FACT SHEET HISTORY OF THE BAN ON GAY PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY ASSUMPTIONS An examination of the historical development of the military's policy excluding gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from the armed services reveals that, contrary to common belief, gay people have not always been explicitly and automatically excluded from the armed forces. Nor has the policy been universally accepted within the military. BEGINNINGS The current Department of Defense policy excluding gay people from service first appeared during World War II. Prior to World War II, the military neither officially excluded nor discharged homosexual persons. Instead, the military targeted the specific act of sodomy, which was treated as a criminal offense. Any servicemember convicted of sodomy, whether homosexual or not, could be sent to prison. The rationale for excluding homosexual persons from service was developed when the draft was reinstituted in 1940 as part of the country's mobilization for war. Members of the American Psychiatric Association's Military Mobilization Committee convinced the Selective Service System that psychiatry could play an important part in screening out potential draftees who would be mentally unfit for service. Although initial drafts did not identify homosexuals as necessarily "unfit" recruits, subsequent revisions did include "homosexual proclivities" on the list of disqualifying "deviations." This paradigm was based on the belief (since rejected by the psychiatric (1973), psychological (1975) and social work (1988) professions), that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Formal regulations in 1942 listed homosexuality as an excludable characteristic. (Longenecker, 1992; American Psychological Association, 1991; Rubenstein, 1991; Berube, 1990). PRACTICE In practice, the military's exclusion policy proved difficult to implement. Screening efforts were notoriously unsuccessful. As a result, gay men and women served in nearly every capacity during WWII. Those suspected or charged with homosexual attempts or acts could, however, be discharged without honor because of their "excludable" characteristic. As the expanding war effort increasingly necessitated the use of all available personnel, the military found it necessary to make provisions for temporarily utilizing gay men and women in situations that served the war effort. (Berube, 1990; D'Emilio, 1983). When the need for recruits began to diminish at the war's end, antihomosexual policies were enforced with increasing vigilance. The War Department continued to tighten its policy regarding homosexuals through the late forties and early fifties, in response to Congressional assertions that homosexuals posed security risks equal to, or greater than, communists. During this time, the provisions for retaining homosexuals or separating them with an honorable discharge were deleted and homosexuals were instead tried by court-martial or separated as unfit with an undesirable discharge. (Davis, 1991; Berube, 1990). CHANGES OVER TIME Military regulations were modified again in 1955, and following the Korean War era, to allow those individuals who were not "confirmed" homosexuals or who had not yet participated in homosexual acts to remain in service. (Army Reg. 635-89, 21 Jan. 1955). With the build up of forces in Vietnam, the military further relaxed its policies regarding homosexuals. During this conflict, some enlistees who openly admitted their homosexuality were nevertheless retained and sent to fight. One example is Perry Watkins, who was inducted into the Army in 1967 after candidly admitting on the pre- induction medical screening form that he had homosexual tendencies. Watkins' commanders subsequently reenlisted him three times over the course of his exemplary fourteen- year career until, in 1981, they were forced to discharge him when the current strict policy was implemented. Before discharging Staff Sergeant Watkins, his commander praised him as "one of our most trusted and respected [noncommissioned officers]." Army commanders had been able to retain Watkins, despite his open homosexuality, because of a change in Army regulations in 1970. Under this change, the homosexuality regulation was integrated into general regulations governing various types of enlisted unfitness and unsuitability discharges. (Chapters 14 and 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.) These regulations gave commanders discretion to retain servicemembers, including homosexuals, for the good of the service. The Army's litigation posture prior to 1977 confirmed that retention of homosexuals was discretionary. (DAJA-AL 1978/4168, 2 Jan. 1979). The Air Force and Navy adopted similar practices allowing some open homosexuals to serve. The Navy argued in litigation in 1974 that the services' official policy of discharging homosexuals did not require mandatory discharge. (Berg v. Claytor) Navy pilot Jim Woodward was one of those encouraged to serve during this time, notwithstanding his openly stated sexual orientation. (Wooodward v. United States). Meanwhile, the Air Force stipulated during litigation that its regulations expressly allowed gay servicemembers to serve under certain circumstances and that it had retained homosexuals in the past. (Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force). THE 1982 POLICY The military's policy was changed again in 1982. In contrast to previous policies, DOD Directives 1332.14 and 1332.30 mandate discharge for gay servicemembers. (See CMS Briefing Book, at Tab 2.) For the first time, the new policy targeted individuals, rather than conduct. People who state they are gay, people who engage in private gay conduct, and people who simply state they desire to engage gay conduct are all subject to mandatory discharges-- despite exemplary service records. By contrast, military personnel who are found to have engaged in homosexual behavior, but who deny they are gay, can be retained if they argue convincingly that their gay behavior was an isolated event. The military's 1982 policy targets those who acknowledge their gay status and their gay conduct, rather than those who remain closeted and secretive. While military leaders concede that their ranks include lesbians and gay men who remain in the closet (Moskos, 1992; House Budget Committee Hearing, 1992), a conclusion supported by empirical research (Sarbin & Karols, 1988; Harry, 1984; Williams & Weinberg, 1971), the current strict, mandatory discharge policy operates to prevent these individuals from openly acknowledging their status and conduct. Despite the official strict policy, it appears the military once again relaxed enforcement of the ban during the Gulf War. At least fourteen gay and lesbian reservists across the country were cleared by their commanders to serve in the Gulf after stating their sexual orientation. (See, e.g. Wade Lambert, "Gay GIs Told to Serve Now, Face Discharge Later", Wall Street J., Jan. 24, 1991, at B1.) No protection was assured such individuals against discharge in the future. Dr. Lawrence Korb, the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Ronald Reagan, was the official in charge of implementing the policy. Dr. Korb now strongly opposes retention of the ban. As Dr. Korb testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 31, 1993: . . . based upon my own military service, policy research and Pentagon experience, I find no convincing evidence that changing the current policy would undermine unit cohesion, any more than the other social changes that society has asked the armed forces to make over the past 50 years. HISTORY OF THE BAN: REFERENCES American Psychological Association, (1991). "Excluding Persons of Homosexual Orientation from U.S. Military Service," Response to An Inquiry from the General Accounting Office. Berube, Allan (1990). Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II. Berube, Allan (1989). "Marching to a Different Drummer: Lesbian and Gay GIs in World War II," in Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past (Martin Duberman, et al., ed.) Davis, Jeffrey (MAJ) (1991). "Military Policy Toward Homosexuals: Scientific, Historical, and Legal Perspectives", Military Law Review, 131, 72-79. D'Emilio, John (1983). Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970. Harry, J. (1884). "Homosexual Men and Women Who Served Their Country", Journal of Homosexuality, 10 (1/2), 117-125. Herek, Gregory (1992). "Sexual Orientation and Military Service: A Social Science Perspective", University of California at Davis, 2-4. Longenecker, Vickie (COL) (1992). "Facts or Fear From the Foxhole", Individual Study Project, U.S. Army War College, 15-18. Rubenstein, William (1991). "Challenging the Military's Antilesbian and Antigay Policy", 1 Law and Sexuality 239- 265. Sarbin, Theodore & Karols, K.E. (1988). "Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability". Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center. Williams, C.J. & Weinberg, M.S. (1971). Homosexuals and the Military: A Study of Less Than Honorable Discharge. HISTORY OF THE BAN: LEGAL CASES Watkins v. United States Army, 837 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1988), withdrawn on reh'g, Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989)(en banc), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 384 (1990). Berg v. Claytor, 591 F.2d 849 (D.C. Cir. 1978.) Wooodward v. United States, 871 F.2d 1068, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1295 (1990). Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force, 591 F.2d 852 (D.C. Cir 1978). * * * * Prepared by the Legal/Policy Department of the Campaign for Military Service. 2707 Massachussetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009. (202) 265-6666.