Discharged DADT Cadet escorts Lady Gaga to VMA's in INDIA WHITES

Status
Not open for further replies.
After sitting in a discussion about DADT with Lt. Gen. Ham, I would not put too much stock in people being reinstated who were separated due to DADT. I also would not put much stock in the idea that DADT will immediate go "into effect" as soon as the bill is passed and signed.
 
America's Finest said:
Many cadets resign and come back. I know of a few who left for a religious trip they would not be able to take once they commissioned and were readmitted. Not all are religious reasons either. I know of one who left because she wasn't sure she could make the commitment. She went home just before commitment, worked for a year and realized it really was what she wanted. She is now on her last year at the academy.

As long as you are in good standing when you leave, it's possible to come back since you come back where you left off so they won't have to spend more money on you and the two years they already spent on you aren't wasted. I consider 9th in the class good standing.

I'm not saying I disagree with you (because I don't) but I do disagree that her resigning would be the reason she doesn't get readmitted. The things she did/does after resigning, however, are a completely different story.
Click to expand...
Those that leave for:

1. Religious Missions
2. Academic "stop out"

Do so at the "discretion of the service." I've worked with quite a few cadets that did this over the past, oh, 20+ years. And you're correct, they're normally re-admitted with pleasure (after they obtain a congressional nomination to return, as required by law).

She didn't take that route; she simply resigned her appointment. There was no "reason for return" like the previous situations. I can see no reason she'd be admitted.

just my opinion...

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Steve, you are so right. There are different ways to leave. She basically resigned. While it is possible for her to come back, I find it quite unlikely.

Also, #9 in a class doesn't necessarily mean "In good standing". Remember how many 4.0gpa types never even received an appointment. There's a lot more to an individual that their grades or class standing because of the addition of military studies and physical fitness along with their GPA. If she was allowed back in, a good portion would probably be politically motivated.

LITS: You are also quite correct. Even if they rescinded the policy tomorrow, the military would request, and be granted, a phase in period. Especially considering they have not finished the survey and the pulse of the military members. There are NUMEROUS logistical requirements that would need to be addressed prior to allowing gays to openly serve. I know there are some here that will say B.S. and that they are serving today without the additional logistics in place, but it is still an issue. DADT in it's very nature implores a certain amount of ignorance among all individuals involved. Once that ignorance is removed, and all individuals become aware of everything, personal conflicts and issues WILL ARISE. These will have to be addressed and anticipated to an extent. So I would guess that from the time of rescinding the policy, to a complete and open gay military, would require a phase in of approximately 2-3 years.
 
Christcorp said:
Steve, you are so right. There are different ways to leave. She basically resigned. While it is possible for her to come back, I find it quite unlikely.

Also, #9 in a class doesn't necessarily mean "In good standing". Remember how many 4.0gpa types never even received an appointment. There's a lot more to an individual that their grades or class standing because of the addition of military studies and physical fitness along with their GPA. If she was allowed back in, a good portion would probably be politically motivated.

LITS: You are also quite correct. Even if they rescinded the policy tomorrow, the military would request, and be granted, a phase in period. Especially considering they have not finished the survey and the pulse of the military members. There are NUMEROUS logistical requirements that would need to be addressed prior to allowing gays to openly serve. I know there are some here that will say B.S. and that they are serving today without the additional logistics in place, but it is still an issue. DADT in it's very nature implores a certain amount of ignorance among all individuals involved. Once that ignorance is removed, and all individuals become aware of everything, personal conflicts and issues WILL ARISE. These will have to be addressed and anticipated to an extent. So I would guess that from the time of rescinding the policy, to a complete and open gay military, would require a phase in of approximately 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
I think we have established that her class standing is, in fact, her OOM (or whatever the Woops call it) so it did include her professionalism. Another news release also stated that she basically maxed the PFT.

Regardless of how long it takes to incorporate, the day after it passes the COS of the AF can call his staff together and announce to the world that he is gay and no one can do anything about it. The will no longer be able to discharge or prevent enlistments who are gay from joining.

I am relatively certain that WP reals the dichotomy of honor/integrity and DADT. Of course some with a complete absence of fact will call it politically otivated, but the day after the law is passed, I feel that she will reapply and will be reoinstated.
 
So I would guess that from the time of rescinding the policy, to a complete and open gay military, would require a phase in of approximately 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, but I do think they would immediately offer it to her, and she will say no.

If I am correct she is entering Yale as a JR. If it gets repealed immediately, by the time she could re-apply she would be a SR at Yale. That means, she would have already graduated from Yale when she could start BCT all over again.

Why go through the 4 yr process again? She could just go to OCS and be commissioned AD in a few short weeks/months. This would allow her to be on par with WP grads from a yr group standpoint. Let's be honest, they will let her have the pick of career assignments from a PR standpoint. Her career will not take a hit. It is a win-win for the Army.

I do think it would be a phase in, because there are other issues too, and that goes down to how to handle the bennies for AD. Thus, there will be more firestorms ahead than just her wearing the uniform at the VMA.
 
Pima said:
If I am correct she is entering Yale as a JR. If it gets repealed immediately, by the time she could re-apply she would be a SR at Yale. That means, she would have already graduated from Yale when she could start BCT all over again.

Why go through the 4 yr process again? She could just go to OCS and be commissioned AD in a few short weeks/months. This would allow her to be on par with WP grads from a yr group standpoint. Let's be honest, they will let her have the pick of career assignments from a PR standpoint. Her career will not take a hit. It is a win-win for the Army.
Click to expand...

America's Finest said:
Many cadets resign and come back. I know of a few who left for a religious trip they would not be able to take once they commissioned and were readmitted. Not all are religious reasons either. I know of one who left because she wasn't sure she could make the commitment. She went home just before commitment, worked for a year and realized it really was what she wanted. She is now on her last year at the academy.

As long as you are in good standing when you leave, it's possible to come back since you come back where you left off so they won't have to spend more money on you and the two years they already spent on you aren't wasted. I consider 9th in the class good standing.

I'm not saying I disagree with you (because I don't) but I do disagree that her resigning would be the reason she doesn't get readmitted. The things she did/does after resigning, however, are a completely different story.
Click to expand...

Looks like she left in good standing and therefore would be allowed to return as a Cow since she successfully completed her first two years.
 
Those that leave for:

1. Religious Missions
2. Academic "stop out"

Do so at the "discretion of the service." I've worked with quite a few cadets that did this over the past, oh, 20+ years. And you're correct, they're normally re-admitted with pleasure (after they obtain a congressional nomination to return, as required by law).

She didn't take that route; she simply resigned her appointment. There was no "reason for return" like the previous situations. I can see no reason she'd be admitted.
Click to expand...

She did not leave for these reasons, which if I am correct does not put her at the good standing position to come back as a COW regardless of the gpa.

Again, even returning as a COW, she may decided not to opt for this route because she will be a college grad and decide to go OCS.

I am not even willing to bet they would offer it from a PR position, because that brings up the firestorm of others who left due to DADT. Do they offer it to every cadet? What if they were so-so academically, do they offer it to them? Where is the good standing point exactly from a gpa issue...what if they said that they had academic issues due to the fear of being found out they were gay or being harrassed as Katie Miller stated she was? Does that come into the equation...it is a rational defense. If they don't accept them than they have a PR problem that the Army is still not opening their arms wide enough. It can be a slippery slope if you use good standing as the measuring stick.
 
The sentiments of the review of DADT were that those separated because of DADT would not be brought back in, or receive compensation.
 
At all. And I realize that is a very general statement. The services, for the most part are beginning to "shrink". Many who were subject to DADT actions are not qualified (age, health, etc) to serve. Would we diplace others who are currently going through the process? It would likely cuase more of a mess than it is worth.
 
If this is really about unauthorized wearing of uniforms as some of you claim, you might want to read what the VFW has stated as their opinion for a very similiar situation:

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4075

“We all know that people give up some individual rights when they join the military,” said Kurpius, a Vietnam veteran from Anchorage, Alaska, “but these Marines went to war, did their duty, and were honorably discharged from the active roles. I may disagree with their message, but I will always defend their right to say it,” he said.

“Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we’re trying to instill in Iraq is not what we’re all about,” he said. “Someone in the Marine Corps needs to exercise a little common sense and put an end to this matter before it turns into a circus.”
Click to expand...

OBTW, the regulations of the USMC as to who can wear their uniform having served in a "time of war" is being awarded the National Defense Medal.

Since this is a statement from the leader of 2.4 million real actual live honest-to-goodness veterans, I continue to question all the venom directed solely at Cadet Miller's wearing of the uniform.
 
Last edited:
Apparently it's service to service. For the Coast Guard, retired members (that would be serving 20+ years) are authorized to wear the uniform. By that standard, she would not be authorized to wear it. I say that knowing full well she is not a Coast Guardsman.

[edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mongo said:
If this is really about unauthorized wearing of uniforms as some of you claim, you might want to read what the VFW has stated as their opinion for a very similiar situation:

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4075



OBTW, the regulations of the USMC as to who can wear their uniform having served in a "time of war" is being awarded the National Defense Medal.

Since this is a statement from the leader of 2.4 million real actual live honest-to-goodness veterans, I continue to question all the venom directed solely at Cadet Miller's wearing of the uniform.
Click to expand...

I don't see what there is to question. What other motive may be behind it? The only reason she is the focus is because we concentrate on service academy matters since most of the people posting on this thread have a connection to one.

OBTW, this has been quite a topic around here and I have yet to meet a single cadet who doesn't resent her (or just doesn't care) for this action. The people who knew her personally seem especially disturbed by her since "everyone knew she was gay" yet she claimed having such a secret life.
 
Last edited:
So....was this her idea.....or is she being used? Is she someone else's banner to wave?
 
America's Finest said:
I don't see what there is to question. What other motive may be behind it? The only reason she is the focus is because we concentrate on service academy matters since most of the people posting on this thread have a connection to one.
Click to expand...

I am hesitant to join the group around here who are all too quick to tell people what they think. There are many reasons. One of the most prevalent might be that there are those who think that, even though DADT is not perfect, that it does keep many gays out of the military. If it were repealed, the percentages of gays would definitely increase. Who would spend 19 years in the military as the AF fighter pilot did, only to be outed just prior to retirement by someone who read his emails? Therefore, these hypothetical individuals would be upset with any effort to repeal the act.

I am just shocked at the amount of venom in the attacks. Every public military gathering, including political events, includes the long haired bearded dirty 'veterans' in their rag tag 'uniforms' wearing their medals and badges both earned and wished for. Cadet Miller, to me, is much more respectful of the uniform than these individuals. But I suppose the shock for me wore off the day I returned from my first tour in Vietnam and turned on the TV.

America's Finest said:
The people who knew her personally seem especially disturbed by her since "everyone knew she was gay" yet she claimed having such a secret life.
Click to expand...
So, are you agreeing that it is impossible to hide the fact that one is gay and that DADT is totally unworkable? Or are you implying that she should have been more capable in lying and deceiving in order to maintain her "secret life"?
 
If you go to the SLDN.org website, it is filled with pictures of her. She personally met Lady Gaga through the SLDN, at one of her concerts. She admits that she spoke to her at length, and Lady Gaga introduced all 4 of them as her friends from the SLDN. So, I think wearing the uniform was a joint decision between all of them.

As for her leaving, I do agree with American, because many cadets have come out and stated she never hid the fact that she was gay. This is also why many cadets are upset with her. They felt that it was a betrayal for her to turn around and say she was harassed for being gay and that she could not tolerate it anymore.

Honestly, she is in a pickle if they do reverse DADT in 2 yrs because if she doesn't take a commission than people will say it was never about DADT, it was about finding a way out of her commitment to the Army. Time will tell.
 
She's wearing the uniform as a means to an end. More than welcome to, I'm not a West Point cadet, never was, never will be. The Army and West Point are welcome to take exception.

In my opinion, she's wearing the uniform as a statement, not as a point of pride, not because she proudly served her country. Her service amounted to using tax payerdollars for a good education (I'm assuming she wasn't prior service).

Is she wearing the uniform correctly. I think so, it looks like a nice uniform....the question is WHY is she wearing it?
 
Well, if you accept Lady Gaga's position that she invited her friends from the SLDN.org to accompany her that night and highlight the injustices of DADT, it is pretty clear why she is wearing it.

She was wearing it to make a statement.
 
This whole "Lying and Deceiving" is a crock. You're trying to argue why you believe DADT isn't a good policy. That is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that DADT is a current policy; there is NO PROOF or even accusations that she was being badgered into proving her sexuality; and according to her fellow cadets, it appears that she openly told individuals that she was gay, instead of keeping it a private matter like the policy was designed to do. She failed to live up to DOD DADT policies. Not the military; not the academy; and not her fellow cadets. And NO, she did not have to lie or deceive. The only way that would have been necessary, would have been if the military, academy, or other cadets had been questioning her about her sexuality. And she has not accused anyone of this. Only about how it made her feel. Well obviously, it didn't make her feel too bad. Apparently she told a lot of people she was gay. I've said from the beginning, and I stand by it; this ex-cadet is simply an opportunist. Why; I won't speculate. But everything from HOW she left the academy, to publicly standing on stage with lady Gag Gag, and wearing her uniform in a manner that displays that she honorably served (Which is still out to the jury, because most people don't believe she honorably did anything other than be a student); all points to this ex-cadet simply wanting to make political statements and promote her own agendas.
 
Mongo said:
I am hesitant to join the group around here who are all too quick to tell people what they think. There are many reasons. One of the most prevalent might be that there are those who think that, even though DADT is not perfect, that it does keep many gays out of the military. If it were repealed, the percentages of gays would definitely increase. Who would spend 19 years in the military as the AF fighter pilot did, only to be outed just prior to retirement by someone who read his emails? Therefore, these hypothetical individuals would be upset with any effort to repeal the act.

I am just shocked at the amount of venom in the attacks. Every public military gathering, including political events, includes the long haired bearded dirty 'veterans' in their rag tag 'uniforms' wearing their medals and badges both earned and wished for. Cadet Miller, to me, is much more respectful of the uniform than these individuals. But I suppose the shock for me wore off the day I returned from my first tour in Vietnam and turned on the TV.

So, are you agreeing that it is impossible to hide the fact that one is gay and that DADT is totally unworkable? Or are you implying that she should have been more capable in lying and deceiving in order to maintain her "secret life"?
Click to expand...

If that were the opinion of anyone here, why are they only focusing on her? It seems to me that if someone disliked homosexuals in the military in general then they would speak out against ALL and not just her.

I wasn't implying she should have been more capable of hiding it. I was pointing out an inconsistency in her story (she says she had to live a lie while everyone else says that she didn't live a lie since they all knew she was gay). Her alleged "secret life" didn't exist yet she keeps claiming it which has led many to believe she simply wants attention.

I already agreed that DADT isn't going to work and it is only a matter of time before it is repealed or changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top