cases.justia.com2004cv08425/166387/157/3.pdf · dedication to the men and women who are faithfully...

Appendix of Evidence in

Support of Log Cabin Republican’s

Opposition to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment

LCR Appendix Pages 2501-3094

(Part 19 of 19)

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al Doc. 157 Att. 3

Dockets.Justia.com

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2004cv08425/166387/http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2004cv08425/166387/157/3.htmlhttp://dockets.justia.com/

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

P.O. Box 65301 ★ Washington, DC 20035-5301

202.328.3244 ★ fax: 202.797-1635

[email protected] ★ www.sldn.org

LCR 04532LCR Appendix Page 2501

Dedication

TO T H E M E N A N D WO M E N W H O A R E FA I T H F U L LY S E RV I N G I N E N F O RC E DS I L E N C E TO S E C U R E F O R AM E R I C A T H E F R E E D O M T H AT I S D E N I E D TO T H E M.

Acknowledgements

SLDN would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the entire SLDN staff in pro-ducing and distributing Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on “Don’t Ask, Don’tTell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass.” We especially thank the authors and editors of this report,Jeffery M. Cleghorn, Sharra E. Greer, C. Dixon Osburn, Steve E. Ralls, and Kathi S.Westcott. We would also like to acknowledge Christopher Neff, Paula Neira and David W.Young for their contributions to this report.

A Vision

F r e e d o m t o S e r v eA Mission

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a national, non-profit legal services,watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassmentof military personnel affected by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and related forms of intolerance.

SLDN was founded in 1993 in the wake of the debate leading to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”SLDN has worked tirelessly to provide free legal services to those harmed by “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell,” to protect service members from harassment and to press for changes thatimprove service members’ daily lives. SLDN has responded to over 4,300 requests for assis-tance and obtained almost three dozen changes to military policy and practice, including anExecutive Order on hate crimes in the military.

© 2003 Servicemembers Legal Defense Network


S L D N B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

B OA R D C O - C H A I R S :

Thomas T. Carpenter, Esq., Capt., USMC

(1970-1980) Los Angeles, CA

Jo Ann Hoenninger, Esq., Lt., USAF (1978-1980)

San Francisco, CA

B OA R D M E M B E R S :

Kathleen Clark, Esq. – St. Louis, MO

Thomas C. Clark, CDR, USNR (Ret.) – New York, NY

Amy S. Courter, Col., CAP – South Lyon, MI

Anna M. Curren – San Diego, CA

The Hon. Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. – Philadelphia, PA

Joe Tom Easley, Esq. – Miami, FL

G. Christopher Hammet, LTC, USANG –

San Antonio, TX

Arthur J. Kelleher, CAPT, MC, USNR (Ret.) –

San Diego, CA

Huong Thien Nguyen, Esq. – San Francisco, CA

Antonious L.K. Porch, Esq. – Brooklyn, NY

H O N O R A RY B OA R D :

COL Margarethe Cammermeyer, USA (Ret.)

MG Vance Coleman, USA (Ret.)

BG Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)

BG Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.)

Master Chief Petty Officer Vincent W. Patton, III,

USCG (Ret.)

BG Virgil A. Richard, USA (Ret.)

MG Charles Starr, Jr., USAR (Ret.)

RADM Alan M. Steinman, MD, MPH,

USCG/USPHS (Ret.)

S L D N P E R S O N N E L

C. Dixon Osburn, Esq., Executive Director

Gerald O. Kennedy, (former SPC5, USANG),

Deputy Director

L E G A L / P O L I C Y S TA F F :

Sharra E. Greer, Esq., Legal Director

MAJ Jeffery M. Cleghorn, Esq., USA (Ret.)

Army/Marine Liaison

Christopher Neff, Policy Associate

Kathi S. Westcott, Esq., Air Force/Coast Guard/

Navy Liaison

D E V E L O P M E N T S TA F F :

David R. Bobbit, Director of Development

Karen A. Armagost, Senior Development Associate

for Membership & Database Management

Cristian Flores, (former SSgt, USAF),

Development Associate, Events

Sarah L. Wentz, Development Assistant

F I N A N C E & A D M I N I S T R AT I O N S TA F F :

Vibha Bhatia, Staff Associate for Operations

Isaac Mintz, Senior Accountant

C O M M U N I C AT I O N S S TA F F :

Steve E. Ralls, Director of Communications


Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Spotlight: Services Continue to Discharge Linguists Critical to National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

What is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2002 Army Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Army Is Aiming in the Right Direction, But Still Missing the Target

Spotlight: The Nomination of MG Robert T. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

2002 Air Force Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Air Force: Searching For Strength In Diversity

2002 Navy Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Navy Meets Increased Workload with Split Personality Towards Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Sailors

2002 Marine Corps Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Missing the Mark: The Marines and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2002 Coast Guard Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Tides of Change: A Restructured Coast Guard Grapples with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Disproportionate Impact on Women and Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Why Do Service Members Make “Statements?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

End Notes (Unpublished documents cited and denoted with e are available in a separate volume from SLDN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Table of Contents

Conduct Unbecoming:T H E N I N T H A N N U A L R E P O R T O N

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass”


History repeats itself.

During any time of war or conflictfor America, gay discharges havedropped. Gay discharges decreasedduring the Korean War, the VietNam conflict, the Persian Gulf War,and now again during OperationEnduring Freedom.3

This year, gay discharges dropped to906 from 1273 last year – the lowestdischarge figure since 1996. TheNavy and Air Force both recordedthe fewest number of gay dischargessince Congress codified “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’tHarass” into law in 1993.4

Why? Perhaps because every servicemember, regardless of sexual orienta-tion, is critical in our nation’s fightagainst terrorism. Perhaps becausemany commanders, like those who

follow the officialguidance atTwenty-ninePalms Marine Base, would ratherfocus on the mission than on theirtroops’ private lives. Perhaps becausecommands are recognizing, as LTJGJenny Kopstein’s command did, that“sexual orientation [does] not disruptgood order and discipline....”

The answer, we suspect, is all of theabove.

Discharges of highly qualified servicemembers, however, continue. In thesummer of 2002, the Army dischargedseven linguists, all trained in Arabic, forbeing gay.5 They did so despite a criticalshortage of Arabic specialists. Even now,many more linguists who speak Arabic,Farsi and Korean – the languages of the“Axis of Evil” - have been discharged orare currently facing discharge.

1

Executive Summary

TOTAL GAY DISCHARGES 1994-2002

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

617

772870

1007

1163

1046

12411273

906

I

GAY DISCHARGES DROP DURING TIME OF WAR

BIGOTRY IS NOT A PART OF OUR SOUL. IT’S NOT GOING TO BEA PART OF OUR FUTURE . . . THAT’S NOT THE AMERICAN WAY. President George W. Bush1

HOMOSEXUALS CAN AND DO SERVE HONORABLY IN THEMARINE CORPS. HOMOSEXUALS CAN AND DO MAKE SOME OFTHE BEST MARINES. HOMOSEXUALS ARE CAPABLE OF MILITARYSERVICE AND CAN AND DO PERFORM AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSEIN THE MILITARY.Official Memorandum from Twenty-nine Palms Marine Base2

Thirteen coalition partners in Operation

Enduring Freedom allow lesbian,gay and bisexual troops to serveopenly: Australia, Belgium,Canada, Czech Republic,Denmark, France, Germany,Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands,Norway, Spain and Sweden.


At the same time, ironically,American troops are serving along-side thirteen coalition partners inOperation Enduring Freedom whohave abandoned their bans on gaysserving in the military.6 Accordingto the Center for the Study of SexualMinorities in the Military at theUniversity of California, lifting thesebans have been “non-events.”7

Lifting the ban in the United Statesmilitary would be a non-event too.According to a recent survey, manyservice members report serving witha service member whom they know

to be lesbian, gay or bisexual.8American troops also serve withcivilians in the CIA, FBI, NSA andagencies inside the Department ofHomeland Security who do not facea gay ban.9 Public opinion pollsshow that 72% of Americans sup-port gays in the military.10 A reportpublished in International Securityargues that concerns about unitcohesion not are supported byempirical data.11 Military studiesfrom the leading force managementresearchers at RAND andPERSEREC seriously question theefficacy of the military’s gay ban.12

The chorus of dissent from “Don’tAsk, Don’t Tell” continues to grow.This year, the largest American-based human rights group, HumanRights Watch, issued a report callingthe gay ban an affront to interna-tional human rights.13 HumanRights Watch called on PresidentBush and Congress to repeal “Don’tAsk, Don’t Tell.”14

We agree. Our national security isserved when our national soul is freefrom the bigotry of “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell.” The time has come tolift the ban.

2

INCOMPLETE: BUSHADMINISTRATION FAILS TOIMPLEMENT ANTI-HARASSMENTACTION PLAN

The decrease in military dischargesis mirrored by a decrease in reportsof harassment to SLDN during2002.17 We hope military leadersare learning from past experiencethat retention requires respect andthat those subjected to anti-gay hos-tility will leave military service. The

decline in harassment does not,however, reflect an elimination ofserious anti-gay hostility in thearmed forces. The military remainsan unsafe place for lesbian, gay andbisexual Americans. Reports of anti-gay harassment remain at disturbing-ly high levels. Other policy viola-tions, asking and pursuing, also con-tinue at unacceptably high levels.

Almost four years after soldiers mur-dered PFC Barry Winchell for beingperceived to be gay, and almost threeyears after then-Secretary of DefenseWilliam Cohen promulgated anAnti-Harassment Action Plan

(AHAP), the Bush Administrationhas failed to implement the plan.

The Department of Defense hasfailed to issue a single Department-wide directive on harassment asrequired by the AHAP. The directivewas to “make clear that mistreatment,harassment, and inappropriate com-ments or gestures, including thatbased on sexual orientation, are notacceptable.”18 Further, according tothe AHAP, “the directive shouldmake clear that commanders andleaders will be held accountable forfailure to enforce this directive.”19That directive has not been issued.

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

65 6237

141 12777

191

13289

235182

124

350400

161

471

968

194

412

871

802

159

277226

1075

119 125

Don’t Ask

Don’t Pursue

Don’t Harass

TOTAL VIOLATIONS 1994-2002

Sen. Levin: Does [DoD] still support the13-point Anti-Harassment Action Planwhich was promulgated in July 2000?

Mr. Abell: Yes, sir. It has been implemented by all three services.Charles Abell, testifying before the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee during hearings to confirm his nomination asPrincipal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense forPersonnel & Readiness15

Claire Shipman: Our next social report card – gays in the military.

Charles Moskos: On gays in the military, it’s an incomplete.

Vice Adm. Patricia Tracey: Incomplete on sexual preference.A Good Morning America Report on Social Progress in theArmed Forces, September 9, 200216

II


3

★ 13 Point Anti-Harassment Action Plan ★

General Recommendations:

1. The Department of Defense should adopt an overarching principle regarding harassment, including that based on perceived sexual orientation:

“Treatment of all individuals with dignity and respect is essential to good order and discipline.Mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures undermine this principle and have noplace in our armed forces. Commanders and leaders must develop and maintain a climate that fostersunit cohesion, esprit de corps, and mutual respect for all members of the command or organization.”

2. The Department of Defense should issue a single Department-wide directive on harassment.

• It should make clear that mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures, includ-ing that based on sexual orientation, are not acceptable.

• Further, the directive should make clear that commanders and leaders will be held accountable forfailure to enforce this directive.

Recommendations Regarding Training:

3. The Services shall ensure feedback on reporting mechanisms are in place to measure homosexual conductpolicy training and anti-harassment training effectiveness in the following three areas: knowledge, behav-ior, and climate.

4. The Services shall review all homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programsto ensure they address the elements and intent of the DoD overarching principle and implementing direc-tive.

5. The Services shall review homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programsannually to ensure they contain all information required by law and policy, including the DoD overarch-ing principle and implementing directive, and are tailored to the grade and responsibility level of theiraudiences.

Recommendations Regarding Reporting:

6. The Services shall review all avenues for reporting mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate commentsor gestures to ensure they facilitate effective leadership response.

• Reporting at the lowest level possible within the chain of command shall be encouraged.

• Personnel shall be informed of other confidential and non-confidential avenues to report mistreat-ment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.


4

7. The Services shall ensure homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programsaddress all avenues to report mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures andensure persons receiving reports of mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gesturesknow how to handle these reports.

8. The Services shall ensure that directives, guidance, and training clearly explain the application of the“don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the context of receiving and reporting complaints of mistreatment, harass-ment, and inappropriate comments or gestures, including:

• Complaints will be taken seriously, regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation;

• Those receiving complaints must not ask about sexual orientation – questions about sexual orienta-tion are not needed to handle complaints; violators will be held accountable; and

• Those reporting harassment ought not tell about or disclose sexual orientation – information regard-ing sexual orientation is not needed for complaints to be taken seriously.

Recommendations Regarding Enforcement:

9. The Services shall ensure that commanders and leaders take appropriate action against anyone whoengages in mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.

10. The Services shall ensure that commanders and leaders take appropriate action against anyone who con-dones or ignores mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.

11. The Services shall examine homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassment training programs toensure they provide tailored training on enforcement mechanisms.

Recommendations Regarding Measurement:

12. The Services shall ensure inspection programs assess adherence to the DoD overarching principle andimplementing directive through measurement of knowledge, behavior, and climate.

13. The Services shall determine the extent to which homosexual conduct policy training and anti-harassmenttraining programs, and the implementation of this action plan, are effective in addressing mistreatment,harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures.

July 21, 2000


The AHAP requires each of theServices to implement training on“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and anti-harassment measures. The training,according to the AHAP, is to be tai-lored to the grade and responsibilityof the audience, and administered toevery member of the military.SLDN has documented, however,that the training rarely meets thestandards set forth by the AHAP.The Army has come closest to meet-ing those guidelines. The MarineCorps openly acknowledged itstraining is inadequate. The Navyand Air Force have blatantly failedto meet the requirements altogether.

The AHAP also has specific require-ments regarding reporting. TheServices are required to provide cleartraining on how to report harass-ment and to instruct those whoreceive such complaints not to askabout a service member’s sexual ori-entation. Here, too, the Army hascome closest to meeting the guide-lines. The Marine Corps has takensmall steps. The other Services,however, have done nothing in thisimportant area.

Enforcement, also required by theAHAP, is absent from all of theServices. Complaints of harassmentcontinue to fall on deaf ears, and aredismissed without consideration.Credible, well-documented cases ofharassment go uninvestigated and

offenders go unpunished.Accountability for those who harassor condone anti-gay harassment islittle more than empty words frommilitary leaders.

Anti-gay harassment enforcementstands in stark contrast to how othercomplaints of harassment are han-dled. For example, the militarytracks reported cases of sexualharassment. Incidents of sexualharassment have decreased from1,599 in 1993 to 319 in 2000.20Under Secretary of Defense forPersonnel and Readiness, Dr. DavidChu, stated “to put it as bluntly aspossible, [sexual harassment is] acareer killer and we make sure thatwe enforce those standards.”21 ThePentagon has not made the samecommitment regarding anti-gayharassment.

The Services are required by theAHAP to ensure inspection pro-grams to assess adherence to theAHAP and assess the effectiveness ofefforts to address anti-gay harass-ment. While the Army, Air Forceand Marine Corps have taken smallsteps in the right direction on meas-urement, the Navy has completelyfailed to make any assessment of itsefforts. None of the Services haveevaluated the level of anti-gayharassment. The only measurementof levels of anti-gay harassment wasthe DoD Inspector General report

published in March of 2000 whichprompted creation of the AHAP.The prevalence of anti-gay harass-ment revealed by the DoD IG reportmakes the Services’ failure to meas-ure the climate in the ranks a grossdeficiency.

According to the AHAP, “treatmentof all individuals with dignity andrespect is essential to good order anddiscipline.”23 During time of war,when good order and discipline isvital, it is irresponsible for thePentagon to not take its commit-ment to end harassment seriously.

5

DOD IG Findings22

80% have heard derogatory,anti-gay remarks during thepast year; 37% said they witnessed orexperienced targeted incidentsof anti-gay harassment

—9% of whom reported anti-gay threats—5% of whom reported witnessing or experiencing anti-gay physical assaults.

The majority of respondentsreported that leaders took nosteps to stop the harassment.

WHAT THE PENTAGON ANDSERVICES MUST DO:INTERIM STEPS ON THE JOURNEY TOFREEDOM

Congress should repeal “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell.” Until then, the BushAdministration must, at the veryleast, take proactive steps to stopasking, pursuits and harassment.

SLDN recommends that theDepartment of Defense andServices:

★ Ensure Full and AdequateTraining on Anti-Harassmentand Policy’s InvestigativeLimits. The Services shouldensure every service member –from recruit to flag officer –receives rank-appropriate train-ing to prevent anti-gay harass-

Department policy concerning harassment is based on the fact that treatmentof all individuals with dignity and respect is essential to good order anddiscipline. Mistreatment, harassment, and inappropriate comments or gestures undermine this principle and have no place in our armed forces.Dr. David S.C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense24


ment. The Pentagon shouldmake clear that anti-gay harass-ment includes, but is not limit-ed to, inappropriate commentsand gestures, mistreatment,threats and assaults. ThePentagon should make clearthat “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”contains specific investigativelimits.

★ Provide Adequate Avenues ToReport Harassment. ThePentagon must ensure that allservice members understandavenues available for reportingharassment. All service mem-bers should know that com-plaints are to be taken seriouslyand those making complaintswill not be asked about theirsexual orientation. InspectorsGeneral, law enforcement per-

sonnel, equal-opportunity rep-resentatives, chaplains, health-care providers, commandersand all personnel who deal withharassment must be given clearinstructions not to out servicemembers who seek their help.The Services should adopt arule of privacy for conversationswith health care providers.There must be adequate train-ing on how to respond to com-plaints of harassment.

★ Enforce Policy and HoldAccountable Those Who Ask,Pursue Or Harass. ThePentagon must require enforce-ment of prohibitions againstasking, pursuits, and harass-ment. Commands must holdaccountable those who harass orcondone harassment, as well as

those who ask or pursue.Commanders must understandthere are specific consequencesfor violations, from letters ofcounseling to courts-martial,depending on the offense. ThePentagon must uphold andenforce its own rules and regu-lations.

★ Measure Effectiveness ofTraining and Guidance. ThePentagon must require the serv-ices to measure the results oftheir efforts in implementingthe AHAP.

Verbal commitments to fully imple-ment the AHAP, and address harass-ment, must become concrete actionsin the best interest of service mem-bers.

6

REALIZING THE FREEDOM TO SERVE

History will remember “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” as a stubborn scourge ofbigotry within our national soul.Lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers begin and end their daysfighting for freedoms denied them athome. They face unforgivableharassment, discrimination and dis-regard. More than 9,000 Americanshave been fired since 1993 becauseof “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” at a costof more than a quarter billion dol-lars in tax payer money.

Equal opportunity is a uniquely

Americanideal thatcontinuesto bewithheldfromuniquelyqualifiedAmericanpatriots.

Congress,thePentagonand theWhiteHouse must work together to lift theban. Forcing lesbian, gay and bisex-ual service members to lie, hide,evade and deceive those aroundthem breaks the bonds of trustamong service members. We mustnever lose sight of the values ofrespect and tolerance that make ourcountry strong. Our liberties, our

armed forces and our future are allmade stronger by realizing thepromise of the freedom to serve.

The time has come to lift the banand welcome all qualified patriots toour struggle for freedom, regardlessof their sexual orientation.

[W]e must never lose sight of thevalues that make our country sostrong, the values of respect and tolerance.President George W. Bush25

COSTS OF “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” 1994-2002

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL

$17,591,906

$258,397,701

$21,275,304 $25 047,103 $26 697,265$36,833,975$37,010,778

$30,822,670$33,739,921$29,378,778

III


Despite facing sharp criticism for dischargingseven Arabic linguists forbeing gay, the Serviceshave continued to expelgay linguists at a rapid rate.

These discharges have not been lim-ited to Arabic linguists. As thisreport went to press, SLDN was

assisting tenlinguists facingdischarge fromthe Army andAir Force.These recentcases includeSpecialistCathleenGlover, anArabic linguist;Private FirstClass Ryan

Craig, a Korean linguist; and PrivateFirst Class Luis Rosas, a Farsi lin-guist. These men and women areone more reminder of the damage“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” inflicts onour national security.

Our nation faces a serious shortfall inthe number of trained professionalswho can speak and decipher the lan-guages President Bush has indicatedare critical to national security – lan-guages fromnations thePresident hastermed the“Axis of Evil.”According toa Govern-mentAccountingOffice(GAO) studyreleased inJanuary

2002, the Army faces a critical short-fall in linguists needed to translateintercepts and interrogate suspectedterrorists. The report concluded thatstaff shortfalls “have adversely affectedagency operations and compromisedU.S. military, law enforcement, intel-ligence, counterterrorism and diplo-matic efforts.”28

7

Spotlight

SERVICES CONTINUE TO DISCHARGE LINGUISTSCRITICAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY

“THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAVE SOUGHT TO RECRUIT PEOPLE WITH LANGUAGESKILLS SO THAT DOCUMENTS AND INTERCEPTS COULD BE TRANSLATED PROMPTLY BUTIN THE MILITARY, AT LEAST, THE DESIRE TO DEFEAT AT QAEDA HAS BEEN PREEMPTED BYAN APPARENTLY MORE IMPORTANT PRIORITY: CONTINUING THE IRRATIONAL DISCRIMI-NATION AGAINST GAY MEN AND LESBIANS WHO WOULD SERVE THIS COUNTRY.”Washington Post, November 20, 200226

“THIS IS A NEW HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY.”Rep. Barney Frank commenting on the discharge of the linguists27

GAO REPORT: JANUARY 2002SHORTFALL OF ARMY TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS IN 2001

Authorized Filled Unfilled PercentLanguage Positions Positions Positions Shortfall

Arabic 84 42 42 50%Korean 62 39 23 37%Mandarin Chinese 52 32 20 38%Farsi 40 13 27 68%Russian 91 57 34 37%Total 329 183 146 44%Specialist Glover

TOLE

S (c

) 200

2 Th

e W

ashi

ngto

n Po

st.

Repr

inte

d wi

th p

erm

issio

n of

UNIV

ERSA

L PR

ESS

SYND

ICAT

E. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


The majority of language specialistsare being discharged from theDefense Language Institute (DLI),the military’s premier language train-ing facility in Monterey, California.The discharge of linguists from DLI,however, is not a new phenomenon.

SLDN has warned of problems atDLI for years. For example, asreported in Conduct Unbecoming, the6th Annual Report on Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell, in 1999 there were signifi-cant policy violations at DLI,including a witch-hunt, which

resulted in the discharge of 14 serv-ice members.

This ongoing loss of essential personnel is disturbing news in any language.

8

by Cathleen M. GloverGuest Commentary

For those of us in the armed services whoare gay, lesbian, or bisexual, life behindclosed doors can be hell. The policy of“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue,Don’t Harass” forces us to shove ouridentities in the closet, making many ofus suffer in silence or leave the military.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is that absurdpolicy from the Clinton era that attemptsthe impossible by allowing homosexualsto serve as long as they are in the clos-et. The “Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass”part was added later in an attempt toprevent witch hunts, but in the anti-gayclimate of the military, comments can beheard daily and harassment still goes on.

Many people wonder why homosexualsjoin the military. Why do heterosexualsjoin the military? Why are the automo-biles of our nation covered in stars andstripes? Most of us assume that we willbe able to maintain a level of privacyunder which we can lead double lives.

The truth is, none of us realizes how dif-ficult it is to live a double life in which arelationship must be conducted behindclosed doors and one must shield him-self with lies. I don’t have to explain thestrain this puts on a relationship.

Recently, a pair of sailors came out to theNavy, fearing their safety in a hostile envi-ronment. The Navy refused to initiate sep-aration proceedings or outline any stepsguaranteeing the safety of these openlygay service members. It was only threeyears ago that a soldier was beaten todeath at Fort Campbell by soldiers whoperceived him to be gay. The commanderat the time tolerated and even encouragedthe homophobic environment, and at thistime gay rights activists are fighting to pre-vent his promotion. I hope they succeed.

The fear that we all feel in these hostileenvironments is a constant presence. Itdrives some of us into severe depressionsand others of us to seek discharge in orderto protect ourselves. This is the only waywe can ensure our safety, since the upperranks of the military refuse to do so.

The two sailors felt that their safety wasthreatened, so they came out, and ittook intervention by Senator HillaryRodham Clinton to enforce the existingpolicy on homosexual conduct and to getthe Navy to discharge them.

We realize that we are living in a state ofperpetual war and that qualified soldiersand sailors should be retained, but themilitary cannot have it both ways. If thearmed services continue to maintain ahostile, anti-gay climate, then we will beforced to continue to seek dischargeuntil this ridiculous policy is dropped.

The United States is the only NATOcountry that has a ban on homosexuals.It’s time we move into the 21st centurywith the rest of the industrialized world.

Cathleen M. Glover is a lesbian memberof the Army. She worked at the DefenseLanguage Institute at the Presidio ofMonterey for two years and recently wastransferred to Goodfellow Air Force Basein San Angelo, Texas.

Coming Out in a World of Hatred


“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isa ban on lesbians, gaysand bisexuals serving inthe military – similar tothe policies banning serv-ice that have been in placefor the past fifty years.29“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the onlylaw in the land that authorizes thefiring of an American for being gay.There is no other federal, state, orlocal law like it. Indeed, “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” is the only law that pun-ishes lesbians, gays and bisexuals forcoming out. Many Americans view“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a benigngentlemen’s agreement with discre-tion as the key to job security. Thatis simply not the case. An honeststatement of one’s sexual orientationto anyone, anywhere, anytime maylead to being fired.

THE HISTORY OF THE POLICY

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the resultof a failed effort by PresidentClinton to end the ban on gays inthe military. Spurred in part by thebrutal 1992 murder of Seaman AllenSchindler, then candidate Clintonproposed ending the ban by issuing

an Executive Order overriding theDepartment of Defense regulationsthat barred gays from serving.Congress, however, intervened andthe ban was made law, preventingaction by future Commanders inChief.

This law was, however, significantlydifferent from prior prohibitions onservice in three respects. First,Congressional and military leadersacknowledged, for the first time in1993, that lesbians, gays and bisexu-als serve our nation and do so hon-orably.30 Second, the policy alsostates sexual orientation is no longera bar to military service.31 Third,President Clinton, Congress andmilitary leaders agreed to end intru-sive questions about service mem-bers’ sexual orientation and to stopthe military’s infamous investigationsto ferret out suspected lesbian, gayand bisexual service members.32They agreed to take steps to preventanti-gay harassment.33 They agreedto treat lesbian, gay and bisexualservice members even-handedly inthe criminal justice system, insteadof criminally prosecuting them incircumstances where they would notprosecute heterosexual service mem-bers.34 They agreed to implementthe law with due regard for the pri-vacy and associations of service

members.35 The law became knownin 1993 as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,Don’t Pursue” to signify the newlimits to investigations and theintent to respect service members’privacy.

Small steps were made to keep someof these promises. Questions regard-ing sexual orientation at inductionhave, for the most part, stopped.Criminal prosecutions havedecreased and witch-hunts havedeclined. President Clinton issuedan Executive Order ending discrimi-nation in the issuance of securityclearances. The Department ofDefense issued guidelines on anti-gay harassment and limits on inves-tigations. Then, in 1999, PFCBarry Winchell was murdered by fel-low soldiers at Fort Campbell,Kentucky. In the wake of this mur-der, the Department of Defense(DoD) issued new guidance on pro-hibiting anti-gay harassment.President Clinton issued anExecutive Order providing for sen-tence enhancement under theUniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) for hate crimes, as well as alimited psychotherapist-patient priv-ilege. In February 2000, Pentagonofficials added “Don’t Harass” to thetitle of the policy. The Pentagonthen conducted a survey on anti-gay

9

What is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass?”


harassment, finding it was wide-spread. Thereafter, the Pentagonformed a Working Group whichissued a 13-point action plan toaddress anti-gay harassment, whichthe Services were then directed toimplement.

These limited steps, spurred in largepart by the murder of PFC BarryWinchell, have done little to fulfillthe promises made when the policywas created. Intrusive questioningcontinues. Harassment continues inalarming proportions. Little regardfor service member privacy has beenshown during the life of this law.Simply put, asking, pursuing andharassing have continued for all ofthe almost ten years since the lawwas passed.

THE POLICY ITSELF

SLDN documents violations of thepolicy reported to us by servicemembers. In order to understandthe critiques of the policy and theviolations documented in thisreport, it is important to understandthe policy. One way to understandthe law, and implementing regula-tions, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’tTell”, is by breaking it down into its

component parts.

Don’t Ask. Commanders orappointed inquiry officials shall notask, and members shall not berequired to reveal, their sexual orien-tation.36

Don’t Tell. “A basis for dischargeexists if . . . [t]he member has said thathe or she is a homosexual or bisexual,or made some other statement thatindicates a propensity or intent toengage in homosexual acts . . . .”37

Don’t Pursue. More than a dozenspecific investigative limits as laid outin DoD instructions and directivescomprise “Don’t Pursue.” It is themost complicated and least under-stood component of the policy. Theseinvestigative limits establish a mini-mum threshold to start an inquiryand restrict the scope of an inquirywhen one is properly initiated.

A service member may be investigat-ed and administratively discharged ifthey:

1) make a statement that theyare lesbian, gay or bisexual;

2) engage in physical contactwith someone of the samesex for the purposes of sex-ual gratification; or

3) marry, or attempt to marry,someone of the same sex.38

Only a service member’s command-ing officer may initiate an inquiryinto homosexual conduct.39 Inorder to begin an inquiry, the com-manding officer must receive credi-ble information from a reliablesource that a service member hasviolated the policy.40 Actions thatare associational behavior, such ashaving gay friends, going to a gaybar, attending gay pride events, andreading gay magazines or books, arenever to be considered credible.41 Inaddition, a service member’s reportto his/her command regardingharassment or assault based on per-ceived sexuality is never to be con-sidered credible evidence.42

If a determination is made that cred-ible information exists that a servicemember has violated the policy, aservice member’s commanding offi-cer may initiate a “limited inquiry”into the allegation or statement.That inquiry is limited in two pri-mary ways. First, the commandmay only investigate the factual cir-cumstances directly relevant to thespecific allegation(s).43 Second, instatements cases, the command mayonly question the service member,his/her chain of command, and any-

10

1992 1993 1995 1996 1997

SeamanAllenShindlermurdered

CandidateClinton proposesending DoD reg-ulations banning gaysfrom the Military

August 1995:President signsExecutive Order end-ing sexual orientationdisrcimination inissuance of securityclearances

CongressenactsDADTDPinto law

March 1997:DoD issuesDorn Memoon anti gayharassment


one that the service member sug-gests.44 In most cases of homosexualstatements, no investigation is neces-sary.45 Cases involving sexual actsbetween consenting adults should bedealt with administratively, andcriminal investigators should not beinvolved.46

The command may not attempt togather additional information notrelevant to the specific act or allega-tion, and the command may notquestion anyone outside of thoselisted above, without approval fromthe Secretary of that Service. 47 Suchan investigation is considered a “sub-stantial investigation.”48 In order torequest authority to conduct a “sub-stantial investigation,” the servicemember’s command must be able toclearly articulate an appropriate basisfor an investigation.49

As with a “limited inquiry,” only aservice member’s commanding offi-cer has the authority to request per-mission to conduct a “substantialinvestigation.”50 By definition, a“substantial investigation” is any-thing that extends beyond question-ing the service member, the servicemember’s immediate chain of com-mand, and anyone the service mem-ber suggests.51

Don’t Harass. “The Armed Forcesdo not tolerate harassment or vio-lence against any service member,for any reason.”52 There are manyregulations and laws that prohibitharassment and can be applied toanti-gay harassment cases.Harassment can take different forms,ranging from a hostile climate rifewith anti-gay comments, to directverbal and physical abuse, to deaththreats.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a complexlaw comprised of statute, regulationsand policy memoranda. The abovedescription, however, covers thebasic components of the law– andthose are fairly simple. Don’t askabout sexual orientation. Don’tinvestigate sexual orientation, exceptin specific circumstances and in lim-ited ways. Don’t harass. Don’t tol-erate harassment based on perceivedsexual orientation.

Unfortunately, even after almostnine years, the Services continue toviolate these basic rules.

11

1998 1999 2000

July 5, 1999:PFC BarryWinchellmurdered

August 12,1999: DoDissues DeLeonMemo prohibit-ing anti-gayharassment

October 1999:President Clintonissues ExecutiveOrder providing forlimited psychothera-pist-patient privilegeand sentenceenhancement underUCMJ for hate crimes

February2000:“Don’tHarass”added toHomosexualConductPolicy

March 16,2000: DoDPublishes IG Reportdocumentingrampantanti-gayharassment

July 21, 2000:DoD WorkingGroup issues 13 point Anti-HarassmentAction Plan -Services directedto implement


The news from the Armyduring 2002 was a mixedbag.

On the one hand, the Army is doingmore than its sister Services to trainon “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Gay dis-charges this year dropped to the low-est point since 1999. During 2002,more Army leaders also publiclyspoke about their commitment toprohibiting harassment than didleaders in the other Services. TheArmy Inspector General began sys-temic checks on “Don’t Ask, Don’tTell” adherence, and the Army invit-ed SLDN to meet with seniorPentagon leaders to discuss policyimplementation. SLDN also visitedFort Campbell, and spoke at theArmy War College.

On the other hand, documentedreports of anti-gay harassment dur-ing 2002 were the second highestever recorded. The Army’s “Don’t

Ask, Don’tTell” trainingstill givesscant men-tion to the“Don’tHarass”prong of thepolicy, thereby falling well short of

fully implementing the AHAP.Army leaders are not consistently

13

2002 Army Report

“AS AMERICAN SOCIETY MOVES TOWARD AN EVER MOREPOSITIVE APPRECIATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG PEOPLE,IT BEHOOVES THE MILITARY TO DETERMINE HOW SUC-CESSFULLY WE ARE INCULCATING THE MORES OF THOSE

WE REPRESENT AND DEFEND.”MG Robert Ivany, Commandant, U.S. Army War College53

US ARMY “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” DISCHARGES 1994-2002

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

136184 199 197

312271

573

638

429

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

1736

48 41

122

276

209

480

405

ARMY “DON’T HARASS” VIOLATIONS 1994-2002 V

IV

ARMY IS AIMING IN RIGHT DIRECTION,BUT STILL MISSING THE TARGET


enforcing the “Don’t Harass” provi-sions, nor are they measuring theeffectiveness of anti-harassment ini-tiatives, as required by the AHAP.Reports of asking and pursuits, indirect violation of the policy, slightlyincreased.

SLDN appreciates the Army’s activeengagement compared to the otherServices. We especially appreciatethe leadership of LTG JohnLeMoyne DCSPER-G1, the Army’spoint person on the policy. Beingopen and honest about the Army’spolicy programs, and the challengesthe Army faces, allows for dialogue.We will remain strong in our criti-cism of the Army’s shortcomingswhen deserved, but also recognizethe progress made within the Army.

14

“[Gay soldiers] will continue to be treated with dignity and respect. TheArmy owes nothing less to [soldiers who have given many] honorable yearsin the service of their country.” COL Gerald Ferguson, Jr., Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry Division.54

“I am committed to ensuring that every soldier in the Warrior Division istreated with dignity and respect.” MG John Wood, Division Commander, 2d Infantry Division.55

“The 10th Mountain Division (light infantry) strongly agrees with you that there is no room for harassment or threats in the military. Treating soldiers with dignity and respect is a bedrock Army value which we take very seriously.” MG F.L Hagenbeck, Division Commander, 10th Mountain Division.56

“I certainly agree with you that treatment of all individuals with dignityand respect is essential to good order and discipline.” COL Jackson Flake, III, Chief of Staff, 1st Armored Division.57

“Reports of violations of the [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] policy within I Corpsand Fort Lewis will be dealt with immediately and appropriately.” LTG Edward Soriano, Commanding General, I Corps and Fort Lewis.58

GAYS & GRENADES: SOLDIERSSTILL FACE HARASSMENT ATUNACCEPTABLY HIGH LEVELS

SLDN documented fewer reports ofanti-gay harassment in the Army in2002, 405 compared to 513 in2001. Although this decrease is wel-come, reports of harassment werestill unacceptably high. SLDN sus-pects that the decrease is tied to thedecrease in discharges as well as theArmy’s modest steps to implementthe AHAP. The Army, however, stillhas a significant ongoing harassmentproblem largely attributable to itsfailure to fully implement theAHAP. Contributing to the prob-lem is a noticeable absence of leader-ship amongst the ranks of the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO)corps. In fact, SLDN continues to

document instances where NCOsdirectly participate in the anti-gayharassment.

NorthCarolinaArmyNationalGuardsmanSPC BradPowell’s expe-rience illus-trates thisongoingproblem.SPC Powellreports an NCO instructing hisunit’s hand grenade training encour-aged the soldiers to visualize “blow-ing up a gay bar” while throwingtheir grenades. SPC Powell furtherreports hearing NCOs tell soldiersthat “the only way to decrease ournuclear arsenal is to put all fags onan island and nuke it,” as well asNCOs saying “the only thing a goodfag needs is a good fag bashing.”60

The hostile climate led SPC Powellto reveal his sexual orientation to hiscommand, seeking to escape what

Powell understandably viewed as adangerous situation. Soon there-

after, SPC Powell reportsreceiving a written death threatin the form of a note left on histruck during a weekend drill.The note stated “fags die!”SPC Powell’s receipt of thedeath threat reaffirmed hisbelief that his only recourse toprotect himself from the dangerwas to reveal that he is gay.

SPC Powell’s experiences, andothers like it, indicate thatmuch work remains before the

Army’s pledge to treat all soldiers –including those perceived as gay –with “dignity and respect” is ful-filled.61

The Army has recently indicated toSLDN a greater understanding ofthe need for it to remedy its harass-ment problem by a determinedimplementation of the AHAP. TheAHAP’s four components – training,reporting, enforcement and measure-ment – provide a framework to eval-uate the Army’s anti-harassmentefforts to date.

SPC Powell

“Not a day goes by here that I am notinundated with derogatory commentsregarding gay people or being gay ....Hatred for and misunderstanding ofgays is rampant in the Army.” Soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina59


THE ARMY & YOUNG AMERICANS: A BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE

Not all lesbian, gay and bisexual sol-diers faceharassment;many findrespect andacceptance. Forexample,Sergeant CaseyMurphy, anArmy commu-nications repairperson assignedto Fort Hood,Texas, is typicalof many lesbian, gay and bisexualsoldiers. SGT Murphy enlisted inthe Army out of love of countryand a strong sense of patriotism.SGT Murphy “came out” duringher teenage years. Her family andfriends all know she is a lesbian. AtFort Hood, most of the soldiers in

her unit also know. As shebefriended other soldiers, develop-ing the bonds of trust that are criti-cal to unit cohesion and combat

readiness, SGT Murphyfound it easy to be open andhonest about her sexual ori-entation. She is widelyrespected by other troops andtheir awareness of SGTMurphy’s lesbian orientationdoes not adversely affect theiropinions of her professionalcompetence or personal char-acter. SLDN heard similarpositive stories from severalsoldiers throughout 2002,

indicating SGT Murphy is part of agrowing rule, not an exception.

Increasingly, young lesbian, gay andbisexual Americans – like SGTMurphy – are comfortable withtheir sexual orientations and are lessinclined to present themselves to

the world as heterosexual. In termsof our perceptions and treatment ofgays, American society has come along way since the introduction of“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993.Young lesbians, gays and bisexualscontinue to enlist in our nation’sArmy, and some, like SGT Murphy,find ways to live their lives withintegrity – even in the face of“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which pres-sures them to do the opposite inhopes of making them invisible.

The Army is, sadly, losing the valu-able skills and experience of SGTMurphy because of its anti-gay ban.SGT Murphy’s chain of commandis discharging her, after discoveringthat she has been serving as an openlesbian. Although her fellow sol-diers are comfortable with SGTMurphy being a lesbian, her com-mand is not. Such is the realityunder “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

15

ARMY TRAINING: MISSINGTHE HARASSMENT TARGET

The AHAP requires that “[t]heServices shall ensure feedback onreporting mechanisms are in place tomeasure homosexual conduct policytraining and anti-harassment train-ing effectiveness….”63

Spurred into action by PFCWinchell’s 1999 murder, the Armybegan implementing training on“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Specifically,the Army:

★ Conducted Unit Refreshertraining during the year 2000;64

★ Ordered “Don’t Ask, Don’t

Tell” training in its “profession-al military education” system,ensuring that officers andNCOs receive training on thepolicy’s basics;65

★ Published a policy trainingmodel on one of its websites;

★ Published a training brochure,and a “training manual;”66

★ Directed an update to its train-ing Regulation (ArmyRegulation 350-1) mandating“annual” unit-level “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” training;67 and

★ Ordered its IG to check policytraining as a special interestinspection item.68

These actions, though, are less thanthey appear. As of early 2003, theArmy’s training regulation had notbeen updated to reflect mandatoryannual training – fully three yearsafter the Chief of Staff directive

requiring the update was issued.69The training conducted at Armyschools does not adequately empha-size the “Don’t Harass” prong of thepolicy. The website anti-harassmentmaterials, the training materials andbrochure do not appear to be usedin any consistent way. In fact, mostcommands do not appear to knowthese resources even exist.

According to the Army InspectorGeneral, 71% of soldiers reportreceiving some form of “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” training from April 2001through April 2002.70 Most soldierswith whom SLDN spoke, however,stated that the training, to the extentit happened at all, was brief andmade little to no mention of thepolicy’s “Don’t Harass” provisions.While we are pleased that theschools are conducting training, thequality of the training appears toleave much to be desired.

“I am going to snap your fuckingneck, so know you have it coming.”Death threat received by Gay soldier while serving inKuwait62

SGT Murphy


“I am committed to doingall I can to ensure that allmy troopers are treated withdignity and respect and areable to serve their nation inan environment that is safeand free from harassment ofany form.” MG David Petraeus, Division Commander,101st Airborne Division and FortCampbell71

Fort Campbell, Kentucky, site ofthe 1999 anti-gay murder of PFCBarry Winchell, continues to leadthe Army – indeed lead every mili-tary base – in discharging gaytroops. Although its 92 gay dis-charges during 2002 are down con-

siderably fromthe 222 during2001, the num-ber remainsalarminglyhigh.72 SLDNcontinues towork with sen-ior FortCampbell lead-ers, includingthe new com-manding gener-al, MG David Petraeus, to addressthis problem.

16

RAISE YOUR HAND: HARASSMENTREPORTING MECHANISMS NOT YET

EFFECTIVE

The AHAP requires the Services to“review all avenues for reportingmistreatment, harassment, and inap-propriate comments or gestures toensure they facilitate effective leader-ship response.”74

The Army has designated defenseattorneys and Chaplains as confiden-tial resources for reportinganti-gay harassment.75 TheArmy allows soldiers to useother resources to reportharassment, including thecommand and InspectorsGeneral, but stresses thatthese resources are not confi-dential. If a gay soldier isbeing harassed and the sol-dier’s sexual orientation sur-faces during the harassmentreporting process, the gaysoldier will be at great risk of investi-gation and discharge. Unfortunately,according to the Army IG, 70% ofsoldiers are unaware of these confi-dential designations.76

The Army has done a poor job ensur-ing its troops know how to report anti-gay harassment and to whom they cansafely report it. The Army also contin-ues to fail to establish command cli-mates where lesbian, gay and bisexualsoldiers feel comfortable speaking outabout harassment. Most gay troopswith whom SLDN has spoken overthe past year indicate they are afraid toreport harassment for fear of becomingthe target of an anti-gay investigationor of worsening harassment. UntilArmy leaders actually make it safe forgays to report harassment, the AHAP’sreporting component will remain onlypartially implemented.

Army SergeantSonya Contreras’experience illus-trates the Army’sproblem. SGTContreras, arecruiter inCalifornia,reports receivingunit EqualOpportunitytraining onJanuary 4, 2003.

During this training, instructors toldanti-gay “jokes,” leading her unitcommander, Captain Ruiz, to sug-gest “anyone who is gay to raise theirhand if they felt offended by the

jokes.”77 SGT Contreras felt despon-dent. She wrote to her command:

I have not raised my handonce, or spoken out againstanyone who has felt free tomake homosexual com-ments and jokes in thenearly five years that I haveserved in our nation’sArmy. But today, Sir, Iraise my hand .... There isthe discrimination that Ifeel on a daily basis, thewitty jokes, and slanderouscomments about gays, butit goes uncorrected. It isobvious to me that no mat-ter how many EO classeswe have, how many times Ihear the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’tTell’ policy delivered, I willnever be able to feel like apart of the team….78

The Army has a duty to set safe con-ditions for lesbian, gay, and bisexualtroops to feel comfortable reportingharassment, and have an expectationthat their reports will be taken seri-ously. SGT Contreras’ experience ofhaving gays ridiculed during the con-duct of an Equal Opportunity train-ing briefing indicates that the Armyhas a ways to go before its AHAPreporting procedures actually work.

“Fags shouldn’t be in the military.” Comment directed towards PFC Luis Rosas, a Farsi(Persian) linguist at DLI 73

SGT Contreras

MG Petraeus

FORT CAMPBELL DISCHARGES

250 222200 160150100 9250 170

1999 2000 2001 2002


SUBSTANTIATED: ACCOUNTABILITYOF HARASSERS MISSING IN ACTION

The AHAPrequires that“[t]he Servicesshall ensure thatcommanders andleaders takeappropriateaction againstanyone whoengages in mis-treatment,harassment, andinappropriate

comments or gestures.”80

The Army appears to have failed tohold a single person accountable foranti-gay harassment this past year.In case after case, SLDN has provid-ed the Army with specific, detailedaccountings of anti-gay misconduct,asking that those responsible be heldaccountable. Yet, time and again,the Army’s response is to rubber-stamp the excuses of those accusedof the misconduct. Army leaderswill not gain the confidence of sol-diers if it fails to seriously anddemonstrably hold accountablethose who harass.

The Army’s recommendation thatMG Robert T. Clark be promoted toLieutenant General sends a strongsignal that it is insincere in its com-mitment to enforce anti-harassmentpolicies. MG Clark was the com-manding general at Fort Campbell,

Kentucky, when soldiers used a base-ball bat to bludgeon to death PFCBarry Winchell while he slept. MG

Clark’s leadershipfailures, before andafter the murder,are examined morefully in an accom-panying spotlightsection.

The Army alsofailed SergeantTracey Cade. Inlast year’s ConductUnbecoming

report, SLDN discussed how SGTCade’s officers and superior NCOsroutinely used the words “faggot”and “fuck” in the presence of femalesoldiers.81 SLDN reported theharassment to the Fort Hood, Texas,Inspector General alleging “[m]alesoldiers frequently talk publiclyabout their interest in female-on-female sexual acts. These conversa-tions take place in front of NCOsand female soldiers, to include SGTCade. The NCOs do not correctthe misconduct, allowing it to con-tinue unabated.”82 The InspectorGeneral concluded that the allega-tions of sexual harassment did not fitthe definitions of sexual harassmentand were “not substantiated.” TheIG did not investigate the allegationsof anti-gay harassment at all.83

The Army failed Specialist GidonnyRamos, too. SPC Ramos reportedbeing harassed by a Chaplain afterthe Chaplain learned Ramos is a les-bian.84 The Chaplain, MajorLeininger, informed Ramos that hedoes not “accept” gays, told her shewas “going to hell,” and that “homo-sexuality is a curable disease.”85SLDN reported the misconduct tothe Army Inspector General, askingthat Major Leininger be heldaccountable. The Army IG, howev-er, reported back to SLDN that theallegation was “not substantiated.”86Remarkably, the IG investigators

failed to question the only eyewit-ness to the harassment, calling intoquestion the competence and objec-tivity of the investigation.87

The Army also failed to holdaccountable COL Kevin Rice – theArmy Installation commander at theDefense Language Institute – afterRice launched an improper anti-gayinvestigation after learning that twoof his soldiers were lesbian. COLRice’s appointed inquiry officer, 1LTRuthe, proceeded to ask others ques-tions about the two soldiers’ sexlives, whether others saw them kiss-ing women or engaging in sexualacts. Ruthe further threatened sol-diers with “jail” if they did notcooperate with his inquisition.88

SLDN reported 1LT Ruthe’s inves-tigative misconduct to the ArmyInspector General, asking that Ruthe– and his superiors – be heldaccountable. The result? The IGwrote to SLDN that “no investiga-tive action is warranted.” Despitedeclining to investigate the matter,the IG proceeded to proffer the per-plexing conclusion that “the prepon-derance of evidence did not supportyour allegation” of investigative mis-conduct.89 Given that the IGdeclined to investigate, it is difficultto imagine what “evidence” it wasreferring to. A preponderance ofnothing is nothing.

The Army also failed to holdaccountable lawyers at the Army’sJudge Advocate General (JAG)school for conducting “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” training that belittledand demeaned lesbians, gays andbisexuals. In last year’s ConductUnbecoming report, SLDN docu-mented “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”training misconduct at the Army’sJAG School.90 The JAG School“training” contained a clip from aMonty Python movie making lightof gay people with a male actorsinging a song about men wearing

17

“As a former Army-level commander, I thoroughlyunderstand and embrace the Chief of Staff of theArmy’s directive to ensure that all Soldiers are treated with dignity and respect. As the InspectorGeneral, I plan to assist commanders in ensuringthat their training programs fully comply with allapplicable laws, directives, and policies designed tocreate a positive and supportive command climate.”LTG Paul T. Mikolashek, Army Inspector General79

LTG Mikolashek


“women’s clothing,” wearing “highheels, suspenders and a bra” andbeing a “girlie” man. The trainingmade no mention of the anti-harass-ment rules. What is astonishing isthat the training was done by theArmy’s lawyers – those charged withknowing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”better than anyone else, thosecharged with advising senior Armyleaders.

SLDN wrote to the Army’s top

lawyer, MG Thomas Romig, askingfor accountability.91 We also askedthe Army IG to look into the mat-ter. To date, the Army has reportedno action. A senior Army lawyerworking in the Inspector General’soffice, though, said that he did notbelieve the complaint warranted seri-ous consideration.

These incidents evidence a contin-ued failure by senior Army leaders totake anti-gay harassment seriously

and to provide the needed publicleadership to stamp it out. If theArmy wants soldiers to have confi-dence in its commitment to theAHAP implementation, as its leaderspublicly assert, it needs to beginpracticing what it preaches. Soldiersand their advocates will not haveconfidence in the fairness of theArmy system until it begins enforc-ing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provisions.

18

SURVEYING HARASSMENT:MEASUREMENT COMES UP SHORT

The AHAPrequires that“[t]heServices shalldeterminethe extent towhich [Don’tAsk, Don’tTell] trainingand anti-harassmenttraining pro-grams … are

effective in addressing mistreatment,harassment and inappropriate com-

ments or gestures.”93

The Army is not measur-ing the effectiveness of itsAHAP training program.Although the ArmyInspector General recentlyconducted a “special inter-est item” review of “Don’tAsk, Don’t Tell” training,the review did not attemptto measure whether the

training is actually making adifference.94 For example, theIG used a brief survey for sol-diers that asked, “what can asoldier do if threatened,harassed or accused of beinghomosexual?”95 The surveydoes not, however, ask anyquestions about the occurrenceof harassment.

When contrasted with a DoDIG survey conducted in 2000

in response to the PFC Winchellmurder, the Army’s failure to make agood faith effort to measure thescope of current harassment and tosee if its harassment training isworking is disappointing.96 TheDoD IG survey asked, for example:

★ “How often have you heardoffensive speech, derogatorynames, jokes, or remarks abouthomosexuals in the last 12months on your installation?”

★ “How often during the past 12months have you witnessed orexperienced event(s)/behavior(s)involving military personnel, onor off duty, who harassed anoth-er military person(s) because ofperceived homosexuality?”

SLDN recommends that the Armyformulate questions similar to theDoD IG survey harassment ques-tions to better gauge the scope of itsongoing harassment problem.

“I have found that the Army has unnecessarilycreated an environment of intolerance. On adaily basis I hear jokes, crass comments, innu-endos and personal opinions that belittle gaymen and women. I have heard them from themouths of privates and of colonels.” SGT Pepe Johnson, former Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Soldier of the Year 92

SGT Johnson


19

FRIENDS LIKE THESE:ARMY “PURSUES” AND “ASKS” GAYS

SLDN documented an increase inArmy “Don’t Pursue” and “Don’tAsk” violations during 2002. TheArmy’s continuing difficulty inadhering to these two important pol-icy components is not surprisinggiven the difficulty it has in imple-menting the AHAP. The messagecommunicated to the field – intend-ed or not – is that if it is okay toharass perceived lesbian, gay andbisexual soldiers, “asking” and “pur-suing” is also permissible.

The case of Staff Sergeant KarenColeman vividly illustrates this ongo-ing problem. SSG Coleman was anArmy helicopter repairperson whohad served 11 years in the military.In August 2002, SSG Coleman’s firstsergeant received a phone call from aperson claiming to be a female

“friend” of SSGColeman. Basedupon this anony-mous information,which the commandhad no reason tobelieve, and despiteSSG Coleman’sbeing a few shortmonths away fromcompleting her mili-tary service obliga-tion, she found her-self the target of anintrusive Armyinquisition into herprivate life.

“Don’t Pursue” wasdesigned to preventcommands fromacting on anony-mous information.Commands shouldnot investigate serv-ice members basedon non-credible alle-gations designed tocause harm to les-bian, gay and bisex-ual soldiers’careers.97 FormerSecretary of Defense Les Aspinexplained in 1993, “[i]f I came to thecommander and said that you toldme that you were gay, if that was theonly thing going, my expectationwould be that the commander would

not do anything.”98 In SSGColeman’s case, the first sergeantshould have simply ignored theanonymous phone call and allowedthis outstanding soldier to continueserving our country. Instead, she wasinvestigated and discharged.

“I endured three and a half-hourimproper interrogation about my— sexuality .... He stated that Iwould lose my VA benefits since thisissue was severe enough to possiblyput me in jail .... I was devastatedand betrayed .... as my militarycareer was being ripped away.”SSG Karen Coleman, Fort Eustis, Virginia

RECOMMENDATIONS:ARMY MARCHING INTO 2003

Ten years into the life of “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell,” the Army continues tostruggle with the policy’s implemen-

tation, especially the “Don’t Harass”piece. The sad truth is that, despite

Army leaders’ asser-tions to the contrary,the Army does nottake anti-gay harass-ment nearly as serious-ly as it does otherforms of prohibited

harassment.

In October 2002, SLDN wrote toall Army Division Commanders100

providing simple recommendationsto assist them in better implement-ing the AHAP. SLDN’s recommen-dations included:

★ Commanding Generals publisha policy letter stressing the needto treat perceived lesbian, gayand bisexual troops with dignityand respect;

★ Commanding Generals usetheir base newspaper and otherpublications to educate soldiers

“I have served my country honorably during the past eleven years and have achieved much. I don’t regret a minute of it.” A Gay Arabic and German linguist, Louisiana National Guard99

ARMY “DON’T PURSUE” VIOLATIONS 1994-2002

16

39 4350

101

117

100

169

130

ARMY “DON’T ASK” VIOLATIONS 1994-2002

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

11

22 22 21 22

4435 33

23

VI

VII


about the “dignity and respect”requirement; and

★ Commanding Generals inviteSLDN to speak with their sen-ior leaders to stress their com-mitment to ensuring the well-being of all troops, includinggay soldiers.

SLDN continues to urge that thesecombat unit commanding generalsfollow these recommendations.

Servicewide, to improve, the Armyneeds to:

★ Fully implement the AHAP,improving the “training” and“reporting” components of theAHAP, and implementing the“enforcement” and “measure-ment” components;

★ Direct NCOs to becomeinvolved in all facets of the gaypolicy;

★ Task Equal Opportunity repre-sentatives to oversee the AHAP(as they do with other types ofharassment, including genderand race harassment); and

★ Form a committee to reviewAHAP implementation, includ-ing the Deputy Chief of Stafffor Personnel (G-1), the JudgeAdvocate General, InspectorGeneral, an Equal OpportunityRepresentative, Chaplains, andSLDN.

20


In a display of his indiffer-ence towards lesbian, gayand bisexual service mem-bers, President Bush recentlynominated Major GeneralRobert T. Clark, formercommanding general ofFort Campbell, Ky., forpromotion to LieutenantGeneral, the Army’s secondhighest rank.

The promo-tion, whichwould includecommand ofthe prestigiousFifth UnitedStates Army,sends a danger-ous messageabout the BushAdministra-tion’s regard forthe safety and

well-being of its military personnel.

The message from theAdministration, the Pentagon andthe Army is that it does not takeanti-gay harassment seriously andwill not hold accountable those whofail to lead and address anti-gayharassment within their commands.

MG Clark was at the helm of FortCampbell in 1999 when PFC BarryWinchell was beaten to death with abaseball bat by fellow soldiers whothought Winchell was gay. Clark’sbehavior before, during and after themurder, clearly showed a failure ofleadership to address anti-gay harass-ment. Prior to the murder, therewere serious problems of anti-gayharassment at Fort Campbell. PFCWinchell was harassed for monthsbefore his death, and leaders in hischain of command knew about theharassment. They did nothing, andin some instances even participated.The Inspector General at the baseturned PFC Winchell away when hetried to get help. As commander ofthe base, MG Clark was responsible

for the conduct of the leaders andsoldiers he commanded.

In wake of the murder, MG Clarkdid nothing. He issued no state-ments regarding anti-gay harass-ment, implemented no trainingregarding anti-gay harassment, andneglected to assure accountability forthose who harassed or condonedharassment. He even refused tospeak or meet with PFC Winchell’sparents. Anti-gay graffiti, includinga crude drawing of a baseball batwith the words “fag-whacker” writ-

ten on it appeared in public areas ofFort Campbell after the murder.

MG Clark’s actions and inactionsresulted in a record number of dis-charges from his base. In fiscal year1999, gay discharges from Fort

21

Spotlight

THE NOMINATION OF MG ROBERT T. CLARK

AT THE TOP OF [THE] CHAIN AT FORT CAMPBELL SAT GENERAL CLARK. INSTEADOF BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO A SOLDIER IN GOOD STAND-ING UNDER HIS COMMAND, HE IS BEING PROMOTED.Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe, October 16, 2002101

MG Clark

Pat & Wally Kutteles,parents of PFC Winchell


22

Campbell consti-tuted 3.6% of allArmy discharges.After the murder,and still underMG Clark’s watch,discharges in FY2000 sky-rocket-ed, comprising anastounding 27.7%of the Army’stotal. Servicemembers fled thebase in an attemptto escape the envi-ronment Clark had created. Theywere literally running for their lives.

Despite this overwhelming evidenceconcerning MG Clark’s leadershipfailure regarding anti-gay harassment

at Fort Campbell, the White Househas brushed aside concerns for serv-ice member safety and sought toreward MG Clark with a prestigiouspromotion. SLDN has opposed thenomination, which was originally

considered in October 2002 duringa closed door session of the SenateArmed Services Committee. TheCommittee allowed Clark to testify,but refused to hear from PFCWinchell’s mother or others withinformation related to the environ-ment at Fort Campbell.

SLDN, along with People for theAmerican Way, the NationalOrganization for Women, theNational Gay & Lesbian Task Force,the Human Rights Campaign andMichigan’s Triangle Foundation, willcontinue to oppose Clark’s promo-tion.102

Our men and women in uniformdeserve better.

Anti-gay graffiti found at Fort Campbellafter the murder of PFC Winchell


During FY 2002, the AirForce discharged fewerservice members under“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”than ever before. SLDN alsorecorded the fewest reports of “Don’tAsk, Don’t Tell” violations from theAir Force since 1994. In as much asthe Air Force continues to be reluc-tant to share information withSLDN, however, we can only specu-late as to why discharge and viola-tion numbers have decreased.

One plausible explanation for thedecrease in discharge and violationnumbers may be that the Air Forcehas recognized the need to retainqualified personnel during the waron terrorism. The Air Force may betaking steps unknown to SLDN thatexplain the decrease in dischargesand reported violations. We doknow, however, that the Air Force’sefforts to reduce anti-gay harassmentappear inconsistent. While the AirForce has implemented some train-ing and measurement procedures

partially complyingwith the AHAP,SLDN continues tohear from airmenthat they are notreceiving trainingon “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” or theprevention of anti-gay harassmentbeyond general

23

2002 Air Force Report

“AMERICAN STRENGTH COMES FROM THE DIVERSITY OF OURPEOPLE, UNITED BY THE COMMON VISION WE SHARE: FREEDOM.”Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche103

US AIR FORCE “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” DISCHARGES 1994-2002

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

187

235

284309

415

352

177

217

121

VIII

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

24

815

61

24 19

77

30 25

90

25

41

116

4554

222

68

217

251

86

214

76

23 22

318

119

AIR FORCE VIOLATIONS 1994-2002

Don’t Ask

Don’t Pursue

Don’t Harass

IX

AIR FORCE: SEARCHINGFOR STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY


training at boot camp.

Despite lower numbers of dischargesand violations, harassment and inap-

propriate asking persist as areas ofconcern. SLDN saw an increase,over the last year, in reports of“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy viola-

tions centering on invasions of pri-vacy. Specifically, inappropriate ask-ing remains an issue underminingthe Air Force’s strength.

24

INVASION OF PRIVACY: ASKING,PURSUING AND “OUTING”

The Air Force continues to pry intoservice members’ private lives in vio-lation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In2002, SLDN received an increase inreported “Don’t Ask” violations andsaw evidence of a continuation ofthe Air Force’s tendency towardsinappropriate pursuits. While mostof the asking violations were report-ed to SLDN by young airmen,between the ages of 18 and 25, itappears supervisors as well as peerswere responsible for the violations.The following is a list of questionsasked directly of airmen during theircourse of duty:

★ “Do you have something to tell me? Are you gay?”

★ “You are gay, aren’t you?”

★ “Do you have a wife? Why aren’t you married [at your age]?”

★ “Are you gay?”

★ “Are you a faggot?”

The continued prevalence of asking,and the failure to hold those whoask accountable, is unacceptable.

At the same time asking violationsincreased, the Air Force also persistedin pursuing and inappropriatelyinvestigating airmen based on inva-sions of privacy and violations of con-fidentiality. During 2002, the AirForce chose to discharge numerousqualified, trained and competent air-men whose sexual orientations wererevealed to the Air Force unwittingly.These cases clearly show there is no

zone of privacy for service membersand there are few, if any, safe spacesfor lesbian, gay and bisexual airmento be themselves.

The cases of Cadet Jack Glover andCadet David Hall exemplify the AirForce’s propensity to inappropriatelypursue and discharge talented air-men based on violations of their pri-vacy. In the summer of 2002,Glover and Hall were looking for-ward to entering their last year ofROTC at the University of Alaska asleaders in their cadet corps. They

were also looking forward to, andplanning for, their careers as AirForce officers. Unfortunately, inJune their excitement was interrupt-ed when Cadet Glover was calledinto his ROTC commander’s officefor questioning. Glover was toldthat he was under investigation forhomosexual conduct and was askedabout allegations that he wasinvolved in a homosexual relation-ship with Cadet Hall. Cadet Gloverrefused to answer any questionsasked by his commander, as didCadet Hall, who was subsequentlyconfronted with thesame allegations by theROTC command.

The Cadets’ careers as Air Force offi-cers were cut short because a formerfriend outed them to their ROTCcommand. There is no dispute that

ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL?

In July 2002, SLDN caught theAir Force Reserves still using anoutdated 1987 recruiting formasking recruits if they are gay.The old form illegally asksrecruits, “Are you homosexualor bisexual?” and “Do youintend to engage in homosexualacts?”

Three recruiting offices, as wellas the Air Force ReservePublications Command, toldSLDN that the enlistment appli-cation containing the questionswas the only form available torecruitment offices. Mike West,forms manager for the Air ForceReserve Command, told SLDN,“I can assure you [the form inquestion] is the latest version

officially released for use.” 104

The Pentagon had previouslyordered all services to updaterecruiting forms after imple-mentation of “Don’t Ask, Don’tTell.” The 1994 recruiting formavailable to all Services doesnot ask questions about sexualorientation.

The Air Force Reserves’ compli-ance with the federal “Don’tAsk” policy was long overdue.

Cadets Glover and Hall

Graphic courtesy of the Washington Blade


they were top performers in theirROTC program. In fact, prior tothe investigation, Glover and Hallwere rated the number three andnumber one cadets in their unit,respectively, by their commander.Even as the investigation was ongo-ing, both were promoted to groupcommanders with the rank ofLieutenant Colonel. Cadet Hall hadalready served in the Air Force as anenlisted man and was honorably dis-charged prior to entering college.

Instead of respecting their privacyoff duty, the Air Force chose to inap-propriately investigate and pursuedisenrollment from ROTC ofGlover and Hall. Cadets Glover andHall were model cadets. Theirgrades, attitude and leadership abili-ties were lauded by their Air Forcecommanders. The one mistake theymade was to trust a fellow ROTCcadet, someone they considered afriend, and acknowledge to her theyare gay. This trust was betrayed. Justbefore Glover and Hall’s friend grad-uated from college and became alieutenant in the Air Force, she toldthe cadets’ ROTC command of theiradmission. The resulting disenroll-ment means that Glover and Hall

lost their college scholarships priorto entering their senior year, andthey are prevented from becomingofficers in the Air Force or ever serv-ing our country in the military.105

Similarly, Senior Airman BrandiGrijalva saw her trust and confiden-tiality broken after seeking counsel-ing from an Air Force chaplain’sassistant. While temporarily sta-tioned atTyndallAir ForceBase fortraining,SeniorAirmanGrijalvasoughthelp froma chaplain’sassistantdue toproblemsshe was having at home. Concernedabout the confidentiality of theirconversation, Grijalva was hesitantto discuss the issues causing herunhappiness. Informed that theirconversation was safe and confiden-tial, Senior Airman Grijalva revealedto the chaplain’s assistant that she

and her partner were having difficul-ties in their relationship. Followingthat revelation, the chaplain’s assis-tant broke the promise of confiden-tiality and Senior Airman Grijalvawas investigated for homosexualconduct.

Initially, Senior Airman Grijalvadenied telling the chaplain’s assistantshe is gay. Soon, however, Grijalva

recognized that her suspected sex-uality would likely follow herthroughout her Air Force career.Unwilling to live in an environ-ment requiring her to lie and fearlosing her job because of her sexu-al orientation, Senior AirmanGrijalva told her command inSeptember 2002 about the viola-tion of confidence by the chap-lain’s assistant and confirmed sheis a lesbian.106 Shortly after hercommand received this informa-tion, the Air Force honorably dis-

charged Senior Airman Grijalva.There has been no indication the AirForce investigated this violation ofGrijalva’s confidentiality or that thechaplain’s assistant was ever heldaccountable for the violation.

25

FALLING SHORT ON THE JOB:HARASSMENT AND INADEQUATETRAINING PERSIST

Despite decreased reports of anti-gayharassment to SLDN by Air Forcemembers during the past year, “fag,”“dyke,” and “queer,” as well as anti-

gay comments and jokes remaineveryday occurrences in the AirForce. As with asking violations, thevast majority of specific harassment

complaints to SLDN lastyear were made by airmenbetween the ages of 18 and25. Supporting thesereports, SLDN heard fromsenior noncommissionedofficers (NCOs) and offi-

cers that an anti-gay climate persistsin the Air Force. Most of theseNCOs and officers report they arenot consistently receiving annual“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” training, or

anti-harassment training as requiredunder the AHAP.

Information regarding the AirForce’s implementation of theAHAP’s four prongs – training,reporting, enforcement and measure-ment – is incomplete and inade-quate. SLDN made a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) request tothe Air Force for its anti-harassmenttraining materials and instructions.The response back from the AirForce indicates that it has not mademuch progress.

Airman Grijalva

“[I have seen] a significant increase in anti-gay jokes and comments in the workplaceduring the last year.”quote from an active duty senior Air Force officer stationed in Texas


RIGHT TO REPORT: SAFE CHANNELSA MYSTERY IN THE AIR FORCE

With regard to training and report-ing, the Air Force says that its“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” trainingmaterials show compliance with theAHAP. These materials do not meetthat mark. The anti-harassmenttraining consists of two Power Pointslides stating that an Air Force mem-ber threatened or harassed because

of their perceived sexual orientationhas “every right to report the threator harassment to the authorities.”107The slides do not explain what isanti-gay harassment as required bythe AHAP. Nor do the slides identi-fy to whom the service membershould report harassment. Theseslides do not meet the training andreporting requirements of the AHAP.

The Air Force has prepared separate

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” trainingmaterials for general audiences andcommanders, judge advocates andlaw enforcement personnel. Whileparts of these training materials aretailored to the target audience, theslides addressing harassment areidentical. This fails to meet theAHAP requirement that training betailored to the grade and responsibil-ity level of the audience.

26

INCOMPLETE STEPS:ANTI-HARASSMENT ENFORCEMENTAND MEASUREMENT

The Air Force appears to have takenno steps to enforce anti-harassmentprovisions. There is no information inthe Air Force materials that harassers,or those who condone harassment,will be held accountable for theiractions. The Air Force has not provid-ed SLDN any instructions or informa-tion regarding accountability.

The Air Force has taken some smallsteps towards implementing themeasurement provisions of theAHAP. Specifically, Air ForceInstruction 90-201 is intended toaddress the measurement prong ofthe AHAP. This instruction requiresthe Air Force Inspector General to“evaluate the training of all thosecharged with implementing thehomosexual conduct policy,” and to“assess commander, staff judge advo-cate, and investigator training on theDoD homosexual conduct policy.”108

Regrettably, this instruction does notmention anti-harassment trainingspecifically as the AHAP orders.Furthermore, no remedy is indicatedif a unit is found not to be in com-pliance with requirements.

The Air Force has taken some stepstowards reducing anti-gay harass-ment but these steps are anemic.Nearly three years after the AHAPwas directed to be implemented, it isdisturbing that so little progress inthe Air Force has been made.

RECOMMENDATIONS: AIM HIGH AIR FORCE 2003

With fewer discharges and “Don’tAsk, Don’t Tell” violations, the AirForce seems to be making someprogress. The Air Force, however,must do much more to eradicateharassment, asking and pursuits.

During the next year, SLDN recom-mends the Air Force take the follow-ing steps to improve the climate andproductivity of their personnel:

★ Open a dialogue with SLDNon training and implementationof “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” andthe AHAP;

★ Fully implement all prongs ofthe AHAP;

★ Alter their tailored training totruly address different audiencelevels (command, judge advo-cates, senior NCOs, InspectorsGeneral and enlisted ranks);

★ Re-emphasize in training mate-rials that asking about sexual

orientation is a violation of thepolicy and hold accountablethose who ask;

★ Clearly identify how and towhom Air Force members cansafely report harassment basedon perceived sexual orientation;

★ Authorize Equal Opportunitystaff to investigate reports ofharassment based on perceivedsexual orientation;

★ Hold harassers, and those con-doning harassment, accountablefor their actions; and

★ Provide more specific trainingon “credible evidence” and lim-its to investigations under“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“The future of the Air Force willdepend on cutting-edge technologyand a diverse team of people com-bining to fulfill our missions.Talent and brain power come inmany packages.”Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche109


2002 Navy Report

Under the spotlight of thewar on terrorism, theNavy discharged 218 serv-ice members for being gay- the fewest sailors everunder “Don’t Ask, Don’tTell.”111 Along with a decrease indischarge numbers, SLDN alsorecorded an overall drop in “Don’t

Ask, Don’t Tell”violations in theNavy. Despitethis overalldecrease, howev-er, harassmentremains a signifi-cant problemwithin the Navyand “asking” vio-lations increasedduring 2002. With little informa-

tion coming from the Navy abouttheir efforts to prevent anti-gayharassment or ensure proper applica-tion of ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”SLDN can only speculate why dis-charge and violation numbers weredown during 2002. Perhaps dis-charge numbers are down because ofthe Navy’s participation in the waron terrorism and its need to recruitand retain good, qualified sailors.

With the war on terrorism ragingthousands of miles away from ourcountry, Navy ships, planes, andpersonnel are literally on the front-lines and are part of the staging forwar. Last year, an increased work-load, or OPTEMPO, forced theNavy to reemphasize the importance

27

“NOW MORE THAN EVER, WE MUST RECRUIT AND RETAIN THEBEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, DESPITE THE REALITY AND STRAINSOF INCREASED OPTEMPO.”CNO G

cases.justia.com2004cv08425/166387/157/3.pdf · dedication to the men and women who are faithfully...

Documents