Lawmakers Press Pentagon To Give Veterans' Benefits To Service Members Discharged Under DADT

[Tx4obama]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- A group of Democratic lawmakers urged the Defense Department Thursday to allow all service members discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" to apply for honorable-discharge status, which would make them eligible for veterans' benefits.

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) sent the letter, signed by 32 of her Democratic colleagues, to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki. While many service members discharged under DADT received an honorable characterization, many others did not.

"The most likely deterrent to VA benefits for those discharged under DADT is a discharge characterization of 'other than honorable," reads the letter, whose signatories also include the four openly gay members of Congress -- Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). "We urge you to study and implement procedures to make it easier for those who believe their discharge characterization under DADT was inappropriate to make their case to the VA and, if successful, to restore those benefits."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/dadt-veterans-benefits-honorable-discharge_n_818555.html

[Leithan]

1. K & FUCKING R!!!

[aquart]

2. Damn straight they should have benefits.

God, we have behaved like scum.

[Utopian Leftist]

3. Do it! n/t

[Big_Mike]

4. Uh, I thought the characterizaton of discharge was honorable.

At least in the Army for enlisted personnel, here is the Regulation (AR 635-200)

15–4. Characterization or description of service
a. When the sole basis for separation is homosexual conduct, a discharge under other than honorable conditions may
be issued only if such characterization is warranted in accordance with chapter 3, section II and if there is a finding
during the current term of service that the Soldier attempted, solicited, or committed a homosexual act—
(1) By using force, coercion, or intimidation.
(2) With a person under 16 years of age.
(3) With a subordinate in circumstances that violate customary military superior–subordinate relationships.
(4) Openly in public view.
(5) For compensation.
(6) Aboard a military vessel or aircraft.
(7) In another location subject to military control under aggravating conditions noted in the finding that have an
adverse impact on discipline, good order, or morale comparable to the impact of such activity aboard a vessel or
aircraft.
b. In all other cases, the type of discharge will reflect the character of the Soldier’s service. (See chap 3, sec II.)

Basically, someone who is outed or admits homosexuality and does not have one of the above issues would have an honorable discharge. Also, many of the situations listed above would result in a Court-Martial, and they could administer up to a Bad Conduct Discharge (possibly Dishonorable, if it was a person age 14 or under).

The question would simply be what were the circumstances surrounding the discharge? In the '50s or '60s, these would have been Other Than Honorable, and could be upgraded to General or Honorable by application to the Board for Military Appeals.

Is this a good thing on its face? Of course. But I do not really think the situation generally applies

[defendandprotect]

5. k/r