Air Force walks back on 2008 DADT discharge
Apparently, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and the law firm, Morrison & Foerster thought this was important enough to send us a press release. I wonder why. But it looks like the Air Force is reinstating Staff Sergeant Anthony Loverde who was discharged under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy;
“I am honored and humbled to return to the service of my country and the job I love. I am grateful to my legal team and all of those in the armed forces who helped to facilitate this reinstatement. I am eager to take the oath and get to work,” said Loverde.
Loverde’s reinstatement is the result of a resolution on his behalf in the historic case, Almy v. U.S., filed in 2010, which challenges the constitutionality of the three plaintiffs’ discharges under DADT and seeks their reinstatement to active duty. A resolution was reached in December 2011 on behalf of Petty Officer 2nd Class Jase Daniels, who was reinstated in the U.S. Navy as a linguist. A resolution on behalf of the third plaintiff in the case, former Air Force Major Mike Almy, is expected soon.
Yeah, that’s pretty much stupid. The problem is that they were removed from the service while it was the policy of the military that they adhere to easily definable constraints, and they refused to fulfill their end of the bargain. They couldn’t keep their mouths shut about their sexual proclivities, and all they had to do was not admit that they were deviants. How hard is that? Too hard, apparently. When you break the law, you break the law.
Of course, the press release calls the policy “discriminatory”, which it most certainly was NOT. What’s discriminatory is the way straights are forced to tolerate this deviant behavior while we’re not allowed to complain about it. That’s oppressive.
“This historic reinstatement again reminds us that today’s military is a welcoming place for qualified patriots whose careers were cut short by the unjust ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law. This victory is unique because it is a reinstatement – not just a reentry – meaning that Sergeant Loverde will return to his previous rank and be able to continue his career as if it had never been interrupted.
Even though he couldn’t follow a simple policy, he’s returned as if nothing ever happened. Why would the Air Force want him back? What if he decides that haircut policies are “discriminatory”? Or uniform standards? Maybe we can see Soup Sandwich returned to the Air Force because he thinks their policy against huffing shoe polish discriminates against idiots?
Category: Air Force
They couldn’t keep their mouths shut about their sexual proclivities, and all they had to do was not admit that they were deviants. How hard is that?
Not hard at all, I kept my proclivities for ball gags and assless chaps to myself for years…..
“This victory is unique because it is a reinstatement – not just a reentry – meaning that Sergeant Loverde will return to his previous rank and be able to continue his career as if it had never been interrupted.”
This is a travesty. Not only was he counter to standing regulations at the time, but his time away from service puts his subordinates and peers at a disadvantage.
Reentry fine – reinstatement definitely not.
Hypocrisy of the highest form. What has happened to the Air Force?
not just a reentry
Wow, this is just too easy……
Loverde got his second chance. Let’s see how long it takes him to mess it up or, as Jonn said, find some other “discriminatory” policy to crusade against.
So what happens if say UCMJ made pot ok? You gonna let all the potheads beack in who knowingly broke the rules? What DADT is re-instated in the future as policy? Then what do you do with guys like Loverde? This is beyond military stupidity. There must be some politicans involved somewhere.
What *if DADT…
Soon all you’ll have in the military is the deviants. No straight person will want to join while being surrounded by the LGBT crowd.
Between that, and the personnel-killing ROE’s, and Kongress, I certainly will not be encouraging anyone to join anytime soon.
Too bad, too see how far our country and military have sunk in so short a time.
He’ll be back just in time for the AF RIF.
Hate to say it, Bobo, but he’s probably about the only indiv in the AF who doesn’t have to sweat that. Even if deserved, he’d claim retaliation – and probably be able to convince a judge to order him retained. IMO, the AF as an institution just doesn’t have the balls to take a risk like that these days, even when they’re right.
Frankly, I doubt any of the 4 services do anymore.
Well, at least we know the reinstated Sailor isn’t a ‘cunning linguist’. Ah, thank you.
Sorry, the juvenile in me had to make a comment.
Sounds like a queer deal to me.
“Even though he couldn’t follow a simple policy, he’s returned as if nothing ever happened. Why would the Air Force want him back? What if he decides that haircut policies are “discriminatory”? Or uniform standards? Maybe we can see Soup Sandwich returned to the Air Force because he thinks their policy against huffing shoe polish discriminates against idiots?”
As I’ve said before, rules discriminate against those who break them.
“That rule discriminates against me because it prohibits behavior that I really want to engage in!”
That’s the kind of logic that we’ve actually bought. The same rule applied to everybody. It was not “discrimination”.
Rules against having long hair discriminate against longhaired people. I think anyone should be able to serve their country, regardless of hair length!
#8, yeah that’s just what our current regime wants, a military full of deviants. Then they’ll have someone to blame when their foreign policy goes to shit.
Here’s what doesn’t make sense to me(and maybe an Air Force type can square me away): When DADT was repealed, it was put through briefings that Soldiers who were separated under Chapter 15, AR 635-200 would be allowed to reenlist in the Army at previous rank.
Given this, I don’t see a “victory” for the gays (which I will use as a collective term). It seems to me that the Air Force is just following the policy outlined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense.
Well fuck me runnin! Why don’t we let all the folks booted under the “Food For Freedom” program, or all those booted for adultery right back in the door if they promise to be skinny and keep their winkies and va-jay-jays in their uniform pants?
Frankly, this is a bullshit ruling–you couldn’t follow the rules back then. Why should we believe you can follow them now?
Why not just make the policy that no one is allowed to have sex in the military. That would solve many many problems. No?
As I stated above, Doc, there are a lot more reasons than sex why people get booted. Does that mean we should let them in now too?
What about the black pilots that were tossed out on OTH’s back in the 40’s for going to the O club only to be exonerated and given Honorables in the mid 90’s?
Ever hear of a thing called USACENTCOM GO#1, HM2 FMF/SW? It bans quite a bit more than alcohol.
Until either late 2007 or early 2008, what you suggest – no sex, period – was by GO #1 the policy for all folks deployed in SWA – including, technically, married couples deployed together to support OEF or OIF. It was clarified sometime in mid/late 2007 or early 2008 as allowing married couples deployed together to have sex if privacy conditions allowed. For singles, I’m pretty sure “no sex while deployed” is still policy today.
Hondo: I am familiar. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying no sex period, deployed or not. Then we wouldn’t have DADT, STDs, pregnancy related deployment issues. Makes sense. Does it not?
HM2 FMF/SW Ret: My point in bringing up GO #1 was that the military technically has the authority to control a lot more of your life when you’re in uniform – and even while you’re retired – than most people realize or care to think about. Policy as you suggest could be made, and would possibly even withstand legal scrutiny if limited to unmarried personnel and adultery. (It wasn’t all that long ago that pregnancy was deemed incompatible with military service.) But whether such a policy would be a good idea, or even be practically enforceable, is another story.
Not every order that can be given should be given. Some potential orders are really bad ideas even if technically lawful. And a truly stupid policy or standing order is IMO actually counterproductive in the long run. That often ends up doing nothing but waste resources in a futile attempt to enforce the unenforceable while creating a climate of disregard for authority across the board.
What uniform standards (male/female) to transgenders have to abide by? I mean the LGBT is becoming increasingly interested in joining the military (or at least pretended to do push an agenda) surely the issue will come up eventually?
I served with Loverde and glad he is coming back. In a chronically critical undermanned career field having someone back with experience and technical expertise is a godsend. In addition, as for as Loverde being gay…we didn’t care then we sure in the hell do not care now. Moreover, deviant, really, I would consider the horrible amount of sexual assaults we have as real deviant behavior and a lot more damaging to morale and morals than with whom Loverde sleeps with.
I also served with Loverde, and didn’t know at the time, but suspected his homosexuality. Frankly it wasn’t my business, and I didn’t care either way, because I am not a bigot. There is a reason DADT was repealed, and his reinstatement is well deserved. The hatred expressed in this story is all too common, and easily chalked up to ignorance. It is the same rhetoric used to claim liberties being taken away by the government under this administration, while at the same time expressing that the same government should remove civil liberties from others based on perceived conflict of a personal religion.
I was Tony’s supervisor twice – once while we were both active duty, and once as contractors. He is the kind of Airman the Air Force needs – loyal, dependable, and dedicated. The hatred expressed by some, I’m afraid, will probably show it’s ugly head from time to time. But I can only hope that these people subscribe to the same core values that Tony upholds – Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All They Do!
Bob, PMELTBoss: The problem I have is not so much with Loverde’s homosexuality, but with the fact that he apparently willingly and publicly violated DoD policy. Apparently, you’re each willing to let the fact that he was competent override the fact that he couldn’t follow DoD policy, and voluntarily chose to violate same. Would you feel the same way about someone who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he didn’t support that particular war? If not, why not? What’s the difference?
IMO, not being willing/able to be discrete when the stakes are as high as they were for homosexual service members during DADT gives me reason to question the individual’s common sense and good judgement. If he willingly outed himself – as seems possible – it also gives me reason to doubt the likelihood of his following other orders or policies with which he may disagree.
I don’t know – and can’t find – the details of what circumstances led to Loverde’s discharge, so I’m assuming that he went public or was stupidly indiscreet. If someone can post credible sources indicating the contrary, I’ll evaluate my opinion. But otherwise, I have no problem with someone who willingly violates DoD policy and gets permanently booted – regardless of the reason.
Just because you can do or say something doesn’t mean you should. Anyone with common sense – and security clearance – knows that.
Obviously, that should be “. . . I’ll reevaluate my opinion . . . ” in the next to last para above. Typo on my part.
Hondo – what you don’t know is that the primary reason Tony decided to “come out” while on active duty was because he didn’t like living a lie. He went to his first sergeant, and then to his commander, to tell them the truth. Ironically, his integrity is what got him discharged. (By the way, I was a first sergeant in a different unit at the time – I’m well aware of how the DADT policy worked; he was given an honorable discharge). Because of the policy at the time, his commander had little choice but to discharge Tony. But the courts and the pentagon have decided that the policy was not fair, and, subsequently, have decided to, on a case-by-case basis, reinstate people who were discharged under DADT. I applaud that decision because, as I said before, Tony is an outstanding Airman – our country deserves to be defended by people like him. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one’s ability to serve. I am not gay, and I admit that I do not understand what makes anyone gay. But I honestly believe that it does not matter. Tony is gay. He tried to live within the constraints of DADT, but found that he couldn’t. He didn’t go public, and he wasn’t indiscreet. He went to his leadership and told them he was gay. He didn’t do anything wrong. The Air Force decided they couldn’t keep him. Now they have decided they want him back. Again, I applaud that move – it is a good one. I am sure that Tony will serve his country well.