Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

[jillio]

In the military, a heterosexual couple usually presents proof of marriage soon after the ceremony in order to sign up for spousal benefits, so there is no reason to wait until there's a police action.

But the police do indeed use whatever means to identify the service member spouse of a criminal or suspected criminal, and subsequently notify the CO. It can be piece of mail with both names on it, a utility bill with both names, a name on an apartment door, a car registration, whatever is convenient. If the couple has their wedding album sitting out with a copy of the invitation in it, they can use that. Each case is different.

Did the police go to the CO and say, "We have proof that one of your airmen is gay and we want you to take action"? Or did the police say to the CO, "We have proof that one of your airmen is married to a suspect we have under investigation, and we're not getting cooperation from that airman; can you help us out"?


Do we know?

BTW, if the airman was married prior to a security clearance background check, upgrade, or update, and didn't reveal that to the investigators, that is a UCMJ offense. That is withholding or even falsifying information that is required when doing a security background check. No, not to dig out sexual orientations but to find out if there is anything compromising (such as a criminal activity, or family members still living in hostile countries) in the service member's family.

And this couple was not requesting spousal benefits, hence no need to present a marraige certificate.

A marraige certificate implies a consummated relationship. No need to say "these people are gay". It is redundant.

Again, sexual orientation had virtually nothing to do with the charges or the investigation. Hence, no need whatsoever to disclose sexual orientation to anyone, much less the military.

 

[TXgolfer]

And this couple was not requesting spousal benefits, hence no need to present a marraige certificate.

A marraige certificate implies a consummated relationship. No need to say "these people are gay". It is redundant.

Again, sexual orientation had virtually nothing to do with the charges or the investigation. Hence, no need whatsoever to disclose sexual orientation to anyone, much less the military.

Sexual orientation wasn't disclosed. A relationship was.

 

[Foxrac]

If "Don't Tell, Don't Ask" policy is repeal so it shouldn't be concern about police tattles to military over sex orientation or suspicious relationship, especially assume that you are gay or not.

 

[jillio]

Sexual orientation wasn't disclosed. A relationship was.

A relationship that implies consummate qualities. That in turn, implies sexual orientation.

Or would you not think that a heterosexual couple with a marraige license was engaging in sexual activity and there fore are heterosexual?

 

[TXgolfer]

A relationship that implies consummate qualities. That in turn, implies sexual orientation.

Or would you not think that a heterosexual couple with a marraige license was engaging in sexual activity and there fore are heterosexual?

The police had a responsibility to note the relationship.....Military policy is Military policy....She should have cooperated. If she withheld this marriage on a backgroung check (a possibility Reba mentioned) she should be charged with that crime....Again Military policy. Like it or not she knew the rules. I don't like 65 mph speed limits on rural highways but I know there are potential consequences when I exceed them. I accept that.

 

[jillio]

The police had a responsibility to note the relationship.....Military policy is Military policy....She should have cooperated. If she withheld this marriage on a backgroung check (a possibility Reba mentioned) she should be charged with that crime....Again Military policy. Like it or not she knew the rules. I don't like 65 mph speed limits on rural highways but I know there are potential consequences when I exceed them. I accept that.

A responsibility to note a relationship does not in any way imply a need to reveal sexual orientation. A marraige between same sex couples is only known on a background check if that marraige was performed in a state that recognizes such. Many ceremonies are performed for same sex couples every day that result in a "certificate of marriage" being issued by the official, without it actually being recognized as a legal marraige. The only things that show on background checks are those things that are recorded as legal or illegal acts. So it is not a matter of anyone "withholding information". Such information is never asked for on a background check.:roll:

Speeding is a completely fallicious comparison. Cannot be compared, in any way, to disclosing one's sexual orientation.

 

[TXgolfer]

A responsibility to note a relationship does not in any way imply a need to reveal sexual orientation. A marraige between same sex couples is only known on a background check if that marraige was performed in a state that recognizes such. Many ceremonies are performed for same sex couples every day that result in a "certificate of marriage" being issued by the official, without it actually being recognized as a legal marraige. The only things that show on background checks are those things that are recorded as legal or illegal acts. So it is not a matter of anyone "withholding information". Such information is never asked for on a background check.:roll:

Speeding is a completely fallicious comparison. Cannot be compared, in any way, to disclosing one's sexual orientation.

Reba, who was in the military, says that marital status IS asked when the military conducts security background checks.

The police reported a relationship as required. Rules are rules....just like speed limits

 

[jillio]

Reba, who was in the military, says that marital status IS asked when the military conducts security background checks.

The police reported a relationship as required. Rules are rules....just like speed limits

That is what I said. Marital status is only applicable to those marraiges recognized by the state, not those that were performed as a ceremony only. Only marraiges recognized by the state as legal and binding are subject to inclusion in a background check. It is illegal to ask one's sexual orientation.

The police, in effect, disclosed the sexual orientation of an individual. No matter how many ways you try to spin it, that is what occurred, and that is what is wrong in the situation.

 

[TXgolfer]

That is what I said. Marital status is only applicable to those marraiges recognized by the state, not those that were performed as a ceremony only. Only marraiges recognized by the state as legal and binding are subject to inclusion in a background check. It is illegal to ask one's sexual orientation.

The police, in effect, disclosed the sexual orientation of an individual. No matter how many ways you try to spin it, that is what occurred, and that is what is wrong in the situation.

No spin. It is about Intent. And the intent was to report a relationship as required.......The MC supported the report claim. It was in plain sight....rules are rules. Air Force policy also requires her to cooperate with police, she broke that rule as well. She is lucky her discharge was honorable.

 

[Reba]

And this couple was not requesting spousal benefits, hence no need to present a marraige certificate.

You asked about why it wasn't necessary for straight couples to present a certificate, so I explained to you the reason. The certificate was previously submitted to the personnel department previously, hence, it is already on record.

A marraige certificate implies a consummated relationship. No need to say "these people are gay". It is redundant.

A marriage certificate implies a relationship, period. (Not all marriages are consummated.) The matter of relevance to the police and military is the possible criminal activity involved.

As I stated, the military needs to know about possible compromising activity by a service member's spouse, parents, children, siblings, etc. Relationships can be indicated by marriage and birth certificates, passports, or other documents. In this case, it happened to be a marriage certificate.

Again, sexual orientation had virtually nothing to do with the charges or the investigation. Hence, no need whatsoever to disclose sexual orientation to anyone, much less the military.

The "sexual orientation" was incidental to the fact that there was a potentially compromising situation involving a military member.

How would you suggest the police notify the military command that one of their members might be involved in a crime situation?

 

[Reba]

A relationship that implies consummate qualities. That in turn, implies sexual orientation.

Or would you not think that a heterosexual couple with a marraige license was engaging in sexual activity and there fore are heterosexual?

Not necessarily. Sometimes marriages can't be consummated for physical/medical reasons, one of the partners is incarcerated, or the marriage is by proxy.

 

[Reba]

A responsibility to note a relationship does not in any way imply a need to reveal sexual orientation. A marraige between same sex couples is only known on a background check if that marraige was performed in a state that recognizes such. Many ceremonies are performed for same sex couples every day that result in a "certificate of marriage" being issued by the official, without it actually being recognized as a legal marraige. The only things that show on background checks are those things that are recorded as legal or illegal acts. So it is not a matter of anyone "withholding information". Such information is never asked for on a background check....

You obviously are not familiar with the kind of background checks that are done for military security clearances.

 

[jillio]

No spin. It is about Intent. And the intent was to report a relationship as required.......The MC supported the report claim. It was in plain sight....rules are rules. Air Force policy also requires her to cooperate with police, she broke that rule as well. She is lucky her discharge was honorable.

If that is so, why is it that marraige certificates for heterosexual couples are not also reported? You haven't shown me a case yet of that happening.

If her record was clean, then she should have an honorable discharge. As I have been stating all along, her sexual orientation has virtually nothing to do with the investigation or her ability to do her job.

BTW...it is illegal to discharge her dishonorably based on sexual orientation.

 

[jillio]

You obviously are not familiar with the kind of background checks that are done for military security clearances.

Well tell me Reba, how does one obtain record of a marraige that was, according to the accepted legality, never performed. It would be tatamount to attempting to find a record of a birthday celebration commemorating one's 5th birthday.

 

[TXgolfer]

If that is so, why is it that marraige certificates for heterosexual couples are not also reported? You haven't shown me a case yet of that happening.

If her record was clean, then she should have an honorable discharge. As I have been stating all along, her sexual orientation has virtually nothing to do with the investigation or her ability to do her job.

BTW...it is illegal to discharge her dishonorably based on sexual orientation.

That's because it wouldn't make news. It took 4 months for this to be made news.

However, at the very beginning of this thread I stated that not one, but two of my friends had their wives DWI reported to the Military. Off base, civillian car DWIs.

 

[TXgolfer]

Oh, as for the record being clean. She broke Air Force policy by not cooperating with police.....We know this for sure. She admits it in her story.

 

[jillio]

That's because it wouldn't make news. It took 4 months for this to be made news.

However, at the very beginning of this thread I stated that not one, but two of my friends had their wives DWI reported to the Military. Off base, civillian car DWIs.

Did they use a marraige certificate in the process?

 

[Reba]

Reba, who was in the military, says that marital status IS asked when the military conducts security background checks....

Exactly right.

The forms that one fills out for a security background check are many pages long. Also, each name and address listed on the form is checked out, in person, by an agent of the appropriate department (such as FBI, DIS, NIS, etc.).

The criminal background check is only the first step. That's used to weed out the obvious problems. From there, it's agency visits and interviews. Yes, they actually knock on your neighbors' doors, call ex-spouses, check college transcripts, financial statements, etc. The main thing they are checking is member integrity. That is, does everything on the form match up with what they find in the field. If they find any holes in the information, RED FLAG!

I had to list every place that I lived, since birth, every school that I attended since kindergarten, all places of employment and the managers names, and all information on my parents, and deceased grandparents.

That form requires a signature to the statement that all the information is complete and accurate to the best of one's ability.

A standard criminal background check is nothing compared to a military security clearance background check.

 

[jillio]

Oh, as for the record being clean. She broke Air Force policy by not cooperating with police.....We know this for sure. She admits it in her story.

And evidently, that was not sufficient to dissallow an honorable discharge.

 

[Reba]

Well tell me Reba, how does one obtain record of a marraige that was, according to the accepted legality, never performed. It would be tatamount to attempting to find a record of a birthday celebration commemorating one's 5th birthday.

If there are no documents, then an FBI agent will interview the couple, individually, and any witnesses that might have been involved in a ceremony. The agent will also interview neighbors to ask if the couple next door has presented themselves as a married couple to them.

That's for starters.