Airman discharged under 'don't ask don't tell'

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

The Air Force has discharged a service member under the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

It's the first firing since President Barack Obama signed legislation to end the ban, which is just months from being lifted.

... Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said Thursday that the service member was discharged April 29 but that he didn't know details of the case.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/02/national/w190316D64.DTL&tsp=1

[LetTimmySmoke]

1. Time for the Commander in Chief to act and put him back to his post.

We'll see what, if anything, Obama believes in.

[jberryhill]

6. Why? He asked to be let go

So your point is that Obama should force the guy to stay in?

[DeSwiss]

2. Air Force = Dominion Country. - K&R n/t

[Rowdyboy]

3. Apparently the service member asked to be "separated expediciously"....

That could mean he or she was threatened or hurt. It could mean they just wanted out of the military while they still had an out. We don't really have enough facts yet to make a judgment.

[MrScorpio]

5. I agree the Airman wanted out by way of DADT

If the USAF wanted him out, my more than 20 experience as a USAF Personnel Tech tells me that they had lots of other ways to get this guy out other than DADT.

The fact that details are sparse is intentional.

[Rowdyboy]

7. So as someone with a background to know, what do you think it means?

My assumption is that he or she wants out-not that the military wants him/her out. When you say "the fact that details are sparse is intentional" I read that as he/she wanted out and we(the military brass) are letting them. Am I misreading?

[MrScorpio]

9. Not everyone in uniform is happy to be serving and some want out early

That's always the case, no matter what, gay or not.

I figure that the brass doesn't want to give other people who want out the idea to self identify and start up new cases.

Since the law is still on the books, the Pentagon would be obligated to process DADT cases if these people wanted out bad enough.

Believe me, if they didn't have to process any more cases, the Brass wouldn't. It's no insignificant fact that they had to bring in the lawyers to figure out what to do.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Thanks...thats what I thought but having no military background myself....

I had no way to be sure.

[maddezmom]

13. thanks for posting that just found this in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x683636

[MrScorpio]

4. I don't see why it would benefit the military to pursue another DADT separation...

After they've ceased all other cases.

I think that the Airman used the soon to be gotten rid of DADT law as a loophole to get out early while he/she still could.

If that person did, I can see why the Pentagon is keeping mum about all the details.

[Tx4obama]

8. I agree. See other article below

Excerpt:

SNIP

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, who stated that he was unfamiliar with this case, wrote, ''The Department of Defense has made it abundantly clear that it is now virtually impossible to discharge someone who does not want to be discharged.''

SNIP

Harper did not immediately respond to a request for further information about the Airman and the circumstance of the Airman's discharge, including whether a voluntary statement by the servicemember was the basis for the discharge.

Nicholson, however, noted, ''We know that servicemembers have sometimes requested their own discharges and have used the fact that the law is on the books to force a discharge through despite a command or service preference for retention.''

SNIP

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6295

[MrScorpio]

10. Exactly

I know what I'm talking about.

[CreekDog]

12. "Please prosecute me for sitting in the front of the bus"

"okay but you're forcing our hand."

:wtf:

[No Elephants]

14. +1