Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- overnighted?

A recent article from the Associated Press got me to thinking.  Perhaps we, meaning mainstream media, misunderstood the "DADT" laws.

This is something that has marred military society since the 1990s, a Clinton-era policy.  Perhaps it's not meant to keep gays out of the military, what if it is designed as a safeguard to keep them from unnecessary harm IN the military.  There is, no doubt, hazing aboard ships.  No sailor will admit to it, but does anyone think that hazing is truly a thing of the past? We don't believe fraternities have abolished hazing, why would we believe otherwise for the military?  What if this law is in place to keep someone--who is being hazed--safe? Maybe the law was intended to give them an escape route. But, if that's the case, what about straight service members? They would get hazed too, right?

So, this story from the AP said that this particular Airman wished to be discharged "expeditiously." Let me repeat that: "The airman in the case asked to be separated expeditiously," USAF Spokesman Lt. Col. (Lieutenant Colonel, for those non-military savvy folk) Todd Vician said.

The airman requested separation from the military, but it's not clear (from this story) why he wished to be separated.  Perhaps he knew this was his last chance to be legally discharged without going UA or without being considered a deserter. 


We currently have over 1.4 million boys and girls who wear our nation's uniforms.  A report says that over 40,000 troops have deserted their post (left without intent to return) since the year 2000.  Why would this particular airman not just desert his post like these others? Why choose to go out with a dying piece of legislation?  Was he being hazed? Did he just disagree with current military engagements enough to wish to be separated, and if so, why enlist in the first place?


Some say that this shows the flaws in the legislation.  Alexander Nicholson says this airman could be using the 'law is still on the books' excuse to get out of current obligations. "It shows why the DADT law is flawed and harms the military--it can also be abused to allow someone to receive expensive training and then skip out on their commitment to serve, or it can simply be used to quit the military early by forcing an early separation."

Is this what happened here? Was he overwhelmed with his commitment? Was he hazed? Was he seeking the military training then ditching on his service obligation?

This story leaves too many questions unanswered.