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
My husband is active duty. There are alot of homosexuals in the military serving, as we speak. There are even gay Marines. Why kick them out? They want to fight and die for their country, that's honorable right?
Typical Liberal Activist slant/over-embellishment:
Implying that Most (if not All) Military GLBT's serve in Extremely-critical and Difficult-to-Replace key positions....and No other types of personnel to fill such posts.
Typical Liberal Activist slant/over-embellishment:
Implying that Most (if not All) Military GLBT's serve in Extremely-critical and Difficult-to-Replace key positions....and No other types of personnel to fill such posts.
The economic argument is rather stupid. How much does it cost to train someone who becomes a drug addict? A traitor? A murderer? If it costs a lot, shouldn't we simply keep them in?
Being an avowed homosexual is against military orders. You can be a flaming, limp-wristed fag and know one cares. You just can't be one in the military. Is this discrimination? Sure it is. But the military discriminates every day. You can't be overweight, or substantially handicapped. You can't be deaf or blind. You can't have a chronic desease. You can't be too old. AND you can't be gay.
I have no idea about the American Military but we are overstretched in my reserve unit we have individuals who are acting almost has permanent soldiers to fill in the gaps.
Not very good for there civilian career.
I know my last tour had a negative effect on mine.
It creates serious problems with group moral when those type of things start happening.
IMHO, it is the same reason why woman should not be in group combat situations.
The truth is , they are in every post, rate and rank. But as long as you don't have sex on the job, fraternized or harrass anyone, why should you be kicked out? And please let me state, I think that homosexuality is wrong. But I don't think it has anything to do with whether you are able to do your job. My husband doesn't want anybody asking or telling around him.
So I guess they shouldn't "tell".
(I suspect that many among these numbers got free education and training at taxpayer's expense and then "told" to end their obligation.)
Because you can't have a Captain falling in love with some Sergeant in his company, or a Sergeant falling in love with a corporal in the platoon.
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.
I believe your missing the point.
The "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy states that it "allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation."
I don't believe that they want "to fight and die for their country", but rather they want to join up, get a free education and then "get the boot" so they can make more money on the outside.
I also think the correct way to handle this situation is to say "OK, you want out because you claim your homosexual, well this is how much we spent on your education, your civilian pay will be garnished until we are paid back (with interest of course)."
Good Moring BS,
Homosexuality is incompatiable with the military service. What part of that do you not understand??????
Social engineering will not improve the military, only hinder it's operation and effectiveness.
8 years of blythe klintoon, almost destroyed our military.
Homosexuals just like the muslims, do not belong in our military, law enforcement or any position which is vital to our natioinal security.
Does you husband hold the same liberal view as you, concerning homos-gays serving in the military?
If so, I suggest he find another career field.
Liberal attitudes only destroy good and wholesome organizations, agencies and morale.
"Think of what is best for America(USA)not PC viability."
Cordially,
NSNR-Retired Army M.P.
I feel thus inclined to your thinking...even though I do believe that Homosexuality is a SIN against YAHWEH and Mankind in general.
Just a guess here -- but, when you start "telling" you make it an on the job issue. Keep it to yourself.
Maybe it is a man thing. Because if you are secure in your masculinity, why is it so threatening to be ogled by another dude? Its not going to cause you to turn (like some kind of vampire).
I agree. As long as there's no public outright inappropriate behavior, just like heterosexuals must adhere to, and if they're willing to serve and die, why let them go? Although I'm surprised by the low numbers...I think this article exaggerates the loss to the military, but just the same. Doing the math it comes out to only about 30 a year, so this article has a larger agenda.
When you place an openly gay man in this environment, it causes hostility. Many men don't want to associate with gays, let alone have one showering with them. The friction impacts the unit mission and causes a major distraction. The Commander and First Sergeant would have to set aside gay tents and gay shower time to keep the two groups from mixing. At that point your saying that gays in the field can associate and have sex, but heterosexuals can't. This further adds to the hostility.
The bottom line - Homosexual activities are not conducive to military life.
I also think the correct way to handle this situation is to say "OK, you want out because you claim your homosexual, well this is how much we spent on your education, your civilian pay will be garnished until we are paid back (with interest of course)."
Everyone enlisting knows the deal. There are no surprises when it comes to this policy.
Maybe I did miss the point. So I'll just say this. I think that people should be able to serve, regardless of their sexual orientation. My husband disagrees.
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.