West Point rejects Cadet who resigned under DADT

[LineInTheSand]

The bottom line - West Point loses an outstanding cadet, one who was excelling academically, militarily, and physically (ranked 9th in the class) due to a policy that has been (theoretically) eliminated but not yet implemented.

It's ok, I'm sure they'll find someone else they can rank 9th.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Another thread full of speculation and judgement and even some made up 'facts'. Oh I love these forums!

From Today's Times-Herald Record:

"While the don't ask, don't tell policy was recently changed and will be repealed, the effective date has not yet been determined," Lt. Col. Sherri Reed, the director of public affairs at West Point, said in a statement. "Due to this situation, West Point is unable to offer (Katie Miller) readmission as current DADT policies remain in effect."
Miller told the Times Herald-Record that she won't try again to re-enter West Point. She'll graduate from Yale next year and attempt to enter the military through officer candidate school.
"I've made it a commitment of mine to bridge these two communities," Miller said of gays and the military. "I have every intention of returning to the military."
Miller's resignation from West Point boosted the debate over DADT last summer. She left the academy because she said she could no longer live as a closeted lesbian.
Federal lawmakers repealed the ban on Dec. 22. Before the repeal becomes law, every member of the military must receive a briefing on the new rules and top military officials must certify the process. Certification is expected in May. The repeal takes effect 60 days after certification.

I think this is a thoughtful and mature plan on her part.
She will be interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight on MSNBC.

Call it a publicity stunt but much social change has been effected by 'publicity stunts'.

 

[Christcorp]

You are correct JAM. There is a lot of speculation. Based off of your last quote from the "Times Herald" here is "MY SPECULATION". Just me personally.

2 Facts that I would bet my annual salary on:

1: Katie Miller knows the appointment application process pretty well. She went through it before, and she was a cadet for 2 years. So, she knows when you CAN and CAN'T apply to the academies.
2: She's been following this issue in the news, and knows quite well that the policy of eliminating DADT has not been officially implemented yet.

In the Times Herald story, she specifically says that she WON'T reapply next year to the academy; that she will graduate; and try to enter the military via OTS. "Personally, this is a very smart move. Why would anyone want to go through 2 more years of college when you've already finished your degree"? However; there are some that had a 4 year degree and STILL applied to the academy, so I guess anything is possible. Anyway; if I was her, I would be doing exactly what she's doing. Finish yale and apply via OTS.

SPECULATION: Being she knew everything above, she knew very well that there was a slim to zero chance of her getting accepted back in the academy during this current cycle, being the DADT policy hasn't been rescinded yet. And because she KNEW this, she could "Apply" to West Point knowing she wouldn't get accepted. This shows the world: "I TRIED TO GET BACK IN". When in reality, she probably had no intention of going back to west point. She had 2 years down, and transferred to Yale. Knowing the military, she knew nothing happens over night. She'll have her 4 year degree completed by the time DADT is repealed completely.

BUT; her motives would have been questioned even more if she DIDN'T REAPPLY. Her #1 argument to the press and the military, was that if the policy didn't exist, she'd stay or re-apply. If she didn't reapply, many people would have questioned that. So; she reapplies; knowing quite well that they'll say no at this time. But it makes it look good.

Yes, it's speculation. Then again, I've ALWAYS questioned her motives. While I don't buy that she didn't know the policy prior to applying to the academy the first time, she definitely knew the policy once she got to the academy. I have a difficult time believing that it took exactly 2 years; DAYS SHY OF COMMITMENT; for her to realize she couldn't live under the existing policies. Why didn't she quit 6 months, 1 year, after 3rd semester, etc...? But that's a different topic. But those questions are what makes me question her motives in reapplying. I hope she can come in under OTS. I'm just glad that she isn't allowed back to the academy, and she doesn't want to reapply next year. Her notoriety among the media would have made her return and presence at West Point very disrupting. She used the media to help future cadets. That's cool. Many people have been working this concern for the last 30+ years. She should be glad that her and the media were able to play a part in the change. But as part of that change, it's best that it's set up for NEW CADETS and NEW ENLISTED members. This way it's all a fresh clean slate.

 

[rkrosnar]

West Point rejects Cadet....

I am in agreement with Jazz00 on this. I think the applicant may be trying to make a statement, here, what type I don't. There are some, that say these folks should be allowed to serve. Well, being a taxpayer DADT should not be repealed. In my opinion, they don't even belong to the armed services. I know that they do serve and don't say anything. Which could be worse. I am glad she was rejected, she left West Point because she could not be herself, and who knows what she will do next. This is whole thing could become a big problem, I hope not.

RGK

 

[hornetguy]

She actually could have been applying with the hopes of admission. The date, when she started reapplying, for the official repeal was still undetermined and some speculation at the time had suggested that signing was possible by the end of May with activation 60 days thereafter. The date has been pushed (last I saw) till June or July which would make re-entry in August impossible technically. So, she probably did want to get in and maybe hoped the signing would occur earlier. Either way, what happened made it infeasible this year and WP acknowledges that.

 

[Pima]

I agree with CC.

She is very aware of DADT at this point. She is involved with groups working to repeal DADT. It was not as if she had not a clue that the window was still shut.

As others have stated, to get an appointment you need an MOC. My curiosity is peaked, I would like to know if she had a nom source, and if so who gave it?

The reason I am curious about the source is because I feel bad for any candidate that didn't get that 1 nom slot in place of her. The MOC nom process is not a day or two, or even a week, files close usually in Oct. This would be a big risk to give her a nom.

Additionally, if she didn't have a nom, than this should not be considered news worthy since she didn't pass one of the barriers to get an apptmt, which is a nom.

She def. knew that as a person who was previously apptd.

I recall the day the DADT was repealed, and hearing all over the news that the DoD was saying TIME OUT don't start because the policy is still in place, instead wait. You had to be deaf, blind or ignorant not to read/hear that.

I am sorry Hornet, but I can't believe any candidate did not know the DADT policy if they are serious about the military. However, I do agree 18 is still young, and in a society that shuns homosexuality it is very possible and probable that they were still hoping to be heterosexual. I truly believe no homosexual wants to live their life in an uphill battle if they had a choice.

Sexuality IMPO is not a choice.

There are some, that say these folks should be allowed to serve. Well, being a taxpayer DADT should not be repealed. In my opinion, they don't even belong to the armed services.

I have to ask why?

I want it repealed, but I want it done correctly. IMPO, the federal govt needs to acknowledge homosexual unions first and not use the military as social policy guinea pigs.

 

[Luigi59]

....I hope she can come in under OTS. I'm just glad that she isn't allowed back to the academy, and she doesn't want to reapply next year.

So you're OK that she will be serving as an openly gay US Army officer when she accesses through OCS and is commissioned as a 2LT, it's her attending West Point to get that commission that you object to?

Despite the fact that she was in the top 10 of over 1,100 other "normal" cadets?

I have read many times on this forum that "we want the best officers regardless of where they come from," and clearly she was on her way to become one of the best in her class of cadets, after all there were only 8 ahead of her and over 1,000 behind her.

So she is going to graduate from Yale and become an officer through OCS, and probably become just as outstanding of an Army officer as she would have been had she completed the final two years at WP.

To parrot another of the answers we see here often on the forum, the goal is to become a military officer, not to go to the academy. And she has clearly stated her goal is become an Army officer.

Yet some here are still questioning her "motives."

There are easier ways to become an activist for gay issues.

I commend her desire to serve -- she was clearly head and shoulders above 98% of her former classmates -- and wish her the best of luck in her Army career.

 

[Pima]

Heck, I am questioning her motives for re-applying when on the exact day DADT repeal occurred the Pentagon splashed all over the news to the homosexual community don't line up quite yet.

You literally had to be living under a rock to not hear or read that. For someone who wants to serve in the military you would think this would be on their radar.

Now let's also go back to this article. If I am correct the repeal occurred in Dec. As most posters on this site know MOC boards close way before that. Dec 22nd to be exact. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122201888.html. Please note what was stated that day:

The signing does not immediately implement the repeal but instead begins the process of ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

The law will not actually change until the Pentagon certifies to Congress that the military has met several conditions, including education and training programs for the troops.

In other words it was not as if 12-22-10 gays could start serving.

On top of that how did she expect WP to give her an apptmt for 2015 if she didn't have a nom? Noms close 1-31. Files close a month later. Pretty short window to get the DodMERB (she would be out of her old one since it is over 2 yrs), due a CFA and get recs.

If she didn't have a nom, rec DodMERB and CFA, than would you not agree this issue is null and void for all purposes, except to gain media attention?

She is not a kid who has no experience or interaction with the military and can claim ignorance.

Will she be a great leader because she was top 10 out of 1100? I don't know! Just because at the SA you rank at the top does not equate to real world AD...Colin Powell ring a bell? Trust me there are crappy leaders who were the DGs.

 

[MemberLG]

I know many West Point graduates that were highly ranked as cadets, but were bad officers.

A service academy graduate's performance as a cadet/midshipman is a good indicator of his or performance as an officer, but not always the case.

 

[Christcorp]

Luigi:

1st: Stop the TOP-10 stuff. I'm not impressed. Not when it comes to "Principles". She could have been #1 or #1124. I would feel EXACTLY the same.

2nd: If the repeal of DADT happened today, I would have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with anyone openly gay applying to and ATTENDING the academies. None at all.

3rd: I had/have/will have a problem with just THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL. She PLAYED the system. The system that she knew quite well. If she had gotten out after the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd semester, I wouldn't have had any problem. Not days prior to "Commitment". If she hadn't gone to the media and turned this into a "Political Cause", I wouldn't have had any problem. But that's not how she handled herself.

Now; once DADT is no longer an issue, I would have no problem with her entering OTS/OCS and becoming an officer. I just think it would create resentment and too much of a distraction in the school and with the media, if she was to come back to West Point. That's also a slap in the face of ALL current/past cadets and the military. "You don't have to respect or follow the rules if you don't like. Just whine loud enough and be a minority, "Gays are classified as minorities", and you can have the media fight your battles.

No; I don't have ANY PROBLEMS with any of the other gays who left the academy, and might want to come back in. It's really simple. I ONLY have a problem with THIS DISRESPECTFUL INDIVIDUAL.

Now I've stated my position on this many times before. If you can't comprehend, and are going to continue asking the same "Leading" questions over and over again, I suggest instead that you go back and read the other threads.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .

Yet some here are still questioning her "motives."

. . .
.

It is reasonable to assume that there were many good homosexual officers that hid their sexual orientation to serve in the military. I like to think that they hid heir sexual orientation because serving their country was more important.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Another thread full of speculation and judgement and even some made up 'facts'. Oh I love these forums!

From Today's Times-Herald Record:


I think this is a thoughtful and mature plan on her part.
She will be interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight on MSNBC.

Call it a publicity stunt but much social change has been effected by 'publicity stunts'.

Ah yes, I'm sure Rachel Maddow will get to the bottom of it....that's what I like about her....objectivity....

 

[bruno]

Folks- a word to the wise on posting on this (or any other thread): it's not personal. If it is- it should be private. Although you may not like the other opinion- you should understand that your opinion is not gospel regardless of what side of the equation you come down on, and there is a valid counterpoint to be made and respected.
Please keep this within bounds and respectful of each other.

 

[Pima]

It is everyone's right to believe what they want, but you shouldn't warp it to fight your fight on an issue.

If Katherine Miller got an MOC nom from OH (her home state), that is one thing. If she had no nom., as posters on this site you know better. You know it is a no go, and it is not a matter of homosexuality; to warp it into a homosexual argument is wrong.

Katherine Miller knows the system, she knew she needed a nom to enter as a member of 2015. I have to say I suspect she did not have a nom since Obama did not sign this repeal until Dec 22nd. I don't know any MOC that has a cut off date at this point. G forbid OH constituents if the MOCs could not figure out from her academic resume that she was the same Katherine Miller that left WP. I also feel for any OH constituent that their own child loss the coveted nom to USMA for her.

I highly doubt she had a nom. To me that says it all regarding this being a publicity stunt.

JMPO.

Finally let's remember the code of the military SERVICE BEFORE SELF. If she just throw in a packet with no nom, can you honestly say she put the service first or did she put her beliefs first?

I support homosexuals. I am a woman, but IMPO she is coming close to being the Shannon Faulkner of the 21st century. She did more harm to women than any good because of her actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Faulkner

Katherine Miller should take a page from Jeannie Flynn. http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5869.

X POSTED WITH BRUNO

 

[MemberLG]

. . .

If Katherine Miller got an MOC nom from OH (her home state), that is one thing. If she had no nom., as posters on this site you know better. You know it is a no go, and it is not a matter of homosexuality; to warp it into a homosexual argument is wrong.

. . .

If we only had an unethical MALO (DISCLAIMER - I am not asking for it) with access to Miller's candidate file, this point will be clarified. The admissions database, if a candidate received a nomination it shows.

Now, I even wondering if Miller re-opened her candidate file? Goes back to the time line as if she was really reapplying (not just wanting make a statement), she would had had to reapplied within sevearl months of her separation.

It is pretty clear to me that reapplicants have to apply like they are applying to for the first time, but some reapplicants I worked with didn't know that.

 

[Pima]

She is not a re-applicant in the traditional sense. She DOR'd. Her college resume will be included, thus, it should be a blaring signal to anyone she attended WP.

Shame on them if they don't ask the follow on question: I see you left USMA, can you explain why? She can lie, shade the truth or be honest. Again this comes down to the inner workings of the MOC process.

If an MOC still puts her up when she states I am homosexual, than shame on them! To this day DADT is still in place. To give her one of those coveted noms of 10, IMPO they placed their POV over their constituents and law.

If she hoodwinks the MOC by lieing or shading the truth, can you honestly defend her from a military POV?

 

[Christcorp]

She is not a re-applicant in the traditional sense. She DOR'd. Her college resume will be included, thus, it should be a blaring signal to anyone she attended WP.

Shame on them if they don't ask the follow on question: I see you left USMA, can you explain why? She can lie, shade the truth or be honest. Again this comes down to the inner workings of the MOC process.

If an MOC still puts her up when she states I am homosexual, than shame on them! To this day DADT is still in place. To give her one of those coveted noms of 10, IMPO they placed their POV over their constituents and law.

If she hoodwinks the MOC by lieing or shading the truth, can you honestly defend her from a military POV?

Pima; have to say something little sister. Some say I like to play "Devil's Advocate". Some think I'm just "The Devil". But if DADT is still "TECHNICALLY IN FORCE". then no ALO/MALO/BGO or MOC would ASK such a question of a candidate. Therefor, unless Miller specifically told the MALO or MOC that she was a homosexual, they'd have no reason to even mention it.

As for having a MOC nomination, that isn't necessarily needed. HMMMMM!!! What ya talking about Willis??? She could have reapplied without a MOC nomination. The superintendent of the academy is allowed "X" amount of slots/nomination. A person doesn't have to have a MOC nomination. Could be a presidential, a VP, or even one of the rare slots by the academy superintendent. Not saying she got this. Matter of fact, chances are that the main reason she didn't get a new appointment, is because she didn't get a nomination. The MOC's will say that she applied too late. The academy won't admit that "THEY" could have given her one without the MOC. Especially considering that the academies are over populated anyway.

I think the real reason she did NOT get a new appointment, is because she OPENLY admitted to being gay. And in TODAY's military; April 28, 2011; the military is a DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL organization. If you say you're Gay.... you're NOT ALLOWED in the military. She already SAID that she's gay. She's NOT ALLOWED IN THE ACADEMY. This isn't rocket science. Neither the academy, public affairs, Army, Secretary of the Army, JCS, Secretary of Defense, or the president of the united states.... can ALLOW HER to enter the academy TODAY!!! Federal law says if you're openly gay, they won't allow you in. Maybe tomorrow; maybe in a week, month, or year. BUT NOT TODAY!!!

 

[hornetguy]

Pima; have to say something little sister. Some say I like to play "Devil's Advocate". Some think I'm just "The Devil". But if DADT is still "TECHNICALLY IN FORCE". then no ALO/MALO/BGO or MOC would ASK such a question of a candidate. Therefor, unless Miller specifically told the MALO or MOC that she was a homosexual, they'd have no reason to even mention it.

As for having a MOC nomination, that isn't necessarily needed. HMMMMM!!! What ya talking about Willis??? She could have reapplied without a MOC nomination. The superintendent of the academy is allowed "X" amount of slots/nomination. A person doesn't have to have a MOC nomination. Could be a presidential, a VP, or even one of the rare slots by the academy superintendent. Not saying she got this. Matter of fact, chances are that the main reason she didn't get a new appointment, is because she didn't get a nomination. The MOC's will say that she applied too late. The academy won't admit that "THEY" could have given her one without the MOC. Especially considering that the academies are over populated anyway.

I think the real reason she did NOT get a new appointment, is because she OPENLY admitted to being gay. And in TODAY's military; April 28, 2011; the military is a DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL organization. If you say you're Gay.... you're NOT ALLOWED in the military. She already SAID that she's gay. She's NOT ALLOWED IN THE ACADEMY. This isn't rocket science. Neither the academy, public affairs, Army, Secretary of the Army, JCS, Secretary of Defense, or the president of the united states.... can ALLOW HER to enter the academy TODAY!!! Federal law says if you're openly gay, they won't allow you in. Maybe tomorrow; maybe in a week, month, or year. BUT NOT TODAY!!!

Got to love it, it is indeed as simple as that. The timing COULD be because they've settled on a signing/repeal date that would not allow legal re-entry this year. It would have been possible to admit had they known repeal would be in effect when she entered, but that is not the case now. Regardless, any other speculation aside, no matter the answer this one trumps all.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

It is reasonable to assume that there were many good homosexual officers that hid their sexual orientation to serve in the military. I like to think that they hid heir sexual orientation because serving their country was more important.

Food for thought:

What, if anything would you hide in order to be able to serve? If the Army said they would only take blue eyed blonds would you have worn blue contacts and dyed your hair blonde?
If so, for how long before you felt some resentment for having to disguise certain attributes about yourself that have no bearing on your abilities to perform as a soldier?

 

[LineInTheSand]

Food for thought:

What, if anything would you hide in order to be able to serve? If the Army said they would only take blue eyed blonds would you have worn blue contacts and dyed your hair blonde?
If so, for how long before you felt some resentment for having to disguise certain attributes about yourself that have no bearing on your abilities to perform as a soldier?

That scenario isn't very believable.

I think everyone here knows that the Army would of course waive the blue eye and blonde hair requirement, just like they've waived everything else these days.