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

[gitmogrunt]

That's happening now with women being in the military. Are you going to kick them out because someone finds one attractive?"

Your comments resemble and confirm the Famous French saying...."All women are Bi-Sexual by their very nature".

[brwnsuga]

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

A woman's bullet will stop the enemy just like a man's bullet, right?

[68 grunt]

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

In combat situations you become very close to your squadmates. This bond is more than just akin to love, it is love. You will die for your squadmate, and know that he will die for you, or you both will go down together, proudly.

This is a problem with women in combat, confusing this love for sexuality. It is also man's natural desire to protect the weaker ones in the tribe. This is also the problem with homosexuals in combat. Combat requires ferocity, something most homosexuals don't possess. Put this all together with the degradation of the squad's moral and its clear that homosexuals are counterproductive to victory.

[Let's Roll]

Because in a word, it's "divisive" - the last thing you want in an organization that needs to be "cohesive".

[KC_Conspirator]

Because its bad for morale and unit cohesion. Can you imagine taking a shower with someone in your unit giving you the eyeball?

Furthermore, not everyone believes like you do. Many people object to this lifestyle.

Were not Sparta, you know.;^)

[brwnsuga]

Combat requires ferocity, something most homosexuals don't possess.

Gosh, how does anybody know how much ferocity a homosexual has or doesn't have. What about a wimpy heterosexual soldier? He could be just as much of a liabilty to his unity as a gay soldier. What if there was a kick-a$$ gay soldier, brave as hell, could do no wrong...are you saying you'd rather have the wimpy hetero fighting by your side instead of him?

[brwnsuga]

Many people object to this lifestyle.

I object to the gay lifestyle. I don't want people to think that I am pro-gay lifestyle. But I thought that since military members are not allowed to sex up anybody in their command or unit( by military rules and regs.) , that it shouldn't matter that the person who fights beside you is homosexual.

[William Terrell]

A woman's bullet will stop the enemy just like a man's bullet, right?

That would be OK if a combat soldier's only job is to fling bullets. But it turns out to be 1/100% of the soldier's tour of duty.

Women degrade the performance of a combat unit. It's not a slug at women; it's just a fact, and it is and has always been a socialist/communist mandate.

Consider, if two units equaly supplied, armed and knowledgeable, one entirely female and one entirely male, which unit would you figure would win?

The male unit, of course. This means, ipso facto, that each woman introduced into the mix with duties that include interaction with the enemy will make the unit less effective than it was before.

Why would want to do that?

[brwnsuga]

I will allow that women don't have the physical strength of men. But we have the same level of intelligence and more dexterity, so who knows. My husband also, doesn't like to work with women because he feels they don't work as hard as his men do. I tend to see his point on that issue.

[KC_Conspirator]

Correct. However, we all know what happens in the navy for example when at every port you have sailors leaving because they are pregnant.

Good in theory, but not a reality.

By that standard, the Catholic Church said the same thing that it should not matter what sexual lifestyle a priest is, but look at all the problems they have had.

[Coldwater Creek]

It is totally outside of God's order of life for a woman to be a warrior. Women were made to be nurturers.

[68 grunt]

... What about a wimpy heterosexual soldier? ...

They, too, are a problem. Its best if that crap is beat out of them in bootcamp and their endurance limits are explored, but the enemy (liberal/communist/pc/crap) has denied use of those tools. Your naivety is astounding. Perhaps you should listen to your husband, Ms. Ombudsman.

[Sensei Ern]

More Don't AsSk, Don't Tell:
We don't have to ask when, at grenade practice you are proud of the fact the Drill Sergent says you throw like a girl.

We can tell when, the only reason you don't want to go to Iraq is that the desert cammies don't match your Gucci bag.

And, we don't have to ask, we can tell when, you volunteered to blow Revelle in the morning and was disappointed when they gave you a bugle.

[armydoc]

This article has overlooked a significant issue. I know personally of an instance of a military physician "coming out" to avoid deployment to Iraq and get out of her active duty commitment. I suspect there are a significant number of these cases, especially among physicians. They are using their homosexuality as a "get out of jail free" card. They are forcing the issue; they are not being hunted down and booted out.

[William Terrell]

And men were made to love that nurturer configuration!

[brwnsuga]

Mrs. Ombudsman to you.

[xone]

'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).'

So that is your man's problem? Or are you trolling?

'I think that people should be able to serve, regardless of their sexual orientation.'

Fortunately, yours is the minority opinion.

'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.'

So hetero in fact that your man has his problem still.

'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?'

Yes'
'Why do men get so angry about this subject?'

Because we aren't touchy-feely
'
'You sound a little angry. Its just my opinion and my opinion has no weight with military brass.'

Again with your implications, trolling again.

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

And it is being repeated back to you in a logical progression. I think you are a troll.

[William Terrell]

But we have the same level of intelligence and more dexterity, so who knows.

Which makes them shine in rear jobs, releasing men to ply the brutal and physically demanding job of combat. In my opinion, this is a large part of why we won a world war in two theaters at once.

[edcoil]

"My husband is active duty. There are alot of homosexuals in the military serving, as we speak."

This is just a stupid throw-away comment showing a lie. First, there are not alot of gays anywhere - they only represent 1% of society and the vast majority of that 1% never even go into the military.

I do know when I was in the military the easy way to get out was to say you were gay. Guys signed up, got a lot of free education then off out of the military back to the private sector all on the tax-payers dime.

Sure does reduce those student loans.

[brwnsuga]

What about in the book of Judges when Deborah led the army of Israel out to fight against Jabin the Caananite King and Jael killed Sisera with a tent peg. Weren't these ladies were warriors weren't they? There are times when we have to step up. What about the ladies in the IDF in Israel? We are warriors of a type anyway.