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

ClickonDetroit ^ | January 25, 2006 | AP

[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

[WV Mountain Mama]

I played women's basketball in college and there were a few lesbians on the team. It is VERY gross to be ogled in a shower by someone, let alone a homosexual, I know this from experience. At practice we were all fine, but if we all ate at dinner, there were 2 different tables, and the groups didn't socialize together either. 2 lesbians would terrorize freshman on road trips when we had to share rooms. If you don't think that is bad for morale, then I have some real nice property in the ninth ward New Orleans to sell ya.

It didn't affect judgement during a game, but in a war, the stakes are much higher...

[Fresh Wind]

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?

I guess the PC solution is to give everyone a private stateroom!

[brwnsuga]

You say your husband disagrees. You imply he is insecure in his masculinity. You really think that?

Please, don't insult my husband because you disagree with me. I am only stating my opinion.

[exnavy]

It probably doesn't mean much to you, and you probably will not agree with this either, but putting women in combat troops, or in front line capacities at all is wrong and should not be happening, in my opinion.

[Quilla]

With so many ex-military and family members of military on this thread, it seems like a great venue to thank you all for your service and our freedoms. Thank you.

[exnavy]

TMI

[brwnsuga]

how come we non-homosexuals could not sleep in the women's berthing?


LoL, I've seen some of these women who wear their keys on the outside of their utilities, not pretty.

[brwnsuga]

so can we all come over and ogle you undressing?

Let me lose those last stubborn 10 lbs.

[Galveston Grl]

They are allowed to serve as long as they don't bother people with their sexual problem at work. Who cares what they do in their private life. Don't bother military with it, or you have a problem.

Plus, your statment taht there is no problem does not match what i have learned from other military guys. They take expection to a flamer who finds it necessary to bother them with their sexuality - like staring and flirting with them. As long as they don't mess with others, no one cares. But mess with others and it makes for a problem. Normal reaction of men.

[dpa5923]

Cute, but dishonest.

[grobdriver]

These are your words: "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)".

Now, you say your husband disagrees with you. So you might as well direct this question to him.
I don't insult your husband - I honor him and his service.
You are welcome to your opinion, however inexperienced and heretofore uninformed it may be.
Perhaps you will take this opportunity to reevaluate your opinion in light of new information from those who have been there, done that - regardless of how that information may conflict with your feelings.

[brwnsuga]

You are about as conservative as a San Fran Fruitcake


Not on this issue perhaps. But I'm pro-life, pro-gun rights, for prayer in school and school vouchers, against homo-sexual marriage and have voted Republican or the last 4 elections. I just don't see where sexuality matters with job performance. There are plenty of scandalous heterosexuals out there.

[mouser]

It is not just having to take a shower with someone who finds you a sexually attractive its also worries about some of the diseases which goes along with the gay lifestyle. Would you want the medic taking care of your wound to have aids or any of the other less threatening diseases. Then there is the cost to the taxpayers to take care of them when they have these diseases.

[ExpatGator]

Thanks for having a sense of humor and looking at the issue fairly. We service folks are not attacking you, for you are in an important support role as a military spouse. We are just sharing our opinions in a forceful manner. Our services mean a lot to us and we want what is best for it.

I have had lots of acquaintances and even a few friends who played for the other team (with the lavender uniform). I wish them the best, but have seen and experienced the predatory nature of their chosen sexuality. They have no place in the military. It is incompatible with military service.

[brwnsuga]

TMI

Yes, I know.

[exnavy]

I just want to say, I respect your differing opinion and your right to express it.

[Lucky Dog]

The term “sexual orientation” is frequently misused and abused intentionally to cloud arguments against homosexuality. The term “sexual orientation” refers to internal emotions or how some one “feels” toward members of the same sex versus members of the opposite sex. The point is, simply, that no one can know how another person “feels” unless that person overtly expresses, or acts on, those “feelings.”

The terms homosexuality or homosexuality are defined by actions just as are the terms “rapist,” “pedophile,” “bigamist,” etc. In other words, regardless of feelings, without a homosexual act no one is a homosexual.

The UCMJ (which is a code of law, Constitutionally enacted by Congress) prohibits actions not ”feelings”. By long standing interpretation, upheld by courts, if a military member “tells” others that he or she is a “homosexual,” military authorities are entitled to presume that the “confessor” has “acted,” or will “act,” on his or her “confession.” Therefore, it is legally permissible for military authorities to take actions that exclude from the military a person confessing to being “homosexual.” In contrast, under the UCMJ, military officials are justified in taking court martial actions against a military member against whom evidence exists that he or she has engaged in homosexual acts.

Maintaining “good order and discipline” is essential to the effectiveness, and even battlefield survival, of any military unit. Such a goal is sole purpose of the UCMJ. To advocate official disregard of “good order and discipline” through willfully refusing to enforce the provisions of the UCMJ is to advocate the destruction of military effectiveness and individual military members’ safety.

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

[brwnsuga]

I am not just a military spouse, but OMBUDSMAN for my husband's command. But I thank you for your kind words. I have never been a follower (hence the fact that I am a Black Conservative). My mind still isn't changed about this issue, but that's okay. It a the Free Republic after all.

[William Terrell]

If women really want true equality in the military, they should be willing to go where ever they're sent.

But there is no possible way women can be "equal" in the military, unless they are filling administrative jobs.