U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

65–812 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–41] 

REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES 

GOVERNING SERVICE BY OPENLY 

GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 7, 2011 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, April 7, 2011, Repeal of Law and Policies Governing Service by 

Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members ....................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, April 7, 2011 .......................................................................................... 37 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011 

REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE BY OPENLY 

GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services .................................................................. 1 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Amos, Gen. James F., USMC, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ....................... 6 

Chiarelli, GEN Peter W., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army ........................... 4 

Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy .................. 5 

Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force ........................ 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Amos, Gen. James F. ........................................................................................ 47 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 41 

Roughead, ADM Gary ...................................................................................... 43 

Schwartz, Gen. Norton A. ................................................................................ 51 

Smith, Hon. Adam ............................................................................................ 42 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon’s Letter Dated April 4, 2011, with Questions for and Responses by GEN George W. Casey, Jr., USA, Chief 

of Staff, U.S. Army ........................................................................................ 57 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Palazzo ....................................................................................................... 63 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. McKeon ....................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 67 

(1) 

REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE 

BY OPENLY GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, April 7, 2011. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in room 2118, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We are, I 

think, going to have votes in about 20 minutes. So we will try to 

get through as much as we can before we have to break before that. 

Today, the committee will receive a status report on the process 

for repealing the law and changing the policies governing the service of openly gay and lesbian service members. This past fall, I was 

troubled by the process employed to set the stage for repeal of the 

law known as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ 

Following the December release of the Department of Defense report on the issues associated with repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 

there was none of the in-depth analysis that is so essential to 

sound decisionmaking here in the House of Representatives. As a 

result of the rush to judgment that bypassed this committee, Congress was denied the opportunity to ask questions and identify 

weaknesses in the repeal implementation plan. Now we are confronted by an implementation process that is moving quickly to 

completion and the education and training phase. 

Our primary interest today is to ensure that the senior leaders 

of each Service have the opportunity to communicate their current 

views about the implementation of repeal. Several of the Service 

chiefs have expressed reservations about the timing and potential 

impacts of repeal during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we want to understand if our military leaders 

remain concerned about the prospect of full repeal of the law. 

For example, General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, indicated that the repeal was a major cultural and policy change in the 

middle of a war that would add stress and complications for combat 

units. He stated that he felt implementation would be more difficult than what the Pentagon survey would suggest. 

General Schwartz, Chief of the Staff of the Air Force, recommended not carrying out any repeal until 2012 because of the 

strain of the high operations tempo on our forces. He stated, ‘‘I do 
2 

not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to 

military effectiveness is low.’’ 

General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated, ‘‘If the 

law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating 

openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven fabric of our 

combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit 

level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an 

almost singular focus on preparing units for combat.’’ 

Those comments were made a couple of months ago at the Senate hearing. 

The one outcome that must be avoided is any course of action 

that would put the combat readiness of our military forces at risk. 

Our witnesses today are the four leaders of our Armed Forces: 

General Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff, United States Army; 

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN [United States Navy], Chief of 

Naval Operations; General James Amos, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps; General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air 

Force. 

General Chiarelli, we thank you for standing in for General 

Casey today and ask you to please extend our heartfelt condolences 

from all the members of the committee and the staff of the Armed 

Services Committee to General Casey and his family on the passing 

of his grandson, Jackson Ryan Casey. 

Admiral Roughead, you are moving closer to departure from your 

current position and may not have the opportunity—some would 

probably not call it an opportunity—to testify before this committee 

again. I want to express the collective thanks of all the members 

of the committee for your 38 years of service and best wishes for 

the future. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join you in welcoming our witnesses and passing along my condolences to General Casey. 

I welcome General Chiarelli, General Amos, General Schwartz, 

Admiral Roughead. Thank you for being here, and thank you for 

your incredible service to our country. 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was put into place almost 18 years ago. 

Since that time—I guess even at the time—it was hotly debated, 

discussed, studied, and argued about. And in the 18 years since, 

that has continued. We have had countless studies and countless 

opinions expressed through those years. 

And I will disagree a little bit with the chairman. This committee 

has had many hearings on precisely this subject on the subcommittee level, and we have also debated it on the full committee 

level over the course of the last several years. 

I don’t think it is fair to say that we haven’t thought about this 

or that the military services haven’t thought about this and of 

course, culminating in the very, very large study of service mem-
3 

bers to get their feedback and their opinions. I believe we have 

analyzed this at enormous length over an enormous period of time. 

And at some point, you have to make a decision about what the 

best way to go forward is. 

And I am pleased this Congress and the President made that decision last year and made what I think was the only logical choice 

and that was to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, because it is interesting, we all know that gays and lesbians 

have been serving in the military for quite some time, and I have 

yet to meet a service member who wasn’t abundantly aware that 

somebody they were serving with was gay or lesbian, and yet we 

have the finest military in the world. The unit has been able to 

function—and function quite well—under that circumstance. 

The only oddity that we had in the law was if the fact that there 

was a gay and lesbian serving in the military happened to bubble 

up to the command structure, the law required you at that point 

to take that person out of the military. They have served, served 

well, and served alongside other service members who have found 

a very easy way to work with them and give us the finest military 

in the world. 

When you look at these questions, it is frequently asked by many 

people about whatever policy comes up before the military, is a 

simple question: Does this policy make us safer? Does it strengthen 

our national security? In this case, the answer to Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell is clearly no. Driving able-bodied people out of the military 

who are serving and serving us well at a time when we are at war 

does not make us safer and does not give us a better military. 

Now I will grant you that there is going to be some implementation issues here. But there are many policies that are problematic 

and difficult throughout the military for the Service people to work 

with, and they find a way to work with them, and they find a way 

to move forward. 

And I applaud you gentlemen. I applaud the military for the way 

they have approached this. They are trying to do it in the most 

user-friendly way possible to make sure that it works and is effective. But it is long past time to study this issue. It is making us 

weaker to drive people out of the military who are serving us well. 

And I hope we will go forward with the implementation of the 

change in this policy as quickly and expeditiously as possible. 

I look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

The CHAIRMAN. As bipartisan as this committee is, we can disagree, but we can do it in a gentlemanly-like way. And I thank the 

ranking member for his comments. 

Mr. SMITH. I should have said I think the chairman is doing an 

outstanding job running this committee, and I agree with him most 

of the time, and we have worked very well together. We just have 

those moments, like everybody. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I do have a unanimous consent request, knowing that General Casey, Chief of the Staff of the Army, 

would not be able to testify, I asked that he provide answers to a 

series of questions I put to him in writing. We have his response. 
4 

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of April 4, 

2011, to General Casey and the General’s response of April 6, 2011, 

be entered into the record. The letters are now or have been distributed to the members. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 57.] 

The CHAIRMAN. General Chiarelli. 

STATEMENT OF GEN PETER W. CHIARELLI, USA, VICE CHIEF 

OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY 

General CHIARELLI. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, 

distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Army’s implementation plans for the repeal of legislation commonly referred to as 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

As you acknowledged, Mr. Chairman, General Casey is unavailable to participate in today’s hearing due to the recent loss of his 

grandson, and he deeply appreciates everyone’s thoughts and prayers during this very sad and difficult time. 

In December, General Casey testified before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee, stating his belief that: While the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would add yet another 

level of stress to a force already stretched by nearly a decade of 

war, it would be more difficult in combat arms units and it would, 

in general, be more complicated an endeavor than the comprehensive review suggested. If properly implemented, the repeal would 

not preclude our force from accomplishing its worldwide missions, 

to include combat operations. 

General Casey assured the members of the committee that we 

have a disciplined force, led by experienced, seasoned leaders, who 

with appropriate guidance and direction, can be relied upon to effectively oversee the implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, with moderate risk to our military effectiveness in the short 

term and to our ability to recruit and retain America’s All-Volunteer Force over the long haul. 

Finally, he assured the members that if directed to implement 

the repeal, the Army would work closely with the Department of 

Defense and other Services to make certain the implementation is 

conducted successfully, in a timely fashion, and in the same disciplined manner that has characterized our service to the Nation 

for over 235 years. 

I stand by the Chief’s previous remarks. I know he does as well. 

Since that hearing, consistent with Congress’ decision and the 

President’s and Secretary of Defense’s guidance, the Army has 

begun a deliberate process of training and educating our force on 

exactly what the repeal means in terms of regulation and policy 

changes. 

As in everything we do, ultimately the success of our implementation plan rests on the shoulders of our leaders. As such, our plan 

is based on the chain teach method of training. Simply put, chain 

teaching places direct responsibility on commanders to ensure all 

leaders, officers and noncommissioned officers, soldiers, army civilians, and interested family members are properly and sufficiently 

educated on this important policy change, its potential impact on 
5 

them, and our expectations of them. To this end, General Casey’s 

guidance to commanders is clear: Leadership matters most. 

This training is not disruptive. In February, General Casey personally led the first session with all four-star Generals, flanked by 

the Army subject-matter experts, the Judge Advocate General, Inspector General, Chief of Chaplains, and the Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Personnel. I participated in this session, and I can attest the 

process works. The chain teaching program facilitates thoughtful, 

constructive dialogue between leaders and subordinates. This dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lowest levels, where 

ownership and consensus are most critical. 

While soldiers’ response to the repeal has so far been generally 

positive, we cannot assume there will be no opposition from within 

our ranks in the days ahead. In fact, we recognize there are some 

segments of the force, primarily within the combat arms, that have 

expressed concern regarding the repeal. 

On the whole, our force is stretched and stressed by nearly a decade of war, a war that is not over yet. Mindful of these and other 

considerations, we recognize if we mitigate the risks to readiness, 

recruiting, and retention, we must continue to do this deliberately. 

Training is just the start. Although I am confident our efforts to 

implement the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are on track, the entire process, done properly, will take time. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of our Secretary, John McHugh, and our Chief, General George Casey, I 

thank you for your patience, for your continued generous support 

and demonstrated commitment to the outstanding men and women 

of the United States Army and their families, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. 

STATEMENT OF ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL 

OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Chairman McKeon, Representative Smith, 

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address how our Navy is 

preparing to implement repeal of 10 U.S. Code 654. 

I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in December that I supported the repeal of 10 U.S. Code 654. The 

United States Navy can successfully implement a repeal of the law. 

Combat effectiveness is what we provide the Nation, and repeal 

will not change who we are or what we do. Your Navy will continue 

to be the professional global effective and relevant force for the Nation that it has always been. 

Although a specific date for repeal has not been set, we have 

begun the process for a prompt and thoughtful transition. We are 

preparing the necessary policies and regulations to implement this 

change in law, and we are training our sailors and leaders at all 

levels. Our training emphasizes the principles of leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. We are not conducting sensitivity 

training. We are focusing on ensuring our sailors understand what 

repeal means to them, their families, and the Navy, and that our 

standards of conduct and behavior will not be compromised. 
6 

We are carrying out our training using a tiered approach to ensure all sailors receive the appropriate level of training. We have 

17 master mobile training teams providing training to command 

leaders in 17 geographic regions. Once certified by these master 

trainers, command leaders will then train personnel within their 

respective commands. Specialized training is also being provided to 

experts who may deal more frequently with repeal issues, such as 

chaplains, judge advocates, personnel support professionals, and recruiters. 

I have established 1 July as Navy’s goal for completing training, 

and we are on track to achieve this goal. Feedback from our sailors 

indicates the training they are receiving is comprehensive, well delivered, and effective. Additionally, we have not observed any impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting, or retention 

during this training period. 

I continue to provide regular updates on our training progress to 

the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and remain personally engaged with them throughout this 

process. 

I am confident my assessment of Navy’s readiness for repeal will 

be carefully considered during the certification process, and I do 

not believe it is necessary to provide additional or separate input 

outside of this process. I have the ultimate confidence that the men 

and women of the United States Navy, with their character, discipline, and decency, will successfully implement this change in the 

law. 

Navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create an inclusive and respectful work environment, and enforce our high standards of conduct throughout the Navy as we serve the Nation. Our 

sailors will continue to live by our core values of honor, courage, 

and commitment, which endure as the foundation of our Navy. 

I thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead can be found in 

the Appendix on page 43.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Amos. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, COMMANDANT, 

U.S. MARINE CORPS 

General AMOS. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today and report on the Marine Corps’ progress toward certification of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I had the opportunity to specifically 

address Congress on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on December 3, where 

I stated to the Senate Armed Services Committee that should Congress change the law, our Nation’s Marine Corps will faithfully 

support the law. 

The law signed by the President on December 22 established the 

conditions for the eventual repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Marine Corps is working diligently to meet the corresponding requirements, as are all the uniformed Services. Once met, the required 

certification process may be provided by the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President to the 

congressional committees. 
7 

Overall, I am confident that Marine leaders at all levels will ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the new law once it 

goes into effect. As such, your Marine Corps has taken the following significant actions in line with the direction of our civilian 

leadership: After the House of Representative and the Senate voted 

to repeal Title 10 U.S. Code 654 in December of 2010, I published 

the following guidance to the entire Marine Corps: ‘‘As marines, we 

abide by the laws of our Nation, and we will implement the new 

policy in accordance with specific directions and implementing 

guidance from our chain of command. Fidelity is the essence of who 

we are. Accordingly, we will faithfully execute this new law and 

will continue to treat each other with dignity and with respect.’’ 

While in Afghanistan over Christmas, Sergeant Major Kent and 

I spoke to more than 12,000 marines and sailors about the pending 

repeal and my expectations for successful implementation. Shortly 

after returning from Afghanistan, he and I made a video for all marines and their families to reinforce our message and to reach out 

to marines in locations that we could personally visit. 

Your Marine Corps has closely followed the recommendations of 

the Comprehensive Review Working Group in developing and executing our implementation training. Some of the very first marines 

to receive this training were my three- and four-star general officers in late January. On 7 February, the Marine Corps as a whole 

began Corps-wide training. 

I am pleased to report to this committee that the Marine Corps 

has completed 100 percent of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 training. As of 

today, our Tier 3 training is 41 percent complete throughout the 

Marine Corps. And I anticipate full completion of all training by 1 

June. We will complete this training with the aid of the Internet 

online when absolutely necessary, but the majority of our training 

is done face-to-face. 

Successful implementation of this policy depends upon leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. Leaders at all levels 

of our Corps are setting the example and are fully committed to the 

sustainment of our unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. 

In our profession of arms, adherence to standards of conduct is 

essential. Leadership is the key to creating and sustaining an environment where the opportunity to contribute, achieve, and advance 

to all is available. 

Before making my final recommendation to move forward with 

repeal, I intend to use both the objective and the subjective measures to gauge the effectiveness of training and our readiness to implement this new policy. Before I recommend certification, the Marine Corps will have completed 100 percent of its special staff and 

leader training and approximately 90 percent of all remaining marines’ training for both Active and Reserve Components. 

While useful, objective measures alone are not sufficient for me 

to recommend certification. I will also use subjective tools to include command climate surveys, enlisted retention surveys, and Inspector General reports to measure training success. Additionally, 

I will rely heavily on feedback from my commanders throughout 

the Marine Corps. Prior to recommending certification, I will confirm that all the preconditions for certification have indeed been 

met. 
8 

I am confident that your Marines will faithfully abide by the 

laws of this Nation and will conduct themselves in accordance with 

the intent of the new policy. While leadership is the ultimate key 

to successful implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, our 

core values of honor, courage, and commitment will guide us 

through our training and implementation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide these details, and I stand ready to answer any additional questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of General Amos can be found in the 

Appendix on page 47.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Schwartz. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF 

STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to report on Air 

Force implementation of the pending repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell policy. 

Our implementation plan comprises two key components: Necessary revisions to policies and regulations, and then training of all 

airmen. We will rely on steady leadership at all levels to implement this change in a manner that is consistent with standards of 

military readiness and effectiveness and with minimum adverse effect on unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention in our Air Force. 

Until applicable directives are updated and released, current 

policies remain in effect and will be enforced uniformly. Overarching policy changes involving updates to accession processes, recruiting guidance, standards of conduct and separation actions are 

the basis for our implementation training, which began on February 14 and will complete on or about June 30 of this year. 

The Air Force is administering the Office of the Secretary of Defense standardized three-tier training program, which was developed in conjunction with the Services and with OSD’s [the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense’s] Repeal Implementation Team to ensure consistent training themes for the entire force, from functional 

experts to commanders and senior leaders to all airmen across the 

force. 

So far, we have trained 23 percent, some 117,000 of our members, and are on track to train the remainder within the prescribed 

training window. We will assure implementation is achieved responsibly, deliberatively, and effectively. Our preferred method of 

training is in person. However, when face-to-face Tier 3 training is 

not feasible, for example, during convalescent leave or deployment 

to locations where interrupting the mission to conduct training 

would have an adverse impact, commanders have discretion to use 

computer-based training or to schedule training upon return to garrison. 

As training progresses, we will continue to report completion 

data to OSD twice a month. In the post-repeal environment, we 

will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our training through 

existing processes for follow-on assessment and monitoring. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we thank you 

again for your support of the Armed Forces, the standards of con-
9 

duct that we expect, that you expect of all airmen, entitling every 

airman to dignity, respect, and equal opportunity, and a commitment to service above self will not change. Guided by our core values of integrity, service, and excellence, we will implement this policy change with the same professionalism that we demonstrate in 

all of our daily endeavors. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Schwartz can be found in 

the Appendix on page 51.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And thanks to each of you. 

The law was passed. You understand the relationship between 

the military and civilian law. You are doing your best to see that 

the law is implemented and followed correctly. I have would have 

expected nothing different. 

General Chiarelli, General Amos, General Schwartz, as I indicated in my opening statement, each of you—and in your case, 

General Chiarelli, I am referring to the comments of General 

Casey—expressed reservations during your testimony to the Senate 

about the central conclusion of the DOD [Department of Defense] 

Comprehensive Review Working Group that the risk of repeal to 

overall military effectiveness was low. 

As you proceed with the education and training phase of the implementation plan, has your attitude changed, and what is your 

current professional military judgment about the risk to military 

effectiveness? 

General CHIARELLI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

As you indicated, General Casey did indicate that he felt that 

risk was moderate. I believe he feels that it remains moderate 

today, given as far as we have gotten in our training. I will say 

that I had a session with commanders last Friday. They have indicated no issues so far in Tier 1 and Tier 2 training as they get 

ready to kick off our Tier 3 training. But I think that General 

Casey would remain with moderate risk only because we are not 

far enough in our training to change that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Amos. 

General AMOS. Chairman, you remember the results of the survey that came back for the Marine Corps, and it was well above 

the 50 percentile from our combat forces that had concerns about 

unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. I reported that in my December 3 testimony. 

I have had an opportunity to visit Afghanistan, as I said in my 

opening statement, over Christmas, travel around the Marine 

Corps. In fact, just this morning, I was on the VTC [video teleconference] with our commander on the ground in the Helmand 

Province. I am looking specifically for issues that might arise coming out of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 training. To be honest with you, 

Chairman, we have not seen it. 

I mean, there are questions. There are questions about billeting 

for marines; the kinds of questions you would be expect. But there 

hasn’t been the recalcitrant pushback. There has not been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field. I will tell you that I asked 
10 

specifically this morning Major General Toolan, I said, John, what 

are you seeing in the young marines that are out there? 

He said, Sir, quite honestly, they are focused on the enemy, and 

maybe they will have questions when they return back to the 

United States of America, but right now, they are very focused. 

And he doesn’t think it is an issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. General Schwartz. 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to fall off 

of my assessment of moderate risk either, but we have trained a 

100,000-plus airmen to date, and the way we have approached this 

and the reaction that we have experienced thus far indicates to me 

that we are mitigating the risk in the way we are approaching this. 

And so I am more comfortable than I was on the 22nd of December, 

but we still have a ways to go. And it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring this home. 

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Roughead, what are your thoughts 

today? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think, Mr. Chairman, my view, as the report was concluded, the survey was concluded, and as I testified in 

December, it was pretty consistent with what I sensed in the force 

that I had the opportunity to engage over time. Our training is 

going very well. In those areas that we detected that there may be 

some areas of moderate risk, particularly some of the expeditionary 

forces that we had engagements similar to my shipmates here, indicate that it is not at the level that we had originally forecast and 

it is going rather well. 

Similarly, as the training is conducted, the types of questions reflect the professionalism, the maturity, and the decency of our people. And so I am very comfortable. I was comfortable in making the 

recommendation last December, and it is consistent with what I 

continue to see in the Navy today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think one of the problems I had, as I expressed 

in my openings statement and a little of the difference that I had 

with Ranking Member Smith, was kind of the way it was presented 

to us and given to us. We didn’t hold a hearing at the full committee level. We were given a briefing. The study was handed out 

to us just as the briefing started. So we really didn’t have adequate 

time to read it to ask I felt appropriate questions. And so my concern was more the procedure of how it was all laid out. 

But I—that is past, and now we are moving forward. I just want 

to make sure that we really are in tune with what is going on and 

that everybody has the opportunity to be involved in the process. 

I will hold my other questions for later. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will make a quick comment. I have a question. I think you generally have answered all the pertinent questions in your opening 

statements and to the chairman’s question, which is, do we have 

a fair process in place and are you having time to implement it? 

You seem to be working through it. It seems to be going better 

than expected. And we will see what happens as it proceeds. It was 

not a rush to judgment here. We didn’t automatically repeal Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell. Part of the reason we put in place the way we did 

was to give you gentlemen the chance to do what you are doing 
11 

right now. And ultimately, it has to be approved by the Secretary 

of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 

I guess the comment is the question about the impact it will have 

on unit cohesion and effectiveness. I would imagine there are a fair 

number of things on a day in and day out basis that challenge unit 

cohesion, and you all have to figure out how to pull together and 

make it work. And I think when you ask the question in a survey, 

do people have concerns, they may well express them. But then if 

you follow up, as happens on numerous occasions within the military, I mean, part of the job of the people serving is you have to 

do a lot of very difficult things and to do some things they would 

rather not do, but they come together and they do it. That is why 

we have such an incredible military. 

I think your comments about the initial stages of your training 

bear that out. Yes, we have concerns, but we will make it work. 

That seems to be the direction that it is going and that it is not 

going to undermine what the military is doing. Because, again, as 

all you gentlemen I think would acknowledge, it is not the first 

time it has occurred to anyone in the military that they are serving 

with gays and lesbians. That has been well known for a while. 

So I appreciate your work, and I think that the training you are 

doing helps make sure that this will be a successful implementation. But I, too, am 100 percent confident that our military, that 

all of the Services, will keep doing the fantastic job they are doing, 

and they will be better for it because we won’t have to drive people 

out of the military who are doing a good job just because of their 

sexual orientation. So I applaud your effort and I applaud the process you are going through. I guess I will just say for this committee, we stand ready to help in any way we can with that effort 

and with that process. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had a couple of questions, again going back to when we had the 

hearing, although it wasn’t technically a hearing, I guess. 

The first thing is that particularly there was a sense of resistance in the combat arms. Now that doesn’t surprise me particularly. At least it seems to make sense. Because if you are dealing 

with a regular office situation, that seems to me to be a very different environment than if you are bivouacked in the field somewhere or you are under the stress of combat in very tight quarters 

and under a lot of pressure and all. So it doesn’t surprise me. 

What were the numbers, first of all, in the Marine Corps in the 

combat arms section there? What were the numbers on that survey? 

General AMOS. Congressman, they were in the 60s for the—and 

I don’t have a precise number. 

Mr. AKIN. Rough number. 

General AMOS. Sixty percent for combat arms. 

Mr. AKIN. Was that your assessment, the same as what seems 

to me to make sense, that in a more combat-type environment, 

then tensions could be—stress is higher and also the conditions you 
12 

are living in are more complicated; do you think that is what drove 

that number? 

General AMOS. I think it could be that. I also think that in the 

units that predominantly are our principal command units, they 

are all male, typically. There are a few that have our females in 

it, but predominantly male. I think it is a function of they are just 

worried about combat. They are not sure what to expect. I think 

it was expectations and anticipation. 

Mr. AKIN. The way the policy used to work, particularly in one 

of those combat situations or whatever—Admiral, if it is a submarine or wherever there is a tremendous amount of pressure—if 

someone’s behavior started to become detrimental to the mission, 

the way it used to work, then they could be asked to leave the 

Service. So that tended to be a pretty strong—sort of kept a cap 

on behavior, perhaps. 

With the new policy, you have to figure out new guidelines as to 

how that is all going to work. We can say everything is going okay, 

but obviously, you have had to do a lot of thinking. And then if this 

happens, if this happens, how do you handle those different kind 

of situations? If there is somebody who is openly homosexual and 

their behavior starts to get in the way of the mission, what are 

your alternatives now, and how are you advising the officers to 

handle those kind of situations? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you. 

Mr. Akin, I would say that the fact that someone is gay or lesbian doesn’t really enter into a disruption to the mission. 

As you know, on most—almost in all of our communities, and 

very soon to be the submarine community, we are a very diverse 

force. It is not necessarily someone’s sexual orientation or even 

someone’s gender. If there is inappropriate behavior, if the conduct 

is unacceptable and undermines good order and discipline, that is 

the mechanism that causes a commander to take action and then 

process that individual or individuals through a judicial process or 

administrative process. 

So the same standards, the same regulations and standards of 

conduct will apply as to good order, discipline, and sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. So it is not as if we are having to create new policies. We will be enforcing these as we have for many 

years. 

Mr. AKIN. So, then, in the scenario that I am talking about, that 

is handled in the same way as if somebody were disruptive in a 

heterosexual type conduct, and if someone’s behavior is a distraction and getting in the way of mission, then you discipline them 

the same as any other situation. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Absolutely. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being before us again today. 

You know, when we were going through this whole process of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I did not believe that our military units were 

so fragile that finding out having somebody next to you that was 

openly gay would be so disruptive to the mission of our units. 
13 

And I am very proud so far, as you have discussed today, of all 

our men and women in uniform who have—who not only go out 

and fight for us every day but who are also working through this 

new policy that you are trying to implement. 

So I always thought they were strong and a great military force. 

And I think they are proving us right. 

My question today, gentlemen, is about those gay and lesbian 

members, service members, who were discharged because they 

were gay under the—during the time of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Now 

it is my understanding that those service members, if they didn’t 

have anything else on their record, there was no other problem or 

judicial issue or anything, that they would be discharged with an 

honorable discharge. Is that correct? 

Okay. 

And in the normal—that now the policy will be that in the normal process, that those who were discharged under Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell can come back and ask to be put back into military service. Is that correct? 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, those members—those former members can apply to reenlist and will be considered for reenlistment 

based on the needs of the Services and our normal entry process. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So will they have to start over, or will they get to 

reenter with given credit for the service that they have held if the 

only reason they were put out is because it was known that they 

were gay? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is an individual case consideration. But 

there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade, necessarily. 

Again, it depends on the needs of the Service. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. But if that position were open, is there a process 

or are you working on the process in which a person says, I have 

been out for 2 years, but I am still fit, I want to go back, I had 

a career, I would like to go back to where I was, and I see that 

there are openings there? 

General SCHWARTZ. Once again, if that scenario unfolded, it 

would properly be accommodated. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What are the guidelines if someone feels that they 

have gone back to the recruiter or they have gone back to try to 

reenlist and they have pushback? What are the policies in place, 

or what are you working through to ensure that they get a fair 

shake to try to get back their old career, if you will? 

General SCHWARTZ. There are opportunities for appeal both to 

the Inspector General of the recruiting service, in our case, as well 

as the Air Force Board of Corrections for Military Records. And in 

those two mechanisms, former members can appeal the designation 

that they have received. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Lastly, what are the reporting—if you get harassed by someone of the same sex who happens to be gay, is it the 

same process as you would in any normal—I know I heard it from 

the other side, but I just—and what happens if the perpetrator is 

in the chain of command, is the supervisor? Is it the same rules 

as what we see, for example, under sexual assault or sexual harassment in the normal context that we have been working with? 

General SCHWARTZ. Zero tolerance. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 
14 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those were my questions. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We have a series of votes. It is probably going to take close to 

an hour. Mr. Simmons has said he will make his office available 

if the chiefs would—I apologize. We are trying to go see that your 

pay continues. We will be in adjournment until the votes are concluded. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Thank you for your patience. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for so much for joining us. Thanks so 

much for your service to our Nation. 

I wanted to pick up on the issue of readiness. I know, as this discussion comes up about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the policy and 

the change in that policy, as I have heard from folks in my district, 

both those that are recently retired and those that are in Active 

Duty, one of the elements that they bring up to me is an issue of 

readiness. And I know that, in looking at the past survey work that 

was done, if you look at the survey results that you get back from 

those men and women that serve in combat zones, you see the results are a little bit different than those that are serving in other 

capacities. 

So I think that naturally begs the question about, as we are 

going forward and looking at how this policy is put in place, are 

we going to expect from you all the proper due diligence to make 

sure that evaluations take place that are rigorous and that really 

drill down to look at our readiness capability, and then making 

sure, too, that we understand, if there are problems with the implementation here, what is then going to happen? 

So I have a couple of questions. One is, from each of you, the 

rigor under which you will pursue evaluating the implementation 

of this policy. And then if it does create issues on readiness, operational issues, how do you expect to address them? And then will 

that affect certification? 

And, General Schwartz, I will go ahead and begin with you. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, the bottom line is, we will do this 

through the chain of command. And we will certainly monitor all 

the typical metrics that we look at, whether it be inspector general 

reports, whether it be sexual harassment indices, and, certainly, 

the commander-to-commander contact, which is continuous. If 

problems develop, we will design, you know, an approach to mitigate and to eliminate those challenges. I mean, we understand 

what the law of the land is, and that is the approach we will take. 

It is my conviction that we will probably have some occurrences, 

some deviations from our standards of conduct. And we will deal 

with them as we do others, whether it is heterosexual, whether it 

is personal conduct of other matters not of a sexual nature and so 

on. 

We are a force, as we all are, that are compliance-based, and we 

are going to continue to be that way. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Amos. 
15 

General AMOS. Congressman, this may sound, I guess, trite, but, 

really, the backbone, I think, for all our Services—and I can speak 

for ours—is that it really is leadership. So we are not putting additional training, additional hours of training, once we get past or get 

through and complete the Tier 3 specific kind of training, because 

our leadership is going on 12 months a year every week with our 

young marines. So it is face-to-face, there is, ‘‘How are we doing?’’ 

That is when we will get a real sense that, what are the real issues 

that may come out of this? 

We can probably expect there will be some. I can’t anticipate 

what they will be. I don’t want to be naive about it, and I want 

to manage some expectations here. But, conversely, I am absolutely 

confident that good order and discipline, standards of conduct, 

those things are the hallmark of all our Services will prevail at the 

end of the day. 

And that is the part that will make sense to our young men and 

women. It is not, okay, we are going to go another 30 hours of this 

kind of instruction, or every year we are going to hit the refresh 

button and do this. It will be that constant, persistent leadership 

by our NCOs [Noncommissioned Officers] and our staff NCOs and 

our officers. And that will be our metric. We will get that feedback, 

and we will work our way through that. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, Congressman. 

We monitor readiness and all of the components of readiness continuously, and all of the factors that are involved. And we look at 

how we are constantly making those improvements. So the visibility that we are going to have on readiness I think will be very 

good. 

I think it is also telling that, in the survey itself, in those units 

where members served with gay and lesbian sailors, that they 

rated the unit readiness either well or very well. 

So I think that our observation of readiness, the factors, the elements of tone of the force that we pay attention to will be clear indicators of where we are. 

Mr. WITTMAN. My time is running out, but I did want to emphasize how important readiness is in our role here in oversight to 

make sure that, in no way, shape, or form, in any respect, is readiness to be sacrificed with the implementation of this policy. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. I certainly apologize for the 

time. I know that you are all extremely busy, and we respect greatly what you do and respect your professionalism. 

I wanted to also express my condolences to General Casey and 

certainly his family. And I also wanted to acknowledge—I know he 

had been here just a little while ago, and we acknowledged the fact 

that that might be his last hearing. 

And thank you, General Chiarelli, for being here, as well. 

But I know that, as we look at the timelines that we are working 

with on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell after the training and the opportunity to move toward implementation, I wondered if you could just 

comment, General, to General Casey’s comment, I think, to the 
16 

chairman that the force would be about half-trained before the time 

to actually certify. 

And I wonder whether General Dempsey has been involved in 

this process and the current training agenda and whether you 

think that he is up to speed on the process. And do you see any 

changes in terms of trying to conclude the training of the Army, 

which we know is taking longer just by virtue of the numbers? 

General CHIARELLI. As you mentioned, General Casey did say, 

ma’am, that he felt that he would be able to certify on or about— 

on or around the 15th of May, based on having trained 50 percent 

of the force. And I think his reasoning is the fact that we have commanders doing it. And we really feel that commanders, because 

they are doing the training, are going to pick up on any issues that 

we might have. 

And the session that I had last Friday was the first in trying to 

get any feedback. Now we will be going heavy into the Tier 3 training. 

I can’t tell you whether General Dempsey will, in fact, feel the 

same, but he has been involved in the training, as the TRADOC 

[United States Army Training and Doctrine Command] commander, prior to confirmation. And I have no reason to believe 

that—if it is adjusted, I have no reason to believe it would be much 

longer than what General Casey felt. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I know that, initially, the directive and, certainly, the law was 

to be certain that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 

chairman of the Joint Chiefs would be able to make that certification, everything being equal, that the process had moved forward 

and there was a belief that, in fact, readiness and the host of other 

criteria were being managed well. And, at the same time, there 

was some reluctance to, I think, move forward on the part of the 

members unless you had an opportunity to be here. 

And I wanted to just be certain that there was no pressure, that 

there were no—you didn’t feel that your voices were not being 

heard as we moved forward with this, and, in fact, when the actual 

certification was made, no matter what occurred, that, in fact, you 

would have the kind of input that would be required of all of you 

in your position. Is there any reason that people would have been 

concerned about that? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No, ma’am. No pressure, no question that 

our voice will be heard, as we go through the training and engage 

routinely with the Secretary of Defense and the chairman on this. 

And I have no doubt whatsoever about that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

General Amos. 

General AMOS. Ma’am, I want to be really clear that we have had 

complete open communication opportunities with the chairman and 

with the Secretary of Defense. They value our opinion. And we talk 

about this pretty close to weekly, or at least every other week. We 

sit down and talk about it, and it is a very frank and honest discussion. So we will have plenty of opportunity between now and certification. 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, we will make a written input, I will, 

to the chairman on my recommendations to him. And I am sure 
17 

that my secretary will make a similar interaction with the Secretary of Defense. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Uh-huh. 

General CHIARELLI. And I know General Casey has mentioned to 

me several times the direct input that he has had often with both 

the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense over this issue as they have met. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I know that you responded earlier to the question about the implementation. Can I just ask you briefly, in the letter of the chairman to General Casey, he mentioned that it had been stated that 

the general felt that implementation would be more difficult than 

what the Pentagon’s survey would suggest. 

Is it going to be more difficult? Is it going to be as expected? Less 

difficult? How would you characterize that? 

General CHIARELLI. Well, it is always difficult when you are 

working with a force of 1.1 million, with the large Reserve Component that we have, and the fact that they only meet 3 days a week, 

if not deployed, and with soldiers moving in and out of theater— 

that is the difficulty in working through that. And add that to the 

fact that, some concern with combat arms officers and soldiers in 

the survey indicated that they had more concern than others. 

But what we feel good about, at least at the beginning, is that 

the training package is a quality training package that, at least 

with early results, seems to be mitigating some of that concern. 

Mr. WILSON. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

And thank you, General. 

Congressman Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and 

to all the great soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. And I just want 

to thank you for your service and thank you for the people that you 

represent here. 

And I will be very upfront and honest. I mean, this is going to 

be implemented. I don’t think that we need to sit up here and banter back and forth about what is going to happen, because, you all 

being great leaders, you will take the guidance that has been given 

to you and you will make sure that it happens, the same as I did 

when I was in the military. 

But, you know, once again, my concern is very simple. The military exists to win the Nation’s wars. And I think that when we get 

to the point where we are starting to discuss about how the military conforms to accommodating individual behavior, that is what 

I get concerned with. 

Because, General Chiarelli, if I am not wrong, I think we still do 

have a height standard to be a member of the ‘‘Old Guard,’’ the 

Third Infantry Regiment, if I am correct? 

General CHIARELLI. I didn’t get—what standard, sir? 

Mr. WEST. A height standard. 

General CHIARELLI. Height standard? Yes, we do. 

Mr. WEST. Absolutely. So even though I was a pretty strapped 

soldier, I am 5’9’’, I was a shorty, and so I never could get into that 

unit. 

General Amos, without a doubt, I think the Marines still do have 

PFTs [physical fitness test], correct? 
18 

General AMOS. Congressman, we absolutely do. 

Mr. WEST. And if there was a great Marine that is serving well 

but if he cannot pass that PFT and he has a problem with weight, 

we still separate that marine, correct? 

General AMOS. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. WEST. And, you know, General Schwartz, I am sure that 

when we look at a commanding officer out there in your force, if 

a commanding officer has a DUI [Driving Under the Influence], 

chances are that is going to put his career at risk, am I correct? 

General SCHWARTZ. In all likelihood, it would, sir. 

Mr. WEST. So my point is this: You know, the United States military is a military of standards, and it is a military of standards 

that are somewhat different from the civilian world. And as we go 

forward—this is me kind of getting on my pulpit—I think what the 

people on this side and the people in the administration need to 

understand is that we are different. We have haircut standards. 

Now, I am sure a person with a ponytail could go out there and 

maybe they could serve just as well, but that is not part of who 

we are and that is not part of our standards. 

So I think that the most important thing is, us on this side must 

understand that we must set the military up for success. My worry 

is, when I think about the Major Nidal Hasan case, where we had 

subordinate leaders who were concerned about political correctness 

and didn’t report that situation up, I want to make sure that our 

subordinate leaders understand that, if they see problems with the 

implementation of this program, that they are not afraid of retribution from special-interest civilian groups that will cause them to 

exacerbate what could be a dangerous situation. 

So, with that being said, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman West. 

At this time, Ms. Pingree of Maine. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you all for the service that you give to our country, 

for being here with us today, for your patience in waiting for us 

to come back. I appreciate that. 

I, personally, am a longtime supporter of the repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell, so I am very pleased to hear your positive comments, 

to hear what I think many of us believed would happen, was that 

our military would be ready to do this, it be would fully prepared, 

and that people would be handling it well. So I am glad to hear 

many of your positive remarks and the fact that all of you are 

working hard to implement this. 

Last week, in the Military Personnel Subcommittee, we were 

able to hear from Dr. Stanley, who I thought gave wonderful testimony about the implementation process that we are in, and talked 

a little bit about how this has, frankly, cost around $10,000. And 

that is a big contrast to what many people estimate, between 2004 

and 2009, the cost of $193 million to discharge members of the 

military, who were highly trained, served their country well, and 

I don’t believe we could afford to lose them. 

I have a slightly different question. And while I am very pleased 

to hear so much positive coming out of this process that we are 

going through, I have had one early, isolated report of a training 

session where the educator—the education and training of open 
19 

service was mocked and disparaged by the commander. I know 

those are isolated reports, but I am interested to hear your comments on them. When we hear about them, should we report them 

back to all of you or to Dr. Stanley? 

And I guess I would ask you if you have any concerns about the 

idea that a commander who may mock the training or wink or nod 

or, you know, show something that is slightly disparaging may encounter future problems when we are in the serious implementation of open service. 

I do believe these are isolated, and I know you have all said very 

positive things. But when we hear those things, isolated as they 

are, I am just interested in your take on them, how they are being 

handled, and, frankly, what we should do and how we should convey it when we hear that. 

Any of you. 

General CHIARELLI. I have had one incident that has been reported to me of three senior officers engaging in such activity. I 

will tell you, it was immediately reported by their superior, and 

proper action is being taken, like it would be in any situation 

where something like that happens. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. In our case, ma’am, as we do the training, 

there are opportunities for those who participate in training to 

comment on the effectiveness of that training. And it also allows 

us to measure retention of certain elements of the training that we 

provided. 

So there is ample feedback on our Web site that deals with the 

topic. There are opportunities for individuals to post comments, to 

post questions. 

So we have good visibility that is not in a filtered process but one 

that I think is quite open and allows us to get a sense of the tone 

of the training and the receptivity of the training. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. 

And let me just say before the rest of you answer, thank you, Admiral Roughead. And I know we are looking forward to launching 

another good Navy ship from the Bath Iron Works, I think in May 

or June, and we are excited about that. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. It is May, ma’am. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. We are anxious to have that happen. 

General AMOS. Congresswoman, we have not had any reports 

that have come up to me. And if any Member of Congress were 

ever to get that, I would certainly want to know about it, because 

it really violates the very premise of marines will get in step and 

do it smartly and follow orders. And this is about obeying our Nation’s laws, and so we would take that very, very seriously. 

We have worked pretty—in fact, have worked very hard to make 

sure everybody understands that we follow the law in the Marine 

Corps. And so, as Admiral Roughead has described, we have these 

open forums and discussion. 

Now, I will tell you, I have asked for feedback out of these things 

from the commanders. And it will be consistent between now and 

the time that I recommend that the Marine Corps is ready to go 

or not ready to go to the chairman. 
20 

And I would say the clear majority of it is very positive, but 

there are questions about billeting, there are questions about policy 

changes, there are questions about base housing, there are questions about gang showers. I mean, these come up in the discussions, but that is healthy. 

And I have not heard of a commander—but we have 202,000 Marines on Active Duty and 39,600 Reserve. It would be unrealistic 

to think that there is not a salty individual or two out there that 

is probably going to turn askance at this. And we will deal with 

that at the time. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. 

General SCHWARTZ. And I would just amplify what General Amos 

said. This is about the Constitution and our oath to it, and we are 

loyal. And if you have information about an airman that is not on 

board, I would appreciate knowing about it, ma’am. 

Ms. PINGREE. Right. Well, I appreciate your comments, and I 

thank you for your hard work to make this work. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Next, we proceed to Congresswoman Vicki Hartzler 

of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I just would like to ask—I am very concerned with what 

I am hearing today, that we are going to expose our troops to moderate risk. And General Casey said it is another level of stress, it 

is more complicated. 

I just want to know, I guess, from each of you, when have you 

suggested a change in policy before that would put our men and 

women at moderate risk? 

Start with you. 

General CHIARELLI. Well, I believe General Casey indicated that 

he felt that the report characterized it at less risk than he felt, 

given the fact we are an army that had been fighting for 10 years 

in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And he rated it as moderate risk. 

However, we have not completed enough of our training for him 

at this time to say it is not still moderate risk. But, at the same 

time, we have put together a very, very good, good training package that emphasizes our role as professional soldiers that we believe is going to mitigate that risk and drive it down. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Have you been involved in recommending a policy, though, where there was a moderate risk before? That was the 

question. Have you done that yet, at some other time in your career? 

Yes, General, go ahead. 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, I would say yes, and I would say it 

is going to war places the force at at least moderate risk. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Uh-huh. 

General Amos. 

General AMOS. Yes, ma’am. When you put someone’s life at risk 

in an operation, it is oftentimes heavy risk—high risk. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Sure. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. And, ma’am, what we do is inherently dangerous. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Right. 
21 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Whether it is flying from the deck of an aircraft carrier, running a nuclear-powered submarine at 800 feet 

under the sea, it is inherently dangerous, and we know how to 

manage the risk. 

That said, for the process we are going through, I am very comfortable with where we are. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Well, I think there is a difference, though. 

I mean, war is risk, I mean, obviously. But this is a change in policy that is going to add a moderate risk onto the already inherent 

risk of war. We are at war at two levels, and maybe three if you 

call Libya. We have men and women in harm’s way. We are at war 

as a country. And yet we are talking about one of the most monumental changes of policy that this country has ever faced in its 

military forces. 

And I just want to speak from my heart to each one of you. I 

have the utmost respect for you. And I appreciate what you are 

doing to lead our forces and to keep our country safe. And there 

is no higher respect that I have for you. 

But I want to challenge you, that you are the last force to be able 

to stop this onerous policy. And I have to believe from my heart, 

in your gut, you know this is not the right thing. I appreciate that 

you follow command, you follow the Constitution, and you are fulfilling what you are charged to do. But there is an opportunity to 

not certify this. And it has fallen upon you, at this time in history, 

to be able to give the final say to the Secretary of Defense and to 

Admiral Mullen whether you, in your right mind, in your heart of 

hearts, in your professional career, you believe this is going to help 

improve our forces from this time on out and help us win wars. 

And I would ask you to consider this and to stand strong, like 

you stand strong against other forces, foreign and domestic, that 

have come upon our country, and that you would not certify this. 

And, with that, I am going to get into some specific questions, but 

that is an appeal I hope you will think about in the privacy of your 

own home, in your own heart, before you do this. Because you can 

stop it still, and not do something just for political correctness. 

But regarding chaplains, will chaplains face career penalties if 

they defer performing same-sex marriage to someone else? 

Any of you. 

General SCHWARTZ. No, ma’am. We expect our chaplains to minister to all, but, in those activities that are specific to denominations, they can practice as they see fit. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Does that hold true for ministry assistants and 

having to hire them who openly engage in homosexual behavior, or 

suffer career penalties for failing to do so? 

General SCHWARTZ. Again, we have not experienced any of the 

ecclesiastical agencies withdrawing their endorsement of their 

chaplaincies. And so, to date, that has not been an issue, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Our time is up, but I appreciate your consideration. And, once again, I respect what you are doing, and we 

are counting on you. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Hartzler. 

We now proceed to Mr. Bill Owens of New York. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
22 

As a former JAG [Judge Advocate General] officer, I want to 

know if you are comfortable both with the status of the UCMJ 

[Uniform Code of Military Justice] as well as your regulations for 

handling the implementation and, as I think you expressed before, 

the ability of the chain of command to process and handle complaints and deviations from military standards. 

I would ask that of each of you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I am comfortable with that, yes, sir. I mean, 

we deal with adherence to standards every day throughout our 

military, and nothing will change in that regard. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

General CHIARELLI. It is our belief that commanders have sufficient tools to address conduct that violates good order and discipline. We certainly support the recommendations included in the 

CRWG [Comprehensive Review Working Group] report to modify 

the UCMJ but consider that mostly housecleaning, at this particular point in time, and that we have what we need now to move 

toward implementation. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

General AMOS. Congressman, I believe that what we have in 

place currently is more than adequate standards of conduct for us. 

In all the things that we have kind of thought through the implementation process, quite honestly, the UCMJ, the authorities, and 

that was something that was probably the least of our concerns 

and that we believe the current standards of conduct that are in 

place are more than adequate. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

General SCHWARTZ. There are 63 Air Force instructions that deal 

with this issue either tangentially or centrally, sir. Out of that, 

there are 27 that require some changes given the change in policy, 

16 of which are relatively minor and will be done and ready to promulgate shortly. There are 11 which require more work, and that 

will take a couple more months to put together. But they will be 

ready to roll out at the time when, and if, the chairman, Secretary, 

and the President certify. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

Are the Services, at a joint level, doing an overall or combined 

plan for implementation? Or is this being done by the individual 

Service without any type of coordination? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Congressman, we are responsible and accountable for training our own Service. The nature of the training, 

the way it has been constructed and coordinated has been done 

among the Services as we go forward together. 

But the best accountability, in my belief, is through the Services 

so that we can account for the training, that we can get the feedback that we need. But it has been something that has been wellcoordinated. 

General AMOS. Congressman, all through the summer, while the 

surveys were taking place last spring and summer and fall, part 

of the effort of the comprehensive working group was the implementation portion of this, looking at policies and training and everything else. They have developed, with all the Services—we all 

had representatives on that effort—a very comprehensive training 

package that addresses, really, the 99 percentile of the issues and 
23 

those significant things that we have to look at with regards to 

training and issues. 

So each Service, then, was told we will use that as the framework and the backbone, and then we will impart our own culture, 

our own Service culture. By that, I mean we don’t change the nature, but for the Marines we get down and dirty, look them in the 

eye, and go, ‘‘Okay, pay very close attention to me. We are going 

to have a discussion about this.’’ I mean, that is the culture part, 

but the framework is the same among all the Services. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I think we are executing in our Service 

lane, but you can tell there is a high degree of coordination at 

every level. 

The one exception might be joint entities, where we have a mix 

of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and so on. And, in those cases, 

the individuals are getting their training from their senior Service 

leadership in the commands. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much. 

I have great faith that you will implement this and make a certification decision, or advise senior leadership of the certification 

decision that you think is in the best interest of accomplishing the 

mission. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Ms. Martha Roby of Alabama. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, good afternoon. And I certainly thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And I appreciate your patience with us this afternoon. So thank 

you all for being here and for what you do for our country. 

And I know you talked a little bit, there was a lengthy question 

about readiness and the effects of the implementation. But I wanted to ask you just very directly and simply how each of you would 

feel about the implementation of this repeal. How would it improve 

the standards of our military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention for our military? 

General AMOS. Ma’am, I can’t tell you at this point that it will 

improve it. We don’t know yet. We are—the law has not been repealed. We are in the implementation phase right now, so we are 

in the training and education portion of this. So we can’t say one 

way or the other. 

I think that is something that will happen probably a year or two 

later. In other words, you will get a sense within—in my community, we will get a sense within probably 6 months to 12 months 

what the impact is on retention. 

We have not seen any impact on retention, we have not seen any 

impact on recruiting right now while we are in the signed law implementation phase. But will it improve recruiting and retention 

and combat effectiveness? I can’t address that right now because I 

don’t know. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, just to follow up with that, General, one of our 

members actually referenced to me a letter that was received from 

a marine, specifically discussing resignation in light of this repeal. 

And so I guess I could further my question and say, do you know 

specifically that there have been resignations throughout our military as it relates to this repeal? 
24 

General AMOS. I would suspect, out of 202,000 Marines, that 

there will be some marines that will step forward, they will turn 

letters in, they will talk to their Congressman, they will write articles in the press. But because they say they want to resign, there 

is—constitutionally, they stepped up and joined the Marine Corps. 

So the fact that they are uncomfortable at this point or the fact 

that they want to resign doesn’t necessarily mean they are going 

to be allowed to resign. They have a commitment to our Nation, the 

same as any other service man or women has. 

So I don’t know of a specific one, but I would be the most surprised person if there weren’t a couple out there that said, ‘‘I am 

going to resign.’’ Doing that and actually following through are two 

different things. 

Mrs. ROBY. Yes, sir. 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, I would just say that, you know, our 

experience so far hasn’t—we haven’t accumulated enough data 

points to sort of make a judgment. 

But I would say that, conceptually, you can argue that there 

might well be improvements at some point because fewer people 

leave the Service and so on. And, ideally, that is the right people 

who stay. 

But I think, at this point in time, it is premature to make a judgment. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Ma’am, I would say one of the biggest challenges that we face today is too many people want to stay in the 

Navy, and that that has not changed as a result of the process that 

we are going through. In fact, it is just becoming more pressurized 

for people who want to stay or who even want to come in. And you 

can debate the reasons as to why. But this has not, in any way, 

shape, or form, changed that dynamic that we are dealing with. 

I do think that one of the things that will be true once this is 

implemented is that we won’t have sailors who, because of orientation, are always looking over their shoulder. 

General CHIARELLI. I would only echo what the other chiefs have 

all said. It is too early to tell, but we have seen nothing that would 

indicate, so far, that there will be any more individuals who indicate a desire to leave than there would be with any other policy 

that possibly could be changed. 

Again, we feel very, very good, so far, at really not hearing a lot 

of that. We have not heard those reports except—I mean, in an organization of 1.1 million, again, there are, no doubt, going to be a 

few. 

Mrs. ROBY. Yes, sir. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, thank you for accommodating our schedule today. 

And I think this is obviously an important issue, and I want to 

thank all of you for your thoughtfulness in not only your remarks 

today but throughout this entire process. I want to say thank you. 

This is something that I think has been a long time coming for 

our country. A lot of the issues that we talk about as a country, 

that we fight about as a country are the issues of freedom and lib-
25 

erty. And we hear the words thrown around a lot. And I think the 

implementation of this policy is an opportunity for us to create that 

more perfect union here in the United States and allowing free 

American citizens to serve their country in whatever way they see 

fit. So I want to thank you for that. 

And, really, just mention a couple stories here, Mr. Chairman, 

from back in Ohio, because we have gotten a lot into the logistics 

here today, and I think it is important that we recognize that these 

are real folks that want to serve our country. 

We have someone back in Ohio, former Air Force Major General 

Mike Almy, native of Dayton, Ohio, who was a gay soldier who was 

discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A 13-year veteran of the 

Air Force kicked out of the armed services after his superiors investigated his personal e-mails and found the correspondence between he and his partner. 

Patrick Moloughney, Cincinnati, Ohio, a ROTC [Reserve Officer 

Training Corps] student outed shortly before graduation and discharged, still wants to serve, still wants to come back and serve his 

country. 

Brian Endicott from Columbus, Ohio, joined the Army in 1992 

when then-candidate Clinton talked about the promise then to ban 

from the Service. When Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented, he 

opted not to re-enlist. 

And then, lastly, Josh Kreais served a full term as a combat 

medic in Iraq. After returning, he was discovered by someone who 

had unauthorized access to his e-mail; another soldier got his password somehow. He was brought up on discharge proceedings, but 

those proceedings were put on hold until he served a second full 

term in Iraq, and he was discharged shortly after he returned. And 

he is from Upper Sandusky in Ohio. 

So these are real people who want to serve our country that are 

talented. 

So, again, I want to just say thank you, and ask one quick question. And I apologize if I missed in the transition if this question 

has already been asked. But how soon after certification will 

former service members who wish to return to service be allowed 

to begin the process? Some former service members approaching 40 

are worried that they will age out before the process begins. 

General AMOS. Congressman, in the case of the Marine Corps, 

once certification is done and the law—it is 60 days later the law 

becomes effective. Then, in the case of the Marine Corps, those that 

have been discharged in the past—and we have had about 1,400 

Marines since 1993 that have been discharged for homosexuality— 

can apply. 

And what they will do, they will go to a prior-service recruiter, 

and they will apply just like anybody else that has left the Marine 

Corps with an honorable discharge, come back in, and if their skill 

sets and their age and they meet all the requirements and there 

is a need, then they will be allowed to come back on Active Duty. 

But they will fall in the competition with everybody else that has 

gotten out and have come back as a prior-service marine. 

Mr. RYAN. The same. 

General CHIARELLI. Same for the Army. Exactly as General 

Amos laid it out. And, quite frankly, this is something going on all 
26 

the time in the Army with soldiers who have left, for whatever the 

reason might be, many of them petition to come back in. 

Mr. RYAN. Great. My time is winding down here. Thank you so 

much. Again, this is a long time coming. And we appreciate your 

help in the training and implementation of this. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here today. 

General Chiarelli, my sympathy to the Casey family. We certainly have just the highest regard for General George Casey and 

his service. 

As we are proceeding, I share the concerns of Chairman Buck 

McKeon that there were hasty decisions made in December in regard to passage of this law. In fact, it really is bizarre. It was a 

lame-duck session of defeated Members of Congress who have 

made this change in the law. 

Normally, you would think of a representative democracy that 

people would be representing their people. But these were people 

who had actually been rejected by the voters of the United States, 

and then they changed this law. I find that just really undemocratic. It is also shocking to me that these are the same people who 

did not pass a budget. And that is what we are facing today. 

But it is amazing that they could have made such a decision. 

And that makes it even more important as to the certification effort 

that every effort is made to look into morale, unit cohesion, good 

order, discipline, recruiting and retention, and combat readiness. 

Because Members of Congress, defeated ones, did not look at that. 

And didn’t care. 

It is my view in my 31 years of service that extraordinary surveys—anonymous surveys so that people could speak freely—are 

really very helpful. Will there be any surveys as you are considering the certification process of members of the military? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, not surveys in the context of what was 

performed last fall, but certainly there will be an aggregation of information through the command chains and other normal reporting 

mechanisms to give us the information, the situational awareness 

we need to make the recommendation, in our case, to the chairman. And just to address what Congresswoman Hartzler indicated 

earlier, you can rest assured that each one of us will give our best 

military advice to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 

General AMOS. Congressman, in our case, I have the objective 

criteria which we talked about earlier on, Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 

3 training. That will be complete. 

The subjective part for us will be command climate surveys, 

which is a formal survey. It is not a jump on a blog site kind of 

survey, but it is a real—we bring trained people in; we do a command climate survey. And then we have our retention surveys, our 

early retention surveys that we do. Those are all fixed things that 

we do. We will also have the input from the commanders. 

So there are surveys. It is not a specific one to deal with this. 

But it will talk about marines, how they are feeling about staying 

on Active Duty in the Marine Corps, how is the climate in their 

command, which are things I am very concerned about and that to 
27 

your point about retention and combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Congressman, I would say that we make 

several changes in the Navy from time to time on policies and 

other issues. I will tell you that at no time have I seen the continuous feedback, the continuous assessment on the part of the training that is going on to the degree that we are doing here. So I do 

believe that the pulse of the force is going to be monitored throughout this in ways that we have never done before. 

General CHIARELLI. I can only echo that. 

And with your experience in the United States Army, Congressman, you know that commanders are best suited to be able to tell 

whether a change in policy is going to have an effect on any of the 

things that you mentioned. And that is why we have put it foursquare on their shoulders to be the one that conducts the training 

and get the feedback from their units and soldiers. 

Mr. WILSON. I appreciate your statements. I am also concerned 

about First Amendment rights of chaplains. Will there be guidelines for chaplains as to how they conduct themselves and their 

ability to comment on this policy? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

In fact, chaplains are part of the Tier 1 training, very focused on 

that. The Chief of Chaplains was involved in the development of 

that training. The rights of not just chaplains but all of our sailors 

to practice the tenets of their belief is unaffected. 

Mr. WILSON. There will be not be retaliation against those who 

may disagree with the policy in expressing their point of view? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I believe that those who have moral objections and find that it is a challenge for them because of their beliefs, those beliefs can be expressed. 

That said, any expression of that that goes beyond the norms of 

the normal decency and respect that we have for one another, that 

is a line that I think could be crossed. But their ability to deal with 

their religious beliefs, to discuss those beliefs, to seek guidance 

from our chaplain corps will be unaffected. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you, both for being here and your patience and 

also for your service. I don’t have any doubts that the results that 

you see, you will report accordingly. So I really don’t have any 

questions, except to tell you how much we appreciate the work that 

you have done and the work that you are doing. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to all of you, thank you so much for basically being the 

custodians and guardians of our young men and women who volunteer to serve and whose parents trust you with their lives and livelihoods. 

The first question for everybody is, basically, I would like to 

know how the repeal increases combat effectiveness. 
28 

General CHIARELLI. As I mentioned earlier, we don’t know exactly yet how it is going to. But I would argue that if we are able 

to—if the decision is made to repeal and certification does take 

place, as we work this over time, inclusive organizations are usually the best kinds of organizations. And we will look at that and 

the ability to ensure that soldiers are able to stay in critical MOS’s 

[military occupational specialties] longer as possible areas where it 

could improve readiness. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think that one of the things that is important, as you so well know because of your service, Congressman, is 

the integrity and the belief that people can have in being frank and 

honest and open. I believe that that now becomes part of our force 

in a way that it has not been. I also would echo what General 

Chiarelli said, in that there are some talented people who have left 

the Navy because of this. 

Mr. HUNTER. Specifically, combat arms. Do you think the Navy 

SEALs’ [Sea, Air, and Land Teams’] combat effectiveness will increase after the repeal and different Special Forces Task Forces 

that fall under the Navy? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think that across the Navy when—oftentimes, people talk about the combat arms, and that really conjures 

up the ground force. But I would submit that those who serve in 

our submarines, who serve in our airplanes, are as much of a combat arm as anything that we have. 

Mr. HUNTER. Do you think it will increase the effectiveness? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I believe that we will see great young sailors, who perhaps otherwise would not serve, will be able to serve. 

And to quote an anecdote from some of the surveys that was done 

with regard to one of our Navy SEALs, a comment was made: He’s 

big, he’s bad, he kills a lot of bad guys. And, oh, by the way, he’s 

gay. So I think that we will see good people serving, yes, sir. 

General AMOS. Congressman, too soon for me to tell. 

I think the one thing that will happen, some of this will be a little bit evolutionary. It will become revealing over time. But I am 

not in a position right now where I can comment on, will it increase combat effectiveness? 

I think it will increase peace of mind for a portion of our Marine 

Corps that is gay and lesbian. They have been there since 1993 

when the law was in there. I don’t know how many of them are. 

My suspicions are the numbers are probably pretty small. But we 

know that they are there. I don’t know who they are. And I don’t 

care at this point. But my sense for them, there will be a peace of 

mind that they have been unable to have prior to this. 

Have we lost high-quality folks with unique talents that were 

‘‘onesie-twosie’’? I can’t tell that. So, for me as a marine—as a commandant, it will be a while yet before I will be able to look back 

and say, our combat effectiveness has increased. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks for your honesty and your blunt answer. 

General. 

General SCHWARTZ. I agree with that. 

Three things: Clearly, peace of mind. There is the potential for 

keeping people who otherwise might have to depart our Air Force. 

And it increases—potentially increases the recruiting pool. We 

shall see. 
29 

Mr. HUNTER. I think I heard that we don’t know whether it will 

increase combat effectiveness or not yet. I think that was what everybody has agreed on. 

The last question. I have only got a minute left. Say that you and 

your commanders on the ground for your combat units specifically, 

do not think that—let’s be hypothetical, even I know we all hate 

that. In 6 months, the repeal happens but your commanders tell 

you that your combat units are not ready yet and you either don’t 

make a recommendation at that point yet because you are not 

ready for the repeal, or you do and it is that we don’t do it yet, 

that we need more training, we need more whatever. What would 

you do then if the implementation of the repeal is forced upon you? 

Do you have any recourse? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Congressman, I would say that I am comfortable and confident in the voice that we have with regard to the 

assessment of where we are objectively and subjectively that when 

we make our recommendation with regard to where we are in 

training, how we believe this went, how we believe it has gone, do 

we have to circle back perhaps to emphasize some other points that 

need to be made that we may have identified as part of this feedback mechanism, I am confident that our recommendation will be 

heard. 

Mr. HUNTER. And your recourse if it isn’t? If you are not ready 

and the implementation is forced upon you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I am confident that the recommendation I 

make with regard to the readiness of the Navy will be a factor in 

whether or not we go forward as a force or not. 

Mr. HUNTER. Is everybody comfortable with that? 

General SCHWARTZ. I would only add: A very significant factor. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had asked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for some 

additional questions on how this impacted—from the survey, as to 

drill down further as to how the survey impacted our ground combat arms elements of the United States Army and the United 

States Marine Corps, having served in both as a soldier in the U.S. 

Army infantry and as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps. I did 

get the raw data for the survey results of the specific questions I 

had. And it is amazing, when the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

has something that they want to get to me that they agree with 

me on, how quick they are. 

But I believe that they intentionally delayed this. And it took 

them 2 months to give me the information that they had right on 

the top of their desk. And it is contained in this binder here. 

In going through the raw data, what it showed to me is how 

flawed this survey was; that it was no more than a conclusion looking for a survey. And it is simply not legitimate. It is flawed. And 

I think this speaks to the lack of honesty in this process. But I just 

want to—and I am not going to put you in the middle of this because you are already in the middle of it, whether you want to be 

or not, but I just want to thank you not just for your service but 
30 

for making this work in terms of trying to mitigate whatever 

stresses this has on our forces. Because it really doesn’t matter at 

the end of the day what you tell the Secretary of Defense or the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, they are political appointees. And we have a commander in chief who made this as a 

campaign promise, and they will follow through with that promise 

with him, there is no question in my mind. 

I think I would only ask of you one thing, and that is my heart 

is with the infantry, both the Army and the Marine Corps. And I 

am very concerned. I think that there is a reason today why we 

don’t have women serving in ground combat units where their primary mission is combat. And that is because we have chosen not 

to interject sexuality in those units to maintain unit cohesion. We 

are going to be interjecting sexuality in those units. And having 

served in combat with a ground combat team in conventional operations in the first Gulf War—I served in Iraq, but not in the infantry—but in the first Gulf War, where you went out and you stayed 

out—that young people, for young people, sexuality is an emotion 

that is very prominent in their lives. 

So I just want you to I take extra caution in recognizing the differences in these ground combat units. Because as you look at the 

survey, the questions—because, obviously, it is a conclusion looking 

for a survey—are not geared to those units. 

And so, again, I just want to thank you for your service and what 

you do. I know you are in a tough position, but I know you are 

going to do the best you can in what is not a military decision, at 

the end of the day. It is a political decision. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Palazzo. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you all for being here today. Thank you for 

your service. 

In a large sense, I guess I kind of feel like Sam Houston when 

he arrived on to the site of the Alamo and saw the destruction and 

the death, and he couldn’t help his fellow Americans, Texans, 

Tennesseeans, and so forth. 

So I do have a few questions. I do think I share most of the views 

with the Republican members that this is a hasty policy. It was a 

policy that shouldn’t have been passed in a lame duck session. 

I kind of disagree with some comments that if soldiers who have 

enlisted or become commissioned officers under a certain thought 

that their military was a good military, a correct military, or just 

whatever they thought the military was when they joined, and this 

Congress comes and tinkers with it and they no longer see it being 

what they envisioned or what their grandfathers in the Pacific War 

envisioned it being, then I think we may need to provide them 

some relief to exit the military, because we don’t want to hurt them 

on their way out. They have served honorably. So let’s just please 

keep those considerations. 

Because I have heard comments from high-ranking officials that, 

well, you know, they are just going to either accept it or they know 

what they can do. And I think that on its face is a disservice to 

the people who have sacrificed so much for so many people. 
31 

I would like to just address the survey real quick. How many 

people responded to the survey? If anybody has all the technical information, just feel free to input. 

General SCHWARTZ. We can take that for the record. But for the 

Air Force, it was 117,000, or thereabouts. 

Mr. PALAZZO. If you could say about how many responded and 

how much your total force, including Reserves. 

General SCHWARTZ. It was a response rate slightly over 30 percent. 

General AMOS. Congressman, I will also take that for the record 

to get you the precise numbers, but it was well over 40,000. And 

then there was spouses. Families members were also allowed. 

Three parts to the survey. Actually, four. One was the actual survey to the service members. The second one was the spousal survey. There was a blog site, kind of a free-for-all king of thing. And 

there was another one. We will get you that information. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Congressman, for the Navy, it was 28 percent of the Active Force, 33 percent of the Reserve Component, 

which is very consistent with the normal response rates on all the 

instruments that we use to make significant decisions in the Navy. 

General CHIARELLI. For the Army, I will take that for the record, 

but I know it was under 30 percent of those who were surveyed, 

and it was higher in the Reserve Components than it was in the 

Active Component force. I will get you the exact numbers, Congressman. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 63.] 

Mr. PALAZZO. I appreciate that. 

Of course, that brought so many other questions in my mind 

right now. Why do you think the number was so low? And before— 

I would like to inject some comments with that. From what I have 

seen in my service is that two things were taking place. One, they 

didn’t believe it was an anonymous survey. They thought their IP 

[Internet Provider], their computer, their CAC card [Common Access Card], however, their AKO [Army Knowledge Online] account, 

somebody out there was going to watch them, and they thought 

there was going to be—if they didn’t agree with it, not that they 

are going to be on some list, but something out there. 

Now that is just a perception. Typically, perception is reality in 

some things. And the second, they were scared. Well, that was— 

I already covered that. 

They resigned. They were resigned because they saw the writing 

on the wall. And they saw the Democrats pushing this through in 

a lame-duck session. They saw the commitment from the President. 

And I think they also may have thought that the Joint Chiefs and 

others up top weren’t going to have an honest discussion about 

this. 

And I am just—these are feedbacks that I have gotten, because 

I have yet to find a soldier in the National Guard, Reserves, or 

when we took a tour on the Western bases with Chairman McKeon, 

anybody that is in support of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I just 

find it—it just makes me believe—A, the survey, I took it. I think 

it was very limited in its response. It was bogus. I hope, going forward, after you do your technical criteria—and I hope it is better 
32 

than some of the criteria we choose the recipients of military contracts—but it is a fair, honest discussion. And maybe we should 

have another survey, one that maybe this Congress, the 112th Congress can help draft, with your help, to ask some more direct questions to our men and women in uniform. 

My time is coming close. If you want to comment for the record, 

please do so. And please don’t—this isn’t directed personally at you. 

I know you all—I have seen your bios. You are true, true American 

heroes. I don’t envy you. Where Admiral Halsey and Chesty Puller 

and Patton and MacArthur are going to go down under different 

pretenses, I just hope your names aren’t going to be going down related to the certification of this policy. 

Please think long and hard. Please make sure that it is not going 

to affect our recruitment, our retention, our readiness. And please, 

and I am saying this—I just apologize to our veterans who have 

served before us, those who currently serving on Active Duty and 

the Reserves and those who have yet had the opportunity to serve 

because I don’t think this is a good policy. Please take that into 

consideration. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rigell. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank each of you have gentlemen for your patience with the 

testimony today. I had the privilege of being with our troops in Afghanistan just a couple of weeks ago. 

They are first a reflection of their parents. And they are a great 

reflection of their American parents. But they are also a reflection 

of your leadership. They are well equipped, well led, and they are 

motivated. And they are doing everything that we are asking of 

them. I commend you for that. 

I am here as a first-time elected official. I still own a business 

that I started, I had the privilege to start 20 years ago this month. 

I know over the course of that time and probably today, there are 

those serving with us in my company who are gay and lesbian. And 

I have never made any distinction. It just was completely irrelevant to me what their sexual orientation is. 

Now I think the difference is and why I think that Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell was a reasonable, though imperfect, policy, was at the 

end of the day, you don’t go home with your coworkers. There is 

a profound difference. 

My military career is very limited; I am the first to say that. But 

I tell you, you go through Parris Island in 1978, and it is still this 

way today, I know, because my son went through and I went back 

in the barracks and you know, the showers are just about the size 

of an American garage. No stalls. It is done by design and I think 

with good purpose and good intent. It is just you literally lose your 

right to privacy. And you know that going in. 

So given we are headed down this path, and if my time permits, 

I would like to talk about if this certification is truly a foregone 

conclusion. It sure seems like it. But if it is not, we can talk about 

that as well. 

Commandant Amos, if you would, sir, I would appreciate, what 

guidance is given to like a platoon commander or platoon sergeant 

for those who have a genuine, genuine moral concern about very 

close—I am not talking about a widespread ‘‘I just can’t work with 
33 

a person who is homosexual.’’ I, frankly, don’t have any tolerance 

for that. But when you get down to close berthing accommodations 

and those kind of things, where I think a reasonable person would 

say, you know, I can understand that is a genuinely held view, we 

are going to work with you on that. 

Now it is my understanding, and I would like to be corrected 

today, but it is my understanding we are not going to make accommodations for those views. Could you clarify that for me? 

General AMOS. Congressman, I would be happy to. The Marine 

Corps billets two by two, which means that we put two Marines in 

a room, shared head facility in between, and two marines on the 

other side. We are the only Service that has a waiver to do that. 

We do that for a specific reason—for unit cohesion, for we are a 

young force, as you know. We are the youngest of all the Services. 

So we have 18-, 19-year-olds in there, and we want—we breed the 

buddy system, and we breed that cohesive bonding. That is how we 

do business in the Marine Corps. So we are two by two. 

Again, as I said earlier, without knowing the exact numbers, my 

suspicions are our numbers of gays and lesbians that are currently 

on Active Duty in the Marines, the numbers are reasonably small. 

There is no provision to build a separate barracks or have separate 

rooms for marines that are gay or lesbian. There is no intention to 

do that. I certainly have no intention to do that, nor can I afford 

it. 

But I have confidence—and here is the guidance I have given my 

generals and my commanders, is that I expect the privacy and the 

rights of each marine to be honored with respect and dignity. I suspect that there are going to be issues when marines are allowed 

to come out in the open and declare themselves as openly gay. I 

don’t know how that is going to happen, but I suspect that when 

that happens, there will be some marines that will say, I don’t 

want to room with that marine. And that is why we have staff sergeants, platoon sergeants, and first lieutenants and company commanders. And they are going to look them in the eye, and they are 

going to resolve it at the lowest level. And it is the standard Marine Corps leadership. I am confident of that. 

Mr. RIGELL. And the rights of the person asking for the accommodation to be moved, those rights will be respected as well, is 

that correct? 

General AMOS. They will. Each case will be unique. Each case 

will be handled uniquely by that leader, and each case will, no 

doubt, be different. There may be a common thread, but the respect 

and rights of both marines will be honored. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you. 

General SCHWARTZ. The backdrop of this, at least for us, and I 

think for all of us, is that we are not trying to change anybody’s 

beliefs or their belief system. But we do and we will mandate a 

standard of conduct. And that is inviolate. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
34 

Gentlemen, I am coming in here pretty late and I know you probably covered a lot of areas that I may be having some redundancy 

here. But first let me thank you for your service. I try to say every 

time when people, general officers and others of leadership in our 

Armed Forces come forward, we know that you have given profound sacrifice and time in your life for the cause of freedom. Those 

of us that talk about freedom are certainly very grateful for those 

of you that carry this burden. And I appreciate you very much. 

When the debate was occurring on this issue, some of us tried 

to focus mostly on what was the impact on military readiness and 

the effect of our capability to fight and win wars. And some of the 

leadership of the Armed Services had asked us for a time to be able 

to study this issue and to able to come back before the vote occurred to give us some at least insight as to whether or not this 

was a good policy or not. 

Let me start by asking General Schwartz, if it is all right, I will 

aim at you first, sir. Did any efforts continue to go forward to ascertain the impact on military readiness of this policy? If so, are 

there any ongoing efforts like that, or any data collection, any 

things that you are studying now as leadership of the military to 

ascertain what is the actual impact of this on our readiness? 

General SCHWARTZ. Congressman, we have routine measures and 

efforts underway to ascertain our unit readiness and so on for employment, for whatever the case may be. And that is continuing. 

And we monitor that routinely. I would simply say that we, all of 

us, are fundamentally concerned with our ability to execute and 

that none of us are inclined to endorse any approach that would 

somehow diminish that capability. 

Mr. FRANKS. General Amos, do you have any thoughts there, sir? 

General AMOS. Congressman, our training is intimate. It is personal both at the platoon level, the company level, and the battalion squadron level. We watch it very carefully. It is very structured. We know what our readiness is at any given time in preparation for deploying to combat. Most of our units are either in combat, have just come home and are resetting to go. So it is a personal matter; readiness and combat effectiveness is personal to our 

Marine leadership. And in that regard, we have not seen any drop 

in it. But, again, we are in the implementation stage right now. 

But my expectations are the truth of the matter is I don’t think we 

are going to see a drop in it. 

Mr. FRANKS. At this time, if you had to point to any one area— 

and I will throw it out to the panel—the most challenging area that 

you may have as a result of this policy, is there anything that just 

stands out in your mind? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Congressman, I would say that we are 

training a very large force, and quite frankly, the responses that 

we are getting, the tone of the questions, the nature of the questions, are consistent with what we believed as we went forward. I 

think in the case of the Navy, there are questions such as issues 

of accommodation. But they are being answered by the training 

teams, and we are just going to work our way through those types 

of questions. And the tone—I place a great deal of emphasis on the 

tone of the force—remains very good as we go through this. 
35 

Mr. FRANKS. One last question. I know that the issue of the 

chaplaincies has already been broached at least once. Let me ask 

anyone here that would suggest or would be able to say, has there 

been any impact on the chaplaincies? Has there been any requirement as a result of this policy placed on chaplains that would be 

considered a change of policy, or have chaplains exhibited any sort 

of challenge with this policy in general? 

I will start again, General Schwartz. 

General SCHWARTZ. Not in the Air Force. 

Mr. FRANKS. There is no indication chaplains have been required 

to adapt to this policy in any way, is that your testimony? 

General SCHWARTZ. The chaplains—we haven’t implemented—we 

haven’t certified and we have not implemented the policy yet. But 

the fundamental part of this is twofold. One is that they minister 

to all airmen. And in those cases where they are performing the 

context of their faith and their denomination, that they do that 

consistent with their faith, however that may unfold. But in a 

broader sense, they minister to all airmen. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you gentlemen very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And again, thank you for your patience. I apologize for the interruption. That is one of the things that we have to do here, is vote. 

I encourage you to take into account all of the things that you have 

heard here today on all the various sides of the issue as you go forward in preparing yourself to train the forces to see that they are 

trained and to certify their readiness and the time that we will be 

ready to implement this. 

Again, thank you very much for your service. 

This committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 7, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 7, 2011 

(41) 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 7, 2011 

(57) 
58 
59 
60 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 7, 2011 

(63) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO 

General CHIARELLI. For the Service Member Survey the Army received: 

Total Army response = 30,433. Respondents Response Rate: 

• AC = 11,488 = 19% 

• ARNG = 10,311 = 22% 

• USAR = 8,634 = 25% 

Response rates consistent with Army’s recent norms. 

For the Spouse Survey: 

Total (All Service) = 44,266 returns = 31.0% return rate: 

• Active Army = 5,480 returns = 26.4% return rate. 

• Army Guard = 5,432 returns = 30.3% return rate. 

• Army Reserve = 4,004 returns = 30.4% return rate. [See page 31.] 

General SCHWARTZ. 39,065 people responded to the survey: 

• Active Duty: 18,644 or 47.7% of respondents; 5.6% of total active duty force 

of 332,200. 

• National Guard: 11,024 or 28.2% of respondents; 10% of total Guard force of 

106,700. 

• Reserve: 9,397 or 24.1% of respondents; 13% of total Reserve force of 71,200. 

[See page 31.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 7, 2011 

(67) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON AND MR. WILSON 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that all the 

findings in the original law relative to military life and readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in the unique military culture prohibiting 

homosexuality and (15) concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military 

would create an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

• If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we develop and implement 

a training program to prepare the force for the repeal of the law? It would seem 

that if we’ve ‘‘moved on’’ from those points that we’d just recognize that fact 

rather than educate the force. 

General CHIARELLI. Yes. Any major changes to laws, regulations, or policies 

should be clearly explained to all personnel to ensure universal understanding and 

compliance. For instance, although sexual harassment/assault was clearly unacceptable and not in accordance with Army Standards of Conduct, major education initiatives were needed to bring about a full understanding of the issue and consequences, and this education is still necessary and required. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that he agreed 

with the interpretation that the response on the survey ‘‘equally as positively as 

negatively’’ was an appropriate indicator that the respondent believed that repeal 

could be implemented without adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the 

basis for the statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal. 

• Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the response, ‘‘equally as 

positively as negatively’’? 

• Do you think the survey would have been better to draw more clearly defined 

negative and positive responses? 

• Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ‘‘Do you believe repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should occur?’’ How do you think the force would have 

responded to that question? 

General CHIARELLI. The survey conducted by Westat was not designed to be a referendum on the issue of DADT repeal, nor were any decisions based solely on this 

survey. The survey was conducted to measure what Service members and their 

spouses were thinking about a potential repeal and was used as one of many contributors to the decision making process. As to how I believe Soldiers would have 

responded to a specified question asking if the ban on homosexuals in the military 

should be repealed, it is difficult to say and I have no basis on which to provide 

an informed opinion. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 3) On the issue of collecting data on gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays and lesbians, DOD has 

been adamant that privacy is more important than information. 

• As a commander charged with the responsibility to assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the consequences of repeal and protect the rights 

of gays and lesbians without data? 

General CHIARELLI. The Army will protect the rights of all Soldiers irrespective 

of sexual orientation. However, where sexual orientation may be a factor in clear 

violations of Standards of Conduct or with criminal behavior, investigators are allowed to record the information as necessary. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will have then been stigmatized 

and unit cohesion disrupted. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

General CHIARELLI. Yes. Commanders move Soldiers all the time for various reasons, and I do not expect this issue to cause any extraordinary concern. 
68 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that there will 

be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to restrict heterosexual 

behavior because of gays and lesbians being present in the force. 

• Do you agree? 

• For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform? 

General CHIARELLI. Yes, I agree with the Secretary. Standards of Conduct will be 

applied equally to all Soldiers regardless of sexual orientation. With exceptions, deployment homecoming ceremonies for example, public displays of affection are not 

permitted while in uniform regardless of sexual orientation. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that commanders 

would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual behavior was occurring in 

billeting and will be empowered to restore good order and discipline. 

• Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify such misconduct between 

gays and lesbians and take appropriate action—and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion? 

General CHIARELLI. Yes. Commanders, through the chain of command, are able 

to identify and correct inappropriate behavior of all kinds without disrupting unit 

cohesion. I do not expect this to change with repeal. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned that the 

involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate. 

• Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking over gay and lesbian 

complaints? 

General CHIARELLI. No. Complaints about abusive treatment related to sexual orientation will be handled through the chain of command. I do not expect there will 

be a need for any additional adjudication. However, the MEO program is a commander’s program. MEO advisors can and do provide advice and expertise to commanders outside of an EO investigation and will continue to do so. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 8) In response to a question about the Administration’s decision to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that benefits would not be extended to gay 

and lesbian couples and the law would be upheld. 

• As prudent managers, are you now considering the likelihood that DOMA will 

be found unconstitutional and developing contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and lesbian families? 

General CHIARELLI. The Army has been working in conjunction with DoD to 

evaluate the subject of benefits accorded to same-sex couples. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that there has been 

no additional research to better understand the concerns about open service of gays 

and lesbians among service members in ground combat units. 

• Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members in ground combat 

units and have you made any special effort to understand those feelings better 

and address the issues with specifically designed training? 

General CHIARELLI. No. The research conducted under the Comprehensive Review 

Working Group was extremely thorough and addressed the issues faced by combat 

units. The standards of conduct are the same across the Army regardless of type 

of unit. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 10) Are you comfortable that there are sufficient 

procedures for service members to report their concerns about problems in their 

units resulting from the open service of gays and lesbians? 

• Do service members with concerns understand they have access to processes for 

circumventing commanders who are reluctant to take action? 

• Are you comfortable that service members believe that they can report problems 

associated with openly serving gays/lesbians without fear of retaliation by peers 

or by superiors? 

General CHIARELLI. Yes. The Army does not tolerate harassment, discrimination 

or violence against any Soldier, for any reason. Existing mechanisms such as the 

chain of command, IG, Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) or Unit Victim 

Advocate (UVA) are available for redress of issues based on sexual orientation. 

False accusations are not tolerated and failing to properly address any actionable 

complaints regardless of sexual orientation factors may have implications, including: 

• Being the subject of an IG investigation 
69 

• Being the subject of a complaint of wrongs filed under UCMJ Article 138 

• Being the subject of a command investigation 

• Being investigated for possible criminal misconduct under the UCMJ (dereliction of duty) 

A commander’s duty is to take appropriate action to ensure mission readiness and 

to maintain good order and discipline in their organization and to seek assistance 

as needed. Feedback is encouraged and a mechanism is in place through command 

channels and with the many subject matter experts trained and tasked to assist 

commanders. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 11) Have you encountered any complaints from 

service members that the repeal implementation training promotes the acceptance 

of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what has been your response? 

General CHIARELLI. I am aware of one inquiry from the field expressing concern 

that the Army was promoting an ‘‘acceptance agenda’’ of the GLB lifestyle. However, 

this particular Soldier had not been through training yet and was reacting to something he had read in the media. 

The Army reply was: ‘‘Education includes an explanation that the application of 

Army policies will be neutral regarding Soldiers’ sexual orientation and reinforces 

that all Soldiers will continue to be treated with dignity, respect and professionalism at all times.’’ 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the standards 

clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in opposition to homosexuality 

that would be acceptable for chaplains were being developed. 

• Do you believe that all service members should be given guidelines for the types 

of statements and activities in opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to good order and discipline? 

• Do you believe that it is important that service members have the ability to 

speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in appropriate circumstances and 

are you confident that effective guidelines can be formulated and published? 

General CHIARELLI. There will not be any modifications or revisions to policy regarding Soldier protections and obligations with respect to free speech and free exercise of religion. 

Soldiers can continue to freely practice their religion, consistent with military 

standards of conduct. Soldiers may, in appropriate circumstances and within the 

limitations of law and policy, express their moral or religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. The subtlety, nuance, tone and sheer number of statements that 

might be prejudicial to good order and discipline cannot be captured in a list. The 

Army does, however, rely on leadership, professionalism, discipline and respect to 

govern our implementation of the new policies. 

The Army recognizes the right of all Soldiers of the Military Services to hold individual beliefs consistent with their moral foundations and conscience and does not 

seek to change them. 

Soldiers can continue to freely practice their religion and express their personal 

views within the limitations of the UCMJ and Service standards of conduct. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that the First 

Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the repeal process. 

• Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal implementation 

training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech and that chaplains are 

afraid to express their true beliefs because they will be penalized? 

• What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the opportunity to report 

pressures placed on them to temper comments and chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put in place to protect such chaplains 

from punitive career personnel actions from supervisors and others who do not 

share their views? 

• Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints about religious oppression? 

General CHIARELLI. No. I am not aware of any negative effect that implementation training is having on our chaplains. 

Chaplains will continue to have freedom to practice their religion according to the 

tenets of their faith. In the context of their religious ministry, chaplains are not required to take actions that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs (e.g., altering 

the content of sermons or religious counseling, sharing a pulpit with other chaplains 

or modifying forms of prayer or worship). 

Chaplains of all faiths care for all Soldiers and facilitate the free exercise of religion for all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the 

individual. 
70 

Chaplains minister to Soldiers and provide advice to commanders on matters of 

religion, morals, ethics and morale in accordance with and without compromising, 

the tenets or requirements of their faith. If, in chaplains’ discharge of their broader 

duties within the unit, they are faced with an issue contrary to their individual 

faith, they may refer the Soldier to other appropriate counsel. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 14) Are you concerned that among some people 

that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a negative view of openly 

serving gays and lesbians will negatively impact recruiting and retention? 

General CHIARELLI. No. We have not seen any changes to expected recruitment 

and re-accession patterns. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you to believe 

that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to former service members 

discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell who wish to return to active duty, but are 

no longer able to do so because of a medical condition? 

General CHIARELLI. Lawful standards in effect at the time of a Soldier’s separation will not be changed with retroactive effect. DoD has not authorized compensation of any type for Soldiers separated under DADT. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that all the 

findings in the original law relative to military life and readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in the unique military culture prohibiting 

homosexuality and (15) concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military 

would create an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

• If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we develop and implement 

a training program to prepare the force for the repeal of the law? It would seem 

that if we’ve ‘‘moved on’’ from those points that we’d just recognize that fact 

rather than educate the force. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes. I agree with Secretary Stanley’s assessment that findings 13 and 15 in the original law are no longer valid. As with any change in law 

that affects the military services, there are associated changes in policies and instructions. Accordingly, it is important for our leaders and Sailors to receive training to ensure they understand fully these changes and to reaffirm our guiding principles of leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. This thoughtful, steady 

approach establishes the foundation for a smooth and orderly transition and ensures 

the force is prepared to implement a repeal of the law. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that he agreed 

with the interpretation that the response on the survey ‘‘equally as positively as 

negatively’’ was an appropriate indicator that the respondent believed that repeal 

could be implemented without adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the 

basis for the statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal. 

• Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the response, ‘‘equally as 

positively as negatively’’? 

• Do you think the survey would have been better to draw more clearly defined 

negative and positive responses? 

• Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ‘‘Do you believe repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should occur?’’ How do you think the force would have 

responded to that question? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The purpose of the Comprehensive Review Working Group’s 

service member survey was to ask Service members about the potential impacts of 

a repeal of DADT to help the military more fully understand how a change in the 

law may impact unit cohesion, readiness, effectiveness, recruiting, and retention. 

The survey did not ask service members to express their opinions about whether 

repeal of DADT should occur. This would have been a referendum, and I do not believe military policy decisions should be made through a referendum of service members. Since the survey did not ask service members whether DADT should be repealed, I cannot speculate on how they would have responded. 

I believe it is appropriate, from the standpoint of assessing the impact of repeal, 

to consider the ‘‘equally as positively as negatively’’ responses alongside the ‘‘no effect’’ and ‘‘positive’’ responses. When asked to predict the impact of repeal, I believe 

a response of ‘‘equally as positively as negatively’’ supports an assessment that repeal can be implemented without adverse impact to the force. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 3) On the issue of collecting data on gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays and lesbians, DOD has 

been adamant that privacy is more important than information. 
71 

• As a commander charged with the responsibility to assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the consequences of repeal and protect the rights 

of gays and lesbians without data? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sexual orientation is a personal and private matter. Sailors 

will not be required to identify their sexual orientation, nor will any such information be collected and maintained in a system of records except when incidental to 

an investigation or other official action. We will be able to assess the impact of repeal through existing tools, such as anonymous surveys of the force, command climate surveys, exit surveys, and recruiting and retention data, none of which require 

the collection of information about an individual’s sexual orientation. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will have then been stigmatized 

and unit cohesion disrupted. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, I agree with Dr. Stanley’s assessment. In the Navy, we 

live and work in close-quarters in many of our operating environments with individuals from many different backgrounds. Commanders have always had the authority 

to alter berthing or billeting assignments for a variety of reasons, on a case-by-case 

basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent 

with the performance of the mission. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that there will 

be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to restrict heterosexual 

behavior because of gays and lesbians being present in the force. 

• Do you agree? 

• For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, I agree with Secretary Stanley that no changes are necessary. Gay and lesbian Sailors already serve in our Navy. I have reviewed our 

standards of conduct in preparation for repeal and confirmed they can be applied 

without regard to sexual orientation. As has always been the case, all Sailors are 

expected to abide by Navy’s high standards of personal and professional conduct, 

and leaders are expected to apply these standards uniformly across the force. Accordingly, ceremonies welcoming home units from deployment and other related activities will be conducted in the same manner as they are today. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that commanders 

would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual behavior was occurring in 

billeting and will be empowered to restore good order and discipline. 

• Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify such misconduct between 

gays and lesbians and take appropriate action—and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I agree with Secretary Stanley. As always, commanders will 

continue to be mindful of all behavior that is inconsistent with our standards of conduct and have the flexibility and authority to resolve issues that fall within their 

respective areas of responsibility. As in all situations, commanders may make reasonable accommodations in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission and the environment in 

which we live. I have full confidence in Navy leaders to set a positive tone, create 

an inclusive and respectful environment, and continue to enforce our high standards 

of conduct throughout the Navy without disruption to morale or unit cohesion. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned that the 

involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate. 

• Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking over gay and lesbian 

complaints? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No. I am not concerned. The Department of Defense will not 

designate sexual orientation as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and the Military Equal Opportunity program complaint resolution 

processes. I am confident that complaints regarding harassment or discrimination 

based on sexual orientation will be effectively addressed through existing mechanisms available for other such complaints not involving race, color, gender, religion 

or national origin, to include the chain of command and the Inspector General. All 

service members, regardless of sexual orientation, are entitled to an environment 

free from discrimination and harassment. As always, Navy leaders are charged with 
72 

setting a positive tone, creating an inclusive and respectful work environment, and 

enforcing our high standards of conduct. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 8) In response to a question about the Administration’s decision to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that benefits would not be extended to gay 

and lesbian couples and the law would be upheld. 

• As prudent managers, are you now considering the likelihood that DOMA will 

be found unconstitutional and developing contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and lesbian families? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. To date, there has been no ongoing planning or study conducted by the Navy on the extension of all family benefits to gay and lesbian families. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that there has been 

no additional research to better understand the concerns about open service of gays 

and lesbians among service members in ground combat units. 

• Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members in ground combat 

units and have you made any special effort to understand those feelings better 

and address the issues with specifically designed training? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Throughout this process, I have monitored the tone of the 

force through engagements with officer and senior enlisted leadership, all-hands 

calls with Sailors throughout the Navy, questions submitted by Sailors through our 

repeal website, and command climate reports from command leadership teams. We 

have not experienced any special issues during the course of training nor have we 

observed any degradation to readiness for our Sailors assigned to ground combat 

units that would necessitate additional or special training. I am satisfied that the 

combination of comprehensive training, policy changes and clarifications, continued 

respect for the moral and religious beliefs of our members, and strong, engaged 

leadership has adequately addressed the concerns of all Sailors. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 10) Are you comfortable that there are sufficient 

procedures for service members to report their concerns about problems in their 

units resulting from the open service of gays and lesbians? 

• Do service members with concerns understand they have access to processes for 

circumventing commanders who are reluctant to take action? 

• Are you comfortable that service members believe that they can report problems 

associated with openly serving gays/lesbians without fear of retaliation by peers 

or by superiors? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes. I am comfortable that there are sufficient procedures in 

place for service members to report their concerns. As always, Sailors are expected 

to abide by Navy’s high standards of personal and professional conduct. Leaders are 

expected to apply these standards uniformly across the force and hold individuals 

accountable for their behavior. Behavior that is inconsistent with our standards of 

conduct will not be tolerated. Existing policies ensure that all service members have 

multiple avenues through which they can address their concerns without fear of reprisal, to include their chain of command, legal office, and the Inspector General. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 11) Have you encountered any complaints from 

service members that the repeal implementation training promotes the acceptance 

of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what has been your response? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We have not encountered complaints from service members 

that the repeal implementation training promotes the acceptance of gay and lesbian 

sexual orientation. The training clearly emphasizes that no one is expected to 

change their religious and moral beliefs regarding homosexuality after repeal of 

DADT and as always, Sailors are expected to treat each other with professionalism 

and respect. Feedback from our Sailors indicates the training was comprehensive, 

well-delivered, and effective. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the standards 

clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in opposition to homosexuality 

that would be acceptable for chaplains were being developed. 

• Do you believe that all service members should be given guidelines for the types 

of statements and activities in opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to good order and discipline? 

• Do you believe that it is important that service members have the ability to 

speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in appropriate circumstances and 

are you confident that effective guidelines can be formulated and published? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I believe that all Navy personnel should be provided with 

guidance addressing acceptable conduct in the Navy, to include speech. As directed 

by Dr. Stanley, we conducted a review of our policies and standards of conduct, and 
73 

confirmed they provided adequate guidance to our personnel. The Navy’s DADT repeal implementation training clarified Department of Defense policies regarding 

service members’ freedom of expression and free exercise of religion. Service members can continue to freely practice their religion and express their personal views 

in appropriate circumstances within the limitations of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice and our standards of conduct. As always, Navy personnel may not make 

statements detrimental to good order and discipline and are expected to treat all 

others with dignity and respect. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that the First 

Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the repeal process. 

• Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal implementation 

training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech and that chaplains are 

afraid to express their true beliefs because they will be penalized? 

• What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the opportunity to report 

pressures placed on them to temper comments and chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put in place to protect such chaplains 

from punitive career personnel actions from supervisors and others who do not 

share their views? 

• Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints about religious oppression? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No, we have not heard concerns expressed by Navy chaplains 

that the DADT repeal implementation training is negatively impacting their freedom of religious expression. Prior to the release of the Comprehensive Review Working Group’s (CRWG) report, some chaplains initially expressed concerns about their 

free exercise of religion and free speech post-repeal and the potential for adverse 

personnel actions against chaplains who, consistent with their religious beliefs, express opposition to repeal or homosexuality. However, these concerns were effectively mitigated by policy guidance provided by the CRWG and our associated Tier 

1 training for chaplains, both of which emphasized that in their preaching, teaching, 

and pastoral care/counsel, chaplains will not be required to take actions that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs and that the evaluation of chaplain performance will be consistent with these policies. 

Existing policies adequately protect chaplains’ freedom of expression and their 

ability to discharge their duties of providing for and facilitating religious practice 

within a religiously diverse population. As is the case with all Sailors, chaplains 

have recourse through their chain of command or the Inspector General for reporting issues of concern. No separate process for tracking chaplain complaints is anticipated at this time. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 14) Are you concerned that among some people 

that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a negative view of openly 

serving gays and lesbians will negatively impact recruiting and retention? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No. I assess there will be minimal impact of repeal on the 

attitudes of people who influence recruit candidates. According to the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) survey, 76% of Navy spouses reported that repeal of DADT would not affect their willingness to recommend military service or 

would make them more likely to recommend military service. Approximately 80% 

of Sailors reported that repeal would not negatively impact their willingness to recommend the military to a family member or close friend. 

The Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies (JAMRS) surveys are also important sources of information about the attitudes of American youth and those who 

influence the decisions of potential recruits, to include parents, grandparents, and 

teachers, regarding military service. According to a JAMRS survey conducted for the 

CRWG, 70% of 15–34 year olds reported that repeal of DADT would have no effect 

on their propensity to join the military, while 8% reported that it would increase 

their likelihood of joining. Additionally, 73% of influencers reported that repeal of 

DADT would not affect their likelihood to recommend the military. 

To date, we have not observed any impacts to recruiting and retention in the 

Navy related to repeal of DADT. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you to believe 

that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to former service members 

discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell who wish to return to active duty, but are 

no longer able to do so because of a medical condition? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No. Navy was following current law when discharging members under DADT. All honorably discharged service members have an equal opportunity to apply for re-entry. Service members separated under DADT will be evaluated according to the same criteria and service requirements as all individuals seeking re-entry into the military. A former Sailor who applies for re-entry and is denied 

is not entitled to retroactive compensation or retirement benefits. Not being able to 
74 

meet the physical standards required for entering the military is not a compensable 

condition because the applicant is not entitled to basic pay at the time of the entrance physical examination. 

Disability payments are handled on a case-by-case basis by the Veteran’s Administration (VA). If prior-service members discharged under DADT were rated for a 

disability by the VA upon discharge, they would already be receiving compensation 

based on the VA rating. If the disability was incurred by the member after discharge from the service, there is no obligation on the part of the VA to provide disability payments. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that all the 

findings in the original law relative to military life and readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in the unique military culture prohibiting 

homosexuality and (15) concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military 

would create an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

• If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we develop and implement 

a training program to prepare the force for the repeal of the law? It would seem 

that if we’ve ‘‘moved on’’ from those points that we’d just recognize that fact 

rather than educate the force. 

General AMOS. Based on the training and feedback from my visits with commanders and Marines in various organizations and units both in the U.S. and overseas, I agree with the assessment. However, agreement with the assessment does 

not obviate training. Educating the force ensures that our Marines receive clear 

guidance from Senior Leadership in an area marking significant change to longstanding policy. Similar to other topical areas of training, consensus is not the primary factor determining its provision. The primary goal of this training is to provide 

our Marines with the tools to maintain good order, discipline and unit cohesion 

while conforming to the law. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that he agreed 

with the interpretation that the response on the survey ‘‘equally as positively as 

negatively’’ was an appropriate indicator that the respondent believed that repeal 

could be implemented without adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the 

basis for the statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal. 

• Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the response, ‘‘equally as 

positively as negatively’’? 

• Do you think the survey would have been better to draw more clearly defined 

negative and positive responses? 

• Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ‘‘Do you believe repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should occur?’’ How do you think the force would have 

responded to that question? 

General AMOS. In my estimation, an answer of ‘‘equally as positively as negatively’’ would mean the same amounts of support and disfavor; hence a neutral position. I believe the survey provided adequate information to assess the possible impact to the Marine Corps and feel that conjecture on how Marines might have answered hypothetical question(s) not on the survey would not be sound or advisable 

due to its speculative nature. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 3) On the issue of collecting data on gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays and lesbians, DOD has 

been adamant that privacy is more important than information. 

• As a commander charged with the responsibility to assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the consequences of repeal and protect the rights 

of gays and lesbians without data? 

General AMOS. In my estimation, an answer of ‘‘equally as positively as negatively’’ would mean the same amounts of support and disfavor; hence a neutral position. I believe the survey provided adequate information to assess the possible impact to the Marine Corps and feel that conjecture on how Marines might have answered hypothetical question(s) not on the survey would not be sound or advisable 

due to its speculative nature. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will have then been stigmatized 

and unit cohesion disrupted. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

General AMOS. Yes, sexual orientation is not a relevant factor in billeting assignments. Commanders are responsible for maintaining unit cohesion, good order and 
75 

discipline. Commanders who feel it necessary to reassign Marines for privacy reasons must properly balance all of these interests to eliminate or significantly reduce 

potential stigma—for any reason. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that there will 

be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to restrict heterosexual 

behavior because of gays and lesbians being present in the force. 

• Do you agree? 

• For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform? 

General AMOS. Yes, Marine Corps Standards of Conduct govern the behavior of 

all Marines, regardless of sexual orientation. We will not tolerate behavior that detracts from unit cohesion, good order and discipline, respect for authority or mission 

accomplishment. Leaders and Marines at all levels have the responsibility to enforce 

the Standards of Conduct. Our Standards of Conduct govern acceptable public displays of affection and are addressed in our drill and ceremonies manual and our 

uniform regulations as well as our customs of the service. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that commanders 

would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual behavior was occurring in 

billeting and will be empowered to restore good order and discipline. 

• Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify such misconduct between 

gays and lesbians and take appropriate action—and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion? 

General AMOS. Yes, I remain confident in the leadership of the Marine Corps to 

identify and address unacceptable behavior that detracts from unit cohesion, good 

order and discipline and to take appropriate remedial action(s) where required. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned that the 

involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate. 

• Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking over gay and lesbian 

complaints? 

General AMOS. No, I am not concerned. Our commanders may use their Equal Opportunity advisors as a source of knowledge in addressing complaints, but there are 

other avenues readily available to all Marines to file complaints and to seek redress. 

Most notable of these avenues are service member rights under Article 138 of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hotline and Inspector General complaint processes are also available to service members to address grievances. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 8) In response to a question about the Administration’s decision to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that benefits would not be extended to gay 

and lesbian couples and the law would be upheld. 

• As prudent managers, are you now considering the likelihood that DOMA will 

be found unconstitutional and developing contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and lesbian families? 

General AMOS. I have not speculated about whether DOMA is constitutional. Although I have had discussions about the law, I have not directed any planning efforts in anticipation of any potential ruling on DOMA. DOMA is the law and the 

Marine Corps will follow the law. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that there has been 

no additional research to better understand the concerns about open service of gays 

and lesbians among service members in ground combat units. 

• Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members in ground combat 

units and have you made any special effort to understand those feelings better 

and address the issues with specifically designed training? 

General AMOS. All Marines have received or will receive the same training. The 

Marine Corps is complete with Tier 1 (special staff) and Tier 2 (leadership) training. 

As of 30 June 2011, Tier 3 (Marines) training is 95% complete. I recently spoke to 

commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, who indicated that our Marines there 

are able to accomplish their mission and have received sufficient training. Morale 

is high and our deployed Marines have positive attitudes. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 10) Are you comfortable that there are sufficient 

procedures for service members to report their concerns about problems in their 

units resulting from the open service of gays and lesbians? 
76 

• Do service members with concerns understand they have access to processes for 

circumventing commanders who are reluctant to take action? 

• Are you comfortable that service members believe that they can report problems 

associated with openly serving gays/lesbians without fear of retaliation by peers 

or by superiors? 

General AMOS. Yes, we will handle concerns regarding sexual orientation harassment and abuse through the chain of command, the Inspector General and other 

means established by the services. 

Marines are trained about and are aware of their right to Request Mast under 

the provision of Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can contact 

the Inspector General hotline or communicate directly with my staff through Marine 

Mail—all without fear of reprisal. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 11) Have you encountered any complaints from 

service members that the repeal implementation training promotes the acceptance 

of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what has been your response? 

General AMOS. Overall, the training has been well received without complaint. 

Marines understand that their personal beliefs are not required to change. Rather, 

Marines know that they are to show tolerance through treating their fellow service 

members with professionalism, respect and dignity. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the standards 

clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in opposition to homosexuality 

that would be acceptable for chaplains were being developed. 

• Do you believe that all service members should be given guidelines for the types 

of statements and activities in opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to good order and discipline? 

• Do you believe that it is important that service members have the ability to 

speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in appropriate circumstances and 

are you confident that effective guidelines can be formulated and published? 

General AMOS. Marine Corps Standards of Conduct govern the behavior of all Marines. We will not tolerate behavior that detracts from unit cohesion, good order and 

discipline, respect for authority or mission accomplishment. We further will not tolerate harassment or abuse of Marines for any reason, and will address all issues 

of this nature accordingly through command or inspector general channels. Leaders 

and Marines at all levels have the responsibility to enforce the standards of conduct. 

DoD policies already exist governing all types of appropriate/inappropriate statements and/or activities which may impact good order and discipline, and service 

members receive instruction in these policies. A service member’s right of expression 

is preserved to the maximum extent possible in accordance with constitutional and 

statutory provisions and consistent with good order and discipline and the national 

security. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that the First 

Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the repeal process. 

• Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal implementation 

training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech and that chaplains are 

afraid to express their true beliefs because they will be penalized? 

• What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the opportunity to report 

pressures placed on them to temper comments and chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put in place to protect such chaplains 

from punitive career personnel actions from supervisors and others who do not 

share their views? 

• Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints about religious oppression? 

General AMOS. No, I am not hearing that. Chaplains can Request Mast under Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, contact the inspector general hotline or communicate directly with my staff through Marine Mail, all without fear 

of reprisal. Additionally, many of these procedures are also available through the 

administrative chain of the Navy Chaplain Corps. At this time, I do not anticipate 

any process for tracking chaplain complaints as a result of the repeal of DADT. To 

my knowledge, we have never had reason to track complaints about religious oppression of chaplains. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 14) Are you concerned that among some people 

that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a negative view of openly 

serving gays and lesbians will negatively impact recruiting and retention? 

General AMOS. No, I am not concerned. My experience has been that recruiters 

focus on achieving their mission of obtaining the requisite numbers of the best 

qualified applicants. Moreover, as of 11 July, over 98 percent (5,038 personnel) of 
77 

those assigned to Marine Corps Recruiting Command (active and reserve) have received appropriate DoD-directed, DADT Tier level training. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you to believe 

that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to former service members 

discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell who wish to return to active duty, but are 

no longer able to do so because of a medical condition? 

General AMOS. Marine Corps separations are effected according to law and applicable implementing regulation and policy. I do not take my obligation to follow the 

law lightly. Nor do I take lightly the impact of the change in the law on Marines 

who have been separated. I am now considering factors to determine where true 

fairness would lie if this becomes the situation. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that all the 

findings in the original law relative to military life and readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in the unique military culture prohibiting 

homosexuality and (15) concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military 

would create an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

• If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we develop and implement 

a training program to prepare the force for the repeal of the law? It would seem 

that if we’ve ‘‘moved on’’ from those points that we’d just recognize that fact 

rather than educate the force. 

General SCHWARTZ. Although I agree with Dr. Stanley’s assessment, I also believe 

educating the total force is important to explain how the repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 

will be implemented. There is a need for, and definite purpose for, the training of 

our Airmen. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that he agreed 

with the interpretation that the response on the survey ‘‘equally as positively as 

negatively’’ was an appropriate indicator that the respondent believed that repeal 

could be implemented without adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the 

basis for the statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal. 

• Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the response, ‘‘equally as 

positively as negatively’’? 

• Do you think the survey would have been better to draw more clearly defined 

negative and positive responses? 

• Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ‘‘Do you believe repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should occur?’’ How do you think the force would have 

responded to that question? 

General SCHWARTZ. I agree with Dr. Stanley’s interpretation of the survey response ‘‘equally as positively as negatively.’’ No survey is perfect, but I am satisfied 

the survey was comprehensive and informative. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 3) On the issue of collecting data on gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays and lesbians, DOD has 

been adamant that privacy is more important than information. 

• As a commander charged with the responsibility to assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the consequences of repeal and protect the rights 

of gays and lesbians without data? 

General SCHWARTZ. Existing processes for follow-on review and monitoring have 

been used to the maximum possible extent in order to minimize potential disruption 

to the force as a result of new and potentially burdensome reporting instruments. 

Therefore, to systematically analyze workforce climate and military effectiveness, 

our intent is to use existing Air Force assessment tools such as command climate 

surveys, the Inspector General’s command assessments, annual reports on sexual 

assault prevention and response, unit climate assessments, Air and Joint Expeditionary Force tasking surveys, annual retention surveys, and other extant mechanisms for feedback from the field. 

Additionally, as they always have, commanders at every level assess the morale 

of their personnel through personal assessment and observation of unit climate and 

mission accomplishment. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will have then been stigmatized 

and unit cohesion disrupted. 

• Do you agree with that assessment? 

General SCHWARTZ. A commander has the discretion to direct billeting and berthing assignments based on a number of factors including work schedules, friendships, 
78 

and compatibility. Because commanders already use this discretion to address a 

number of morale concerns, its use to address privacy concerns is not noteworthy. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that there will 

be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to restrict heterosexual 

behavior because of gays and lesbians being present in the force. 

• Do you agree? 

• For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has an instruction on public displays of affections that is sexual orientation neutral and simply reaffirms the standards we have 

consistently expected of our service members over time. Ceremonies will be conducted in the same manner as before, including welcoming home ceremonies. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that commanders 

would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual behavior was occurring in 

billeting and will be empowered to restore good order and discipline. 

• Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify such misconduct between 

gays and lesbians and take appropriate action—and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion? 

General SCHWARTZ. I am confident commanders will be able to identify misconduct between gays and lesbians as accurately as they do between heterosexuals. 

Our instructions continue to clearly articulate the difference between professional 

and unprofessional relationships, and their provisions will continue to be enforced. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned that the 

involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate. 

• Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking over gay and lesbian 

complaints? 

General SCHWARTZ. No. Long-standing parameters for MEO complaints will continue to guide MEO officials to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether equal 

opportunity implications exist for a particular complaint. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 8) In response to a question about the Administration’s decision to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that benefits would not be extended to gay 

and lesbian couples and the law would be upheld. 

• As prudent managers, are you now considering the likelihood that DOMA will 

be found unconstitutional and developing contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and lesbian families? 

General SCHWARTZ. In the event that the Defense of Marriage Act should be found 

unconstitutional, we anticipate the Department of Defense (DoD) would issue guidance on the extension of family benefits to gay and lesbian families. The Air Force 

would follow DoD guidance. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that there has been 

no additional research to better understand the concerns about open service of gays 

and lesbians among service members in ground combat units. 

• Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members in ground combat 

units and have you made any special effort to understand those feelings better 

and address the issues with specifically designed training? 

General SCHWARTZ. I do not believe additional specific training is necessary for 

Airmen serving in ground combat units. All Airmen are trained to treat all others 

with dignity and respect regardless of their duty location. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 10) Are you comfortable that there are sufficient 

procedures for service members to report their concerns about problems in their 

units resulting from the open service of gays and lesbians? 

• Do service members with concerns understand they have access to processes for 

circumventing commanders who are reluctant to take action? 

• Are you comfortable that service members believe that they can report problems 

associated with openly serving gays/lesbians without fear of retaliation by peers 

or by superiors? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force’s command channels and Inspector General 

program are well suited to address such complaints. We strive for a climate in 

which all service members will treat each other with dignity and respect regardless 

of sexual orientation, and I am confident current procedures will be able to respond 

appropriately to deviations from those standards. 
79 

During training on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, for example, Airmen are 

informed they can address complaints through their local inspector general’s office. 

This training will also be provided to all new accessions. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 11) Have you encountered any complaints from 

service members that the repeal implementation training promotes the acceptance 

of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what has been your response? 

General SCHWARTZ. I have not personally received any complaints from service 

members regarding repeal implementation training. The training very clearly explains its purpose is to address standards of behavior, not to change an individual 

service member’s beliefs. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the standards 

clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in opposition to homosexuality 

that would be acceptable for chaplains were being developed. 

• Do you believe that all service members should be given guidelines for the types 

of statements and activities in opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to good order and discipline? 

• Do you believe that it is important that service members have the ability to 

speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in appropriate circumstances and 

are you confident that effective guidelines can be formulated and published? 

General SCHWARTZ. Current DoD and Air Force policy and regulations provide 

sufficient guidance about service members’ protections and obligations with respect 

to free speech and free exercise of religion. As part of repeal implementation, service 

members are receiving training on the effect of repeal on individual rights and responsibilities. Similarly, our Chaplain Corps will continue to have freedom to practice according to the tenets of their respective faiths. We do, however, expect our 

Chaplains to offer general pastoral services to all Airmen in need. In the context 

of their religious ministry, chaplains are not required to take actions inconsistent 

with their religious beliefs (e.g., altering the content of sermons or religious counseling). Service members—including chaplains—can continue to freely practice their 

religion and express their personal views within the limitations of the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice and service-specific standards of conduct. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that the First 

Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the repeal process. 

• Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal implementation 

training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech and that chaplains are 

afraid to express their true beliefs because they will be penalized? 

• What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the opportunity to report 

pressures placed on them to temper comments and chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put in place to protect such chaplains 

from punitive career personnel actions from supervisors and others who do not 

share their views? 

• Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints about religious oppression? 

General SCHWARTZ. A limited number of chaplains expressed concerns about a 

chilling effect on religious speech. An April 28, 2010, letter signed by 41 retired military chaplains raised concerns within the Air Force Chaplain Corps that chaplains’ 

religious liberties, including their speech, may be limited. 

Current procedures empower and/or allow chaplains to use their functional chain 

of command to address concerns and issues regarding freedom of religious speech. 

Program Budget Decision 720 established the Air Force Chief of Chaplains Plans, 

Programs, and Budget Division (AF/HCX) as reach-back office for all Chaplain 

Corps issues and concerns. Thus, any issues or concerns, including freedom of religious speech, can be elevated through major commands to AF/HCX for resolution. 

These procedures track freedom of religious speech concerns and, in conjunction 

with other functional communities and ecclesiastical endorsing agents, ensure prudent, non-punitive resolution. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 14) Are you concerned that among some people 

that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a negative view of openly 

serving gays and lesbians will negatively impact recruiting and retention? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is my assessment the United States Air Force can accommodate the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with modest risk to recruiting and retention. We will pay close attention to the attitudes of those who influence our recruit 

candidates for any negative impacts. 

Mr. MCKEON and Mr. WILSON. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you to believe 

that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to former service members 

discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell who wish to return to active duty, but are 

no longer able to do so because of a medical condition? 
80 

General SCHWARTZ. No. As stated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Department of Defense is not authorized to provide compensation of any type for those service members previously separated under 10 

U.S.C. § 654. Thus, service members previously separated under 10 U.S.C. § 654 who 

are unable to return to active duty due to a medical condition cannot be provided 

disability retirement benefits. 

Æ