Navy cook discharged under DADT despite the lack of either asking or telling

[SpecialKO]

The 'New' DADT Enforcement Rules Ensare A Sailor Who Wasn't Asked And Didn't Tell | TPMMuckraker

Unfortunately, it seems the new DADT rules have a few holes in them.

For those who didn't click or want a short version:

1) Guy enlists in the Navy and gets posted as a cook on a nuclear sub in April, and brought his cellphone with him (security no-no)

2) CO confiscates the phone, expecting that, per usual, it will be returned (assuming no security violations like photos of the sub are in it) at the end of his shift accompanied by a reprimand/punishment detail and that will be the end of it.

3) Captain sees no security violations, but does see photos of the cook and his boyfriend, and sends the phone to NCIS as he's supposed to, but with a recco that the matter be dropped.

4) NCIS kicks it up to an Admiral, who orders cook dishonorably discharged.

Obviously, the cook is responsible for bringing a phone on board, but it seems pretty clear that just finangling with legal implications of DADT isn't enough if someone can be discharged for being gay while not failing a security review.

Plus, while an Admiral can write pretty much any legal order he wants, wouldn't this be an excellent instance to take the recommendations of the CO and the Captain into account?

 

[Chibibar]

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

note: I think the whole thing is a sham. His CO and his captain recommend that he stay on board and reprimand for having a phone. The Admiral should have stay with that, but IMO the admiral must not like gays to process anyway

 

[AshburnerX]

I suspect this is going to be a rallying case next time we get a push for repealing DADT.

 

[strawman]

He told. This is no different than if he brought a photo montage of him and his boyfriend and posted it in his locker where it was seen during a security check, but otherwise unknown and unseen.

He shouldn't have had evidence of his relationship in a place where it would be seen in the normal course of operation, including security reviews.

It may well be unfortunate that he was discharged, but to pretend that he didn't fall under DADT is ridiculous.

 

[Shegokigo]

Oh I totally agree. I mean, we don't let straight couples keep pictures of their spouses or loved ones on board with them...... oh wait.

 

[tegid]

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.

 

[Tinwhistler]

DADT is bullshit regardless.

 

[ScytheRexx]

DADT is bullshit regardless.

This.

 

[Necronic]

Well now...I think there are important things to consider here. I mean, there are a lot of risks involved in letting gays in the military

Spartan

and I don't see a lot of evidence that there are any real advantages to

Knights Templar

having gays in the military. I mean, ok, there are historical cases of things like this, but show me a modern army

Canadian Army

I mean a large modern army

Russian Army

I mean a large, constantly in action modern army from a country with religious tensi-

Israeli Defense Force

Well whatever, its pretty clear just statistically that they aren't as good though, if 10% of people are gay then you should have seen a lot more gay military leaders

Julius Caeser

Alexander the Great
.....

damnit.

 

[Chibibar]

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I know that he was discharge for being gay BUT it was discovered cause he had his boyfriend's picture AND NSFW on the phone... that is just asking for trouble.

I am totally against DADT. I think it is silly. It was a chain event that lead to his dismissal.

He took some erotic picture of b/f (it was mention there are pictures that show that he was gay)
save said picture
took the phone on a sub which is a no-no. specifically camera phone or any picture taking device.
Said phone got confiscated and review
Pictures were discovered
send up to the chain of command
and dismiss under DADT

now.... if the first 2 didn't happen or the guy unload the picture and clear the memory, then he would have stay in the Navy with a reprimand.

 

[crono1224]

DADT is stupid, but he did violate the rules, I don't think he should have been dishonorably discharged since that certainly is a stain on your career and life. If you are doing something against the rules, you shouldn't risk outing yourself by violating more rules.

 

[Fun Size]

Give me a break. They keep leaving out the parts where the guy was pretty much outing himself before the camera thing even came up. I mean, who serves strawberry crepes with powdered sugar on a submarine? He was either gay or French, and either way he was getting kicked out. I guess at least if he was French, he would have gone without a fight.



DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by Fun Size do not necessarily reflect those of Halforums, the management, or even Fun Size himself. He doesn't even know any French people that he is aware of, although he once met a guy who liked cheese way, way too much that he didn't particularly care for.

 

[crono1224]

Give me a break. They keep leaving out the parts where the guy was pretty much outing himself before the camera thing even came up. I mean, who serves strawberry crepes with powdered sugar on a submarine? He was either gay or French, and either way he was getting kicked out. I guess at least if he was French, he would have gone without a fight.



DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by Fun Size do not necessarily reflect those of Halforums, the management, or even Fun Size himself. He doesn't even know any French people that he is aware of, although he once met a guy who liked cheese way, way too much that he didn't particularly care for.

I didn't think the French had a military, I thought it was just a big sign saying "What's mine is yours".

 

[Shegokigo]

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I know that he was discharge for being gay BUT it was discovered cause he had his boyfriend's picture AND NSFW on the phone... that is just asking for trouble.

I am totally against DADT. I think it is silly. It was a chain event that lead to his dismissal.

He took some erotic picture of b/f (it was mention there are pictures that show that he was gay)
save said picture
took the phone on a sub which is a no-no. specifically camera phone or any picture taking device.
Said phone got confiscated and review
Pictures were discovered
send up to the chain of command
and dismiss under DADT

now.... if the first 2 didn't happen or the guy unload the picture and clear the memory, then he would have stay in the Navy with a reprimand.[/QUOTE]

Now change the words of B/F to G/F and gay to straight and tell me he would have gotten more than just reprimanded. I double dare you.

 

[Vrii]

Now change the words of B/F to G/F and gay to straight and tell me he would have gotten more than just reprimanded. I double dare you.

I didn't think DADT applied to straight couples?

 

[Shegokigo]

I meant for the Phone infraction.

 

[Vrii]

I meant for the Phone infraction.

But he was discharged for DADT, not having his phone there. It's what the whole thread is about.

 

[Shegokigo]

Exactly. Had it been a straight Navy person, he would still be employed.

Even if we wanted, sickiningly to use the DADT policy itself. He wasn't "telling", it was as if they read his personal journal and read an excerpt, firing him on that premise.

 

[Vrii]

Exactly. Had it been a straight Navy person, he would still be employed.

Even if we wanted, sickiningly to use the DADT policy itself. He wasn't "telling", it was as if they read his personal journal and read an excerpt, firing him on that premise.

No, it's as if he brought his personal journal into an area where journals were specifically restricted, knowing that he had filled pages and pages of it with mentions of his relationship and the fact that he was gay. There was no reason to be surprised that his phone was taken, that its contents were examined, or that the relevant officers became aware of his orientation specifically because of his actions.

He may not have explicitly told anyone, but he made the information legally available to them through his own choices.

 

[Shegokigo]

Again, which doesn't matter, because he was discharged for sexual preference, not for violating the phone code. That's the issue I'm complaining about.

What he keeps in his personal area, and not shared with the people around him, based on the DADT policy, is fine.

 

[Vrii]

Have you read this link from the original post? I'm not clear on the regulations, but it certainly seems to imply that anyone who's found to be gay, via their own actions, information provided under oath, or any other legal means of acquiring that information, will be discharged.

This person, through their own actions and the reasonably predicted consequences of them, was pretty clearly established to be gay, and discharged under DADT.

You can argue all day that it's unfair, unjust, and wrong, and I'll agree with you. But you're trying to argue (or at least seeming to) that it was because of his phone, or unlawful discrimination, and it wasn't. It was because he was in violation of a (hopefully soon to be repealed) regulation.

And he was.

 

[@Li3n]

So, does DADT mean that if anyone find out your sexual preference in any way (unless it's illegal) you're out?!

 

[Vrii]

Per that same link, DADT is a "17-year-old law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military."

So yes. If they keep it secret they can stay, if not they're out.

 

[Covar]

So, does DADT mean that if anyone find out your sexual preference in any way (unless it's illegal) you're out?!

If by sexual preference you mean engaging in an explicit sexual act with a member of the same sex then yes.

 

[Sara_2814]

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

 

[Green_Lantern]

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

*sad laugh*

and people don't get why homophobic places can have so few reported hate crime cases.

Edit:

@Vrii: If makes you happy I don't care if the whole case is legally okay, fuck those law-abiding homophobic bastards.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I never understood the "Don't Ask" part of the regulation... Because it seems that they are on a witch hunt ever since it became policy.

 

[Piotyr]

So, to sum up...

- Did the guy violate DADT by the letter of the law? Yes.
- Did anyone involved in the situation do anything legally wrong? No.
- Is this a good example of DADT being ridiculous and discriminatory? Yes.
- Is this fair at all? No.
- Should this be used as an example of DADT being discriminatory and stupid? Absolutely.

 

[Chibibar]

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I know that he was discharge for being gay BUT it was discovered cause he had his boyfriend's picture AND NSFW on the phone... that is just asking for trouble.

I am totally against DADT. I think it is silly. It was a chain event that lead to his dismissal.

He took some erotic picture of b/f (it was mention there are pictures that show that he was gay)
save said picture
took the phone on a sub which is a no-no. specifically camera phone or any picture taking device.
Said phone got confiscated and review
Pictures were discovered
send up to the chain of command
and dismiss under DADT

now.... if the first 2 didn't happen or the guy unload the picture and clear the memory, then he would have stay in the Navy with a reprimand.[/QUOTE]

Now change the words of B/F to G/F and gay to straight and tell me he would have gotten more than just reprimanded. I double dare you.[/QUOTE]

Shego: Changing from B/F to G/F and he won't be violating the DADT code. I'm sure many service people had some picture of their hetro couple picture even some compromising picture. Heck, my friend (who was in Army Ranger) told me about playboy magazine he owns and such (not sure if that is against the rule but you get the idea)

The DADT is a stupid stupid rule in my book and I feel that the guy got the shaft cause he kept pictures that show that he is gay on it. Is it stupid since he didn't tell anyone and still got discharge? yes. Is it right? no? do I think it is fair? no. Did he broke the current DADT rule in place? yes.

Regardless what I feel on the matter, the current rule allows his superior to discharge him for being gay under DADT rule. Until that law is repealed, many good service men and women will be judge under that rule.

 

[Dave]

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

Very, very good post.

Let me tell you a little story.

When I was in the Marines I got a Chapter 11 (basically a work write-up) because I had a girl in my barracks room. Where I was stationed you had a 2 or 3 man little apartment. At the time it was just me because my roommate got promoted and had to go to a difference set of quarters. Anyway, I got written up because there was a girl in my room at 3 pm on a Friday. I was asleep on one bed and she was actually sleeping in the other.

A week later the same First Sergeant that wrote me up walked in on my old roommate and his girlfriend actually having sex in his new room...and he apologized and walked out.

So the military has NEVER done these things fair and equitably.

 

[Shegokigo]

Yeah, you got written up. A gay couple would have been completely discharged. That's a bit worse than un-fair.

 

[Dave]

Yeah, you got written up. A gay couple would have been completely discharged. That's a bit worse than un-fair.

I totally get your point. But I was illustrating that rules aren't done on an equal basis.

So here's another story.

Sergeant and his wife had a threesome with another corporal in our unit. The Sergeant bragged about it. The brasses' reaction? HIGH FIVE!! Why? If it was totally fair and handled the same way the wife and the other chick (who was SMOKING HOT) would have been kicked out. But nothing would have happened to the husband, which makes sense only in the letter of that law.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think they should be allowed to serve and I think that the fact we are allowing religious intolerance to bias our governmental decisions is unconscionable.

 

[SpecialKO]

I think that the fact we are allowing religious intolerance to bias our governmental decisions is unconscionable.

You can say that again.

Chris Rodda: U.S. Soldiers Punished for Not Attending Christian Concert

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Disconnected]

Yeah, you got written up. A gay couple would have been completely discharged. That's a bit worse than un-fair.

I totally get your point. But I was illustrating that rules aren't done on an equal basis.

So here's another story.

Sergeant and his wife had a threesome with another corporal in our unit. The Sergeant bragged about it. The brasses' reaction? HIGH FIVE!! Why? If it was totally fair and handled the same way the wife and the other chick (who was SMOKING HOT) would have been kicked out. But nothing would have happened to the husband, which makes sense only in the letter of that law.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think they should be allowed to serve and I think that the fact the USA are allowing religious intolerance to bias their governmental decisions is unconscionable.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Also Vrii and Shego must fight to the death now.

If I can get over my thickheaded issues of homosexuality, the military bloody well can. The military is an antiquated 'boys' club grasping on to glory days that never actually existed.

Why exactly is DADT there in the first place? Are the straights afraid the gays are going to spontaneously rape them in their sleep?

 

[Iaculus]

Given that it's all about hiding gay military personnel, perhaps it's so that they can never tell where and when the spontaneous sleep-rape will occur?

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!