Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Look at it this way. If she were married to a man would she be questioned by police in this situation? Obviously yes. Would the Air Force take an interest? Yes. If she didn't cooperate with police would this be a violation of Air Force policy? Yes and combined with the warrants it would be enough for an investigation and a dishonorable discharge most likely. In this case it appears the Air Force is being very PC by giving her an Honorable discharge.
 
TXgolfer said:
We have a lawsuit because she claims she was outed and that led to her discharge........her claim doesn't make it so, people will sue for anything. Again we have only heard her side of the story. It's still very possible she was discharged due to violating the Air Force policy on cooperation. That's why I have said over and over that we have to wait for the facts. However, one fact that she admits to is that she did not comply with a request to come to the home. So we do know for a fact that she violated Air Force policy
Click to expand...

Exactly. The reason that we have only heard her side is because the others are refusing to comment.:hmm:
 
TXgolfer said:
Look at it this way. If she were married to a man would she be questioned by police in this situation? Obviously yes. Would the Air Force take an interest? Yes. If she didn't cooperate with police would this be a violation of Air Force policy? Yes and combined with the warrants it would be enough for an investigation and a dishonorable discharge most likely. In this case it appears the Air Force is being very PC by giving her an Honorable discharge.
Click to expand...

Still a fallicious comparison. It doesn't happen to heterosexuals.:roll:

Oh? And it is the Air Force's policy to discharge dishonorably all of those that have failed in some way to cooperate with the local, civilian police dept

This isn't a case of being PC. It is a case of violating the right to privacy that we ALL are afforded.
 
jillio said:
Still a fallicious comparison. It doesn't happen to heterosexuals.:roll: Sure it does. Happened to two of my friends when their wives got a DWI. Covered that twice already...

Oh? And it is the Air Force's policy to discharge dishonorably all of those that have failed in some way to cooperate with the local, civilian police dept

I said the combination would likely warrant one. Not just the one act

This isn't a case of being PC. It is a case of violating the right to privacy that we ALL are afforded

According to her story. Law enforcement rarely comments on an ongoing case. Sounds like she may have forfeited that right by leaving the document in plain sight. That is obviously something police would document in a report..
Click to expand...

Perhaps she should have used better judgement in picking a partner. :shrug:

I am going to move on now. Beating a dead horse here. She broke policy and cohabitated with a wanted person. Then got discharged. Not much in question.
 
Rather judgemental.:cool2:

A lot in question. Particularly for those with a sexual orientation that doesn't necessary conform to the white, middle class, once a week,missionary position idea of the norm.:cool2:
 
jillio said:
Rather judgemental.:cool2:

A lot in question. Particularly for those with a sexual orientation that doesn't necessary conform to the white, middle class, once a week,missionary position idea of the norm.:cool2:
Click to expand...

Judgement of this womanwas intended.....Not of her Sexual orientation though...just her choices.

Speaking for the mixed race, rich (By Obama's standards) doggie style loving sex addicts.... We believe breaking rules in the workplace is reason enough for termination. :)

(Sorry you had to read that Reba)
 
I see you apply different standards to everyone else than you do to yourself.
 
jillio said:
...So, if I fail to tell the military that my grandfather was an alcoholic, or that my brother is gay, I am guilty of witholding information?
Click to expand...
I don't recall those particular questions being included on the security clearance background form but if they were, then, yes.

Neither one of those things are true, and neither one has bearing on my ability to do my job. Yet both would be close relationships.
Click to expand...
Security background checks have nothing to do with a person's ability to do a job. It has to do with personal integrity and security risk.
 
Reba said:
I don't recall those particular questions being included on the security clearance background form but if they were, then, yes.


Security background checks have nothing to do with a person's ability to do a job. It has to do with personal integrity and security risk.
Click to expand...

So it is simply assumed, for instance, that a person's sexual orientation has little integrity and poses a security risk? I'm asking. I don't know.
 
Berry said:
Not having been in the military myself I have been told "The military protects freedom, it does not practice it."

As I understand it if the military discovers that you are in any way subject to blackmail then you are suspected of being, or potentially being, blackmailed.

I am not sure if the military is actually paranoid or if they are just recognizing reality as it pertains to them.
Click to expand...
It may seem like paranoia at times but there is historical precedence for their caution when it comes to security. Are you familiar with the Walkers? They are one example of security collapse.
 
Berry said:
So you are telling me that if she went to her boss and said, "I need to go home because the police want to search my house," her boss would have said, "Oh, fine. Give me a report when you get back?" And everything would have been okay?

That is not what any boss I ever had would tell me.
Click to expand...
Actually, by going thru the CO, the service member gains protection.

The CO can refuse the police access to a military member who is on a military base or ship.

Most CO's, when contacted by the police, would call the service member into the office to find out what's going on. "Sergeant, is there anything you want to tell me before I call back the police?"

Then, depending on the command's mission, the CO will allow the police access to the member or not. If yes, the CO might even ask the member, "Sergeant, do you want someone to go with you, or do you need to call the JAG?"

If the CO doesn't want to allow access, the CO will call back the police and tell them, sorry, they can't be allowed access now. If they have any questions, call the JAG.

That doesn't mean the service member is off the hook. The CO will initiate his own investigation as to what's going on.
 
jillio said:
So it is simply assumed, for instance, that a person's sexual orientation has little integrity and poses a security risk? I'm asking. I don't know.
Click to expand...
A person who omits information or puts down false information on a security clearance background form has questionable integrity and is a security risk.

It has nothing to do with "sexual orientation."

If a straight person "forgets" to list an ex-spouse or bankruptcy, or claims to have a college degree but doesn't, that person is also going to have a problem with integrity and security.
 
Reba said:
A person who omits information or puts down false information on a security clearance background form has questionable integrity and is a security risk.

It has nothing to do with "sexual orientation."

If a straight person "forgets" to list an ex-spouse or bankruptcy, or claims to have a college degree but doesn't, that person is also going to have a problem with integrity and security.
Click to expand...

But questions regarding sexual orientation are illegal. Those instances you have listed are quite different than someone being outed by another.
 
Back
Top