When ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ falls apart

Just last week, we learned that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) believes openly gay soldiers represent an “intolerable risk” to the United States armed forces. Apparently, the Navy doesn’t agree.

The Navy returned an openly gay sailor to active duty last year in what gay rights advocates say is an example of how some military commanders — stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — are turning a blind eye to the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning gays and lesbians from revealing their sexual orientation.

Petty Officer Jason D. Knight, a Hebrew linguist who says he had officially informed his superiors that he was homosexual, was discharged in April 2005 after completing his four-year tour of duty, according to a summary of his Navy personnel file.

Nine months later, the Navy recalled him to active duty, even though he was openly gay, and sent him to Kuwait, where he served as a translator and received multiple awards for exemplary service.

“An increasing number of lesbian and gay troops are being welcomed by their colleagues in the armed forces,” said Sharra E. Greer , director of law and policy for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian military personnel seeking redress for discriminatory policies. “Commanders do not want to lose good people to this law, and service members do not care if the men and women they work alongside happen to be gay.”

In Knight’s case, it appears that the Navy simply gave up on DADT altogether. In 2005, towards the end of his four-year enlistment, he told his commanding officers, verbally and in writing, that he is gay. The Navy initiated the routine discharge process for gay soldiers who “tell,” but then terminated the process. Knight was given a standard honorable discharge at the end of his service contract.

Knight transferred to reserve status until last year, when the Navy asked him to return. He agreed — and no one cared about him being gay. “My unit was more than supportive,” Knight said.

It’s as if, in practice, the controversial DADT policy simply doesn’t exist.

Knight was doing critically important translating work, and was decorated for his service. His awards and decorations, according to his file, included the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Award, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

Bill Driver, the supervisor of Knight’s 15-person unit in Kuwait, told the Stars and Stripes military newspaper, “He’s better than the average sailor at his job,” Bill Driver, the supervisor of Knight’s 15-person unit in Kuwait. Driver added that Knight’s sexual orientation was “not at all strange” and “wasn’t an issue at work.”

“This incident only underscores the absurdity of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), who’s trying to get DADT repealed. “Polls show that neither the American people nor a majority of service members support this policy. It is long past time to join our allies around the world and allow more people like Petty Officer Knight to serve openly.”

Will McCain label Knight, a decorated soldier, an “intolerable risk” to the military? Will he pressure the Navy to drive Knight out of the armed forces? Somehow, I doubt it.

I skimmed something about this the other day, and said, “What a great story.” For pretty much all parties concerned.

  • One is reminded of the stories that came out in the 1980s about gay men who were drafted into Vietnam, even after disclosing that they were gay. I understand that some then stayed in the service, only getting cashiered close to retirement.

    Apparently gay is OK when the military needs it, not good enough for anything else.

  • McCain’s “intolerable risk” has to do with maintaining the loyalty of the X-tian right. It’s intolerable to do anything other than their bidding if he is going to get into the White House. Having gays look heroic destroys the whole right wing myth that gays are demons that want to sodomize you in public showers and your children in school cloakrooms. They like that myth much better than the reality that gays can be as upstanding a person as anyone else in this country.

  • The Navy you say? Hmmm. Who else was in the Navy. Who makes a big stinking deal about his service in the Navy?

    Help, I’m this close to an irony overdose.

    I suspect Mr. Ramp Strike Express would tell us he was only joking and we need to lighten up and then treat us to an awe inspiring rendition of the Village People’s In the Navy until we stick boning knives in our ears to stop the pain.

    While it’s nice to hear that some people have one foot on the clue bus (and I suspect Petty Officer Knight’s circumstances will be used in a legal case real soon), this is only happening because individual officers decided not to be complete dickheads and, as you noted, the military is a tad stretched right now.

    But what happens when the war is over and some arsehole higher up the chain decides to pull Knight’s benefits and/or goes after the people who asked him to come back? Under DADT, every one is screwed. It is way past time for this PoS “compromise” to go the way of race discrimination in the military and they can toss the bullshit about women not being allowed in combat (technically at least) while they’re at it.

    tAiO – too classy to make a joke about seamen.

  • Young Turks this morning on Air America added some details to this story that might be of interest, or worth following up on. Supposedly, when Knight first came out, the Navy made him pay back his $13,000 signing bonus in addition to discharging him. No word on whether they gave it back when they called him back.
    Also, it’s not a “standard” honorable discharge (at least according to Young Turks). The officer in charge has the option of giving the discharged soldier an honorable discharge, but can also give him a dishonorable discharge.

  • In 2005, towards the end of his four-year enlistment, he told his commanding officers, verbally and in writing, that he is gay.

    Has anyone one proved this point, offered some paperwork backing this statement? As it stands we have only the Sailor’s word. Exactly what is the DD form you use to disclose you are gay in the military? The story by ABC is a bit lite on facts and falls apart with a serious look. That’s too bad, it’s a serious topic.

  • It’s as if, in practice, the controversial DADT policy simply doesn’t exist.

    Something like this, while satisfying in this individual case, is dangerous as long as DADT stays on the books as official policy. What can easily happen is that, while a blind eye can be given to the policy as a matter of course, people then relax and expose themselves to retribution at any time should anyone decide that it should be enforced afterall. It’s like setting up gay sailors for blackmail Something like this should not be used as a reason to cut back on efforts to officially end the evil DADT policy.

  • Exactly what is the DD form you use to disclose you are gay in the military?

    Sexual Orientation Form 1057b – Primary Object of Interest. In standard enlistment it comes right after, Sexual Orientation Form 1057a – Orifice Indicator. Of course, he might have just filled out SOF 1056EZ, which was implemented after 9/11 to speed Orientation processing. Of course, since he did this towards the end of his service, he probably either had to file a revision(change of orientation) or supplemental(addition of orientation). We should definitely without judgement until we see the DD form.

  • Sounds to me like the Navy is just taking it’s lead from the Bushie administration…
    they just forget that someone told them.

  • I’ve never understood the military’s problem with gays anyway – it just seems like a non-issue to me. What difference does a person’s sexual orientation make when it comes to shooting a gun, flying a plane, or performing any duty whatsoever? is it that the brass feels that a gay man, surrounded by hot young studs in uniform, is going to constantly be all a-tither with lust? If that’s the case, then why allow women in the military? I mean, all those sweet young things shaking it for the boys. What a distraction, right? What bullshit. And if it isn’t that, then what? Are their wrists too limp, or what? Crap. What if they said you couldn’t serve because your eyes were brown, and that was some sort of liability or something? Pure horseshit. Brown eyes see just as well as blue. I just wish people would get over this whole issue. I don’t care who a person is screwing, as long as they get the damn job done!

  • Comments are closed.