What to do with those who have been outed because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Aunt Spiker]

In the years since DADT was enacted thousands of military members have been outed due to violations of the policy.

Various scenarios in which people have been outed from the military due to DADT violations:

1) Person has relationship off-base with partner. Someone within the military witnesses this relationship and gathers evidence (written accounts, photos, etc) and then turns this evidence in. Person in question is processed out of the military due to DADT violations.

2) Person has secret relationship with someone in the military (either both are military or one is military, the other is civilian working with the force). The relationship becomes known or is witnessed by one or many. People in question are processed out due to DADT violations.

3) Person has relationship and divulges it online to a military community. Someone gathers this online information and reports the violator who is then processed out.

. . . . these are just 3 ways in which people have been outed from the military, there are other stories I've read or know of . . . but you get the idea.

Should any of these people be reinstated or be able to receive some type of compensation if DADT is repealed or altered?

 

[RightinNYC]

I think it's a shame that this happened, but you can't make a policy change like this retroactive. Reinstatement wouldn't work just because of the practical issues, and compensation is unwarranted because regardless of whether we think the rules were bad, they were the rules at the time.

 

[1069]

Even if we believe the rules were wrong, they violated the rules that were in place at the time.
I can't see them being pardoned now, just because the rules have changed.
The military doesn't typically operate that way.

 

[BCR]

Even if we believe the rules were wrong, they violated the rules that were in place at the time.
I can't see them being pardoned now, just because the rules have changed.
The military doesn't typically operate that way.

Maybe they should have chosen a better name because in those three scenarios nobody asked or told anything...It was just some homophobic prick ousting someone.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Maybe they should have chosen a better name because in those three scenarios nobody asked or told anything...It was just some homophobic prick ousting someone.

Exactly - yet those types of situations are exactly what makes up quite a few outed-cases.

 

[ecofarm]

No one in my unit cared that a couple guys in the company were kinda fruity. They were good soldiers and that's all we cared about. DADT should be changed/gone as soon as possible, but no reparations - people knew the rules when they signed.

 

[apdst]

I think it's a shame that this happened, but you can't make a policy change like this retroactive. Reinstatement wouldn't work just because of the practical issues, and compensation is unwarranted because regardless of whether we think the rules were bad, they were the rules at the time.

I believe that reinstatement could be an option, depending on the service member's age and time since discharge. It wouldn't be practical to reinstate a soldier who was discharged 20 years ago. However, I think making reinstatement 5 years (?) retroactive would be practical

It would also depend on that person's rank. An administrative reduction in rank could be an option, there as well.

A soldier's MOS would also come into play. A platoon sgt in the infantry may have a tougher time being reinstated than say, a cook, or a truck driver, or a tuba player in the divison band.

 

[roguenuke]

I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to change their reenlistment code. This code gives them the option of getting back in, if they meet the other eligibility requirements. I don't think anything else should really be done. It doesn't seem necessary to me.

 

[Simba]

With as much money as we spend now, the compensation for those removed from service is marginal.

We owe them recognition for their service, not for their personal lifestyle.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

In the years since DADT was enacted thousands of military members have been outed due to violations of the policy.

Various scenarios in which people have been outed from the military due to DADT violations:

1) Person has relationship off-base with partner. Someone within the military witnesses this relationship and gathers evidence (written accounts, photos, etc) and then turns this evidence in. Person in question is processed out of the military due to DADT violations.

2) Person has secret relationship with someone in the military (either both are military or one is military, the other is civilian working with the force). The relationship becomes known or is witnessed by one or many. People in question are processed out due to DADT violations.

3) Person has relationship and divulges it online to a military community. Someone gathers this online information and reports the violator who is then processed out.

. . . . these are just 3 ways in which people have been outed from the military, there are other stories I've read or know of . . . but you get the idea.

Should any of these people be reinstated or be able to receive some type of compensation if DADT is repealed or altered?

In the above situations the wrong person was let go

The person squeling about the sexuality of the gay person to the military is the one who should be fired. They violated the Dont Ask Dont Tell principle as they told.

So the person who was let go in the above situations should sue for wrongfull dismissal and the person who told, the rat, should be the one to pay, after they are ejected from the military without pension

 

[apdst]

In the above situations the wrong person was let go

The person squeling about the sexuality of the gay person to the military is the one who should be fired. They violated the Dont Ask Dont Tell principle as they told.

So the person who was let go in the above situations should sue for wrongfull dismissal and the person who told, the rat, should be the one to pay, after they are ejected from the military without pension

That would violate the military's centuries old code of honor, so that ain't gonna happen. Nor should it.

 

[roguenuke]

That would violate the military's centuries old code of honor, so that ain't gonna happen. Nor should it.

Actually, people can get in trouble for accusing someone of being gay without the gay person actually doing something like making a sexual advance towards the person. The first case is actually one where the person who gathered the evidence, could have gotten in trouble for doing so, unless they were ordered to do so by a CO or someone else of authority. CO's have discretional authority if they wish to follow up on accusations of homosexuality or not, when the personnel involved have not directly outed themselves or violated other rules or laws that would prove their homosexuality.

 

[joe246]

That would violate the military's centuries old code of honor, so that ain't gonna happen. Nor should it.

i love when we defend freedom we look so non hypocritical

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Actually, people can get in trouble for accusing someone of being gay without the gay person actually doing something like making a sexual advance towards the person. The first case is actually one where the person who gathered the evidence, could have gotten in trouble for doing so, unless they were ordered to do so by a CO or someone else of authority. CO's have discretional authority if they wish to follow up on accusations of homosexuality or not, when the personnel involved have not directly outed themselves or violated other rules or laws that would prove their homosexuality.

Would not the CO looking into the allegation of someone being gay violate the Dont Ask part of the policy?

 

[roguenuke]

Would not the CO looking into the allegation of someone being gay violate the Dont Ask part of the policy?

Not if they have some sort of evidence that the person is gay that is verifiable. Admitting to being gay on a website or to someone of authority in the military is considered "telling", but it is still up to the CO to pursue such things. A CO can choose to not pursue the investigation, if he wishes, but will most likely have the person's supervisor/officer council the member on keeping that kind of thing concealed, or at least that's what would have been done on my boat, if someone was publicly announcing they were gay and in the military. Truthfully, the person accusing someone of being gay would need some sort of physical evidence that the person might be gay or a report that the person was actually asking the accuser out on a date or something like that to give to the CO, but going so far as pretty much stalking the person to get the evidence, like described in the first scenario, is usually considered wrong. Most of this depends on the CO and, in part, even the service.

Now, if there is some sort of other violation of the UCMJ, especially one that is pretty much always punished, then the CO must investigate and the member will most likely be discharged.