Two weeks ago, in an article “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave…” I wrote about the case of Air Force Lt. Robin Chaurasiya who, after “telling” that she was a lesbian and that she was in a civil union with another woman, was not discharged by the Air Force as required under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy.
The Air Force, in my opinion, was using a clause—more like a “catch-22”— under Title 10 United States Code § 654 (The DADT law), that stipulates that a homosexual member of the armed forces shall be discharged unless “…the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale.”
At the time, Chaurasiya’s commander claimed that the lieutenant was being forced to remain in the Air Force because she had “told” for the purpose of “avoiding and terminating military service.”
I doubt if such bullheadedness on the part of the Air Force was in the interest of “proper discipline, good order, and morale.” Rather, it demonstrates the absurdity and capriciousness of DADT. Decisions such as these, belie the claim that “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”
Today, the LA Times reports that the Air Force is having second thoughts on this matter and intends to discharge Lt. Chaurasiya after all.
After Chaurasiya’s case was widely publicized, apparently the Air Force “further reviewed” her case and, on Monday, Air Force officials told Chaurasiya that a more senior officer, Gen. Raymond E. Johns Jr., reversed the earlier decision and recommended she be honorably discharged.
In a statement, the Air Force said that its Air Mobility Command recommended Chaurasiya be discharged. A final decision will be made by Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley.
The hypocrisy, the ludicrousness, the arbitrariness and the untenability of DADT and its selective enforcement are, in my opinion, encapsulated in this case.
Consider that thousands of gay and lesbian military have been discharged under DADT, oftentimes merely because of the rumor, the accusations by others, that they are gay or lesbian.
Now consider this, according to the LA Times:
In July of last year, a male former officer whom Chaurasiya once dated provides her commanding officer with evidence that she is a lesbian. The Air Force dismisses that complaint.
Later, Chaurasiya declares that she is a lesbian. In December, she and her partner are joined in a civil union in New Hampshire.
An Air Force investigation finds credible evidence that Chaurasiya is a lesbian, but determines “she had declared her sexual orientation in an attempt to get out of military service.” The general in charge, faced with all this clear evidence of Chaurasiya’s sexual orientation, nevertheless refuses to discharge Chaurasiya.
Finally, after all the publicity, the Air Force on Monday “suggested the decision to discharge her resulted from new evidence.” Apparently, the “new evidence” is, according to Chaurasiya, an interview with her partner that—now hear this—finally determined their civil union was “real.”
Enforcement of DADT, an ill-conceived, ill-implemented and ill-managed monstrosity, has come at a tremendous cost in both trained, qualified personnel and in treasure—more than 15,000 service members have been forced out under DADT.
This tangled web we have woven to trap those who we are forcing to deceive, is now beginning to also trap its weavers and those who have so wickedly tangled it.
