The+Don't+Ask,+Don't+Tell+Policy

Since the issue was first acknowledged in 1942, the presence of homosexuals in the military has long been a debated issue. Over the years since World War II, numerous efforts have been made from both sides of the argument to either ban gay Americans from serving in the military or, on the other spectrum, integrate them fully without any restrictions. In 1993, it appeared to many the issue would finally be resolved by President Bill Clinton’s policy commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Harass, Don’t Pursue,” which would allow homosexuals to serve in the military provided they did not make known their sexual preference and did not act on them. However, this did little to solve the issue of harassment of suspected gay or bisexual individuals in the military, and repression of homosexual service men and women continues to this day, including documented cases of higher ranking officers physically harming gay servicemen. A December, 2003, Gallup poll registered 79% of US adults (including 68% of self-described conservatives) in favor of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly (Source 13: Herek). While a large majority of Americans believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve, the American government has yet to make any permanent revisions to this policy. Before World War II, homosexuals were not recognized by the military. While sodomy was considered a criminal offense since the beginning of America, actions were not specifically taken to forbid homosexuals from serving. However, in 1942, for the first time regulations were enacted to distinguish between "normal" people and homosexuals and prevent gays from serving except in times of absolute necessity, and granting officials the authority to dismiss known homosexuals. This was due to the belief that gays were inadequate as soldiers. Over the course of the Korean War, regulations loosened, and the average annual discharge of homosexual soldiers dropped from 1100 to 483. However, after the signing of the Armistice and troops were no longer needed in such high quantities, the number of homosexual discharges jumped again to above 1353 (Source 13: Herek). During the Vietnam War, many reluctant draftees, including most famously guitarist Jimi Hendrix, took advantage of these regulations by falsely claiming themselves as homosexuals to dodge military service. Whenever this was discovered by the Department of Defense, restrictions were revised to place self-proclaimed homosexuals into separate, segregated Basic Training units to make up for the lack of troops. After Basic Training, these soldiers were tagged as homosexuals to ensure these men did not "disrupt morale or enjoy lesser duty because their participation in group work was often harmful to morale" (Source 3: "Survey..."). As the war expanded, restrictions loosened, and more and more homosexual men and women were able to enter the military unnoticed. Throughout this time, civil rights movements for gay and lesbian groups began. One aspect of American life protested by the movement was the discrimination of homosexuals in the military, led by Leonard Matlovich. While efforts to reform the treatment of homosexuals in the military were largely unsuccessful, they highlighted the public discontent with current policy. In 1981, the Department of Defense created a new policy which declared homosexuals unfit for military combat, and as a result nearly 17,000 troops were discharged throughout the 1980s. In 1992, legislation to reform and overturn the removal of gays from the military was introduced to Congress. The policy was met with opposition from members of government and the public alike, and after heated public debates and Congressional hearings, a compromise was reached. The new "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy was signed into law in 1994. Under the new policy, soldiers would not be asked their sexual orientation during the pre-induction interview. However, if it was revealed at any time during their service that they were indeed a homosexual individual, they would be discharged (Source 13: Herek). Since its passage, over 13500 service members have been fired under this law (Source 9: Herek). However, in times of war, as could be seen in the case of Vietnam, rigid following of the policy is lack (Source 1: "About..."). "The bottom line is some people are using sexual orientation to avoid deployment. So in this case, with the Reserve and Guard forces, if a soldier 'tells,' they still have to go to war and the homosexual issue is postponed until they return to the U.S. and the unit is demobilized" said Kim Waldron, spokesperson at the U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, who acknowledged publicly that the Pentagon was sending openly gay service members into combat in Iraq (Source 7: Chibbaro). The constitutionality was repeatedly challenged in court, first starting in the 1996 //Thomasson v. Perry // under Judge Nickerson. However, this case and most following failed to connect discrimination against homosexuals with the discrimination of other minority groups like African Americans and women, giving homosexuals secondary legal status (Source 2: "Holmes v. ..."). Said Justice Lyle Strom on the issue “Homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability" (Source 17: Thomasson v. Perry). Though the American army was always a segregated institution, efforts were made over the years to reverse this segregation and include minorities. Though nativism was a practiced by many American citizens throughout the 19th and 20th century, these personal prejudices stopped short of becoming involved in restrictions from service. “It is not the policy of the United States Army,” wrote Brigadier General Harvey Jervey, “to encourage or permit the formation of distinctive brigades, regiments, battalions or other organizations composed exclusively or primarily of members of any race, creed, political or social group.” This policy worked. According to one distinguished historian, "Many regiments drew on servicemen from every region of the country and from every religion and European nationality. Sometimes together for as long as four years, these units became extraordinary vehicles for melding the many streams of Euro-Americans into one." In 1948, Executive Order 9981 was issued by Harry Truman which "declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." In the years following, the United States army became desegregated by race and ethnicity, and civil rights offices were created by the Department of Defense to protect minorities. To date, homosexuals are the only group in which specific acts have been taken to completely remove them from the military (Source 6: Canaday). A common argument against the policy is the belief that it is based solely upon a discriminatory moral stance against homosexuality. Michigan Senator Carl Levin believes that the primary factor that should be considered when deciding whether or not to allow an American citizen to serve in the military is, "a willingness and ability to perform the mission – not an individual’s sexual orientation." Many researchers and proponents of a repeal of the policy believe that gays and lesbians have the same ability to serve that heterosexuals do. After completing much research on the subject, Gary J. Gates, PhD concluded that, "Demographically speaking, large numbers of gay and lesbian Americans do not look very different from their heterosexual counterparts. Census data show that increasing numbers of gay men and lesbians typify the “American dream” of settling down with a life partner, owning a home, and raising children. This research suggests that the same can be said of military service. Despite formidable obstacles placed in their way, gay and lesbian Americans have and continue to serve their country in the armed forces." (Source 12: Gates) Many opponents of the policy feel that it has failed in it's alleged intention to prevent discrimination in the military based upon sexual orientation. This failure of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was dramatized in 1999 by the murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell at the hands of Pvt. Calvin Glover, a member of his unit. Glover beat Winchell to death with a baseball bat while he slept. Prosecutors argued that Glover murdered Winchell because he was a homosexual and Glover was sentenced to life in prison. Numerous subsequent studies by groups after this incident revealed an ongoing pattern of policy violations and antigay harassment that had been ignored by higher-level officers. (Source 13: Herek) Another common argument against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is the fact that there are 24 nations that allow openly gay service members, including South Africa. Our closest allies allow openly gay service members, including every member of NATO except Turkey. Research shows none of the countries with openly gay service members have been hurt by their non-discrimination policy. (Source 16: Shaughnessy) Air Force Colonel Om Prakash sees this as a large reason why America should allow gay service members. Prakash wrote a research essay on the topic as a student at the National Defense University, and it won the secretary of defense’s national security essay competition. In his essay, looking at the experience of other countries that lifted their bans on gay soldiers, Prakash saw “no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was also no mass ‘coming-out’ of homosexuals. . . . In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops.’’ (Source 14: Jackson) There are numerous other reasons that the majority of Americans are in favor of a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. One of which being that the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service, along with most police and fire departments around the United States, now allow openly gay Americans to serve in their ranks. These non-discrimination policies have not hurt performance, professionalism, or morale. Another common contra of the policy is the fact that the military spends millions of dollars each year investigating "violations" of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. With a huge budget deficit, many believe that this money could be better spent on projects that actually improve national defense. Surprisingly, some of the opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does acknowledge some benefits that have come from the policy. These people see that while the exclusion of homosexual members has enforced a silence about sexuality in the military it has also sparked debates which are now breaking that silence. Steve Etes supports this view in his book  //Ask & Tell: gay and lesbian veterans speak out // when he says //, // "In one sense, the debates about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" shattered this silence [and secrecy about service member's sexuality], making public discussions about sexuality central to considerations of military policy in the 1990s." (Source 9: Estes) In opposition to the many reasons against the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, there are many reasons why some americans support the policy. "First of all, there exists no Constitutional right to serve in the military." States Colonel David F. Bedey of the United States Army, explaining a common perspective of supporters of the policy. He goes on to say, "The Services routinely (and in my judgment rightly) discriminate in order to preserve the effectiveness of the force." Many supporters of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy believe that homosexuals in the military would lead to "real consequences for real people," like "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," the prospects of "forcible sodomy" and "exotic forms of sexual expression," and the case of "a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault" a fellow soldier. (Source 8: Donelly) <span style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%; color: black;">Outlining the argument for the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, Geoffrey Bateman, author of //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Don't ask, don't tell: debating the gay ban in the military, // explains that, "People who believe that open gays and lesbians should not serve in the armed forces advance a variety of arguments to justify their positions. Positions grounded in military necessity argue that gays and lesbians undermine unit cohesion and that combat performance would decline if open homosexuals were allowed to serve in the U.S. armed forces." (Source 5: Belkin) Mr. Bateman goes on to describe a more discriminatory position that, "claims that gay soldiers are "perverts in uniform" who should not be allowed to serve even if they do not undermine military performance." (Source 5: Belkin) There are many ways that supporters of the policy believe that homosexuals in the military would undermine military effectiveness. This even extends to a belief that if the policy was repealed, "the gay/lesbian lobby’s next demand would be for partner rights including access to on-base family housing. This backdoor approach to federal recognition of gay marriage would roil military communities in a controversy that could not but degrade our overall military effectiveness." (Source 4: Bedey) <span style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%; color: black;">Some people, such as Elaine Donnelly; president of the Center for Military Readiness, believe that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy doesn't go far enough. President Donelly explains this view saying, "[the number of homosexual discharges] could be reduced to near-zero if the Defense Department stopped issuing misleading information about the eligibility of homosexuals to serve in uniform. The routine inquiry about homosexuality can and should be reinstated now; no additional legislation is required." (Source 8: Donelly) According to precedents set by history, one could assume that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will one day be repealed. In the past, attempts to segregate minorities in military units have been protested and eventually repealed, such as was the case with African Americans. As of late, efforts to fully integrate units of the army have expanded, even allowing women to serve on submarines, where women were previously excluded for service. Even current events in other countries suggest America will one day allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, as all of America's allies except Turkey do not have such restrictions as America. As in other countries, it will become apparent in America that a person's sexuality does not affect the caliber of their military performance. In future years, one could assume "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be viewed as a discriminatory policy, similar to that of segregation based on color or sex. 1. "About “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Servicemembers Legal Defense Network //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 2010. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">2. "Holmes v. California National Guard." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Wikipedia. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">3. "Survey: Are Homosexuals Coming Out To Avoid Combat Service?" //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The World's Largest Online Database of Active and Former Military Personnel // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">and Family Members //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. The World's Largest Online Database of Active and Former Military Personnel and Family Members, 1998. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> [|www.amervets.com/library.htm]. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">4. Bedey, Colonel David F. "Exclusive: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Clear and Present Danger » Publications » Family Security Matters." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Family // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Security Matters //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Family Security Matters Inc., 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">5. Belkin, Aaron, and Geoffrey Bateman. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Boulder U.a.: Lynne Rienner, 2003. Print. 6. Canaday, Margot. "U.S. Military Integration of Religious, Ethnic, and Racial Minorities in the Twentieth Century." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Palm Center //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Universtiy of California, 1 May 2009. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">7. Chibbaro Jr., Lou. "Out Gay Soldiers Sent to Iraq." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Palm Center //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. University of California, 23 Sept. 2005. Web. 21 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> [|http://www.palmcenter.org]. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">8. Donnelly, Elaine. "Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Military." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Center for Military Readiness //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR), 23 July 2008. Web. 18 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">9. Estes, Steve. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Ask & Tell: Gay and Lesbian Veterans Speak out //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. University of North Carolina, 2007. Print. 10. Evans, Rhoda. "U.S Military Policies Concerning Homosexuals." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Palm Center //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. University of California, 1 Nov. 2001. Web. 19 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">11. Feldblum, Chai. "The U.S. Military's Discriminatory Policy: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"" //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Solomon Response. Org //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Professor Chai Feldblum. Web. 19 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">12. Gates, Gary J. "GAY MEN AND LESBIANS IN THE U.S. MILITARY:." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Estimates from Census 2000 //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. The Urban Institute, 28 Sept. 2004. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">13. Herek, Gregory M. "Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S. Military." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Sexual Orientation: Science, Education, and Policy //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. Dr. Gregory Herek, 22 May 2008. Web. 18 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">14. Jackson, Derrick Z. "The Costly Failure of ‘don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ - The Boston Globe." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Boston.com //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. 3 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">15. Lewis II, C. W. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Homophobia, the Courts, and the Military | National Sexuality Resource Center (NSRC)." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">National Sexuality // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Resource Center (NSRC) //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. San Francisco State University, 1 July 2003. Web. 20 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">16. Shaughnessy, Larry. "U.S. Allies Say Integrating Gays in Military Was Nonissue - CNN.com." //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Entertainment & Video News //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">. 19 May 2010. Web. 21 May 2010. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> []. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">17. Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F. 3d 915 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1996. <span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">[]
 * The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy**
 * History**
 * Tie to History**
 * Perspective/ Argument** <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">
 * Prediction**
 * Sources**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">


 * Appendix**

//<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> Yale Law school students stand in silent protest wearing gags and suits in New Haven, Conn., against the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. (AP Photo/Douglas Healey) // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Total "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Discharges: 1994-2007 <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">

Department of Defense <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DIRECTIVE NUMBER 1304.26 <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">December 21, 1993 Incorporating Change 1, March 4, 1994 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">ASD(P&R) SUBJECT: Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction References: (a) Title 10, United States Code (b) DoD Instruction 1205.1, "Implementation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act with Respect to Medical and Dental Registrants," September 2, 1960 (c) Title 32, United States Code (d) Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Government of the Marshall Islands, 99 Stat. 1770 (1986) (reprinted as amended at 48 U.S.C.A. 1681 note) ( e) DoD Directive 1145.1, Qualitative Distribution of Military Manpower," <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">January 22, 1986 (f) DoD Directive 6130.3, "Physical Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction," March 31, 1986 1. PURPOSE This Directive: 1.1. Establishes basic entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Armed Forces in accordance with Section 113 of reference (a) and delegates the authority to specify certain of those standards to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. 1 1.2. Establishes the age, citizenship, education, aptitude, physical fitness, dependency status, moral character, and other disqualifying conditions that are causes for rejection for military service. Other standards may be prescribed in the event of mobilization or national emergency. 1.3. Sets standards designed to ensure that individuals under consideration for enlistment, appointment, or induction are able to perform military duties successfully, and to select those who are the most trainable and adaptable to Service life. 2. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE This Directive applies to: 2.1. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments. The term "Military Services," as used herein, refers to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard (by agreement with the Secretary of Transportation when it is not operating as a Military Service in the Navy) and their National Guard and Reserve components. 2.2. Applicants for initial enlistment into the Regular Armed Forces and the Reserve components. 2.3. Applicants for appointment as commissioned or warrant officers in the Active and Reserve components. 2.4. Applicants for reenlistment following release from active duty into subsequent Active or Reserve components (including the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States) after a period of more than 6 months has elapsed since discharge. 2.5. Applicants for the Scholarship or Advanced Course Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), and all other Armed Forces special officer personnel procurement programs, including the Military Service Academies. 2.6. All individuals being inducted into the Armed Forces. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">2 3. DEFINITION Reserve Components. Includes the Army National Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. 4. POLICY It is DoD policy to: 4.1. Encourage to the maximum extent practical the use of common entrance qualification standards. 4.2. Avoid inconsistencies and inequities based on gender, race, religion, or ethnicity in the application of these standards by the Military Services. 4.3. Judge the suitability of persons to serve in the Armed Forces on the basis of their adaptability, potential to perform, and conduct. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall: 5.1.1. Review, coordinate, approve, and issue modifications to the standards in enclosure 1. 5.1.2. Ensure that the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command assists the Services in implementing these standards. 5.2. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs shall act as an advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (ASD(P&R)) on the physical and medical aspects of these standards. 5.3. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) shall act as an advisor to the ASD(P&R) on the Reserve enlistment and appointment standards. 5.4. The Secretaries of the Military Departments: 5.4.1. Shall ensure conformance with this Directive. 5.4.2. Shall recommend to the ASD(P&R) suggested changes to this Directive. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">3 5.4.3. Shall review all standards on an annual basis. 5.4.4. Shall establish procedures to grant waivers to the standards in individual cases for appropriate reasons. 5.4.5. Shall establish other standards as necessary to implement this Directive. 5.4.6. May issue generalized exceptions to these standards as permitted by law, with approval from the ASD(P&R). 6. PROCEDURES The standards in enclosure 1 shall be used to determine the entrance qualifications for all individuals being enlisted, appointed, or inducted into any component of the Military Services. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION This Directive is effective February //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">28 //, 1994. Forward one copy of the implementing <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">documents to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness within 30 days of the signature date. Enclosures - 1 E1. Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">4 E1. ENCLOSURE 1 QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, AND INDUCTION E1.1. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA E1.1.1. Entrance Considerations. Accession of qualified individuals shall be a priority when processing applicants for the Military Services. E1.1.2. Eligibility. Eligibility shall be determined by the applicant's ability to meet all requirements of this Directive, to include obtaining waivers. Applicants shall not be enlisted, appointed, or inducted unless fully qualified E1.2. BASIC ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA E1.2.1. Age E1.2.1.1. For service in the Active and Reserve components, the minimum age for enlistment is 17 years and the maximum age is 35 years. (See 10 U.S.C., 510, reference (a).) The maximum age for a prior service enlistee is determined by adding the individual's years of prior service to 35. The Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned shall establish age standards for enlistment in the Reserve components (10 U.S.C., 510, reference (a)). E1.2.1.2. Age limitations for appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer normally depend on the Service concerned. In prescribing the age qualification for appointment as a Reserve officer, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may not prescribe a maximum standard of less than 47 years for the initial appointment of a person who will serve as a medical, dental, or nurse officer in a specialty designated by the Secretary concerned as critically needed in wartime. (See DoD Instruction 1205.1 (reference (b)).) E1.2.1.3. By law (10 U.S.C., 532, reference (a)), persons appointed as commissioned officers must be able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service before their 55th birthday to receive a Regular commission. The Secretary of the Military Department concerned may defer the retirement for certain health profession officers on a case-by-case basis (10 U.S.C., 1251, reference (a)). E1.2.2. Citizenship //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">5 ENCLOSURE 1 E1.2.2.1. To be eligible for enlistment in the Regular Army or Air Force, an individual must be an American citizen, or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence (10 U.S.C., 3253 and 8253, reference (a)). There is no equivalent statute limiting enlistment in the Regular Navy and Marine Corps, but they usually apply the same citizenship requirements as those required for the Army and Air Force. E1.2.2.2. To be eligible for enlistment in the Reserve components, an individual must be a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence (10 U.S.C., 510, reference (a)). E1.2.2.3. To be eligible for appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer, U.S. citizenship is required except for Reserve appointment where an individual must be lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence (Sections 532 and 591 of reference (a)). For regular appointment, when tendered, U.S. citizenship is required. Law requires National Guard officers to be U.S. citizens (32 U.S.C., 313, reference (c)). E1.2.2.4. Citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands also are eligible for enlistment in the Active and Reserve components. (See the Compact of Free Association (reference (d)).) E1.2.3. Education E1.2.3.1. Possession of a high school diploma is desirable, although not mandatory, for enlistment in any component of the Military Services. Section 520 of reference (a) states, "A person who is not a high school graduate may not be accepted for enlistment in the Armed Forces unless the score of that person on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the thirty first percentile; however, a person may not be denied enlistment in the Armed Forces solely because of his not having a high school diploma if his enlistment is needed to meet established strength requirements." Alternative credential holders (i.e., General Education Development certificates and certificates of attendance and completion) and nongraduates may be assigned lower enlistment priority based on their first-term attrition rates. E1.2.3.2. Educational requirements for appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer are determined by each Military Service. Generally, a bachelors degree is a required prerequisite for a commission or appointment. In addition, special occupations (e.g., physician, chaplain) may require additional vocational credentials, which are determined by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned. E1.2.4. Aptitude //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">6 ENCLOSURE 1 E1.2.4.1. Overall aptitude requirements for enlistment and induction are based on applicant scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Applicant scores are grouped into percentile categories. Persons who score in AFQT Category V (percentiles 1-9) are, by law (10 U.S.C., 520 and DoD Directive 1145.1 (references (a) and (e)), ineligible to enlist. By law (10 U.S.C., 520, reference (a)), the number of persons who enlist during any fiscal year who score in AFQT Category IV (percentiles 10 to 30) may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of persons enlisted. The Secretary of Defense delegates to the Secretaries of the Military Departments the authority to specify more restrictive aptitude standards for enlistment. E1.2.4.2. Generally, for officers and warrant officers, no single test or instrument is used as an aptitude requirement for appointment. E1.2.5. Physical Fitness E1.2.5.1. DoD Directive 6130.3 (reference (f)) establishes the standards for entrance under the authority of 10 U.S.C. (reference (a)). E1.2.5.2. The pre-accession screening process should be structured to identify individuals with any medical condition that disqualifies an applicant for military service. Specifically, each applicant shall be independently evaluated by an authorized physician or a physician at a Military Entrance Processing Station to ensure the applicant is: E1.2.5.2.1. Free of contagious or infectious diseases; E1.2.5.2.2. Free of medical conditions or physical defects that would require excessive time lost from duty or would likely result in separation from the Service for medical unfitness; E1.2.5.2.3. Medically capable of satisfactorily completing required training; E1.2.5.2.4. Medically adaptable to the military environment; E1.2.5.2.5. Medically capable of performing duties without aggravation of existing physical defects or medical conditions. E1.2.6. Dependency Status //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">7 ENCLOSURE 1 E1.2.6.1. Title 10 U.S.C. (reference (a)) does not specifically address eligibility requirements for single parents. E1.2.6.2. The Military Services may not enlist married individuals with more than two dependents under the age of 18 or unmarried individuals with custody of any dependents under the age of 18. However, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may grant a waiver for particularly promising entrants. E1.2.6.3. The Military Services shall specify the circumstances under which individuals who have dependents may become commissioned officers or warrant officers; variations in policy are affected by the commissioning source (e.g., Service Academy vs. ROTC or Officer Candidate School; ROTC scholarship status, etc.). E1.2.7. Moral Character. Persons entering the Armed Forces should be of good moral character. The underlying purpose of moral character enlistment standards is to minimize entrance of persons who are likely to become disciplinary cases or security risks or who disrupt good order, morale, and discipline. The Military Services also have a responsibility to parents who expect that their sons and daughters will not be placed into close association with persons who have committed serious offenses or whose records show ingrained delinquency behavior patterns. The Military Services are responsible for the defense of the nation and should not be viewed as a source of rehabilitation for those who have not subscribed to the legal and moral standards of society at large. Moral standards of acceptability for service are designed to disqualify the following kinds of persons: E1.2.7.1. Individuals under any form of judicial restraint (bond, probation, imprisonment, or parole). E1.2.7.2. Those with significant criminal records. Section 504 of reference (a) states that, "no person...who has been convicted of a felony, may be enlisted in an Armed Force. However, the Secretary concerned may authorize exceptions in meritorious cases, for the enlistment of...persons convicted of felonies." E1.2.7.2.1. Persons convicted of felonies may request a waiver to permit their enlistment. The waiver procedure is not automatic, and approval is based on each individual case. One of the considerations in determining whether a waiver will be granted is the individual's ability to adjust successfully to civilian life for a period of time following his or her release from judicial control. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">8 ENCLOSURE 1 E1.2.7.2.2. In processing waiver requests, the Military Services shall require information about the "who, what, when, where, and why" of the offense in question; and a number of letters of recommendation attesting to the applicant's character or suitability for enlistment. Such letters must be from responsible community leaders such as school officials, ministers, and law enforcement officials. E1.2.7.3. Those who have been previously separated from the Military Services under conditions other than honorable or for the good of the Service. E1.2.7.4. Those who have exhibited antisocial behavior or other traits of character that would render them unfit to associate with military personnel. E1.2.8. Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct E1.2.8.1. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">private matter, and is not a bar to service entry // or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">in the manner described in subparagraph // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">E1.2.8.2., below. Applicants // for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Applicants also will not be asked or required to // reveal whether they have engaged in <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect. E1.2.8.2. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section. // Homosexual conduct is a <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">homosexual act, a statement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. Propensity to engage in homosexual acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts. E1.2.8.2.1. An applicant shall be rejected for entry into the Armed Forces if, in the course of the accession process, evidence is received demonstrating that the applicant engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts, unless there is a further determination that: E1.2.8.2.1.1. Such acts are a departure from the applicant's usual and customary behavior; //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">9 ENCLOSURE 1 E1.2.8.2.1.2. Such acts, under all the circumstances, are unlikely to recur; E1.2.8.2.1.3. Such acts were not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation, and; E1.2.8.2.1.4. The applicant does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. Such a determination will be made in the course of the normal accession process. A homosexual act means: E1.2.8.2.1.4.1. Any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires, and E1.2.8.2.1.4.2. Any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph E1.2.8.2.1.4.1., above. E1.2.8.2.2. An applicant shall be rejected for entry if he or she makes a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further determination that the applicant has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. Such a determination will be made in the course of the normal accession process. E1.2.8.2.3. An applicant shall be rejected for entry if, in the course of the accession process, evidence is received demonstrating that an applicant has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced by the external anatomy of the persons involved). E1.2.8.3. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Applicants will be informed of separation policy (Section 654 of // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">10 U.S.C. (reference (a))). Failure to receive such information shall not constitute a // //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">defense in any administrative or disciplinary proceeding. // E1.2.8.4. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Nothing in these procedures requires rejection for //entry into the <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Armed Forces when the relevant Military Service Command authority determines: //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">10 ENCLOSURE 1 E1.2.8.4.1. That an applicant or inductee made a statement, engaged in acts, or married or attempted to marry a person of the same sex for the purpose of avoiding military service; and E1.2.8.4.2. Rejection of the applicant or inductee would not be in the best interest of the Armed Forces. //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">DODD 1304.26, Dec. 21, 1993 // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">11 ENCLOSURE 1