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 disagrees with me. But I don't see how someone's sexuality can hinder an operations effectiveness. Please give me an example, maybe it will be clearer.
Not all positions...and particularly not the combat arms of the services...are compatible with all the touchy feely nonsense you seem to embrace. As I said, for the same reasons gays should not, and IMHO must not, be in combat arms or any other postion requiring decisions regarding the life and death decisions of their compatriots, woman should also not be serving with men in those positions.
Say what you will...think what you will...it will not change these facts of life one iota.
I remember a case a few years ago where a guy had the military put him through medical school. As soon as he finished he descovered that he was gay and couldn't serve in the military. I believe that he ended up discharged, but I don't remember if he had to pay back the hundreds of thousands that the military invested in him.
"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."
Okay, that's an example. This really must be a man thing. Because I am so heterosexual, that there would be no tension at all if I had to be in close quarters with a lesbian. I like men and nothing she would do could affect my job performance.
What makes you think they weren't having sex on the job, fraternizing, or harassing someone?
Every time I've read this type of article (and they've come out regularly ever since Bush took office), the dischargees are always wailing that ALL THEY DID was "acknowlege their homosexuality". I always take that with a large rock of salt. The policy being "don't ask, don't tell", something probably happened first to provoke the question, right? Like being caught in the act, for example.
Then they go on to wail that, gosh, they spent a bazillion dollars training me and THEY NEED ME!
Yes, that's just what we need. A whole crop of people to whom the rules don't apply.
Exactly right. The burden of proof is on the military. If they (gays) would keep their mouths shut everythng would presumably be ok, but if you are caught in a homosexual situation, or say "I am gay/lesbian" then of course you are suspect and the ball starts top roll. And all a member has to to is not get caught or not tell. The command doesnt ask, If you tell, its all on you and the ax will fall.
What about the Rear Admirals?
Yes. And the other poster is right - you can bring sexual relationships [male or female] into a combat unit without affecting performance [ie. causing deaths].
My wife disagrees with me, too. She's a nurse. She works with homosexuals all the time (as the article indicates, the health profession is rife with them).
She thinks like you do, "if they do their job, who cares?". She, like you, female and (at least in the case of my wife) have never served, can't possibly understand the situation.
You argue from a position of ignorance.
There have been numerous cases where homosexual or effeminate men have been beaten or killed by members of their own unit. The military is a "macho" lifestyle where toughness is idolized and effeminate behavior isn't tolorated.
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?
Another point is, if someone who desired us straight guys in a sexual manner could sleep in the same berthing with us, how come we non-homosexuals could not sleep in the women's berthing?
What if she was your superior officer and used her authority to sexually harras or molest you? Or what if she kept her "favorite" away from dangerous ops and put you in her place?
are compatible with all the touchy feely nonsense you seem to embrace
I don't embrace touchy feely nonsense. I just don't think sexual orientation has a bearing on job performance. Let me reiterate, that I think homosexuality is wrong. But so is fornication. Anyone ever been kicked out of the military for having sex outside of marriage? Why do men get so angry about this subject? You sound a little angry. Its just my opinion and my opinion has no weight with military brass.
It's not silly. It's the GD'd regulations. And if you don't like them or won't follow them, then get the F*** out of the US military.
Fraternization is punishable by the UCMJ. The situations you pose fall into that category. Homos are known to have "dangerous" sexual habits. Read that to mean AIDS, Hepatitis, etc. Not saying that heteros don't, but statistics don't lie.
Because of Clintoon, a Commander or First Sgt. can not ask if they suspect a military member is homo. That puts the rest of the unit in a potentially dangerous situation.
If two servicemembers of the opposite sex fall in love in a military unit and one could have a supervisory position over the other, then one is moved. In the AF, officer/enlisted relationships are punishable. The officer usually gets courtmartialed.
One thing that nobody has touched on yet.
Alot of these socalled "homos" use it as an excuse to get out of their military obligation. I would venture to say that less than 30% of these are actually lapsmokers. The military has strict rules. Enlistees and officers are made aware of those rules. Most usually know about the homo policy prior to joining, yet they do anyway. When the true homos go before the press with their sob story, they are trying to do one thing and one thing only...destroy the military institution.
Your rose colored glasses towards sexually deviant behavior by military members who are supposed to uphold high standards, follow strict orders, obey their leadership and regulations gives the impression that you are a closet socialist.
All of what I have said is from my experiences and training in the USAF as a First Sgt.
SZ
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.