Got a random question for the few people actually reading this: how oblivious does someone have to be not to understand that a discharge through Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a honorable discharge?
Cause a friend didn't understand that, and I wonder if she's like 98% of the rest of the nation, or if she's really clueless.
Update: I was rather confused, and typed dishonorable rather than honorable, which is what I meant. Basically: my friend's friend was in the navy, is gay and I suspect knew he was gay then, and we were wondering but didn't ask if he had been kicked out due to DADT. I was under the mistaken impression that a discharge because of DADT would be a dishonorable discharge, as well as the mistaken impression that the Uniform Code of Justice was under the control of the Commander in Chief, not Congress. Basically, I had no clue. I've got a couple of friends in the military, but no close family members [well, my grandfather was in the navy in WWII, and a not-particularly-close-cousin was in the Marines].
So, thanks go to Eric for helping me out of this maze of confusion.
Posted by Owlish at August 13, 2005 08:42 PM | TrackBackA discharge because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is done under Chapter 16 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is "for the convenience of the service". The discharge is honorable, with the only "negative" being that the service member can never re-enlist. However, the reason for the bar to re-enlistment is not on the discharge. And Chapter 16 is used in a lot of other cases where the military wants to discharge the service member, but there's nothing to warrant a less than honorable discharge.
By the way, dishonorable discharges are very unusual. Most people who do something wrong receive a General Discharge, dishonorable being reserved mostly for those convicted in a courts-martial.
Posted by: Eric at August 14, 2005 01:36 PMHmm, Ok. I guess I was somewhat angry for nothing. Thanks.
Posted by: owlish at August 14, 2005 04:05 PMI thought you were stating that a "don't ask" discharge was honorable? Did I misread what you posted?
The reason it is done that way is that Congress has not seen fit to change military law. When Clinton tried to fulfill his campaign promise on gays in the military he ran into the minor problem that the President didn't have that authority, it was based on military law, which is set by Congress. So, all he could do is change the policy on asking recruits if they were homosexual, or not. That question is no longer asked. Now, if someone violates that policy, they haven't actually vioated military law. To prove a violation of military law would take much more time and money. Thus the use of Chapter 16. Now, that was as of 1996, when I separated from the service. It could have changed since then, but I really doubt the wartime military wants to invest the time/effort needed to justify a general discharge.
Posted by: Eric at August 14, 2005 07:46 PM