Sailor: Discharged For Being Gay?

jillio said:
He wasn't discharged for being stupid, though, was he? And there is no accusation that he was.
Click to expand...

he was stupid to bring the cellphone.

The concept of security is extremely important, and should be second nature to any serviceman, especially there. Cell phones not only have cameras, most now have GPS locators built into them, which could, hypothetically, provide an enemy with the exact position of our subs for a potential attack. He knowingly breached those rules! By doing so he was putting the safety and security of everyone else at risk.
Click to expand...
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Kind of remind me of those murder mysteries where the suspect is arrested for a minor thing, then the authorities did some digging and added a bunch of charges ontop of the initial charge.
Click to expand...

Yep. Too many coincidences. And everything that gets dug up goes right back to the question: why were these things not an issue prior to pics of his boyfriend being found on his phone? Why was he discharged only after that fact?
 
Jiro said:
so what was he discharged for?
Click to expand...

We will only discover during the trial, I'm sure. His discharge papers have not been made public. However, if his discharge papers stated that he was discharged for bringing the phone into a restricted area, he would not have the grounds for a lawsuit, as he had already admitted his guilt to that.
 
jillio said:
That his sexual orientation was not the reason he was discharged.
Click to expand...

Can you show WHERE I stated that assumption???? I don't believe there are enough facts to make ANY statement on why he was fired. Looks like there are a number of potential reasons.
 
TXgolfer said:
Can you show WHERE I stated that assumption???? I don't believe there are enough facts to make ANY statement on why he was fired. Looks like there are a number of potential reasons.
Click to expand...

And we are right back to the topic of contextual meaning. Why is it that those reasons were not stated on his discharge papers? Why were these "number of potential reasons" not acted on until the time when the photos were found on his phone? If it was one of the other "potential reasons" why the delay in action?
 
jillio said:
We will only discover during the trial, I'm sure. His discharge papers have not been made public. However, if his discharge papers stated that he was discharged for bringing the phone into a restricted area, he would not have the grounds for a lawsuit, as he had already admitted his guilt to that.
Click to expand...

that kinda contradicts with your previous post. The post below implies you knew what his dismissal paperwork said.

jillio said:
If he was fired for bringing his phone into a restricted area, I wonder why it wasn't stated on the dismissal paperwork?
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
so what was he discharged for?
Click to expand...

21e58961-845a-4d34-be85-69eefa594b1c.jpg
 
I would side with the military if he was discharged for activities not relating to sexual orientation. If he played the gay card then he is a disgrace to the gay cause.

I talked to a gay guy who claimed he was fired from the bank for being gay but my gay friends said it wasn't true and that he had a history of troubles with the bank including extending large loans to personal friends.

However, military has a long history of discharging people soley for homosexuality. That's why we got San Franscico... the military dumped gays there and it became the gay capital.

But as far as I understand, there's nothing that states he was discharged for breaking a rule - he said he was not supposed to bring it.. did he give it to his superiors?

Let's see what the military has to say.
 
Jiro said:
that kinda contradicts with your previous post. The post below implies you knew what his dismissal paperwork said.
Click to expand...

It can be safely assumed that, if his paperwork stated the reason as bringing his phone into a restricted area, that he would not have voluntarily stated in an interview that he was guilty of such, or his lawsuit would automatically have no foundation and would be thrown out. You have to look beyond just the fact that he took his cell phone into a restricted area and have answers to some of the questions I have pointed out.
 
netrox said:
I would side with the military if he was discharged for activities not relating to sexual orientation. If he played the gay card then he is a disgrace to the gay cause.

I talked to a gay guy who claimed he was fired from the bank for being gay but my gay friends said it wasn't true and that he had a history of troubles with the bank including extending large loans to personal friends.

However, military has a long history of discharging people soley for homosexuality. That's why we got San Franscico... the military dumped gays there and it became the gay capital.

But as far as I understand, there's nothing that states he was discharged for breaking a rule - he said he was not supposed to bring it.. did he give it to his superiors?



Let's see what the military has to say.
Click to expand...

Right. And that raises all sorts of questions.
 
netrox said:
I would side with the military if he was discharged for activities not relating to sexual orientation. If he played the gay card then he is a disgrace to the gay cause.

I talked to a gay guy who claimed he was fired from the bank for being gay but my gay friends said it wasn't true and that he had a history of troubles with the bank including extending large loans to personal friends.

However, military has a long history of discharging people soley for homosexuality. That's why we got San Franscico... the military dumped gays there and it became the gay capital.

But as far as I understand, there's nothing that states he was discharged for breaking a rule - he said he was not supposed to bring it.. did he give it to his superiors?

Let's see what the military has to say.
Click to expand...

Post #18 and Post #46

You forget that Defense Secretary Gates was very explicit and detailed about new changes in rules regarding DADT which would protects Jarod Mcintosh in this case.

Defense.gov News Article: Pentagon Changes
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2010 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today announced changes to the Pentagon’s regulation on homosexuals serving in the military that he said make the Defense Department’s enforcement of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law “fairer and more appropriate.”

The changes include:

-- Only a general or flag officer may separate an enlisted member believed at the conclusion of an investigation to have engaged in homosexual conduct. Under previous policy, a colonel -- or for a captain in the Navy and Coast Guard – could order separation.

-- A revision in what’s needed to begin an inquiry or a separation proceeding. Information provided by a third party now must be given under oath, “discouraging the use of overheard statements and hearsay,” Gates said.

-- Certain categories of confidential information -- such as information provided to lawyers, clergy and psychotherapists -- no longer will be used in support of discharges. Information provided to medical personnel in furtherance of treatment, or to a public-health official in the course of seeing professional assistance for domestic or physical abuse also is excluded, as well as information obtained in the process of security-clearance investigations, in accordance with existing Pentagon policies.
Click to expand...
 
Oh my boy, this sailor should stop use gay as excuse for discharge. :roll:

I agree with anyone say about bring cellphone to submarine is threat to other military personnels serve in Navy.
 
It is just like someone use deaf as excuse for reason to being fired but they are fired for being too lazy, being late to work or break any of company policies that aren't related to deaf.
 
Back
Top