# Poll:  should the military upgrade the discharges of those booted under DADT?



## Marauder06 (Sep 7, 2015)

The NYT recently ran an article about vets who got discharged under the military's rules against homosexuality and are trying to get their discharges upgraded.  Here is an article in support of this idea.  What are your thoughts?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 7, 2015)

As much as I believe they should be able to serve my answer is no.  They were discharged under the regulations of the time.  Taking the emotion away from it it's no different to a guy in the 80's who got kicked out for getting an upper sleeve tattoo (for example) and now wants that changed because of the new tattoo policy.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 7, 2015)

I don't know. I would say yes, but the fact is that was the rule when they got out. There was a policy, that said keep it to yourself, they chose not to. Makes me wonder why they decided to out themselves. 

Maybe case by case, if they were outed by another person or under non self identifying circumstances they should get upgraded. If they self identified, then leave them as is, they made their choice.


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Sep 7, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know. I would say yes, but the fact is that was the rule when they got out. There was a policy, that said keep it to yourself, they chose not to. Makes me wonder why they decided to out themselves.
> 
> Maybe case by case, if they were outed by another person or under non self identifying circumstances they should get upgraded. If they self identified, then leave them as is, they made their choice.



I agree.

While not in the majority, there were individuals that used DADT as a means to escape their contractual obligations - do they deserve an upgrade? In my opinion - no. Now, how do you sort those that were punatively discharged under DADT while making an honest attempt at compliance with the regulations of the time from those who made no attempt at compliance, and further from those that used DADT to get an "early out"?

And to build upon Mac's post, if this is done for the LGB veteran community, it potentially opens the floodgates to every veteran that received anything less than an honorable discharge based upon regulations that have since changed - if the VA is in shambles now, how can they be expected to handle something like this?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 7, 2015)

Should there be an across the board upgrade to "Honorable"?  No, they made their choice (To enter the military), and took their chances on not getting caught.  To me that is not honorable.  At the time, being gay (in the military) was illegal; being outted could/would cause much embarrassment to the person, and their family.  It is not naive to believe that classifed information could have been compromised or decisions swayed because someone (or some nation) threatened to 'out' a soldier -

  We cannot pick and choose the rules we support based on emotion, just ask the commander at the recruiting station who fired at the terrorist who killed those Marines and Sailor.  Public emotion would likely want to throw him a parade - Likely the military would want to throw the book at him - will be interesting to see how that one finally plays out.

With that said, I would support an across the board change to  "Other than Honorable" .


----------



## reed11b (Sep 7, 2015)

What about the RE code for more recent discharges? I feel if there is no other disciplinary record it should be looked at.
Reed


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 7, 2015)

Other.

It should be done on a case by case basis as @TLDR20 said.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 7, 2015)

I also agree with @TLDR20 's option of case-by-case, with OEF/OIF era DADT discharges examined particularly closely to make sure it wasn't a deployment dodge.

I personally served with someone who was openly gay, an outstanding troop, and brought their significant other to unit functions all the time.  DADT was ignored by all until it came time for the company to deploy to OIF II, and this soldier couldn't find any other way to get out of the deployment.  So the soldier approached our commander and announced not only was the soldier gay, but preparing for gender reassignment surgery.  The tactic worked, and the soldier got out without so much as a grain of Middle Eastern sand in their boots.  

While this is obviously an extreme example, considering how large the military was at that point it's safe to assume that there were other soldiers who took the same general approach to avoid going overseas.  Whether that number is statistically significant remains to be seen.  Those are the ones whose discharges ought not be upgraded under any circumstances (and I'd do a dance if it was downgraded because I have no tolerance for cowardice).  Whether anyone has the fortitude to exercise that level of due diligence, however, is doubtful.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 7, 2015)

Case by case with the default answer being "no".  If folks were outed and were otherwise making a legitimate attempt to comply with the "don't tell" part of the policy, then it should be considered.  All else, it was a violation of a well-known policy - they made a decision, and were well aware of the consequences.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 7, 2015)

I remember the great purge of Arabic linguist back in the early 2000's.. I say no. Case by case should definitely be considered, but lots of people used the rule to get out of the military.


----------



## pardus (Sep 7, 2015)

No, they were the rules at the time.

ETA, unless Congress amends the law to back date it...


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 7, 2015)

Case by case.  People who "self outed" get no upgrade.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 8, 2015)

pardus said:


> No, they were the rules at the time.
> 
> ETA, unless Congress amends the law to back date it...



Concur.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 8, 2015)

Raksasa Kotor said:


> I agree.
> 
> While not in the majority, there were individuals that used DADT as a means to escape their contractual obligations - do they deserve an upgrade? In my opinion - no.


 

In the last months of my AD I was discharge NCO for our battalion. And indeed, at that time, there were those trying to get out for any reason they could think up, including the above. So, no sympathy from me for the shirkers. There was also one particularly predatory homosexual E5 who'd been discreetly but actively hitting on young E1s and E2s just getting to the Fleet from infantry training. He deservedly got the boot. But...honorable men and women who did their job and got outted by somebody else?  I think their cases might deserve a second look.


----------



## AWP (Sep 9, 2015)

reed11b said:


> What about the RE code for more recent discharges? I feel if there is no other disciplinary record it should be looked at.
> Reed



This too.

If there is a precedent for sweeping, blanket "Our bad, let us fix your discharge" scenario in the DoD, then go for it. Otherwise, TLDR hit it on the head.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 9, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> This too.
> 
> If there is a precedent for sweeping, blanket "Our bad, let us fix your discharge" scenario in the DoD, then go for it. Otherwise, TLDR hit it on the head.


The Services could do this on their own.  All the discharge proceedings are a matter of record.  Two/three GS-9's (per service could do it in a year's time).


----------



## Brill (Sep 9, 2015)

I'd support a national prioritization: fix the VA fiasco then lets work the discharge upgrades.

Did Colorado and Washington release all the inmates that were convicted/incarcerated by breaking state marijuana laws in those states?  Just curious if new laws are retroactive.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Just curious if new laws are retroactive.


I believe that they would have to specifically say that, otherwise in most cases ex post facto laws are generally prohibited.


----------

