Democrats ask DoD to recharacterize discharges of DADT violators
Sorry guys, but you knew at the time coming out of the closet would get you discharged. Too late now. From Stars & Stripes;
A group of House Democrats want troops previously dismissed under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law to be able to apply for honorable discharge status, opening the door for them to receive veterans benefits.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month, House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and two colleagues asked Pentagon officials to look into the possibility of allowing those troops to petition the boards of correction to upgrade their status to an honorable discharge, if they received a lesser distinction.
There should be no Mulligans. They made their choices, for whatever reasons. Nothing could be more detrimental to good order and discipline. It’s like giving amnesty to draft dodgers.
Category: Military issues
but some DADT discharges were honorable and some were a lesser varity. the regulation specified something less than an honorable discharge only if other certain violations existed. why should those of a lesser varity who were not also guilty of the other listed violations not be upgraded?
Jonn,
Carter gave amnesty to draft dodgers back in 1977.
This approach through Congress may give some folks an emotional catharsis – justice for those very few homosexuals – but it opens the door for every jackwagon with a General or OTH/BCD to get benefits. The funds, and the personnel providing those benefits are scarce and shouldn’t be wasted on them that chose poorly.
>but some DADT discharges were honorable and some were a lesser varity. the regulation specified something less than an honorable discharge only if other certain violations existed
Exactly, some of those discharges didn’t just happen because of DADT, but that may just have been one of the underlying reasons..
I think anyone discharged under DADT and just DADT should be given an administrative discharge and a clean reenlistment code. There’s no black mark and if they want to go back and earn the benefits of a complete enlistment then fine. To just upgrade their discharges isn’t right.
Melle, maybe you haven’t served and don’t realize there is a “reason” box on a DD214. And, you seem to miss my point that some people may have been given a discharge characterization lower than they deserved.
Dave, I would argue this isn’ like draft dodger amenstey because the discharge characterizations were not the same across the board. Plenty of DADT discharges were characterized as honorable.
>Melle, maybe you haven’t served and don’t realize there is a “reason” box on a DD214. And, you seem to miss my point that some people may have been given a discharge characterization lower than they deserved.
Yes, J apparently I missed your point. No I haven’t served, but I also know there should be no broad brush change in discharges. They should be treated how every other discharge is treated in the military. Any individual DADT charges have had a chance to change/challenge already. There have been many military member who have been discharged under DADT, but there was more to their case and they got a BETTER discharge than they deserved.
Margaret Witt is a good case.. The woman was an officer having an affair with a married women.. She should have been slammed for the affair also, and yet she was HONORABLY discharged under DADT after her lover’s husband outted her. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Witt.
Oh and BTW J– Most discharges were those that outted themselves. They violated their contract; the same as weight standard, drug use etc. A voluntary violation of your contract should never result in a honorable discharge.
NotSoOldMarine: I disagree only on the point of a clean re-up code. Not until their physical health is verified as good-to-go.
DaveO,
Well, sure. I’m not saying that they waive reentry requirements like physical fitness or drug use but all service members are given a reenlistment code upon discharge which essentially classifies their desirability for future consideration should they choose to come back.
Fuck em all. They broke the law of the land and were, therefore, criminals. They should have all done hard time before discharge.
Meh. All the legislation would do, if I understand it correctly, is allow for the discharged soldier to petition for a reclassification of his discharge. The petition need not be approved, as in the case of those soldiers who had other negatives causing the discharge.
So yes, I think the soldiers should have a right to petition for an adjustment of their discharge status, and that the review boards should have the ability to adjust that status in deserving cases. But I’d oppose any across the board discharge reclassification, just because a soldier’s sexuality was part of the separation.
— Uber Pig
It will happen. There aren’t enough balls on capital hill to stop it.
I agree that no one’s discharge should be changed.
Here’s another question. How many people who just wanted out of the military and then feigned homosexuality will now be given honorable discharges and collect veterans’ benefits? What about that dirtbag who just couldn’t hack basic training to he told his CO he was a pickle smoocher? Is he now a “veteran”?
Allowing a retroactive revision of any law or rule is asking for all kinds of trouble. There’s a very good reason why both the federal government (Article 1, section 9, clause 3 – US Constitution) and the states (Article 1, section 10, clause 1 – same) are explicitly forbidden from making ex post facto (legalese for retroactive) law. They knew the rules, they broke the rules, they eat the punishment; no benefits, retroactive or no. I’m not personally opposed to the possibility of reenlistment, but I think the likelihood of a PC-forced disregard for demonstrated inability to follow the rules makes that a gamble at best; Russian roulette with most of the cylinders full, specifically.
the only time that I’ve heard of retroactive laws as a common practice is the practice of making awards retroactive (CAB Retroactive to 9/11/01 even though it was passed in 2004 the CIB and CMB retroactive to 12/07/41 even though they were authorized 43 and 44 respectively)
While I may agree with not giving them a Dishonorable, I do believe that they made a choice that was in direct opposition to the stated policy. the BEST they should get is general.
They violated the law that was in place at the time and need to live with it. No way should that violation be wiped off their record merely because the law has unfortunately been changed. Next they will be suing for reparations … sheesh!!!
No. No sympathy here. Even if they outed themselves. The law said, DADT. Period. No. I am not in agreement with reclassifying anyone because a law was changed. That should not be retroactive at all.
Regardless of how ridiculous this sounds, it’s the point: The law says it’s illegal to steal. I stole, I go to jail. It gets repealed. Now I go free because of the change? No. It was illegal when the crime was committed, therefore no passes!
From what I understand, anyone can petition to have their RE code changed as it is. As for DADT, I know of at least one case where two soldiers took advantage of the policy to get a better discharge. Supposedly, pictures of them doing coke in the barracks got around the battalion, and before action could be taken, they “came out of the closet” to my company commander. I can’t imagine how many other misconduct or substance abuse discharges were avoided by other personnel looking for a better discharge.