Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Military Discharges Hundreds
ClickonDetroit ^ | January 25, 2006 | AP

Posted on 01/25/2006 5:17:39 AM PST by ShadowDancer

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Military Discharges Hundreds

POSTED: 6:59 am EST January 25, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of officers and health care professionals have been discharged in the past 10 years under the Pentagon's policy on gays, a loss that while relatively small in numbers involves troops who are expensive for the military to educate and train.

The 350 or so affected are a tiny fraction of the 1.4 million members of the uniformed services and about 3.5 percent of the more than 10,000 people discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since its inception in 1994.

But many were military school graduates or service members who went to medical school at the taxpayers' expense - troops not as easily replaced by a nation at war that is struggling to fill its enlistment quotas.

"You don't just go out on the street tomorrow and pluck someone from the general population who has an Air Force education, someone trained as a physician, someone who bleeds Air Force blue, who is willing to serve, and that you can put in Iraq tomorrow," said Beth Schissel, who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1989 and went on to medical school.

Schissel was forced out of the military after she acknowledged that she was gay.

According to figures compiled by the Pentagon and released by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, Schissel is one of 244 medical and health professionals discharged from 1994 through 2003 under the policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation. Congress approved the policy in 1993.

There were 137 officers discharged during that period. The database compiled by the Pentagon does not include names, but it appears that about 30 of the medical personnel who were discharged may also be included in the list of officers.

The center -- a research unit of the Institute for Social, Behavioral & Economic Research of the University of California -- promotes analysis of the issue of gays in the military.

"These discharges comprise a very small percentage of the total and should be viewed in that context," said Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman. She added that troops discharged under the law can continue to serve their country by becoming a private military contractor or working for other federal agencies.

Opponents of the policy on gays acknowledge that the number of those discharged is small. But they say the policy exacerbates a shortage of medical specialists in the military when they are needed the most.

Late last year Army officials acknowledged in a congressional hearing that they are seeing shortfalls in key medical specialties.

"What advantage is the military getting by firing brain surgeons at the very time our wounded soldiers aren't receiving the medical care they need?" said Aaron Belkin, associate professor of political science at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Overall, the number of discharges has gone down in recent years.

"When we're at war, commanders know that gay personnel are just as important as any other personnel," said Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Center. He said that in some instances commanders knew someone in their unit was gay but ignored it.

The overall discharges peaked in 2000 and 2001, on the heels of the 1999 murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell, who was bludgeoned to death by a fellow soldier at Fort Campbell, Ky., who believed Winchell was gay. About one-sixth of the discharges in 2001 were at that base.

Officials did not provide estimates on the cost of a military education or one for medical personnel. However, according to the private American Medical Student Association, average annual tuition and fees at public and private U.S. medical schools in 2002 were $14,577 and $30,960, respectively.

Early last year the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, estimated it cost the Pentagon nearly $200 million to recruit and train replacements for the nearly 9,500 troops that had to leave the military because of the policy. The losses included hundreds of highly skilled troops, including translators, between 1994 through 2003.

Opponents of the policy are backing legislation in the House sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., that would repeal the law. But that bill -- with 107 co-sponsors -- is considered a longshot in the Republican-controlled House


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dod; dontaskdonttell; seeya; shutupandserve
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 next last
To: brwnsuga
So all the men who ever got a hummer from their wives would be kicked out too?

The answer is yes; about a dozen guys are kicked out each year for that, DoD-wide. The usual context is that a vengeful spouse blows the whistle (pardon the expression) on the GI to his chain of command. They will be obliged to do something and she isn't covered by the UCMJ!

101 posted on 01/25/2006 7:43:12 AM PST by Snickersnee (Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll

In my unit, we all agreed(I was a foolish 18 year old at the time) that if we ever identified someone of our unit as a homo, they would get our first bullet.

I know that pact gets passed on in every combat unit everywhere.

We were concerned that the sex drive of the queer would over take him "Brokeback" style if we were in a fox hole with them. We did not want to have to watch for a sex-crazed homo shooting us so he could get off on our dieing corpse. I know that not all homos are necrophiliacs, but at 18, I didn't know that, and I did not want to take the chance that the one in my foxhole was.


102 posted on 01/25/2006 7:43:41 AM PST by Sensei Ern (Now, IB4Z! http://www.myspace.com/reconcomedy/ "Cowards cut and run. Heroes never do!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
The 350 or so affected are a tiny fraction of the 1.4 million members of the uniformed services and about 3.5 percent of the more than 10,000 people discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since its inception in 1994.

Probably half that number used the program as a way to get
out of their enlistment or commitment. Just as some women
get pregnant to get a quick early out.

That's the Admin separation of "I don't want to go to Turkey,
I'll just tell them I'm gay."

103 posted on 01/25/2006 7:48:02 AM PST by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xone

Wow, that was alot of research. I'm almost impressed. Does being a FReeper mean that I have to have groupthink? It is after all the Free Republic. My husband and countless others, fight everyday for my right of free expression. I will use it. If you think thats trolling, then so be it. I will never change the way I think, feel or speak because of pressure to be like everybody else. If that was the case I'd be over a DU with those fools. I have a problem with people who have a problem with people thinking differently than them.


104 posted on 01/25/2006 7:49:36 AM PST by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Snickersnee

"about a dozen guys are kicked out each year for that"


No way. You'd have to be one vengeful b*tch to do that to your spouse or ex-spouse.


105 posted on 01/25/2006 7:54:40 AM PST by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga

'Wow, that was alot of research. I'm almost impressed.'

Wouldn't be surprised, you seem easily impressed.

'Does being a FReeper mean that I have to have groupthink?'

No, just no trolling allowed.

'My husband and countless others, fight everyday for my right of free expression.'

As have others before him, it is nothing new. A real live OMBUDSMAN like yourself should know that.

'I will never change the way I think, feel or speak because of pressure to be like everybody else. If that was the case I'd be over a DU with those fools.'

You spout the same nonsense already.

'I have a problem with people who have a problem with people thinking differently than them.'

I would agree you have a problem. It is called trolling.


106 posted on 01/25/2006 7:57:54 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

"I hope this little exposition has clarified the situation for you."

Not really, since your "explanation" of the UCMJ is downright incoherent. You seem to be saying that you have a problem with the UCMJ since it only allows courtsmartial of soldiers if they've actually engaged in homosexual acts -- except it doesn't.
Overall, the posts on this thread seem to prove the old adage that, the more ignorant a person is, the more violently certain he is in his beliefs.


107 posted on 01/25/2006 8:09:52 AM PST by MajorityOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga

"They want to fight and die for their country, that's honorable right?"


That isn't the part with which people have a problem. One problem is that gays have deviant sexual behavior, mainly sodomizing each other. Imagine being in a combat zone and having to witness two homos kissing and sodomizing each other. They add to the stress of being in combat because now a straight guy has to worry about the homo next to him making advances, being a pervert, and behaving in weird ways. That adds to the distrust of the homo and in combat there can be no distrust.


108 posted on 01/25/2006 8:12:45 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator
You have never slept in a shipboard compartment that measures 12' X 18' with 11 other guys have you? I have, and the flamer that slept in the rack across from me leered like, well a drunken horny sailor. How would you like to drop trou' three feet from that? How would you like to be cooped up for years with that? I remember a few years back reading about a sailor Who was accused of raping another sailor he had gotton drunk with while the man was passed out in his bunk.I believe he went to prison for quite a long time.
109 posted on 01/25/2006 8:20:41 AM PST by ABN 505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this is a law passed by Congress. Folks can vent all they want at the Pentagon but they're only doing what they're told. It's true the military can influence Congress in that decision by saying a different policy would hurt their effectiveness. If so, can we blame Congress for listening to the people whose lives are on the line?

/FLAME ON

Our military should be used to win wars. It should not be a culture dish for social experiments. Nor should it be forcing heterosexual men to change who they are or how they feel so 1-2% of the population can exercise another invented "right". As others have brought up, there are some analogies to women serving alongside men. Just because that (somewhat successful) social experiment caused problems isn't an excuse to create others.

110 posted on 01/25/2006 8:26:58 AM PST by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xone

Xone,
Wow. You're off the chain. Why don't you go have a glass of wine and soak in some Calgon and calm down a little? You must be a doosie to live with if you let a stranger get you that riled up.


111 posted on 01/25/2006 8:30:30 AM PST by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga

Does this mean your lovey-dovey freepmails to me were just so much BS? I am shocked to see that behavior from a troll I tell ya.


112 posted on 01/25/2006 8:34:04 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: xone

No, I still love you Xone, I just worry about your blood pressure.


113 posted on 01/25/2006 8:35:28 AM PST by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
Why kick them out? They want to fight and die for their country, that's honorable right?

Because in the long run, they do a lot more harm than good--especially as they work their way up to the higher echelons.

Ask the Catholic Church about what a great idea it was to ordain homosexuals as priests. Not only have there been hundreds of homo-sex abuse cases, when some of these individuals got to be bishops, they made it a point to ONLY ordain homo-priests and then protect the abusive priests to the nth degree.

There have always been minor sex-abuse/rape/harrassment problems in the military. If you want that to get a lot worse, keep encouraging the open service of homosexuals.

In my opinion, the policy should be "do ask, do tell, do dishonorably discharge."
114 posted on 01/25/2006 8:38:14 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
But as long as you don't have sex on the job, fraternized or harrass anyone, why should you be kicked out?

Again, you're assuming that someone with SSAD is able to function in such an environment--surrounded by the objects of their sexual desire 24-7--without having problems. In my opinion, that's just asking for bad trouble.

For example, it would be a bad idea to put me in charge of an overnight camp of 19-year-old women where I actually had to sleep in the same room as they did and share their toilet facilities. And I'd be the first to say so.
115 posted on 01/25/2006 8:43:20 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
That's happening now with women being in the military. Are you going to kick them out because someone finds one attractive? That's just silly. If women really want true equality in the military, they should be willing to go where ever they're sent.

You have inadvertently discovered the reason why women should not be in the active military. Support roles? Yes.
116 posted on 01/25/2006 8:44:54 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
Because if you are secure in your masculinity, why is it so threatening to be ogled by another dude?

So you're ok with having guys in your bathroom then? And showering with them?
117 posted on 01/25/2006 8:46:35 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart

Not being a smart ass,
but it was the General was retired. He was able to retire even with his discretion.


118 posted on 01/25/2006 8:48:32 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

No, of course not. But people are acting like military people spend 90% of their day in the shower and bathroom. I'm talking about peoples ability to do their job. Jeez.


119 posted on 01/25/2006 8:50:28 AM PST by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson