Military to discharged gay soldiers: You owe us for not serving your full term!

[Wolfman1982]

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/01/...rs-you-owe-us-for-not-serving-your-full-term/

LGBTQ Nation • Sunday, January 30, 2011 •

Adding insult to injury, the Defense Department — after discharging gay service members under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — apparently sends these former soldiers a bill, demanding they pay back “unearned portions” of their contracts.

Dan Choi, the high profile gay rights activist and Iraq war veteran discharged last year under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” has received a bill for $2,500 (PDF), which the federal government claims is the “unearned portion” of his re-enlistment bonus.

And Choi’s response: “I refuse to pay a cent.”

In 2008, Choi was paid a $10,000 bonus for enlisting in the National Guard for three years. Now that he has been discharged under the military’s ban on openly gay service members, the Defense Department says he owes $2,500 for failing “to satisfactorily complete that assigned term,” according to a military spokesman.

As Choi sees it, his involuntary discharge came from an “unethical policy” and refuses to repay that money.

“It would be easy to pay the $2500 bill and be swiftly done with this diseased chapter of my life, where I sinfully deceived and tolerated self-hatred under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Choi wrote in a letter this week to President Barack Obama.

“My obligations to take a stand, knowing all the continued consequences of my violations, are clear. I refuse to pay your claim.”

According to the demand letter, if Choi did not pay his debt within 30 days, the Department said it could refer his account to a private collection agency, or seek legal action through the Justice Department, and report the delinquency to credit bureaus.




People, I will of course post (in this thread) the other articles , that they are referring to. But anyway first they fire the person for being gay, and now they are giving him a bill ? that is just crazy and ludicrous. But nothing new, cause it reminds me a bit of the just as crazy (if not even more), than Chinese people who get executed will have the bill for the bullet sent to their family. Anyway, on to the next article.

 

[Wolfman1982]

Choi discharged from National Guard under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2010/07/choi-discharged-from-national-guard-under-dont-ask-dont-tell/

LGBTQ Nation • Thursday, July 22, 2010 • Comments (0)

Lt. Dan Choi, an Iraq war veteran who has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military ban on openly gay service members, has been discharged from the Army National Guard.

In a telephone call from his battalion commander on Thursday morning, Choi was notified of his honorable discharge, coming almost a year and a half after he came out on national television.

Choi issued this statement:

“This morning I received notification of my honorable discharge from the army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” After 11 years since beginning my journey at West Point and after 17 months of serving openly as an infantry officer this is both an infuriating and painful announcement.

“But my service continues. To all those veterans who have endured similar trials and injustices or prematurely ended their military service because of the unjust policy: our fight has only begun.

“The true honor and dignity of service does not come from a piece of paper, a pension or paycheck, a rank or status; only an unflinching commitment to improve the lives of others can determine the nature of one’s service. From the first moment we put on our nation’s uniform and swore our solemn oath, we committed ourselves to fight for freedom and justice; to defend our constitution and put the needs of others before our own. This is not an oath that I intend to abandon. Doing so at such a time, or remaining silent when our family and community members are fired or punished for who they truly are would be an unequivocal moral dereliction that tarnishes the honor of the uniform and insults the meaning of America.”

Choi’s discharge order here (PDF).

Since outing himself, Choi has become a vocal opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In March, he criticized Defense Secretary Robert Gates for only relaxing enforcement of the policy rather than unilaterally ceasing enforcement.

On two occasions earlier this year, Choi was arrested for handcuffing himself to the White House fence in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protests. He was charged with two counts of failure to obey a lawful order, but last week prosecutors dropped all charges.

Earlier this week, Choi was arrested in Las Vegas during a demonstration calling on Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic senate majority leader, to do more to pass the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Meanwhile, efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continue to move through Congress and the military. The Pentagon is currently conducting a study into a possible repeal’s effects. A report on that study is expected to be presented to President Obama and military officials by December 1.

Since 1993, when “don’t ask, don’t tell” was introduced, more than 14,000 servicemen and women have been discharged because of their sexual orientation, and tens of thousands of others have voluntarily ended their military careers.

Choi announced he is gay on The Rachel Maddow Show on March 19, 2009, prompting the U.S. Army to initiate discharge proceedings. His discharge became effective on June 29, 2010.

 

[Etoile]

Completely ludicrous. I expect him to hook up with SLDN and fight it. He would have served. They kicked him out. Their loss.

 

[Stella_Omega]

here is Choi's blog;
http://www.ltdanchoi.com/index.html on which he says that he will not pay this bill.

 

[Jagged]

It would seem to me while this is all still up in the area nobody should be taking any action. Legally speaking anyway

 

[Etoile]

It would seem to me while this is all still up in the area nobody should be taking any action. Legally speaking anyway

Nothing is up in the air though, is it? DADT was repealed. I think Choi has good justification for saying he was discharged under an unjust rule.

Actually, I'm not sure any involuntary discharge for non-disciplinary reasons should require the soldier to pay back the bonus. They kicked him out, he didn't ask to be released. Unless you've committed a crime, if they kick you out, you should keep the bonus.

Then again, the UCMJ definition of "crime" is a little different, I think.

 

[CJontherocks]

I'm not sure that it's completely ludicrous. While I agree the DADT policy is no longer appropriate, and that thankfully and finally it has been replaced with a new policy (though implementation is still up in the air), we all seem to forget that DADT was in incredible piece of action when it was implemented. Yes, it was only a small step in the right direction, but gosh how some of us cheered when we saw that little light at the end of the tunnel. DADT was such a good thing when it was implemented. It only became a bad thing when the military implemented the "activity" clause. Basically, the rule stated that gay people can serve in the military as long as they a) don't tell anyone they're gay, and b) don't engage in homosexual activity. The military, in turn, did not a) ask if you were gay, and b) did not look too hard to find out if you were engaging in homosexual activity. The only way they would go looking was if you drew attention to yourself. All they asked was that you keep it on the down-low, and not fly a rainbow flag on the back of your humvee.

The general policy on repayment of bonuses and other incentives is sound. One agrees to perform a service for a monetary compensation. If you do not perform that agreed-upon service, you forfeit that compensation. The re-enlistment bonus is really the only thing that becomes conditional. You get a bonus for agreeing to re-enlist, based on the assumption that you will serve that full enlistment. If you get fired because you failed to adhere to the condition(s) of service, you have to repay the pro-rated portion of that bonus. At the time Choi signed the contract, he was bound to the condition that he serve without engaging in homosexual activity, and without proclaiming his homosexuality. He failed to perform his service under that condition and was released. Legally speaking, I'm not convinced he could win. He knew the condition under which he was to serve, and he knew the consequences for not adhering to those conditions. From a strictly letter-of-the-law point of view, Choi may not be in a good position.

Heck, I fudged on the DADT rule on an occasion or two (or was it three or four?). Well... at least on the "activity" part of that rule. Whatever, I never got no damned signing bonus anyway. lol My point is, if you violate the policy on drug use, you get kicked out. If you fail to meet fitness standards, you get kicked out. If you have a medical condition that is not conducive to military service, you get kicked out. In any of those circumstances, the military is not obligated to keep you employed because you have not met the conditions they set for employment.

But here's where I do disagree with the military on the Choi situation. Under certain circumstances, military members are discharged because they fail to meet medical standards. I had a subordinate who was kicked out because he had asthma. He received $20K (before taxes) in severance pay because he had no control over his medical condition. Plus he got to keep his VA and GI Bill entitlements. Maybe Choi should be entitled to that same severance package.

 

[Etoile]

Good to hear from someone who knows the system, thank you CJ.

As for "not looking too hard" to find out if you were having sex with the same gender... I had heard that there were attempts to drum up "credible information" about servicemembers who were "obviously gay" and they just needed somebody to slink around and catch them actually doing something.

Did that ever take place, to your knowledge?

 

[CJontherocks]

As for "not looking too hard" to find out if you were having sex with the same gender... I had heard that there were attempts to drum up "credible information" about servicemembers who were "obviously gay" and they just needed somebody to slink around and catch them actually doing something.

Did that ever take place, to your knowledge?

I never saw that happen, but I don't doubt it did. I know that if you drew attention to yourself as a gay man or woman, you were subject to the biases and prejudices of anyone who didn't like you (either because of your sexuality or for any other reason). If that person was your commander, then you were probably on your way out for whatever reason they could find. It's not right, but people are people and lots of times they suck. I knew of a fella who was not the best little "soldier," and kept getting into trouble. He wanted out, though, and the military was glad to oblige when he told the commander he was gay. Then again, one of my best friends in the service was lesbian. She was an awesome leader, a great troop, and a bad-ass chick. Everyone knew she was gay. She was careful not to flaunt it, but didn't exactly hide it either. She had a very successful career, and earned the respect of everyone who knew her. I sometimes wonder if my own career would have been as successful as it was if anyone knew I was part gay.

I also wonder if bisexual people fall under the DADT policy... would we have been exempt? Hmmmm...

 

[none2_none2]

I never realized that part of DADT wasn't just to keep quiet about it, but that you were also to have a same sexual relationship.

Since many of us were never in the military, we only hear the stories that make it to the media. I remember the story of the African-American lesbian military person who got removed under DADT because the civilian police claimed that they saw a marriage certificate through the window. I find that suspicious. Nevertheless, she did not tell, she was outed.

I also remember the story of the gay pilot who got outed by a gay male who felt jilted by him. Again, he was another example of someone forced out.

CJ, if you felt like DADT was an improvement, then all power to you. As an outsider to the military, it just doesn't seem that great. It is to bad that it didn't distinguish between those that by no choice of their own were forced out. As to not engaging in gay sex, that sounds strange. However, I guess one could argue that if you didn't get caught, they would never know anyway. Thus it was kind of pointless unless they were after gay-oriented, gay "virgins".

For all those gays that want to join, hopefully this policy change will be implemented sooner than later. I also hope they address all those that were affected by DADT. I hope that this change doesn't have a negative consequence: that gays are accepted, but considered dispensable. In other words, send gays to the front-line not because they are the best for the job, but because they have less value. Regardless of my fears, if a gay person wants to serve, they should be able to.

 

[CJontherocks]

I'm taking a Political Science class online, and the topic of DADT came up for discussion. Some of my response to that discussion is a repeat of what I said in here a couple days ago. But I feel strongly enough about this particular subject to share my refined and additional thoughts with you all as well...

First of all, I simply do not understand all the "bad press" the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has been getting. Listen, folks, when this policy came out, President Clinton was practically a national hero to some of those who were previously barred from military service because of their sexual orientation. There were some, of course, who felt he had sold them out, that the policy was an unacceptable compromise. And of course there were, and likely still are, some who felt the new policy was going to send the United States Armed Forces marching down Castro Street, rainbow flags waving from every Humvee and armored vehicle. Well, I'm here to tell you that didn't happen. Nor did gay men and women flock to the military, nor did gay men and women exit the military in waves of either administrative or punitive discharges. What happened, you ask? Very little is the answer. The great American military machine marched on without a major hitch... but that's just from a worm's eye view. I have no idea what the guys with shiny stars on their shoulders were arguing about.

DADT has two provisions. "Don't Tell" meant that military personnel and recruits could not a) proclaim their homosexuality, or b) engage in homosexual activity. "Don't Ask" meant that military officials would no longer ask potential recruits or military members to identify their sexuality. In addition, without evidence to support a claim of any violation of the Don't Tell provision, military officials would not investigate a member's sexuality or sexual behavior. The effect of DADT was that gay men and women were allowed to serve, as long as they kept quiet about their sexuality. In return, the military would not go digging around too hard to find out who was gay so they could kick them out. I can't say that agreement was always adhered to... I have heard rumors of "witchhunts" and abusively loose interpretations of the policy. But the only guy I ever saw get kicked out for being gay was a substandard performer who wasn't fit for military service anyway. As I understand it, he said he was gay so he could get out and the commander happily obliged.

The problem with DADT was that it was simply a policy. The laws that stated homosexuals were not allowed to serve in the military, that sodomy was a punitive offense, and that all homosexual men and women were to be discharged from military service, were still in effect. The President can make all the policy he wants, but he cannot change the law. That privilege and responsibility is reserved solely for the legislative branch, or the federal judiciary with sufficent cause. So while the Don't Tell part of the policy was strictly in accordance with the letter of the law, the intent was to protect gay men and women who wished to serve. Don't Ask was the policy with the most effect. While the President could not change the laws, he could dictate how the men and women under his command could enforce those laws. Again, this was to protect gay men and women who wanted to serve. All the military asked of its gay members was that they keep quiet about it for the time being.

DADT was a Herculean act on the part of President Clinton. At the time, he was essentially going head-to-head against Congress in order to come through on his campaign promise to allow gay men and women to serve. He did it rather successfully, given the opposition and the political climate on the issue. I knew several gay people in the military. In fact, one of my closest friends--a non-commissioned officer who happened to be lesbian--was one of the most dedicated and respected leaders I ever had the privilege to serve with. "Incompatible with military service," my Aunt Fanny.

I'm not saying DADT was the optimum solution. But it was a huge first step toward acceptance. Is it time to move to the next step? Yes, most definitely. But imagine there had never been a DADT policy. How would the new loud-and-proud recruits be looked upon and treated? My fellow Americans, sometime very soon, military members are going to look around as their friends, their leaders, their comrades--people they've stood beside among the smoke and the noise and the blood and the tears--also stand up and are recognized for who they are. And they will be respected for who they are. Gay people in the military is a fact, and it's a fact because DADT helped make it so; because thousands of men and women who bore their frustration in silence have paved the way for the next generation.​

WikiPedia has some excellent background/historical information on DADT.

And as a follow-up to the Choi issue, I discovered that Choi has once again entered military service (Salon.com News)

Yahoo News also has some information about this case, and the legal battle in the Federal courts.

 

[Jagged]

Nothing is up in the air though, is it? DADT was repealed. I think Choi has good justification for saying he was discharged under an unjust rule.

Actually, I'm not sure any involuntary discharge for non-disciplinary reasons should require the soldier to pay back the bonus. They kicked him out, he didn't ask to be released. Unless you've committed a crime, if they kick you out, you should keep the bonus.

Then again, the UCMJ definition of "crime" is a little different, I think.

I thought they were still appealing the ruling...well anyway these people shouldn't have to pay for anything. It is something to add to the long list of things that have annoyed me with the military lately including...not defining a gang member for prohibited activities, making widows remarry to receive full financial payouts, and not giving wound warriors the level of healthcare they're supposed to receive. There are so many case of PTSD. Do right by those who serve and honor their service by giving them what they deserve. It shouldn't matter who you sleep with.

 

[Acal]

Its pretty disgusting how the American Military treats soliders, especially the intense discrimination that no other Western country participates in. And i'm not just talking about the gay rights its everything else as well

 

[Wolfman1982]

Its pretty disgusting how the American Military treats soliders, especially the intense discrimination that no other Western country participates in. And i'm not just talking about the gay rights its everything else as well

I totally agree with you. But I usually take my stance away from the whole American "thing" because I can easily be seen as an American basher, which I am not. So I usually just post articles about the atrocities USA are doing to their own people, and every now and then I utter some mumbling about their double standards, in their national anthem. But anyway , I agree that what the US government is doing, and has done in just the LGBT related instances has been head shaking to say it "mildly".

 

[Etoile]

The national anthem doesn't have double standards Wolfman, it's about a battle fought in 1814.
You probably meant the constitution, eh? The one about "all men are created equal" (except when they're not)?

But yeah, Acal is right - several countries have allowed gay people into the military with little to no effect on ANYTHING. But when the US tries to do it, everybody throws a hissy fit!

 

[Wolfman1982]

Etoile: I mentioned it before, and it is about the last verse of your extremely beautiful national anthem, and it is about The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave, that irks me quite a lot. When I see the appalling things happening. And other stuff, so I will leave it at that, cause I am NOT looking for any trouble.

Etoile: Denmark is allowing gay men to serve with equal rights, and that means there are probably Danish gay men serving in Afghanistan right now who probably will save an American or two . And whether they are gay/bi or in the closet. Then that is the reality the US government will have to acknowledge. Since, as I have mentioned in the past (also with some serious strange humour about equal rights and the death penalty, that did not go through as it should). But equal rights, means equal rights, no matter whether you are gay, bi or straight. And the same goes about human rights, there is no difference between what sexuality, and what human rights you are allowed to have. So if I was in the army (that will never happen unless some law forces me), I would not care whether a gay, bi or trans person had my back. Cause what it boils down to, is not what the persons sexuality, and or for that matter the gender. It is about trust.

 

[Acal]

Yeah it is, when you draw parallels between the US military to the Canadian, British and Australian forces, its quite different.

 

[John Doe]

If anything homosexuals should be preferred, because if they're anything like Sulu on Star Trek then when everyone else is just about shitting their pants then all they'll do is get this sort of bemused expression and say "Oh my!"

A very cool cucumber, that one.