Exactly correct Knight. They didn't waste any money. They wasted time training her, but not a dime.
Emsa, we understand you support homosexuals serving openly in the military, but I think you are confusing your personal belief with this case. The fact is most of the posters on this board agree with the removal of this policy, yet they support the military even more. Currently that is the policy, end of subject, period, dot. She understood this policy when she accepted her scholarship. Nobody said she could not be a lesbian, they stated that she just could not serve openly as a homosexual.
Col. Isaacson must have been aware of her position regarding DADT, because in the article he stated he would not ask her of her orientation AND she should not tell. That was his warning shot across the bow. He gave her the option to stay and not have her scholarship revoked. I am sure if they discussed DADT he probably made her well aware of what the consequences would be if she did tell. It shouldn't have shocked or surprised her when he announced his recommendation to the higher command. She tied his hands the minute she said she was gay.
A regulation exists for good order and morale. Commanders do not have the right to pick and choose which one to follow, nor does any enlisted member. They are just following the regs.
Should she not fall in love with a women? No. She should fall in love with whoever her heart is drawn to. The difference for her compared to other homosexual military members is that for them they love the military more.
I agree with others who believe the timing is suspicious because everyone knows that the policy is being currently reviewed, and the majority of people believe it will be overturned so homosexuals will serve openly. Most believe it will be done in a yr or so. However, because of her scholarship committment if it was overturned even in October, she would have 5 yrs to serve. So why didn't she wait it out? Could it be she never wanted to serve at all?