Iather to your children iI you didn`t have all these
Irustrations and all the depression that goes with it, he said. Under 'don`t ask, don`t
tell, 'you can`t talk about your Ieelings. In that respect, maybe I could have been a
better soldier.
29
A combat veteran who served as both a Marine and Army inIantryman explained how the
policy limited his Iriendship with both other gays and straights. Having learned that a
comrade was gay, he avoided socializing with him because oI 'guilt by association,
opting to email one another even though they were sitting right beside each other. With
straight peers, 'there were certain people I really liked and we shared experiences with
each other, he said. 'But I only let them see part oI me, while they shared everything. I
Ielt I couldn`t always become Iriends to them and I intentionally didn`t get close to them
because oI that. Basically I shut them oII over here now that I`m back Irom the Middle
East. 'It takes a toll on me.
30

The Surgical Technician in the Navy said it was more important to be 'true to |people| at
the origins, so they would not Iind out later and Ieel deceived. 'I think it would bother
them more iI you say you`re straight and they Iind out you`re gay and Ieel like you
should have let them know beIore, he said. He explained that some people who remain
intolerant oI homosexuality express a preIerence to know who is gay so they can Ieel
better able to protect their privacy. He added that the requirement to conceal one`s sexual
orientation could distract gays and lesbians Irom the mission at hand: 'I think it hurts the
unit itselI iI you don`t tell who you really are because iI you can`t Iocus on what you
need to Iocus on because you have other things in your head, then you`re wasting time
because you`re not putting 100 into it.
31
The diIIiculties created around social cohesion were particularly pronounced Ior older
and more senior personnel, who reported Iacing increased scrutiny about their personal
lives. A Captain in the Air Force Reserves said that, at age 35, people are expected to
have a 'traditional Iamily. Seemingly harmless questions, which reIlect a 'genuine
28
IN Interview.
29
WE Interview.
30
RG Interview.
31
RO Interview.
13
interest in getting to know one another, Iollow accordingly. The gag rule disqualiIies
him Irom participating in these Iorms oI socializing: 'When I Iind myselI in a discussion
regarding personal experiences, he said, 'I oIten stay silent or don`t add much to the
conversation in order to avoid those uncomIortable moments. II I have to think very
careIully about each word I say, then I`d rather say nothing at all. As a result, 'I`ve
earned a reputation Ior being all business, hard-nosed and very diIIicult to get close to.
This is an accurate description: however, it`s not by choice. The military has Iorced me
to become this person.
32
Service members reported that when people did Iind out they were gay, relations oIten
improved. A Squadron Leader who commanded Bradley Iighting vehicles Ior the Fourth
InIantry Division in Iraq described this evolution in his relationship to the gunner who
served on his crew. 'Prior to us being a crew, he recalled, 'I wouldn`t associate with
him at all. The gay squad leader had reason to believe the gunner might not be Iully
accepting oI homosexuality. 'Then we became a crew, and we became Iriends. When he
actually Iound out, when I was actually able to open up to him, things got better in the
sense that I`m able to be myselI and he accepts me and that`s cool and he even asks me
about my partner now. The gay soldier concluded that serving openly 'brought me and
my soldiers closer together because now they know who I am. I`m a little bit more
conIident about myselI because now I don`t have to walk around with this big ape on my
back and we`re iust that much closer and I don`t have to Ieel aIraid oI talking to them
about what`s going on in my liIe.
33
A Supply Specialist who served in Iraq Irom the beginning oI the war, and whose tour
was extended because oI 'stop-loss orders, said his service would have been improved iI
he had enioyed the Ireedom to discuss his personal liIe. 'I mean, these are your best
Iriends, he said, 'these are people you live with, you die with. How easy it would have
been to say, hey, I`m gay, this is who I sleep with. I think it would have iust brought us a
hell oI a lot closer.
34

The rationale Ior 'don`t ask, don`t tell rests on the assumption that straight men are
intolerant oI, or uncomIortable around, gay men. Surveys oI women`s attitudes towards
lesbians in the military show greater willingness to tolerate gay women.
35
Since the ban
on openly gay service applies to women also, it imposes constraints on relationships that
the policy was not designed to restrict. In particular, the policy can hamper the special
bonds that are sometimes made between gay men and straight women, and between gay
women and straight men in the military. This is signiIicant because gay people have
historically conIided in straight members oI the opposite sex, with whom they oIten Ieel
more comIortable and by whom they can Ieel less threatened than straight members oI
the same sex. In addition, their shared obiects oI aIIection can become a source oI
32
JA Interview.
33
MC Interview.
34
JO Interview.
35
Wendy Biehl, a lesbian and Iormer Army Specialist, noted that women tend to socialize in the showers
without incident. 'We all talk in the showers, she said. 'We sort oI point and say, oh my god, I have a
bruise here,` and everybody iust looks. Wendy Biehl Interview.
14
commonality. 'Don`t ask, don`t tell deprives gay service members oI the option to bond
in this way, a casualty oI a ban rooted in other concerns than the prospect oI a gay soldier
conIiding in a supportive straight Iemale at work.
'Guys loved me, said Wendy Biehl, a Iormer Specialist in the Army, who shared her
sexuality with straight men during deployment to the Middle East. 'I had the best oI both
worlds. When I`d go to the showers, they`d ask me who looked like what. we`d share
sexual secrets. Biehl recounted how straight men asked her Ior sexual advice and they
had conversations in which they discussed who looked better in uniIorm than out oI
uniIorm. 'They were like my brothers, she said. 'They`d stick up Ior me.
36
Contemporary phenomena oI popular cultural, such as 'Queer Eye Ior the Straight Guy,
'Will and Grace, and the term, 'metrosexual surIaced several times in interviews, as
gays invoked a newIound tolerance and, indeed, a new kind oI iconic relationship in the
category oI 'gay-straight relations. 'The metrosexuals would come to me, said one
soldier. 'I`m going out on a Iirst date, what should I wear?` |they would ask|. We
became very good Iriends and my sexuality was never an issue.
37
'I think in today`s
military, said another, 'there`s certainly not as much concern as there was beIore. Look
what`s on TV these days: Queer Eye, Boy Meets Boy: the perception oI gays has changed
so much since the policy was Iirst instituted that no one really cares anymore. He said
the people keeping the policy in place were those who wrote it or backed it initially and
have supported it since the beginning. 'We`re talking Generals, who have basically
Iallen out oI touch with everyday people. To enlisted personnel, it`s a big ioke.
38
'I
think the most important Iactor is generational, said an Air Force Captain. 'It`s the old-
school leaders who insist on these types oI policies.
39
Indeed, interviews Ior this study suggest that the bulk oI opposition to letting gays serve
openly in the military comes Irom older and senior personnel. This Iinding is consistent
with maior polls that have classiIied the ages oI respondents when asked about their
views on gays and lesbians, but diverges Irom assertions made during debate on gay
service that young recruits would be most hostile to letting gays serve.
40
Overwhelmingly, interviewees reported that younger people 'iust don`t care about
whether their comrades are gay or lesbian. A StaII Sergeant noted that 'enlisted soldiers
are generally younger and more willing to accept new things while 'oIIicers tend to look
to regulations Ior guidance in soldiering and 'are generally distanced Irom their soldiers
and are thereIore less likely to know that one oI their soldiers is gay.
41
Another service
member said, 'people my age, high school through my age, don`t care.
42

36
Wendy Biehl Interview.
37
38
IN Interview.
39
JA Interview.
40
See, Ior example, Gallup Poll, December 5-7, 2003, in which respondents were asked, 'do you think
people who are openly gay or homosexual should or should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military?
Ninety-one percent oI respondents aged 18-29 said yes, while only 68 said yes among those who were
over 65 years old. See also The Economist/YouGov poll conducted August 16-18, 2004, reported in The
Economist, August 21, 2004.
41
SM Interview.
42
Kelly Interview.
15
Others commented on how much had changed in attitudes toward gays since the policy
was created in 1993. To some extent, it appears that strong anti-gay animus has been
replaced by gentler humor and teasing. A Marine who started out in the Navy in 1987
recounted a recent discussion in his unit about the proposed constitutional amendment to
ban same-sex marriage. He said only one person backed it. 'That, to me shows how
much attitudes have changed, he said, adding that he knew oI no disruptions caused by
the presence oI gays in the Navy or Marines. He said that people care less about sexual
orientation and more about perIormance. Only iI a gay person was a 'shitbird, or
slacker/complainer, would he or she be singled out. 'But iI a |gay| person perIorms his
iob really well, they might make a ioke and move on, but they`d not try to beat them up
or anything like that.
43

A Navy Lieutenant who ioined the service in 1993, iust beIore 'don`t ask, don`t tell was
implemented, agreed that much had changed since then. 'SpeciIically |among| younger
people and enlisted, he said, 'it`s a lot more open and accepting. Amongst oIIicers, the
older ones still have the same views. He said that a 'high school culture still prevailed
in which 'you have to make anti-gay remarks every once in a while in order to really be a
guy even though the maiority oI them really don`t care.
44
A soldier in the National Guard said the only disruption he had witnessed as a result oI
someone`s sexual orientation involved 'the one queenie guy Irom my home unit. They
call him names and. make Iun oI him behind his back. But the soldier concluded that
people are not 'hateIul because he is gay. In general, he said, 'there are a Iew suspected
gays but no one seems to care because the persons suspected do not say it one way or the
other, they iust take a little ribbing Irom time to time. He said attitudes were improving.
'Some people instead oI witch hunting us are now iust making iokes and letting it go, he
said.
45
Despite the generally positive response reported by most interviewees who came out to
their peers, social disruptions related to sexual orientation were also a Iact oI liIe during
OEF and EIF. Although discharge Iigures and reports oI anti-gay harassment decreased
since the wars began, The Servicemembers Legal DeIense Network reports 'a growing
epidemic oI anti-gay harassment within the armed Iorces. Service members who Iace
harassment or assault oIten do not report the behavior Ior Iear oI being investigated and
discharged. Such behavior, when unreported, can escalate into violence and even death,
which are clear impediments to cohesion and morale.
46

43
JS Interview.
44
Matthew Interview.
45
RB Interview.
46
'Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual Report on Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell,` Servicemembers Legal
DeIense Network, 2004: 'U.S. Army, ChieI oI StaII Memorandum, Erick K. Shinseki, July 21, 2000.
Gen. Shinseki makes the connection between harassment and unit cohesion explicit: 'When individual
dignity and respect are violated, mutual trust and unit cohesion erode. Harassment oI any kind violates
individual dignity and tears at the Iabric oI this trust and the cohesion oI our Army.
16
Those cases in which service members reacted hostilely to discussion about gay troops
are instructive. During New York City`s 'Fleet Week in May, 2004, several sailors were
asked whether they had an opinion on the 'don`t ask, don`t tell policy. Only one
respondent was willing to discuss it, saying he thought it was a Iair compromise. Another
respondent said, 'I don`t think we`re supposed to talk about that, which is not, in Iact, a
regulation mandated by the policy, but which suggests the conIusion surrounding the
policy. The others reIused to discuss it entirely, and one yelled, 'I--k the Iags. Melissa
Sheridan Embser-Herbert, a proIessor oI sociology at Hamline University, and a retired
U.S. Army Captain, has Iound that the gay ban casts such an air oI suspicion and
uncertainty over everyone`s sexuality that it encourages the perIormance oI
'hypermasculinity as a way oI proving one is not gay. By mandating that all soldiers
appear as straight, the policy requires both gays and straights to 'go out oI their way to be
read as heterosexual, which oIten entails making or engaging in homophobic or sexist
comments and behaviors.
47

These Iindings were borne out by service members` experiences in the Middle East. 'I
almost had to create some sort oI macho think, said an inIantryman who Iought in Iraq.
'That`s how I`m perceived now in my unit, that I`m a player and that I get women all the
time and have these sex parties. Little do they know.
48
One Petty OIIicer First Class
in the Navy reveals how the gay ban`s Iorced perIormance oI heterosexuality results in
anti-social and disruptive behavior. 'On a daily basis, I`m an asshole, he said. In order
to avoid giving the impression that he was a stereotypical gay man, he acted out in ways
that he thought proiected heterosexuality, which, in his case, meant being 'an asshole.
He learned that several members oI his unit thought he was gay 'because I have nice
white straight teeth and I trim my eyebrows and comb my hair and I wear gold. He said
the implication was that 'iI I come to work with bad breath and I`m messy, then I`d be
straight. He also said he thought his peers suspected his homosexuality due to his
silence on certain occasions, such as 'when I don`t take part in conversations about
demoralizing women.
49
His experience is also a reminder that it is impossible in many
cases to successIully conceal one`s homosexuality.
47
Author Interview with Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert, Oct. 3, 2003. See also Janet E. Halley, Dont.
A Reaaers Guiae to the Militarvs Anti-Gav Policv (Durham: Duke University Press, 1999)
48
RG Interview.
49
WA Interview.
17
Section II: Access to Support Services
The military provides substantial support services Ior its troops both stateside and during
deployment. The Department oI DeIense oIIers all active duty service members legal
assistance, paid time oII, liIe insurance, health care, death and burial beneIits and a large
array oI Iamily support services including chaplains, counseling, crisis assistance,
personal Iinance management, spouse employment assistance, adoption expenses and
more. Individual branches oIIer their own networks oI support. For example, The Navy
Morale, WelIare & Recreation (MWR) oIIers child development and youth recreation
programs, educational beneIits, medical care, and low- or no-cost insurance, housing and
medical care Ior sailors, spouses and children. The Army has long attracted recruits with
its popular scholarships, loans and other educational opportunities and it also oIIers its
own employment assistance, healthcare, civilian transition and reloaction support,
retirement beneIits and a variety oI religious and psychological consultation services.
50
These services are designed to make living, training and combat conditions as appealing
and stress-Iree as possible so as to maximize recruitment, retention, readiness and combat
eIIectiveness. Support services are also oIIered to Iamilies oI service members both as
added incentives Ior recruitment and to help relieve troop stress during deployment. The
logic is that iI troops can rest assured that things at home are taken care oI, they will be
less concerned with matters outside their training and combat missions and more able to
Iocus on their military obiectives.
51
The data obtained in this study suggest that many gays and lesbians who served in Iraq
and AIghanistan experienced special burdens as a result oI constricted access to such
beneIits and services. The limited access to essential support maniIested itselI in several
ways. First, there is no guarantee oI conIidentiality when service members talk to
counselors, physicians or clergy, thus eIIectively denying them access to a wide range oI
support services considered vital during deployment. 'You have to watch what you say,
said one soldier.
52
Second, because it is illegal to reveal that a service member`s spouse
or partner is a member oI the same sex, gay and lesbian troops are banned Irom
50
BeneIits are listed and explained on the websites oI the Iour maior branches. For example, see http://
www.goarmy.com and http://www.navy.com: See also Charles Moskos, 'Preliminary Report on Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Dec. 14, 2003: Statement oI Derek B. Stewart, Director, DeIense Capabilities and
Management, United States General Accounting OIIice Testimony beIore the Senate Subcommittee on
Personnel, Armed Services Committee, April 11, 2002.
51
Statement oI Derek B. Stewart, Director, DeIense Capabilities and Management, United States General
Accounting OIIice Testimony beIore the Senate Subcommittee on Personnel, Armed Services Committee,
April 11, 2002.
52
The noted military sociologist, Charles Moskos, concluded in a recent Memorandum to the OIIice oI the
Secretary oI the Army that 'the role oI the chaplaincy becomes more central than ever in the current
conIlict in Iraq, since the mission is still not well-deIined. The chaplain, he Iound, 'is regarded as one who
gives honest advice without any hidden agenda. He recommended that 'Chaplains need to make special
eIIorts to circulate among the troops. All oI this suggests how important the military deems the chaplain
to be during deployment, and thus what a disservice is rendered by depriving gay troops oI access to this
resource. Brian Hughes, an Army Ranger, corroborated the importance oI the chaplain, saying he was
'pretty much responsible Ior the morale oI the troops. Charles Moskos, 'Preliminary Report on Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Dec. 14, 2003: Brian Muller Interview: Brian Hughes Interview.
18
designating members oI their Iamily as beneIiciaries oI support, access or even
inIormation. In addition, the statute explicitly prohibits marrying or attempting to marry
a member oI the same sex, Iurther precluding gay and lesbian service members Irom
Iorming and designating recognized Iamily units with access to support and services.
Finally, since phone calls and emails are oIten monitored Ior operational security, gay and
lesbian service members report that they are not Iree to contact their partners without
resorting to extraordinary means, including changing names and pronouns, writing or
speaking in codes or leaving the base to make phone calls.
Interviewees unIailingly cited these constraints as sources oI stress during deployment to
Iraq and AIghanistan. A senior NCO in the Air Force concluded that despite the promise
oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell that gays could serve silently, in Iact, 'it was almost impossible
to remain in the service and still be gay because oI the unique restrictions on gay troops.
He described how the 'don`t tell clause placed strictures on his Ireedom to take care oI
personal matters at home. 'We always had to be ready, he explained. 'That also meant
having your unit ready and also having your personal aIIairs ready such as a will, power
oI attorney, etc. The NCO said he could not put his partner`s name in the will he had on
Iile without risking raising a Ilag and prompting an investigation. Thus he departed with
the worry that iI something would have happened to him, his partner would have had no
way oI knowing about it because he could not be listed on the 'next oI kin Iorm. 'This
guy would have pretty much been leIt in the dark: he would have probably Iound out on
the news, he said. 'BeIore you hop on a plane Ior a deployment, he said, 'you hope
you`ll have peace oI mind. The DoD |Department oI DeIense| is cutting their own
throats with this policy. For his second deployment, the two worked out a plan where
they added an 'e onto the partner`s name to make it look Iemale while still remaining
legally valid (in court, it could be chalked up to an error).
53
The NCO spoke Irom a cell phone in a truck in the parking lot oI his base Ior Iear oI
being monitored, and with his partner supervising the conversation to ensure he would
not reveal too much identiIying inIormation to researchers. His partner said that the
military oIIered numerous support resources to Iamilies, including liaisons Ior
inIormation, pizza nights, baseball games, and more, 'and we don`t have access to any oI
that. The NCO expressed concern that the policy needlessly increased the 'unknown
Iactor upon being deployed, and that gays and lesbians were Iorced to worry either about
being outed by revealing too much in their paperwork or about Iailing to adequately
prepare Ior Iamily contingencies upon deployment. Absent these worries, he would be
able to 'go and do our iobs and actually concentrate, without having to worry about
what`s going on back |home|.
54
Brian Hughes, an E5 Army Ranger who participated in POW rescues in Iraq with the
Special Operations Command, echoed the importance oI knowing that personal matters
on the home Iront are in good hands: 'The principle is soldiers should know that things
are okay back home and people are taking care oI it. He mentioned the Family
Readiness Group, in which spouses and parents are invited into meetings Ior inIormation
53
DN Interview.
54
DN Interview.
19
and support and where they get brieIings oI what is going on overseas. OIIicial support
structures also oIIer assistance with Iinancial and emotional burdens. 'They do make
especially married soldiers` lives much easier, Hughes concluded, 'and I think they Iight
better because oI it.
55
Kelly, an Army Specialist deployed to AIghanistan, recounted that when her girlIriend
had surgery, she could not request that her command Iind time Ior her to visit, as a
heterosexual service member would routinely do. Although she Ielt that 'don`t ask, don`t
tell was 'protective in a way, because nobody can make me tell them, she concluded
that the net cost oI the policy is to deny gays and lesbians access to basic sources oI
support. She said that when straight people request to visit a spouse who iust had a baby
or a medical procedure, 'we understand and say, god bless, we`re praying Ior em, go
see em.` And we don`t get that. She described 'the whole picnic thing as an eIIort to
build up 'esprit de corps, to 'hangout as people, not as, you`re my boss and I`m the
soldier.`
56
The military, she concluded, clearly sought to put service members` minds at
rest by reaching out to their Iamilies and oIIering avenues oI support, which gays cannot
access because they cannot discuss or bring partners oI the same sex.
The Army JAG oIIicer reported that her command 'made it a point to use support
services which were available Ior 'signiIicant others, but which she and her partner
could not use. She could not designate her partner`s name on the list which the
ombudsman used to convey certain inIormation to Iamily members oI deployed troops,
such as their whereabouts, condition and points oI contact. 'There was this whole
network at home designed to help with signiIicant others, and |my partner| couldn`t do
that because that would have outed me, she said. 'Just to be on a mailing list would
have raised eyebrows and could have gotten me kicked out.
57
In addition to depriving gay troops oI peace oI mind surrounding their Iamilies, partners
and home lives, 'don`t ask, don`t tell limits the opportunities oI gays and lesbians
themselves to draw on important military resources. An E4 Army National Guardsman
said he experienced great anxiety surrounding his deployment to Iraq, and he could not
access support services Ior Iear oI violating the 'don`t ask, don`t tell regulations. 'I`ve
currently had a lot oI stress and issues that I needed to talk about but, due to the problem
with mental health and the privacy rules, I have not utilized them, he said. 'The
chaplains I don`t trust Iully, as they seem to be way too into the bible to listen
obiectively.
58
Accessing medical care and consultation presented another challenge to gays and lesbians
in the military. A Psychological Operations Sergeant, emailing Irom deployment in
Kirkuk, said that aIter having sex with a new boyIriend, he developed an itch and was
concerned he might have contracted an STD. 'I was Iairly new to sex and I was scared to
death, he recalled. 'I wanted to go see a doctor but was aIraid that iI they were to look
too closely they would know that I had anal sex. So he reIused, putting his health, and
55
Brian Hughes Interview.
56
Kelly Interview.
57
SH Interview.
58
RB Interview.
20
that oI others, Iurther at risk. He also shared his reaction to a crisis oI Iaith he
experienced while serving in the Army. I wanted to talk to a chaplain or someone but
was always unable to explain everything that I was looking Ior. To this day I still have
not been able to choose a religion that I Ieel is right Ior me. He explained that the gag
rule had prohibited him Irom seeking the religious advice he craved to put his mind at
rest during his service in the Army.
Brian Muller, a Iormer Army StaII Sergeant trained in counterterrorism and bomb
assessment, who was discharged in 2003 Ior homosexuality, recalled Iriends who
neglected to get tested Ior particular kinds oI genital warts because they Ieared it would
reveal they were gay. Muller himselI said he never spoke with Psychological Support
personnel because 'there is no doctor-patient conIidentiality, at least with respect to gay
things. Muller used such services Ior other issues, and said 'I deIinitely would have
used them iI I knew there was doctor-patient conIidentiality. AIter you see someone
blown up or iniured, the Army wants to take you through the counselors, an obiective
which is clearly at cross purposes with the gag rule oI the policy, since it limits the
emotional reactions one can discuss.
59

Austin Rooke, the Army Captain, said he would not have considered availing himselI oI
many oI the support services available to straights troops. 'I never would have gone to
clergy, to discuss anything about my particular issues with my sexuality, he said. 'I
might have, iI I could have been open, but it was so Iar removed Irom anything that
would have been an intelligent thing to do. He said he never would have brought up
anything having to do with sexual health to a military physician, and instead had to use
outside clinics instead oI what was provided Ior military personnel.
60
59
60
21
Section III: Privacv
Concerns about privacy have Iueled opposition to letting gays serve openly in the
military, and constituted one oI the key rationales Ior the creation oI 'don`t ask, don`t
tell. The reasoning was that iI gay people did not come out, straight troops would be
more comIortable training and Iighting alongside them. The showering Iacilities, in
particular, have Irequently stood at ground zero oI the debate about open gay and lesbian
service in the military. Some have worried that allowing gays to shower with straights
could compromise privacy, create discomIort and undermine unit cohesion. During the
1993 debates, Senator Sam Nunn, then chairman oI the Senate Armed Services
Committee, took a camera crew into a submarine to convey how close the private
quarters are and how threatening it would be to allow gays, a move that apparently
resonated with the public and helped solidiIy opposition to liIting the ban.
61
The interviews colleted Ior this study suggest several conclusions relevant to these
concerns. First, the diverse sleeping and showering arrangements Iound both stateside
and in Iraq and AIghanistan had no impact on unit cohesion regardless oI whether a
service member`s homosexuality was known or not. Second, many gays served openly,
or were known to large numbers in their units. Third, while most gay troops were out to
some oI their peers, those who came out normally did so privately or quietly, to people
with whom they had developed bonds oI trust. Some gay interviewees noted that other
troops assumed or suspected that they or other service members were gay. This indicates
the diIIiculty oI regulating the expression oI sexuality, even iI service members do reIrain
Irom announcing their orientation. It also suggests that privacy cannot be protected by
banning statements about homosexuality since knowledge or suspicion oI it oIten
emerges without actual statements to that eIIect. Finally, the overwhelming maiority oI
subiects reported positive experiences when coming out, and said that serving openly
caused no disruptions but Irequently made their service easier. Bonds between gays and
straights improved when suspicions and uncertainty were put to rest by a revelation or
acknowledgement oI their homosexuality.
Taken together, the experiences oI gay and lesbian service members in Iraq and
AIghanistan suggest that concerns about the showers are misplaced. Since privacy is
compromised Ior everyone in the military, especially during overseas deployments, the
presence oI gay service membersknown or closetedduring deployment does not
appear to have a disproportionate impact, and would seem to lie within the normal
demands oI military liIe. Additionally, although privacy is oIten in short supply during
deployment, maior improvements in recent years have signiIicantly reduced the instances
in which service members must shower or undress in view oI one another. Maior aircraIt
carriers have college-style heads containing individual shower stalls with curtains
separating them Irom a common dressing/undressing space.
62

61
New York Times, May 11, 1993.
62
See section a(5) and a(12) oI USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces:
'Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces, Secretary oI DeIense Memorandum Ior the Joint
ChieIs oI StaII, Les Aspin, July 19, 1993.
22
Because privacy is limited Ior all personnel in the military, training and preparation
exercises, including boot camp, are designed to put recruits into situations with minimal
privacy, including shared sleeping quarters and showering Iacilities. In some cases,
conditions during training are more intimate and less private than during combat.
Interviewees, however, also described environments in Iraq and AIghanistan with little or
no privacy, which persisted Ior a number oI weeks until sites were secured and improved.
These conditions included cases in which showers were not available at all, and in which
men and women bathed in areas which had no covering and which were publicly visible,
to both men and women. One member oI the Air Force said his unit received chemical
warIare training Ior a decontamination scenario in which men and women would be
stripped naked together, a prospect which suggests that saIety is prioritized over
privacy.
63
SHOWERS
No one in this study reported any disruptions or complaints resulting Irom sharing
showers with straight service members, even though the maiority oI interviewees were
out to some or many oI their peers. There were no reports oI sexual harassment or assault
perpetrated by gay or lesbian personnel in the showers. In some cases, homoerotic banter
or behavior was reported to have taken place by straight people in the showers, but not by
gays.
Gays and lesbians described a wide variety oI showering Iacilities in Iraq and
AIghanistan. A Medical Technician in the Air Force, deployed to Kirkuk, said her unit
built a single-stall shower out oI a tarp, which aIIorded more privacy than the group
heads in training.
64
Sailors uniIormly reported that ships had 'single stalls with curtains.
One said that, 'except in boot camp, I`ve never had to take a shower with another man on
the ship.
65
A Navy Lieutenant who served in both OEF and OIF said that in Kuwait,
they used bathrooms in the coast guard base, and also had single-stall shower tents.
66
A
marine who saw combat in Iraq as a convoy commander had to wait Ior the 'luxury oI
showers in Iraq. When they Iinally arrived, 'they were oI the tent style, with open
Ironts in rows opposite one another. 'Not since boot camp and various deployments did I
use communal showers, he said.
67

The Army JAG oIIicer who served in the Navy during OEF said she had experienced
both private and communal showers. She said she shared communal showers with
straight people and people widely suspected oI being gay, and there were no problems.
She emphasized that showering together as adults meant compromising privacy Ior both
straights and gays alike, and rather than causing disruptions, this Iact was accepted as part
oI military liIe. 'I don`t care iI I`m in the shower with men or women, she said,
'because I`m not looking at anyone`s anything. It`s pretty embarrassing, especially as an
63
DN Interview.
64
SA Interview.
65
WA Interview.
66
Matthew Interview.
67
JS Interview
23
adult, to be there, and you`re not looking like you used to look, so you`re not looking at
anyone. You`re iust getting in and getting out. She said that communal showers were
'pretty rare and that in those cases, 'you probably don`t have much opportunity to
shower at all. So you want to get in and get out and it`s not a sexualized atmosphere like
it is in a porn Ilick. I iust don`t see it as a charged opportunity. I think that`s more oI a
Iantasy type situation.
68
Brian Muller, the Iormer Army StaII Sergeant, echoed the JAG oIIicer`s sentiment that
privacy was both a desired commodity and one whose short supply was accepted as part
oI military liIe. He said that in AIghanistan, even the shower tents in remote outposts had
curtains. 'They do that Ior soldiers` privacy, he said. 'People like to have a shower
curtain. Nevertheless, he said that even though men and women are supposed to have
separate quarters in hostile territory, sometimes they simply put up dividers between their
tents.
69
'Privacy is a rare thing Ior us when we`re oII-duty in the States, summarized
another soldier. 'It is non-existent in the Iield.
70
An Army Specialist who spent 11 months deployed to OEF, and also served in Iraq and
lived in one oI Saddam`s Iormer palaces in Mozul, described a 'Iield shower, essentially
a canvass bag. She said they used wood boards and a poncho Ior a door and said
soldiers hoisted the unit over their heads. 'There`s your shower, she said, indicating
that, although it was primitive, it aIIorded Iull privacy. 'You don`t get ashamed anymore
aIter being in the Army, she said. 'You iust knock on the door and you say, hey, is
there anyone in there,` and you wait a Iew seconds and iI no one answers, you iust go
in.
71
An E4 Army National Guardsman deployed to Iraq experienced both communal and
individual showers. 'It comes down to the person, he said. 'I like to sneak a peak, but I
respect other people and their spaces. He said that straight men look at each other in the
showers too. 'They compare each other in the shower and in the bathrooms, silently oI
course. In his view, military service requires a degree oI selI-control as a pre-requisite
Ior service. 'II you cannot maintain control in the environment you are in, he said,
'then you do not belong in the military in the Iirst place.
72
Others elaborated that the showers were an area oI Iorced proximity in which straights, as
well as gays, navigate their reduced privacy in similar ways. 'Everyone looks, said one
service member. 'You go into the shower and everyone, even straight people, are
...grabbing assess and talking about each other...
73
The Bradley Commander said that in
his experience, 'everyone was uncomIortable in the showers, not iust gays. 'I was
uncomIortable because I didn`t want anyone Iinding out about me, and they |straights|
were uncomIortable because god Iorbid anyone would touch them. It was iust something
68
SH Interview.
69
70
71
Kelly Interview.
72
RB Interview.
73
RO Interview.
24
we had to do and no one ever paid that much attention to it and no one ever seemed too
concerned.
74
A Psychological Operations Sergeant serving in Kirkuk said conditions there provided
signiIicantly more privacy than during training exercises. In contrast to stateside
accommodations where IiIty men shared open bays with communal showers, his
experience in Kirkuk was that soldiers had one roommate in a living container with
ponchos or sheets to provide privacy between them. Showers were stalls with curtains.
'Showering and sleeping arrangements are not a big issue as Iar as I`m concerned, he
said. 'The Army has done a Iairly decent iob in renovating soldiers` rooms so that each
soldier has a room to him/herselI and share only a kitchen and bathroom. The sergeant
said that during both training and Iighting conditions, 'a separate bond occurs between
soldiers. You no longer look at them as Joe` or think Joe` is cute. You look at them as
your brother who iust saved your ass while you were Iighting, or someone that you can
rely on when the shit hits the Ian. You don`t look at them as a potential sex partner.
Once the bond as a military brother is Iormed it is extremely hard to break that bond and
look at them as a sexual possibility. Whoever thinks that gays ioin the military to sleep
with a bunch oI soldiers has obviously never served a day in the shoes oI a soldiers.
75
Another soldier who served in Iraq said that in the Iirst Iew weeks, bathing Iacilities were
so scarce that people showered outside in the open, where even men and women could
see one another. Although commanders try to avoid this scenario as an unwelcome
compromise oI privacy, the soldier said all the troops took eIIective steps to
accommodate that reality. He said the women would shower in remote areas or at
diIIerent times. 'Everybody Iinds a way to shower in whatever way is most comIortable
Ior them, he said. 'You iust do what you have to do, and that`s nothing new in the
military. You can`t be so sensitive as to |say,| it`s not Iair, he`s gay and he`s looking at
me.` Eventually, plywood arrived to Iorm walls around the makeshiIt showers,
aIIording Iull privacy, except Ior the collective changing area. Even here, however,
soldiers could wrap a towel around them iI they chose, until saIely behind the dividers.
'I have not seen a group shower since about 1995, and in extreme circumstances like war
you do what you have to do, he said He also explained that modern living quarters
aIIorded more privacy, making the showers less oI an issue than in the past. 'Nowadays
they get contractors in |rather quickly|, he said, 'so it`s not like it used to be: that issue
is becoming obsolete. The soldier added that he thought gays would be the least likely
to gawk. Not everyone in the military is a head-turner, he said, but 'when there is
someone worth looking at, the last thing I want to do is look and then have nature take its
course down south.
76
Many service members, such as Austin Rooke, the Army Captain, described
environments that oIIered substantial choice over how private to be. Rooke`s unit used a
shower trailer in Qatar that oIIered stalls with shower curtains. In the adiacent undressing
area one could choose to remain covered or not. Some people stay naked Ior a lot longer
than others, he said, Ior instance, remaining voluntarily unclothed while they shave. He
74
MC Interview.
75
SM Interview.
76
QU Interview.
25
also described other experiences oI showering communally with people who knew he
was gay: 'I`ve showered naked beside straight guys who knew I was gay, and they didn`t
mind. I was probably more uncomIortable at the beginning, aIter I came out to them,
than they were. He also pointed out that all troops 'are already showering with gays:
they iust don`t know which ones are gay. As Ior his own Ieelings, 'I`ve showered with a
thousand guys: it does nothing Ior me.
77
In those cases where personnel used communal showers, none reported being distracted
or seeing or participating in homosexual conduct in the showers, and none reported any
impact on unit cohesion as a result oI sharing showers. These Iindings hold true Ior both
'closeted and 'out gay and lesbian troops. The maiority oI those interviewed had
revealed their sexual orientation to at least a handIul oI people in their unit, and many
were out to most oI their unit. In other cases, service members had not announced their
sexuality, but reported that many or most oI their comrades knew or suspected their
sexual orientation. For instance, one member oI the Navy said, 'you get Iive or six gay
people in a straight community |and| you`re going to know they`re gay.
78
In no case did
a service member report any problems resulting Irom a known gay person showering
with a straight person.
Interviewees reported that, during boot camp, enlisted people are worked to exhaustion
and during deployment, their minds are more Iocused on the mission than on the sexual
orientation oI their comrades. In both cases, time in the showers is limited and there is
little opportunity or motivation to turn the showering Iacilities into anything beyond the
hygienic exercise they are designed to be. In both communal and private shower
situations, service members repeatedly said their sexuality was a 'non-issue. 'When
you go in, you iust have one thing on your mind: you iust want to get clean and go to
bed, said one.
79
'We were so tired all the time, said another, 'that |sexuality| doesn`t
even really enter into the picture Ior me. He added, 'there were limited opportunities
even iI you were in that Irame oI mind.
80
'Pretty much at the end oI the day I`m tired, said a Petty OIIicer First Class in the Navy.
'I want to get in the shower and get out and I don`t have time to get aroused. He said
there were no problems even when people know they were sharing showers with gays. 'I
had six other guys in my unit who were pretty eIIeminate and everyone knew they were
gay, and they used the heads iust like everyone else and no one batted an eye.
81

A Sergeant First Class in the Army who served in Iraq said that there was homosexual
conduct in the military, but it had nothing to do with the showers: 'Any gay stuII I had, I
certainly had it, but not in the shower. There was nothing you could do about it there.
He said that people in his unit shared the same showerhead. But he also reported he only
took two showers in his Iour-month deployment (though he also bathed with buckets oI
77
78
RO Interview.
79
DN Interview.
80
AN Interview.
81
TR Interview.
26
water in bathing stations). 'My experience was that |sexuality| had no eIIect whatever.
You didn`t have time to think about that. You iust got in and got out.
82
OPENLY GAY SERVICE
The eIIort to protect privacy by limiting statements about homosexuality relies on the
assumption that straight service members will be more comIortable and more willing to
serve with gays iI they do not know or hear about their sexual orientation. Data Irom this
study, however, suggest that gays are increasingly serving openly and that straights
tolerate serving alongside known gay and lesbian troops. Interviewees repeatedly
asserted that they were out to peers or they knew oI other gays who were out and their
sexuality was accepted and did not cause problems in the Middle East. The Iollowing
statements represent a sample oI remarks to this eIIect: 'Most oI my unit does know I am
gay and they don`t care one way or the other. that`s really the last thing on anyone`s
mind
83
: 'There was another gay guy in my squadron who was really good Iriends with
my roommates, and they were really cool with it and so that kind oI paved the way Ior
me
84
: 'most oI it`s accepted... it`s not a problem
85
: 'I came out to a couple oI co-
workers and that went quite well
86
: 'aIter I developed a strong relationship with my
supervisor, we would talk about it |sexual orientation| and would even ioke about it
87
:
|Irom a Iemale:| 'the women didn`t mind it: they were my Iriends. II I told someone, it
never changed our relationships. I was never looked at diIIerently Ior being gay
88
:
'almost every one oI my Iriends said, oh, we all knew that. What`s the big deal?`
89
SigniIicantly, many gays also visited gay bars with straight Iriends in the military, an
activity which served as a source oI bonding. Gay troops were observed perIorming
homosexual acts in Iront oI straight peers, indicating that gays serve openly in the
military.
90

'We were as intimate as intimate can get, said an Army Specialist about his combat unit
in Iraq. He said he slept in the same three to Iive cubic Ieet as his sergeant inside a tent.
'It didn`t matter, he said, reIerring to his sexuality. 'There wasn`t much oI a question
oI, 'okay, this guy does this, would he do it here?` He said when his Iriend learned oI
his sexuality aIter he was seen at a gay bar, he Iirst tried to explain it away by saying the
drinks were cheaper there. 'Then I told him and he said, I don`t care.` When his
82
WE Interview.
83
IN interview.
84
TR Interview.
85
SA Interview.
86
Austin Rooke Interview. Rooke Iollowed his statement with an indication that others had more trouble
than he did: 'However, I don`t think that`s the norm. I still come into contact with people in the military
who have been in Ior years and are absolutely terriIied that they will be outed. Consistent with evidence
reported earlier, the diIIiculty appears to result Irom the policy, rather than the presence oI known gays.
87
WA Interview.
88
89
MI Interview.
90
BY Interview: Homosexual acts are deIined by law as same-sex bodily contact 'Ior the purpose oI
satisIying sexual desires, or 'which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or
intent to engage in such acts. USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces:
Observations were based on Iield visits.
27
sergeant during another tour learned oI his sexuality, he told him he would not mention it
to anyone. The Specialist also described a gay soldier 'who was girlier than any girl I
knew. He was extremely Ilamboyant and nobody gave a shit.
91
A Surgical Technician
onboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln said he worked with gays who were so Ilamboyant,
'we need to have an extinguisher. He said one oI his JAG oIIicers 'sashed down the
hanger bay, hand on the hip and everything, and it did not create problems.
92
Others
described increased hostility toward those who were less conIormist: 'The environment
around |gay| soldiers changed iI they were Ilamboyant.
93
The Squadron Leader who commanded Bradley Iighting vehicles, and who also
commanded a dismounted unit Ior the Fourth InIantry Division, said he served openly
with no problems. 'I don`t advertise, he said, 'but I don`t hide anything either. He
said all nine oI the soldiers who worked under him as a dismounted inIantry squad leader
knew he was gay. 'It doesn`t aIIect unit cohesion, he said. 'When I was on the ground,
I was leading the charges through buildings, he said. 'And I`ve never had people not
Iollow me. I`ve never heard oI that happening at all, reIerring to insubordination due to
a leader`s sexual orientation.
94
Kelly, the Army Specialist who was deployed to AIghanistan, said her Platoon Sergeant
Iound out about her sexuality and Iully tolerated it. 'He said, well, don`t go tell the
world, but I don`t really care: I`ll try to look out Ior you unless you`re a total piece oI
crap. Just don`t make it to where me looking out Ior you makes me look stupid.` Kelly
said she could 'read people a bit and I can tell who it`s okay to be open with and who
not.
The relatively smooth outcome oI openly gay service appears to have been due, in part, to
eIIective iudgment calls by individual gay troops based on the appropriateness oI
individual situations. Since surveys show that maiorities oI members oI the military
oppose letting gays serve openly, hostile or negative responses to homosexual statements
might be expected: however, interviewees routinely explained that, while they Ielt the
need to conIide in someone about their sexuality, they were careIul to establish
preliminary bonds oI trust with conIidantes, or to iudge the probability oI acceptance
beIore coming out.
'I see myselI as a good instinctive iudge oI character, said an Army Captain, 'and
thankIully Ior me that`s turned out to be the case when I told my Iriends |that I`m gay|.
On one occasion, when a date went longer than expected, the Captain`s best Iriend
hounded him about his whereabouts. AIter staving oII the questions, he Iinally said, 'I`m
not going to lie to you, you`re my best Iriend. I went to meet a guy. The Captain`s
Iriend nearly choked on his burrito, collected his thoughts and then said, 'that`s cool, but
don`t expect me to be down with it because I`m not. Now let`s go get a beer. The
Iriendship has remained strong and the Captain now baby-sits Ior his Iriend`s children.
95
91
JO Interview.
92
RO Interview.
93
SM Interview.
94
MC Interview.
95
FD Interview.
28
The episode is an important illustration oI the kind oI response that may ensue even Irom
those who may have indicated on impersonal surveys that they oppose letting gays serve
in the military.
AN INFORMAL ~DON`T ASK, DON`T TELL
Many service members described an inIormal 'don`t ask, don`t tell norm prevailing
among both gay and straight troops. This is partly attributable to the policy`s strictures
on discussing the matter: however, the Iact that so many gays and lesbians do come out to
their peers in certain situations reveals that the law alone is not governing their behavior:
rather, their decisions are shaped by individual iudgments about when and to whom to
reveal their sexual orientation. Interviewees corroborated this conclusion by explicitly
linking their decisions to particular contexts and cultural norms in general, as opposed to
the dictates oI the policy. The same reportedly holds true oI 'asking behavior. One
soldier, Ior instance, said that 'many people are iust not asking, not because oI the ban
but because it`s none oI their business. He said the custom was 'don`t know, don`t want
to Iind out.
96

Indeed, most respondents said that, while some or most oI their peers knew they were
gay, they did not wish to announce the Iact publicly, and they had no intention oI doing
so iI the policy were changed to allow it. Rather, such a policy change would reduce
their stress, remove impediments to productive work and allow them to stop taking
proactive steps to misrepresent and isolate themselves.
The Bradley Commander made clear that he used discretion in choosing the people with
which he shared his sexual orientation. 'You won`t see me walking in the gay pride
parade, he said, 'but the people who need to know know, and the people that don`t, it`s
none oI their business.
97
A marine said, 'I don`t think that people should be going to
work and announcing it |their sexual orientation|, but iI it does come out I don`t think it
should |matter|.
98
A Petty OIIicer First Class said iI the ban were liIted, 'I wouldn`t iust
tell people I`m gay, but I probably wouldn`t go through such measures to hide it.
99
'I
wouldn`t come out iust Ior the hell oI it, said another.
100
The Bradley Commander`s experience also suggests the ultimate impossibility oI
regulating the expression oI sexual orientation. Although he did not announce his
sexuality publicly, 'the stuII I do, it causes people to wonder. He said when he lived in
the barracks, 'you can look at the visitor`s log and see that no women come in under my
name. His vocal opposition to derogatory statements about women, the placement oI
rainbow stickers in his room, and the lack oI Iemale visitors add up to a clear picture that
he is gay, he said. 'II you look at the whole big picture, he concluded, 'eventually
people will start to wonder. Those soldiers who didn`t know that he was gay 'suspect
96
JO Interview.
97
MC Interview.
98
JS Interview.
99
TR Interview.
100
QU Interview.
29
that I am.
101
'People know by deduction, agreed a Naval Pilot who has served since
1984. 'You`re not married, you`re in your 40`s, all your Iriends are male, and you don`t
talk about any personal or private liIe.
102
An Army Captain was conIident that changing the policy would not unleash a torrent oI
homosexual announcements. 'Just liIting the ban, there`s not going to be a rainbow Ilag
hoisted on the headquarters oI the Army, he said. 'All you`re doing by liIting the ban is
allowing people not to live in secrecy.
103
II the ban were liIted, said another, 'I don`t
think I`d run and tell everyone at once. He did, however, say the main reason he didn`t
tell people was the Iear that someone could turn him in. 'II the law were overturned, I`d
probably gradually come out to everyone, he concluded, emphasizing that he would do
so in a private manner.
104

'I`d be truthIul as Iar as Iilling out documentation, said a senior NCO in the Air Force
about how things would change iI the gag rule were liIted. 'But as Iar as sticking a big
old rainbow sticker on my car, |I wouldn`t do that|.
105
At the same time, some did report
that they had rainbow stickers on their belongings in public view, or that they had seen
them on-base. Such signs are not allowed to be used to initiate an investigation into the
sexuality oI a service member.
106

A sailor, who described himselI as inconspicuous with regard to his sexuality, said that
most gays in the military blended in. 'Just because you`re gay doesn`t mean you have to
be really queeny, he said. 'I`m not like that and most oI the time, people aren`t. He
added that iI people were to see him walking down the street 'they`d be like, who`s that
boring guy dressed in ieans and a tee-shirt?
107

101
MC Interview.
102
MI Interview.
103
FD Interview.
104
Matthew Interview.
105
DN Interview.
106
DN Interview, in which he reported he had seen rainbow stickers 'occasionally. I could drive a Iew
blocks and Iind a couple. He also reported seeing HRC stickers |the yellow and blue equals sign oI the
Human Rights Campaign|: Biehl Wendy Interview in which she reported seeing a rainbow sticker on a
duIIel bag, placed by someone with 'no shame.
107
WA Interview.
30
Section IJ: Leadership, Enforcement & the Rule of Law
Military experts have long recognized that eIIective leadership and a consistent and
strong chain oI command are essential to a successIul Iighting Iorce. Setting and
embodying standards oI behavior and action begin at the top and aIIect the discipline,
morale and eIIectiveness oI units throughout the Iorce. Leadership is particularly
important to the success oI the current wars in Iraq and AIghanistan, as the behavior oI
American service members, which can be integral to gaining the support oI the Arab
world, has been under international scrutiny.
Evidence Irom this study suggests that the military leadership Irequently Iails to enIorce
the 'don`t ask, don`t tell policy. Some interviewees asserted that the policy is
unenIorceable at its core because oI the inherent ambiguity oI deIining what it means to
'ask or 'tell. Evidence also indicates that uneven commitment and enIorcement at the
leadership level cause Iear and uncertainty about how to behave. The conIlicting
message oI the policy, which states that 'homosexuality is incompatible with military
service while stipulating that 'homosexual orientation is not a bar to service, breeds
Iurther conIusion.
108
The existence oI a policy which is diIIicult or impossible to enIorce,
and whose enIorcement is Irequently not prioritized by commanders, may weaken respect
Ior the rule oI law and the norms oI obedience, integrity and loyalty that are essential
ingredients oI an eIIective military.
Although respondents in this study did not report high levels oI harassment, many said
the policy itselI gives a green light to anti-gay rhetoric and behavior, and that a policy
which clearly stated that gays were not unwelcome would go Iar toward curbing such
overt homophobia and provide a saIer and more productive training and Iighting
environment. Austin Rooke, the Army Captain, said harassment was not suIIiciently
routed out by the command structure. He said he never saw or heard oI an oIIicer
reprimanding anyone Ior saying something anti-gay, which is a violation oI the 'don`t
harass clause oI the policy. 'Right now gays are about the only people you can make
Iun oI, he explained, saying the policy itselI creates an 'out status comprised oI gays.
He pointed out that the military actually has an inIrastructure set up to address issues oI
tolerance and diversity called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but gays
are not included. 'II you actually put gays and lesbians under the auspices oI the EEOC,
and commanders were held responsible Ior the behavior oI people in their units, things
would change dramatically, he predicted. 'Individuals would still have their belieIs, iust
as they have racist belieIs, but you would not hear them. He concluded that 'the Army
has a lot oI control over the people in it.
109
Other reports corroborate the presence oI leaders who violate the 'don`t harass
components oI the law and set a permissive tone Ior anti-gay behavior. 'The command
climate as it pertains to that is negative, said one combat soldier Irom the Fourth
InIantry Division in Iraq. 'Both my current commander and my last commander, both in
108
'Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces, Secretary oI DeIense Memorandum Ior the Joint
ChieIs oI StaII, Les Aspin, July 19, 1993.
109
31
company Iormations |and| during saIety brieIings said derogatory statements: my
commander uses the word, Iaggot` in saIety brieIings. And my last commander did the
same thing. In his view, 'they`re actually engaging in behavior that could cause
problems.
110
He recounted that the commander who used derogatory language about
gays, who did not know that he was gay, awarded him an army commendation medal.
But he Ieared his commander`s opinion oI him would change iI he learned oI his sexual
orientation.
111
EnIorcement oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell is Iurther taxed by the diIIiculty oI deIining what it
means to 'ask or to 'tell. Such actions need not be verbal or explicit. The law requires
a discharge when a service member 'has stated that he or she is a homosexual or
bisexual, or words to that eIIect..., leaving a gray area in the deIinition oI 'tell. The
policy Iurther instructs that commanders will initiate investigations 'when there is
credible inIormation that a basis Ior discharge exists, which appears to allow, and
perhaps require, discharge when inIormation comes to them that they believe indicates
that a service member is gay.
112

'There is no such thing as don`t ask,` said the Army JAG oIIicer, because the most
basic conversations entail questions about Iriends, lovers, spouses and Iamily which, iI
answered Iully and honestly, could reveal one`s sexual orientation.
113
As another soldier
pointed out, 'using the policy in deIense to not answer the question is basically the same
as admitting guilt.
114
Even when soldiers choose to Iollow the letter oI the law, it is
rarely Iully under one`s control to totally conceal one`s sexual orientation, since
unconscious codes, signals and mannerisms Irequently mark a person or raise suspicions,
thus giving a Iorm oI knowledge to straight soldiers who do not know what to do with it.
The impossibility oI Iully regulating these Iorms oI expression suggests that the policy
cannot signiIicantly aIIect the privacy oI either gay or straight troops.
In addition to encouraging leaders to tolerate anti-gay harassment, 'don`t ask, don`t tell
precludes what scholars say is the single most important ingredient to generating
tolerance oI gays and lesbians: knowing someone who is gay or lesbian. Brian Muller,
the Iormer Army StaII Sergeant, Iound that when he did discuss his sexuality, many
young straight people he encountered had little known exposure to gays and lesbians,
'and I think some oI them changed their views. He concluded that 'the best thing the
military can do iI they liIt this ban is to educate people. Once they see that we have the
same relationships, the same Iears, go to the same restaurants |as straights do|, they come
around. Regarding his sexuality, he said, 'some say, look, I don`t really like it, but as
long as you can carry the same pack, I don`t care.
115

110
MC Interview.
111
MC Interview.
112
USC, Sec. 654, 'Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces: 'Policy on Homosexual
Conduct in the Armed Forces, Secretary oI DeIense Memorandum Ior the Joint ChieIs oI StaII, Les Aspin,
July 19, 1993.
113
SH Interview.
114
SM Interview.
115
32
'II they allowed homosexuals to be gay in the military, then a result oI that would be
teaching acceptance oI another part oI their Iamily, said Muller, who served in both
single-sex and co-ed units and noticed a sharp diIIerence in attitudes between the two.
The co-ed units 'were always the best units because you don`t have as much machismo
Iloating around and you get people who are more tolerant and people realize they have to
be more careIul with their words. He said that in all-male units, he heard some oI the
most discriminatory language, largely against women. 'So to me, the more diverse the
unit, the more tolerant. He saw an explicit analogy between gays and women: 'When
they mixed Iemales with males, they taught acceptance, so they could do the same with
gays.
116
A Petty OIIicer First Class drew precisely the same conclusion Irom his experience in the
Navy. The sailor was deployed twice to the Persian GulI since 2001, having ioined the
service in 1990. As a Nuclear Operator with a top security clearance, he spent time both
in all-male units and mixed-sex units. 'As the Navy changes and allows women on
combat ships, he said, 'I have Iound that conversations have changed over the years.
They`re not quite as trashy toward women. Straight men, in particular, he reported, 'are
not as demoralizing toward women as they used to be because we work with them.
117
Other service members echoed the importance oI allowing gays and straights to get to
know one another and speak Ireely. 'I`ve had people come up to me who were dead set
against |letting gays serve openly|, recalled one, 'and then they Iound out I was gay and
they changed their minds.
118
These experiences suggest that the policy, by keeping
people in the dark about sexual orientation, breeds a culture oI ignorance and preiudice,
which perpetuate the anti-gay sentiment which is then used to iustiIy 'don`t ask, don`t
tell. It should also be noted that many people Ialsely believe they are not permitted to
discuss the issue oI homosexuality. This perceived gag rule erodes the opportunity to
hear, contemplate and weigh inIormation about gay service. By contrast, in those
situations where people knew they were allowed to discuss the policy, open debate
prevailed. In a Marine training oIIice oI six people, Ior instance, a service member
reported that aIter a discussion oI gay service, one person`s opposition to letting gays
serve evolved into support. 'People in the oIIice convinced him otherwise, he said.
119
The Petty OIIicer First Class in the Navy who had described working with eIIeminate
men who were known to be gay conIirmed the centrality oI eIIective leadership to
creating a productive work environment. He reported that these suspected or known gays
worked successIully with their peers, in part, because oI a tolerant and dedicated
command structure. 'Our commanders made it clear that anti-gay harassment would not
be accepted, he said. 'And that`s why those eIIeminate men were accepted. He said
that tolerance was the product oI 'a climate that`s created. 'All they need to do is hear it
Irom a higher up. II you create a climate at a commanding oIIicer level that
|homosexuality| is acceptable, then I think everybody will Iall in line.
120
116
117
WA Interview.
118
BY Interview.
119
JS Interview.
120
TR Interview.
33
A Technical Sergeant who spent Iour months in AIghanistan said the law gives cover to
anti-gay sentiment, and that changing the law would likely reduce homophobia. 'II the
ban were liIted, then the people who don`t like it wouldn`t have a leg to stand on. It`s the
law: you either accept it or you get out. Currently, he explained, the law says that
homosexuality is incompatible with service, and that message ultimately condones anti-
gay sentiment. 'There`s a sense that you shouldn`t be here anyway, he said.
121
'Changing the law will not end preiudice, said an Iraqi war veteran, but people like me
will say they`re gay and people will say, obviously, this person is capable oI serving.`
122
'In a way, said another, 'they can`t help being ignorant about it iI they`re not educated
about it.
123
'In the military, said the Army JAG oIIicer who deployed to OEF while serving in the
Navy, 'we learn to Iollow rules, and we promote what we`re told to promote. She said
the result was that laws and policies sent clear messages about what was and was not
acceptable in the service. 'The best thing you can do as a soldier or sailor is to stand up
Ior what the military says is right. II the military said that gays and lesbians were
welcome, it would have an enormous impact on attitudes toward them in the service. But
'when the military is giving the message that there`s something wrong and shameIul
about being gay, then we`re also giving the message that to hate gays is acceptable. She
also pointed out that the policy, by banning coming out, deprived people in the armed
services oI the opportunity to understand and come to accept all the people they`re
serving with. 'II you`re in the military, then you`ll never be exposed to anyone who`s
gay unless they out themselves and you choose not to turn them in.
124
UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT
Evidence Irom this study indicates that commanders, who wish to retain gay troops
during deployment, disregarded inIormation about homosexuality that would legally
require an investigation. When a soldier serving in Iraq was reported to have been gay,
the command response was, 'so what? Since the policy mandates that 'commanders
will continue to initiate inquiries or investigations, as appropriate, when there is credible
inIormation that a basis Ior discharge or disciplinary action exists, some interviewees
concluded that the policy was not being Iollowed by commanders. 'As Iar as
enIorcement, said one, 'there`s discretion. The problem, he said, was that the policy
requires known gay soldiers to be separated Irom service, 'and that doesn`t |always|
happen.
125
In one reported episode in the Middle East, two women got drunk and danced intimately,
holding hands and kissing beIore an audience. When it came to the commander`s
attention, he said, 'I don`t even want to touch that. I iust want to Iind out iI they were
121
BY Interview.
122
QU Interview.
123
Kelly Interview.
124
SH Interview.
125
MC Interview.
34
drinking. I couldn`t care less |about their sexual orientation|. The incident leIt the
impression that leaders in this case wished to avoid the issue oI sexual orientation and
Iocused instead on the issue oI excessive alcoholic consumption.
126
One oI the most damaging eIIects oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell has been the impact oI uneven
enIorcement. Because so many commanders do not want to lose their subordinates, there
are Irequent reports oI the leadership 'looking the other way, creating uncertainty across
the board about when and whether the law will be enIorced or used selectively against
speciIic service members. Because it is impossible to achieve the policy`s goal oI
banning known gays Irom service, due to the impossibility oI eIIectively regulating who
knows or suspects that one is gay, the policy is routinely violated and creates a climate oI
lawlessness surrounding this issue. As a result, 'don`t ask, don`t tell quickly gained a
reputation as a 'hollow shell oI a policy
127
and as a 'ioke, a word that was repeatedly
heard in a string oI separate interviews.
'Don`t ask, don`t tell` became a punch line in the military, said one soldier. 'AIter
don`t ask, don`t tell,` the homophobic humor was everywhere. He explained that anti-
gay sentiment itselI did not worsen, but that the policy and its name became the butt oI
iokes and increased the Irequency with which discussion and iokes about gay issues
occurred. 'It was almost a daily occurrence, he said, adding that even he had used the
term. People would ask simple questions such as, 'where are you going tonight, and the
retort would be, 'don`t ask, don`t tell. Or two men would appear together and someone
would point and say, 'don`t ask, don`t tell.
128
Many others also reported that the policy was not taken seriously, made a mockery oI
military law and compromised eIIectiveness. 'The policy is a ioke, said an Army
National Guardsman. 'It basically says that I can be gay but I can`t be gay: they are
denying me the right to be who I am and they expect no Iallout Irom that. A person can
only repress himselI so long beIore it starts to have negative eIIects on his perIormance
and attitude.
129
'The ban`s a ioke. It`s a ioke. It`s not uniIormly enIorced, said
another, adding that enIorcement is, in reality, at the discretion oI each commander.
130
'The whole policy literally became a ioke, agreed an Air Force Captain who entered the
military beIore the policy was adopted. 'It still is to this day.
131
'It`s in our doctrine that we can`t tolerate any kind oI systematic or individual
discrimination, noted a senior NCO in the Air Force, 'and this is exactly what they`re
doing here, and iI they want to contradict themselves, it`s not going to make them look
very credible. He also said that even though everyone knew the term, 'don`t ask, don`t
tell, Iew understood what the law said and required, and commanders ignored training
on the policy. 'The Iirst time young troops hear about don`t ask, don`t tell,` it`s in basic
training, he said. 'And there`s no reIresher training at all. He noticed it was in the
126
AN Interview.
127
JA said, 'I think the average GI see it as a hollow shell oI a policy. JA Interview.
128
QU Interview.
129
RB Interview.
130
MC Interview.
131
JA Interview.
35
lesson plan but recalled that his instructor at Lackland Air Force base said they would
skip right over it.
132
An Army StaII Sergeant had much the same experience: 'they`re
supposed to have annual training on the policy, but in eight years I had one. They don`t
Iollow their own policies. He said that, although the training is built into the policy,
'because oI the personal belieIs oI some commanders, it doesn`t happen. It`s not
something they like to talk about.
133
This conclusion echoes other assertions that much
oI the support Ior 'don`t ask, don`t tell comes Irom a command leadership which
personally dislikes homosexuality, rather than Irom evidence showing that combat
eIIectiveness relies on restricting gays and lesbians to the closet.
132
DN Interview.
133
36
Section J: 1alent & Retention
Some people have worried that liIting the gay ban would hurt recruitment and retention
due to the level oI anti-gay sentiment in the military and those considering service.
134
Since the ban was not Iully liIted, conclusions cannot be drawn about this concern in the
U.S. military. Indications Irom this study are that gays and lesbians do serve openly, and
no maior studies or senior leaders have suggested that recruitment has suIIered as a result.
This could be attributable, in part, to the continued existence oI an oIIicial policy banning
open service, despite the known presence oI gays who nevertheless do serve openly.
While there are no reports oI heterosexual talent loss due to gays serving openly,
interviews with gay troops indicate that the loss oI talent and expertise among gays
resulting Irom 'don`t ask, don`t tell is immeasurable. This is because it is impossible to
determine what number oI service members cut short their military service or never sign
up at all due to the burdens imposed by the policy and the sense oI being unwelcome.
What is measurable are the discharge numbers themselves. Under 'don`t ask, don`t tell,
homosexual discharges rose every year but one, until America went to war, when the
discharge Iigures began to drop. In 2001, a record 1256 service members were
discharged under the policy, a Iigure nearly double the separation rate oI 1992, prior to
'don't ask, don't tell. Since 2002, the Iirst Iull year America was at war, 1655 troops
have been ousted under the policy. At least 37 oI those were language specialists. Figures
assessing iob specialties since 1998 indicate the discharges covered 161 diIIerent
occupational categories, including linguists, intelligence personnel, engineers,
administrative specialists, transportation workers and military police. In the summer oI
2004, the Pentagon announced it would issue involuntary recalls to thousands oI civilians
with these same occupational specialties, indicating that the 'don`t ask, don`t tell policy
directly aIIects the capacity oI the military to retain the expertise and troop strength it
needs to Iight in the Middle East.
135
Although the total talent loss among gays and lesbians is impossible to measure, Austin
Rooke, the Army Captain, said that Ior any gay person who leaves the military, the policy
is deIinitely part oI their decision. 'II the ban weren`t there, it`s quite possible that I
could still be on active duty to this day, he said, adding that it was diIIicult to measure
the true costs oI the policy because many gay people leave prematurely due to the ban.
136
Rooke`s sentiment was reIlected in remarks by many other service members. 'When
people ask me why I don`t want to re-enlist, I say because oI the Iamily liIe, said Brian
Hughes, the Army Ranger who Iought on the Irontlines oI Iraq and AIghanistan. He
134
See, Ior example, 'Clinton Should Change His Mind, Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 2, 1993: 'Personnel
Prospects Darken, Army Times, May 17, 1993.
135
'Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell,` Servicemembers Legal
DeIense Network, 2003: 'UniIorm Discrimination: The Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell` Policy oI the U.S.
Military, Human Rights Watch, report, January, 2003, Vol. 15, No. 1: Job specialty classiIications and
statistics come Irom the Department oI DeIense and the DeIense Manpower Data Center, and were
analyzed in a report by the Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military, University oI
CaliIornia, Santa Barbara, June, 2004.
136
37
explained that the policy meant he was not allowed to 'bring your partner to events and
precluded his partner Irom being able to 'plug into support networks.
137
Wendy Biehl,
the Iormer Army Specialist who opted Ior a discharge when her tour ended, said the
policy did not allow her to be herselI. 'It`s one oI the reasons I got out oI the military,
because I wanted to be gay, I wanted to be openly gay, she said. 'It became a big issue
because the person I am now and the person I was in the military were two completely
diIIerent people. I really wasn`t happy and that became a problem Ior me.
138
Another service member reported that many gays grow to resent the military when they
realize what they`re being asked to do in order to serve. In preparing to go to war, he
said, 'some people have the sense: why should I Iace that situation iI I`m being dealt
such a hard hand by the military?` Frankly a lot oI gay people are driven to take
advantage oI the policy and to come out because oI this. II the military is not going to let
me Iorm normal, happy, healthy relationships, he asked rhetorically, 'iI they`re going to
discriminate against me, why should I Iight Ior that institution and risk death?
139
This
conclusion was seconded by a sailor who deployed to Iraq, and reported that, 'a lot oI
people are getting out by exploiting the policy. 'They don`t want to be there.
140
An
oIIicer with an Air Force expeditionary unit in the Middle East echoed this report, saying
'a lot oI the people who were voluntarily identiIying as gay were |doing so| with the Iull
knowledge that they were going to be discharged.
141
The policy 'turns a lot oI people
away Irom ioining the military, agreed an Iraqi war combat veteran. 'People know this
ban is in place and I imagine there`s some Iear in the civilian world, so I imagine that the
ban being in eIIect might strike some Iear into some Iolks who might otherwise want to
enlist.
142
Brian Muller, the Army StaII Sergeant, well illustrates how the policy results in
premature discharge and the waste oI talent. Muller`s commander knew he was gay as a
result oI both his own suspicions and some third-party disclosures to that eIIect over the
years. AIter nearly eight years oI service and a deployment to Bosnia and AIghanistan, in
which he slept in the same saIe houses as British troops who are allowed to serve openly
iI they are gay, Muller Ielt he had done everything he could do in the military while
continuing to conIorm to the policy. He had celebrated his 18
th
birthday in Bosnia, had
been to war and had twenty-one medals to show Ior it. He had also heard commanders
say 'all Iags should get AIDS and die, and continued to Ieel uniquely burdened as he
strove to continue service while maintaining a Iorbidden relationship. So he came out.
'I`d done everything I could do in the military, he recalled. 'People couldn`t say I was
trying to get our oI war because I had gone to war, so Ior me, it was a principle. He was
also tired oI not being able to be with his partner. But equally important, he was driven to
leave by Iear. He knew that his superiors knew he was gay and he thus risked discharge
on dishonorable terms iI he was outed instead oI coming out himselI. 'My Iear was that
they`d discover it and I`d be dishonorably discharged, he said. With the record he had
137
138
139
IN Interview.
140
RO Interview.
141
AN Interview.
142
MC Interview.
38
built up and with the credit toward a sizable pension, he Ielt he could not risk being
dishonorably discharged, so he leIt voluntarily.
143
Derek Sparks is another illustration. Sparks, who ioined the Navy in 1987, was a
Signalman Seaman Recruit specializing in Visual Communications. As a command
career counselor, Sparks had his own oIIice, where, one night, he and two other gay
Iriends were socializing while deployed oII the coast oI Pakistan. AIter leaving his two
Iriends behind in his oIIice, he learned the next morning that they had been caught by the
Command Master ChieI in violation oI the homosexual conduct policy.
The Iirst statement oI the Master oI Arms made no mention oI Sparks but his second
statement tried to implicate him in the violation, despite dozens oI witnesses who saw
him elsewhere at the time oI the incident. At this point, he admitted he was gay. 'I was
tired oI playing, I was tired oI hiding, I was tired oI all the bullshit, he recalled. 'I know
that the only reason the Command Master ChieI tried to implicate me was because he
knew I was gay. Sparks was discharged Iour months into his tour Ior Operation
Enduring Freedom.
144
PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT
What is particularly damaging about the talent loss is that the older and more senior a
service member becomes, the more diIIicult it is to serve without explaining the details oI
one`s personal liIe. SpeciIically, many respondents mentioned that oIIicers and personnel
with senior positions are generally expected to be married, and are expected to attend
social events designed to encourage comradery and identiIication with the Iorce. The gag
rule and the ban on homosexual relationships under 'don`t ask, don`t tell make it
uniquely diIIicult Ior senior personnel to attend such events and to maintain normal ties
with their peers, since they Iace myriad questions about whether they have a spouse or
why they have not showed up with a date. The result is that the most highly trained gay
service members have a greater incentive to leave the military because oI the requisites oI
the policy on gay service.
'I`m getting up in age there, said a senior NCO in the Air Force, and they`re asking me,
hey, where`s your girlIriend, where`s your wiIe?` and I say, she`s away, she has a very
prestigious iob, she couldn`t be here.` He said the policy 'stiIles innovative thinking
within the ranks because I possess the knowledge and willpower to go Iurther in my
career, but once you go so Iar, there`s that time when |people start to ask|, why isn`t this
guy married?` and why is his girlIriend always away?` The NCO said he wouldn`t be
able to land a maior command iob because high-proIile iobs would prompt close scrutiny
oI his Iiles and many detailed questions. Being an apparent bachelor, he added, would
count against him, as it indicates instability to those weighing his suitability. In addition,
when people take visible iobs that put them in charge oI many subordinates, people
143
144
Derek Sparks Interview.
39
routinely try to Iix them up with dates. 'You can only duck a blind date so many times,
he said, and 'lies are very hard to iuggle: it`s hard to keep the story straight.
145

Others agreed that it becomes more diIIicult to dodge questions as they get older. A Petty
OIIicer First Class in the Navy, who has been serving Ior over ten years, said it was
getting harder to stay in the military and keep up a Iront now that he was approaching age
30. 'I`m 29, 'he said. 'I`m not 21 anymore, and most people are either married or have
been divorced.
146
When asked how the policy aIIects his ability to bond with his
comrades, a Counterterrorism Specialist who deployed to Iraq with the Army and was
then commissioned as an oIIicer in the Navy, said, 'it`s starting to more now. When we
were young and Iew oI us were married, it didn`t matter so much. But now, more oI us
are married and there`s more oI a divide now. He said that, especially as an oIIicer, 'the
social parts oI the military are very important to cohesion and comradery.
147
In some
cases, people were reportedly passed over Ior promotions because they were unable to
explain why they were not married. A Navy Pilot said his boss considered him Ior a
company commander but passed because he was not married. 'ProIessionally, he said,
'the ban had the eIIect oI limiting what you might be able to do.
148
145
DN Interview.
146
TR Interview.
147
QU Interview.
148
MI Interview.
40
COACLUSIOA
This study set out to assess the impact oI 'don`t ask, don`t tell on the service oI gay and
lesbian soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen at war. In the process, it explored the
qualitative experiences oI gay troops deployed to Iraq and AIghanistan by asking a set oI
questions and appropriate Iollow-up questions about morale, cohesion, privacy, retention,
leadership and enIorcement.
Evidence Irom this study suggests that the 'don`t ask, don`t tell policy increases gay
troops` stress levels, lowers their morale, impairs their ability to Iorm trusting bonds with
their peers, restricts their access to medical care, psychological services and religious
consultations, and limits their ability to advance proIessionally and their willingness to
ioin and remain in the services. The detrimental eIIects oI the policy on gay service are
heightened during deployment Ior Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, when alternative sources oI support are less available than when stateside, and
when military eIIectiveness is at its most critical.
At the same time, the Iindings present a portrait oI a military in transition, in which the
Iears, discomIort and dislike that were reported during the time when 'don`t ask, don`t
tell was Iormulated were not pronounced. Relations between gays and straights appear
to create negligible disruptions and have even reached a new status in which the rapport
between gays and straights can provide a positive source oI bonding and social cohesion.
When gays are out, they report greater success in bonding, morale, proIessional
advancement, levels oI commitment & retention and access to essential support services.
Gay and lesbian troops serve openly in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom without undermining unit cohesion, in part, because their openness is largely
moderated by discretion to Ioster an atmosphere oI mutual respect.
Evidence Irom this study as well as polls and other scholarly research show that younger
people are substantially more tolerant oI gays and lesbians than older people. The
positive responses Irom younger service members to the presence oI open gays and
lesbians in the military reIlects that the armed Iorces are no exception, and that, indeed, a
marked liberalization oI attitudes toward gays and lesbians has been underway Ior some
time.
Nevertheless, many gay service members remain aIraid oI the consequences oI being out
or oI being outed, as well as the harm that can come Irom anti-gay harassment in the
military. Consequently, many remain closeted, to the detriment oI their own well-being
and that oI their comrades.
The compromise policy reIlected in 'don`t ask, don`t tell does not appear to rectiIy the
conditions that may be said to generate concerns about privacy. Since it explicitly allows
gays and lesbians to serve in the military and simultaneously bans them Irom identiIying
themselves as gay, straight service members who might wish to protect their privacy in
the presence oI gays have no way oI identiIying when they should do so. In addition, the
41
policy itselI may exacerbate privacy concerns by shining a spotlight on sexuality. The
result is to generate suspicion among all personnel that one or another might be gay, and
to encourage the perIormance oI hyper-heterosexuality to quell such suspicions.
The primary rationale Ior 'don`t ask, don`t tell was the concern that heterosexual men
would not tolerate serving alongside known gays, and Ior this reason, continuing research
is needed to assess the evolving attitudes oI straight service members. But the impact oI
this policy on gay service members has been widely ignored in the literature on gays in
the military, as have the costs oI the policy Ior the military as a whole. The strictures
against selI-identiIication make it diIIicult to study the impact oI the policy on a
suIIiciently broad scale to Iorm deIinitive conclusions, a Iact which undermines the
capacity oI the armed Iorces to adequately serve the needs oI its troops.
42
Biographical Sketch
Dr. Nathaniel Frank is Senior Research Fellow at the Center Ior the Study oI Sexual
Minorities in the Military, University oI CaliIornia, Santa Barbara, and teaches history at
New York University and New School University. He has been interviewed on national
television and radio programs to discuss the military service oI gays and lesbians, and is
currently writing a book on the U.S. military`s gay ban. Dr. Frank holds a Ph.D. and
Masters Degree in History Irom Brown University, and a Bachelors Degree Irom
Northwestern University in History and American Culture. He would like to thank Dr.
Aaron Belkin Ior support Ior this study and Joshua L. Vandeburgh and Cindy Gorn Ior
their essential research assistance.
43
Select Bibliographv
Adam, Barry. 'Winning Rights and Freedoms in Canada. In The Thira Pink Book.
Edited by Aart Hendriks, Rob Tielman, and Evert Veen. BuIIalo: Prometheus Books,
1993.
Agostino, Katerina. 'Masculinity, Sexuality, and LiIe On Board Her Maiesty`s Royal
Australian Ships. Journal of Interaisciplinarv Genaer Stuaies 2, no. 1 (1997).
Barnett, JeIIrey and Timothy JeIIrey. 'Issues oI ConIidentiality: Therapists, Chaplains,
and Health Care Providers. In Out in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited
by Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe, and Ralph Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press,
1996.
Bateman, GeoIIrey and Sameera Dalvi. 'Multinational Military Units and Homosexual
Personnel. Santa Barbara: The Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military,
2004.
Belkin, Aaron. 'Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?
Parameters 33, no. 2 (2003).
Belkin, Aaron and Rhonda Evans. 'The EIIects oI Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in
the British Armed Forces: Appraising the Evidence. Santa Barbara: The Center Ior the
Study oI Sexual Minorities in the Military, 2000.
Belkin, Aaron and Melissa Levitt. 'Homosexuality and the Israel DeIense Forces: Did
LiIting the Gay Ban Undermine Military PerIormance? Armea Forces ana Societv 27,
no. 4 (2001): 541-566.
Benecke, Michelle and Kirstin Dodge. 'Military Women: Casualties oI the Armed
Forces` War on Lesbians and Gay Men. In Gav Rights. Militarv Wrongs. Political
Perspectives on Lesbians ana Gavs in the Militarv. Edited by Craig Rimmerman. New
York: Garland Publishing, 1996.
Berube, Allan. Coming Out Unaer Fire. The Historv of Gav Men ana Women in Worla
War Two. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
Burelli, David. 'An Overview oI the Debate on Homosexuals in the U.S. Military. In
Gavs ana Lesbians in the Militarv. Issues. Concerns. ana Contrasts. Edited by Wilbur
Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.
Cammermyer, Margarethe and Chris Fisher. Serving in Silence. New York: Penguin
Books, 1994.
44
Chapman, Anna. 'Australian Anti-Discrimination Law and Sexual Orientation: Some
Observations on Terminology and Scope. E Law: Murdoch University Electronic
Journal oI Law 3, no. 3 (1996).
D`Emilio, John. Sexual Politics. Sexual Communities. The Making of a Homosexual
Minoritv in the Unitea States. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1998.
Devilbliss, M.C. 'Best-Kept Secrets: A Comparison oI Gays and Women in the United
States Armed Forces. In Gavs ana Lesbians in the Militarv. Issues. Concerns. ana
Contrasts. Edited by Wilbur Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter, 1994.
Dandeker, Christopher. 'The United Kingdom: The Overstretched Military. In The
Postmoaern Militarv. Edited by Charles Moskos, John Williams, and David Segal.
OxIord: OxIord University Press, 2000. 32-50.
Dandeker, Christopher. 'New Times Ior the Military: Some Sociological Remarks on the
Changing Role and Structure oI the Armed Forces oI the Advanced Societies. British
Journal of Sociologv 45 (1994): 637-654.
Dandeker, Christopher and David Mason. 'Diversity in the UK Armed Forces: The
Debate about the Representation oI Women and Minority Ethnic Groups. In Managing
Diversitv in the Armea Forces. Experiences from Nine Countries. Edited by Joseph
Soeters and Jan van der Meulen. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 1999. 55-72.
Department oI DeIense. 'Evaluation Report: Military Environment with Respect to the
Homosexual Conduct Policy. Report No. D-2000-101. March 16, 2000.
Eitelberg, Mark. 'Military Manpower and the Future Force. In American Defense
Annual. 1993. Edited by Joseph Kruzel. New York: Macmillan, 1993. 135-153.
Elron, EIrat, Boas Shamir, and Eyal Ben-Ari. 'Why Don`t They Fight Each Other?
Cultural Diversity and Operational Unity in Multinational Forces. Armea Forces ana
Societv 26 (1999): 73-97.
Evans, Rhonda. 'A History oI the Service oI Ethnic Minorities in the U.S. Armed
Forces. Santa Barbara, CA: The Center Ior the Study oI Sexual Minorities in the
Military, 2003.
Feldman, Eric. 'Testing the Force: HIV and Discrimination in the Australian Military.
Yale University Center Ior Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, 1998.
Fleck, Dieter. 'Legal Issues oI Multinational Military Units: Tasks, Missions, Stationing
Law, Command and Control. In International Law Across the Spectrum of Conflict.
Edited by Michael N. Schmitt. Newport: Naval War College, 2000.
45
Frank, Nathaniel. 'What`s Love Got to Do With It? The Real Story oI Military
Sociology and Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell.` In Lingua Franca, October, 2000. 71-81.
Gade, Paul, David Segal, and Edgar Johnson. "The Experience oI Foreign Militaries." In
Out in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited by Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe,
and Ralph Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1996.
Gal, Reuven and Stuart Cohen. 'Israel: Still Waiting in the Wings. In The Postmoaern
Militarv. Edited by Charles Moskos, John Williams, and David Segal. OxIord: OxIord
University Press, 2000. 224-241.
Halley, Janet. Dont. A Reaaers Guiae to the Militarvs Anti-Gav Policv. Durham: Duke
University Press, 1999.
Hambrick, Donald, Sue Davison, Scott Snell, and Charles Snow. 'When Groups Consist
oI Multiple Nationalities: Towards a New Understanding oI the Implications.
Organization Stuaies 19 (1998): 181-205.
Hayes, Bernadette. 'The InIluence oI Gender on Public Attitudes Toward Homosexual
Rights in Britain. In International Journal of Public Opinion Research 9, no. 4 (1997):
361-385.
Heinecken, Lindy. 'The Silent Right: Homosexuality and the Military. African Securitv
Review. 8, no. 5 (1999): 43-55
Henderson, William. Cohesion. the Human Element in Combat. Washington: National
DeIense University Press, 1985.
Herek, Gregory. 'Social Science, Sexual Orientation, and Military Personnel Policy. In
Out in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited by Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe,
and Ralph Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1996.
Herek, Gregory. 'Why Tell II You`re Not Asked? SelI-Disclosure, Intergroup Contact,
and Heterosexuals` Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men. In Out in Force. Sexual
Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited by Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe, and Ralph Carney.
Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1996.
Hiatt, D. and G. Hargrave. 'Psychological Assessment oI Gay and Lesbian Law
EnIorcement Applicants. Journal of Personalitv Assessment 63 (1994): 80-88.
Jacobson, Peter. 'Sexual Orientation in the Military: Some Legal Considerations. In Out
in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited by Gregory Herek, Jared Jobe, and
Ralph Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1996.
Katz, Jonathan. Gav American Historv. Lesbians ana Gav Men in the U.S.A. New York:
Penguin USA, 1992.
46
Kier, Elizabeth. 'Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat
EIIectiveness. International Securitv 23 (1998): 5-39.
Korb, Lawrence. 'Evolving Perspectives on the Military`s Policy on Homosexuals: A
Personal Note. In Gavs ana Lesbians in the Militarv. Issues. Concerns. ana Contrasts.
Edited by Wilbur Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.
Lehring, Gary. 'Constructing the Other` Soldier: Gay Identity`s Military Threat. In Gav
Rights. Militarv Wrongs. Political Perspectives on Lesbians ana Gavs in the Militarv.
Edited by Craig Rimmerman. New York: Garland Publishing, 1996.
Lever, Janet and David Kanouse. 'Sexual Orientation and Proscribed Sexual Behaviors.
In Out in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited by Gregory Herek, Jared
Jobe, and Ralph Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1994.
Long, Scott. Sexual Orientation ana the Human Rights Mechanisms of the Unitea
Nations. Examples ana Approaches. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights
Commission, 1999.
MacCoun, Robert. 'Sexual Orientation and Military Cohesion: A Critical Review oI the
Evidence. In Out in Force. Sexual Orientation ana the Militarv. Edited by Gregory
Herek, Jared Jobe, and Ralph Carney. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press, 1996.
McDaniel, Michael. 'Preservice Adiustment oI Homosexual and Heterosexual Military
Accessions: Implications Ior Security Clearance Suitability. DeIense Personnel Security
Research and Education Center. In Gavs in Uniform. The Pentagon Secret Reports.
Edited by Kate Dyer. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1989.
Millen, Raymond. Tweaking NATO. The Case for Integratea Multinational Divisions.
Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2002.
Miller, Laura. 'Fighting Ior a Just Cause: Soldiers` Views on Gays in the Military. In
Gavs ana Lesbians in the Militarv. Issues. Concerns. ana Contrasts. Edited by Wilbur
Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.
Moskos, Charles. 'Multinational Military Cooperation: Enhancing American Military
EIIectiveness. Unpublished paper prepared Ior Headquarters, U.S. Air Force and the
Science Applications International Cooperation, 2002.
Moskos, Charles. 'Toward a Postmodern Military: The United States as a Paradigm. In
The Postmoaern Militarv. Armea Forces after the Cola War. Edited by Charles Moskos,
John Williams and David Segal. New York: OxIord University Press, 2000.
Moskos, Charles, John Williams, and David Segal, eds. The Postmoaern Militarv. Armea
Forces after the Cola War. OxIord: OxIord University Press, 2000.
47
OIIice on Women in the NATO Forces. Women in the NATO Armea Forces. Year-in-
Review. Brussels, Belgium: International Military StaII, NATO, 2000.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO Hanabook. Brussels: NATO OIIice oI
InIormation and Press, 1995.
Palin, Roger. Multinational Militarv Forces. Problems ana Prospects. OxIord: OxIord
University Press, 1995.
Pinch, Franklin. 'Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian Forces. U.S.
Army Research Institute Ior the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1994.
RAND Corporation. Sexual Orientation ana U.S. Militarv Personnel Policv. Options ana
Assessment. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1993.
Ray, Ronald. Militarv Necessitv ana Homosexualitv. Washington: Brasseyis, 1993.
Richardson, Rudy and Jolanda Bosch. 'The Diversity Climate in the Dutch Armed
Forces. In Managing Diversitv in the Armea Forces. Experiences from Nine Countries.
Edited by Joseph Soeters and Jan van der Meulen. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press,
1999. 127-156.
Segal, David and Mady Wechsler Segal. Peacekeepers ana Their Wives. American
Participation in the Multinational Force ana Observers. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, 1993.
Segal, David and Ronald Tiggle. 'Attitudes oI Citizen-Soldiers Toward Military Missions
in the Post-Cold War World. Armea Forces ana Societv 23 (1997): 373-90.
Shilts, Randy. Conauct Unbecoming. Gavs ana Lesbians in the U.S. Militarv. Jietnam to
the Persian Gulf. New York. St. Martins Press. 1993.

Smith, Hugh. 'The Dynamics oI Social Change and the Australian DeIence Force.
Armea Forces ana Societv 21, no. 4 (1995): 531-551.
United States General Accounting OIIice. Homosexuals in the Militarv. Policies ana
Practices of Foreign Countries. Washington D.C., U.S. General Accounting OIIice: 51,
1993.
Wells-Petry, Melissa. Exclusion. Homosexuals ana the Right to Serve. Washington, D.C.:
Regnery Gateway, 1993.
48
Wesl ey Cl ar k Backs Cunni ngham i n Nor t h Car ol i na
March 29, 2010, 11:56 a.m.
PRINTER-FRIENDLYFORMAT
SPONSORED BY
By John McAr dle
Rol l Call Staff
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Monday entered the North
Carolina Senate race fray by endorsing Cal Cunningham in the Democratic primary.
Mondays endorsement, which also came with a fundraising appeal two days before the first-quarter Federal Election Commission
deadline, is the latest example of how the national party is lining up behind the former state legislator in its effort to knock off Sen. Richard
Burr (R).
Cunningham, an attorney and captain in the U.S. Army Reserves who served a one-year tour as a military prosecutor in Iraq in 2008, was
recruited heavily by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee even though North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D)
was already in the race.
Cal would be the first veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve in the U.S. Senate, Clark said in his endorsement Monday. He
would bring a veterans unique perspective to policymaking in Washington.
Cal knows sexual orientation plays no role on the battlefield, and that its time to end Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Clark said.
Attorney Kenneth Lewis is also vying for the Democratic nomination, along with three lower-tier candidates. The primary is May 4.
2010 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
Stephen Chernin/ Associated
Press Gen. Colin L. Powell in
December.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY10018
FEBRUARY 3, 2010, 11:12 AM
Powel l Favor s Repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tel l
By PETER BAKER
Gen. Colin L. Powell, who as the nations top military officer in the 1990s opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, switched gears
today and threw his support behind efforts to end the dont ask, dont tell law he helped shepherd in.
In the almost 17 years since the dont ask, dont tell legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed, General
Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services
Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.
Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Tuesday that they supported President
Obamas proposal to repeal the 1993 law forbidding gay men and lesbians to be open about their sexuality while serving in uniform.
Admiral Mullen was the first Joint Chiefs chairman ever to take that position, signaling the evolution in attitudes both inside the military and in the broader society
since the debate under President Bill Clinton.
When Mr. Clinton tried to end the ban on gay soldiers, General Powell was the Joint Chiefs chairman and opposed the move on the grounds that it would
undermine discipline and order in the military but he supported the dont ask compromise. In his statement on Wednesday, General Powell said the principal
issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks.
He noted that he had said for the past two years that it was time for the law to be reviewed, but his new statement of unequivocal support for the effort by Mr.
Gates and Admiral Mullen could be an important factor as the debate moves forward this year.
After retiring from the military, General Powell went on to become an active Republican and joined the cabinet of President George W. Bush as secretary of state.
But he bolted from the party and endorsed Mr. Obama in 2008.
PowellFavorsRepealoIDontAsk,DontTell-TheCaucusBlog-N... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/powell-Iavors-repeal-oI-d...
1oI1 4/5/20107:20AM

2:04-cv-08425 #157

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2:04-cv-08425 #157

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

a dramatic change from 1992 when

Вам также может понравиться