Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and its depiction last night in Grey's Anatomy)

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I want you to provide even a scrap of evidence for this. Oerdin repeats this without backing it up as well. Specifically, given the anonymous character of all promotion boards (and the simple scale for that matter), I want you to explain how this is even possible.

There is a lot of evidence for it. I kinda simplified it a bit. It also includes factors such as the declining number of Catholic priests (and thus chaplains) so the void was filled with evangelicals. Boards really aren't that anonymous either. The board members frequently contact raters and the unit for various things.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it preferential treatment to receive equal treatment?

It's preferential treatment. They have the same regulations against men and women showering together. If they were to allow one and not the other, then that would be preferential treatment.

IIRC you have a hearing disability. This makes sense to forbid such soldiers -- if you can't hear orders all the time, you're not that much use in uniform.

Not really the point. What use are you in combat if you can't hear the enemy? How can the others trust you to protect them, if you can't hear much at all. They list a hearing loss up to 50 decibels at the normal frequency range, which excludes me. I'm not sure why they chose that limit, but what that means is a significant hearing loss. 50 decibels is about the range of human speech, so that is why they choose this range over others.

This is a terrible comparison for a few obvious reasons --

The point being that there are ways that I could successfully serve too. Why does the military enforce standards, even though it means there are some who are qualified to serve who are turned away? That gets back to my earlier point. The military isn't about self-affirmation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's preferential treatment. They have the same regulations against men and women showering together. If they were to allow one and not the other, then that would be preferential treatment.

Oh, you're talking about something silly rather than the core issue.

Heterosexual man can and are open about their sexuality in the military. How many military men have skin mags in their lockers? How many have pictures of their girlfriend/wife? How many talk about it while shooting the ****?

Homosexual men cannot do that.

Permitting homosexual men to do that is not preferential treatment, it's equal treatment.

As for the whole showering ****, many other countries -- including Canada and Israel -- have allowed gays to openly serve, including showering, and there's no big deal. You're already showering with gay guys, so nothing is changing here.

Not really the point. What use are you in combat if you can't hear the enemy? How can the others trust you to protect them, if you can't hear much at all. They list a hearing loss up to 50 decibels at the normal frequency range, which excludes me. I'm not sure why they chose that limit, but what that means is a significant hearing loss. 50 decibels is about the range of human speech, so that is why they choose this range over others.

The point being that there are ways that I could successfully serve too. Why does the military enforce standards, even though it means there are some who are qualified to serve who are turned away? That gets back to my earlier point. The military isn't about self-affirmation.

As I have already told you, your points are ridiculous. The military isn't about self-affirmation, but no one made that claim. You are debunking thin air again.

The military is about letting physically and mentally capable men and women serve their country. If you can't hear, you can't serve. If you can't see, you can't serve. If you are grossly overweight, you can't serve. If you are mentally retarded, you can't serve.

But why are you including "if you let anyone know you have a boyfriend back home, you can't serve" in this group?

What you and all of your irk are doing is reinforcing bigotry. Why are you any different from the soldiers in WW2 that refused to serve with black people for almost identical reasons? Why are you any different from the soldiers even today that think women should not be able to serve?

[Patroklos]

Are you on a carrier? We were allowed to go on deck at night. There is usually plenty of light to see by if you just stand still and let your eyes adjust.

I was on a DDG, at night we set darken ship so that only our navigational lights will be clearly visible.

Carriers are a bit different because of flight opps, and thier great size liberates them in many respects.

There is a lot of evidence for it.

Then please feel free to provide any scrap of it.

It also includes factors such as the declining number of Catholic priests (and thus chaplains) so the void was filled with evangelicals.

Thats odd, you think recruits decide to join or not because of the number of chaplains of thier faith? You really think that?

The decline in Catholic chaplains is indeed real, but why you equate that to an evangical takeover in the ranks in general is beyond me. I am a practicing Catholic in the military and I have seen no decline in Catholic service members at all. In fact as more hispanics join the number has gone up if anything. In my personal experiance, agnostics, athiests and undefined "spiritual" types are the fasted growing group.

And just because your chaplain isn't your faith doesn't mean he is not of use to you. I eat lunch with our Baptist chaplain every Wednesday and would go to him over the local Catholic chaplain any day.

Boards really aren't that anonymous either. The board members frequently contact raters and the unit for various things.

No, they don't. In fact, it is almost always forbidden. About the only exception is if there is an inregularity in your record at which point that will normally just be held against you instead of them traking it down. It is up to you to maintain your record.

Again, I would like you to provide any evidence to what you claim. On the officer side pretty much the only thing the board sees are your FITREPs and your PSR, niether one having your religious denomination on it. Besides that, they know nothing about you unless you have a Page Two with DUIs or other UCMJ violations on it. The fact is that if your records are in order and the career wickets they want to see are all present then they may spend no more than a minite reviewing your whole record.

Each service is different, but all are governed by SecDef directives. Services can weigh things differently, for example the enlisted side of the army is judged almost exclusively by test scores period, while the Navy is a mix of test scores and command evaluations. At its core though, it is a very transparent and rigid process.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I was on a DDG, at night we set darken ship so that only our navigational lights will be clearly visible.

Carriers are a bit different because of flight opps, and thier great size liberates them in many respects.

I was on a DD, I know all about darken ship, navigation lights, stars and the moon are enough to see by at night.

I never had any problem seeing with just those lights.

ACK!

[Patroklos]

Do you always have clear skies every night? What does an open door look like at 7nm at 0300? You can of course see, but not always so well, and all it takes is one missed cleat and over the side you go.

If you ship didn't have good darken ship discipline it was a command thing, but I can assure you the thousands of merchant ships captains trying to figure out why they can see two red lights cursed you will all their considerable skills in that realm

[Tuberski]

Oh, I forgot to mention that you have to move a little slower just so you can find things that may be in your way.

But up on the 04 level, I knew where everything was and could walk it blindfolded.

ACK!

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then please feel free to provide any scrap of it.

How haven't you heard about this story that has been in the news all over recently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist.html?_r=1&em&ex=1209355200&en=1b6b362fe6c50015&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Also this book has pretty decent evidence

http://www.amazon.com/God-Our-Side-Evangelical-Americas/dp/0312361432

Originally posted by Patroklos Thats odd, you think recruits decide to join or not because of the number of chaplains of thier faith? You really think that?

I am not saying it has to do with numbers joining. I am just saying it is part of the reason evangelicals gained more control over the military.

Originally posted by Patroklos No, they don't. In fact, it is almost always forbidden. About the only exception is if there is an inregularity in your record at which point that will normally just be held against you instead of them traking it down. It is up to you to maintain your record.

That is not how it works in my experience.

Originally posted by Patroklos Again, I would like you to provide any evidence to what you claim. On the officer side pretty much the only thing the board sees are your FITREPs and your PSR, niether one having your religious denomination on it. Besides that, they know nothing about you unless you have a Page Two with DUIs or other UCMJ violations on it. The fact is that if your records are in order and the career wickets they want to see are all present then they may spend no more than a minite reviewing your whole record.

Maybe it is different in the army.

It also has marital status, which is kinda meh since there is a bias towards married people too.

[Patroklos]

How haven't you heard about this story that has been in the news all over recently?

What, you mean that one instance within an organization of three million of an athiest supposedly getting discriminated against proves a widespread evangilist conspiracy to take over the military!?! Was the commander in question even an evangilist?

Btw, didn't the Major deny this? Why do you automatically believe the word of that kid over that of the Major when he 1.) has no evidence of anything he describes happening and 2.) nobody else coroborates his claim?

All posting that story accomplished was to show your bias in thinking what you do. Like I said, I am Catholic, I have no reason to cover up this vast evalgelist conspiracy, it just doesn't exist.

Also this book has pretty decent evidence

Then post it, linking to amazon proves nothing.

I am not saying it has to do with numbers joining. I am just saying it is part of the reason evangelicals gained more control over the military.

Exactly what sort of power do you think Chaplains wield?

That is not how it works in my experience.

I was trying not to say this, but what is your experiance?

Maybe it is different in the army.

Superficially so, MILPERS regs are not branch specific past a certain level.

It should also be noted that there is are no such things as boards for E-6 and below in the enlisted ranks and O-3 and below in the officer ranks. Considering those rankes make up the vast majoirty of the force, your deliberate board bias position almost doesn't matter.

It also has marital status, which is kinda meh since there is a bias towards married people too.

It would be nice if you included the form number on that. It does not resemble a PSR or an EVAL.

This is what your board will be looking at...

http://www.per.hqusareur.army.mil/services/support/forms/678.dot

...when you are at a rate that gets a board. Up to then it is just a simple math equation.

And marital status isn't an overt bias, it just so happens married people with large families are not eligable for overseas posts (cost), and most deliberalty restict their posts otherwise for family concerns. Thats the breaks when you chose to have a family alongside a military career.

You probably were not thinking about it that way. Being a young and single newly minted grunt you were probably thinking in terms of time off and leave and family benefits in which you PERCIEVE they get some advantageous bias.

[snoopy369]

Good lord, that had better not be the evaluation form. Including race and marital status on the sheet would most definitely violate all sorts of things that even the military is required to follow...

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Patroklos


What, you mean that one instance within an organization of three million of an athiest supposedly getting discriminated against proves a widespread evangilist conspiracy to take over the military!?! Was the commander in question even an evangilist?

Btw, didn't the Major deny this? Why do you automatically believe the word of that kid over that of the Major when he 1.) has no evidence of anything he describes happening and 2.) nobody else coroborates his claim?

http://www.myspace.com/freddywelborn - his Myspace.

Originally posted by Patroklos All posting that story accomplished was to show your bias in thinking what you do. Like I said, I am Catholic, I have no reason to cover up this vast evalgelist conspiracy, it just doesn't exist.

I listed army and air force being effected by this, not the navy so much.

Originally posted by Patroklos Then post it, linking to amazon proves nothing.

Or you could head to a bookstore and browse for a bit.

Originally posted by Patroklos Exactly what sort of power do you think Chaplains wield?

None, except how you can't really refuse when they decide to sit down next to you and talk.

Originally posted by Patroklos I was trying not to say this, but what is your experiance?

Actually being a rater and senior rater for seven people, soon to be 10 people.

Originally posted by Patroklos Superficially so, MILPERS regs are not branch specific past a certain level.

It should also be noted that there is are no such things as boards for E-6 and below in the enlisted ranks and O-3 and below in the officer ranks. Considering those rankes make up the vast majoirty of the force, your deliberate board bias position almost doesn't matter.

Except there are actually boards for E-4s in the army. You have to go to the board before you make corporal in the army.

Originally posted by Patroklos It would be nice if you included the form number on that. It does not resemble a PSR or an EVAL.

This is what your board will be looking at...

http://www.per.hqusareur.army.mil/services/support/forms/678.dot

...when you are at a rate that gets a board. Up to then it is just a simple math equation.

DA 4037

Also I could not open that document.

Originally posted by Patroklos And marital status isn't an overt bias, it just so happens married people with large families are not eligable for overseas posts (cost), and most deliberalty restict their posts otherwise for family concerns. Thats the breaks when you chose to have a family alongside a military career.

You probably were not thinking about it that way. Being a young and single newly minted grunt you were probably thinking in terms of time off and leave and family benefits in which you PERCIEVE they get some advantageous bias.

I am talking more about biases based on catering to married Soldiers, such as why on post housing is better than the barracks. Married people just tend to stay in longer because the spouse is the deciding factor.

I am also not a grunt and I am not talking about leave and family benefits.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Good lord, that had better not be the evaluation form. Including race and marital status on the sheet would most definitely violate all sorts of things that even the military is required to follow...

They also get a picture of you in uniform (green one with lots of ribbons) if race wasn't clear enough on the form.

[snoopy369]

My understanding, from living in an Air Force town and from my brother being in the 101st, is that for officers, being married generally has a negative element to careers of the very upwardly mobile in the middle portion of the ranks, but a positive effect higher up (Lt. Colonel and up, give or take).

In terms of married benefits, I think patroklos is right that you are seeing this from a very specific point of view. Married folks SHOULD get better housing, they have a family to house. Given how hard it is to be in the military with a family, I think that is perfectly reasonable that they get some benefits from it.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
My understanding, from living in an Air Force town and from my brother being in the 101st, is that for officers, being married generally has a negative element to careers of the very upwardly mobile in the middle portion of the ranks, but a positive effect higher up (Lt. Colonel and up, give or take).

In terms of married benefits, I think patroklos is right that you are seeing this from a very specific point of view. Married folks SHOULD get better housing, they have a family to house. Given how hard it is to be in the military with a family, I think that is perfectly reasonable that they get some benefits from it.

In the army, you pretty much get automatically promoted until LTC right now

Of course married folks should get better housing. The issue is more geared to how the army lets enlisted barracks such as the ones at Bragg get completely ****ty, whereas they will fix on post housing pretty expediently.

[snoopy369]

Well, the army should clearly get to fixing those then I doubt it is bias, though, probably just that the married folks complain more. That's true pretty much anywhere (squeaky wheel gets the grease).