I'm curious about the rule of construction, subsection 2. It states that separation should not be pursued when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces." If the risk associated with gays is so strong and homosexuality is truly incompatible with military service, when would it NOT be in the best interest of the armed forces?
I worked briefly in a military hospital with a unit under stop-loss orders, and several of the "openly" gay members used to point this out as a bit of hipocracy on the part of Congress. I thought they had a point.
Just a guess, because I have no first hand knowledge how it would work. And like everything in even non military, may not be uniformity in how reg's are carried out or enforced. But .....
(1) and (2) go together and refer back to subsection (b) (policy) and (1) ends with "and". Someone says they are gay or performs a homosexual act to get out [not sure you would want to keep them], but it's determined [back to policy in section (b)]
(b) ....... unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
But like I said, just a guess, not sure how it would work in the 'real military world'.