November 30, 2010

Support Plan for 

Implementation

Report of the 

Comprehensive Review 

of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Co-Chairs

The Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army

Senior Enlisted Advisor

Fleet Master Chief Scott A. Benning, U.S. Navy

Team Leaderhip

The Honorable Daniel B. Ginsberg

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower & Reserve Affairs

The Honorable Paul L. Oostburg Sanz

General Counsel of the Department of the Navy

Lieutenant General Richard C. Zilmer

Deputy Commandant for Manpower & Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps

Lieutenant General Richard Y. Newton III

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower & Personnel, U.S. Air Force

Vice Admiral Mark E. Ferguson III

Chief of Naval Personnel & Deputy Chief of Naval Operations 

(Manpower, Personnel, Training & Education)

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick

Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 (Manpower & Personnel), U.S. Army

Mr. Karl F. Schneider

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

Mr. Joseph M. McDade, Jr.

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 (Manpower & Personnel), U.S. Army

Major General Steven J. Lepper

Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force

Chief of Staff

Major General Gregory A. Biscone, U.S. Air Force

Support Plan for Implementation

Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
November 30, 2010

Support Plan for 

Implementation

Report of the 

Comprehensive Review 

of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................1

Overview...............................................................................................1

Key Implementation Message..............................................................2

Stages of Implementation ...................................................................2

Legislative and Legal Context..............................................................3

Additional Materials.............................................................................4

II. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................5

Service Academy White Papers...........................................................6

Other Academic Literature Related to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell..............10

Conclusions...........................................................................................11

Note on the Service Academy White Papers.......................................12

III. PRE-REPEAL STAGE ..................................................................................13

Key Implementation Message..............................................................13

Pre-Repeal Overview............................................................................13

Pre-Repeal Analysis..............................................................................15

Summary..............................................................................................28

IV. IMPLEMENTATION STAGE........................................................................29

Implementation Overview....................................................................29

Implementation Analysis......................................................................30

V. SUSTAINMENT STAGE...............................................................................39

Sustainment Overview.........................................................................39

Sustainment Analysis...........................................................................39

Summary..............................................................................................43

APPENDIX A. RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS...............................45

APPENDIX B. RECOMMENDED EDUCATION AND TRAINING ..........47

Education and Training Framework.............................47

Education and Training Principles................................48

Education and Training Guidance ...............................48

Learning Objectives........................................................49

APPENDIX C. RECOMMENDED LEADERSHIP GUIDE .......................61

Key Implementation Message........................................61

Summary of the Working Group’s Report.....................62

Command and Supervisory Responsibilities

and Guidance..................................................................65

i
APPENDIX D. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

 AND VIGNETTES..................................................................69

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)...............................70

Vignettes..........................................................................75

APPENDIX E. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-ON STRATEGIES .............85

ii
1

Overview

On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense directed the Honorable Jeh Charles

Johnson, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and General Carter F. Ham,

Commander, U.S. Army Europe, to “stand up an intra-Department, inter-Service

working group to conduct a comprehensive review of the issues associated with a repeal

of the [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] law.” The Secretary’s Terms of Reference required two

deliverables: 1) a Report containing the Co-Chairs’ assessment and recommendations;

and 2) “a plan of action to support the implementation of a repeal of the law.” This is

that plan. 

The Support Plan for Implementation was written in close collaboration with the

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)) and

anticipates key elements of a successful implementation. It is based on the assessment

and recommendations contained in the Co-Chairs’ Report. Because issues associated

with repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (commonly known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law) are

subject to a shifting legislative and legal landscape, in order to implement any change

in law or policy successfully the Department of Defense and the Services may need to

deviate from some recommendations found in this Support Plan.

Until such time as Congress may act to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Support

Plan and subsequent related work by OUSD(P&R) and the Services serve as contingency

plans that will assist the Department of Defense in preparing for a repeal, should it

indeed occur. This plan is designed to support each of the Service Training Commands

in developing training materials in the traditions and requirements of their respective

Service. This plan does not mandate any activity, nor does it contain actual training

documents or specific lesson plans; the body of the plan outlines the key policies

affected if repeal occurs, while the appendices provide sample tools and information

that Services may find useful in designing their training and communication materials.

Planning now will allow the Department of Defense to better anticipate repeal-related

issues and costs and will help to ensure that any post-repeal transition occurs with

maximum efficiency and minimum disruption to a force engaged in combat operations

and other demanding military activities around the globe. The Support Plan provides

a basis upon which OUSD(P&R) and the Services can build executable, DoD-wide and

Service-specific plans in the event of repeal.

The Support Plan links the Co-Chairs’ assessment and recommendations to

OUSD(P&R) planning processes, thereby enabling a smooth transition from the Working

Group to OUSD(P&R) now that the Working Group has completed its effort. The Support

I BACKGROUND
2

Plan relies heavily on the research conducted by the various teams within the Working

Group, survey data, engagements with the force, and the white papers produced by the

Service academies. The Support Plan also builds on best practices gleaned from other

relevant military and academic publications, the updated RAND study, and various

Working Group interactions with and information provided by academic and military

groups and other interested organizations. 

Key Implementation Message

Based on engagements with the force and the assessment of the impact of

repeal, the Working Group distills the key message for risk mitigation and successful

implementation to Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. 

Leadership. The clear message from the Working Group’s assessment is “leadership

matters most.” Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for

members in the unit and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit

effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. 

Professionalism. Leaders must emphasize Service members’ fundamental

professional obligations and the oath to support and defend the Constitution that is

at the core of their military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military

policy and standards of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and

cohesion.

Respect. Unit strength depends on the strength of each member. We achieve that

strength by treating each member with respect. 

A clear focus on Leadership-Professionalism-Respect will enable any change in

policy to be executed with minimal disruption to the force.

Stages of Implementation 

The Support Plan addresses both short-term preparation for and execution of a

repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654, as well as long-term sustainment. The Support Plan breaks the

implementation process into three stages, each covered in a separate section: “pre-repeal”

(section III), “implementation” (section IV), and “sustainment” (section V).

The pre-repeal stage would begin at the direction of the Secretary of Defense,

prior to the enactment of any legislation that would bring about repeal of the law.

During this stage, the Department of Defense and the Services would continue to review

existing policies and issuances affected by repeal, and prepare new or revised issuances

based on the recommendations in the Working Group’s report, should the Secretary

approve those recommendations. The Department of Defense and the Services would

also develop education and training materials and communications plans that would be

used in the implementation stage. Because the pre-repeal stage assumes that no repeal
3

legislation has yet been passed by Congress, it would not be appropriate to commence

education and training programs for the force during this stage.

The implementation stage would begin upon the enactment of legislation bringing

about repeal of the law, should such legislation be enacted. This stage would last until

some point after the effective date of repeal, once the roll-out of new policies has been

completed. During the implementation stage, prior to the effective date of repeal, the

Department of Defense and the Services would finalize the policy revisions started

during the pre-repeal stage. Education and training programs necessary to prepare

the force for repeal and to communicate the upcoming policy changes would then be

executed. Upon the effective date of repeal, the Department of Defense and the Services

would put any new or revised policies into effect.

Finally, the sustainment stage would begin at some point after the new policies

have been put into effect, and would be ongoing. The sustainment stage would involve

follow-on review and ongoing monitoring of implementation of repeal, in order to make

adjustments to implementation based on the experiences of the Department of Defense

and the Services to that point. 

While the Support Plan separates these stages into distinct sections for ease of

discussion, in execution the precise boundaries between them may not so easily be

discerned. 

Legislative and Legal Context

The Support Plan for Implementation is written at a time when the legislative and

legal landscape regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is in flux. As of this writing, legislation

that would allow for repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 is under consideration by the 111th Congress,

but has not been enacted into law. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy are also the

subject of ongoing constitutional challenge in Federal court.

The Support Plan does not make assumptions about the content or timing of repeal

legislation, should such legislation be enacted. Depending on the content and timing of

such legislation, the specific actions taken during the pre-repeal and implementation

stages may need to be adjusted, and the boundaries between the stages may overlap.1

The Support Plan also does not assume any outcome of ongoing litigation, or changes

to other laws affecting the implementation of repeal, such as the Defense of Marriage Act.2

1 For instance, under the legislation currently contained in the House of Representatives version (H.R. 5136)

and Senate Armed Services Committee version (S. 3454) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011,

repeal would only take effect 60 days after the delivery of a certification signed by the President, Secretary of

Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If such legislation were to pass in the near future, much of

the development of policies and of education and training materials described in the “pre-repeal” stage would

likely occur after the passage of the legislation; these activities would then blend into the finalization of policy

changes and the execution of education and training described in the “implementation” stage, both of which

would likely occur prior to certification.

2 1 U.S.C. § 7.
4

In general, this Support Plan is written with the awareness that the Department

of Defense and the Services may need to deviate from its recommendations depending

on legislative and legal outcomes that are unknown as of this writing. Furthermore,

the Department of Defense and the Services must be mindful that, prior to the effective

date of a repeal, 10 U.S.C. § 654 and associated policies remain in effect, and, as such,

homosexual conduct remains a basis for separation from military service.

Additional Materials

Included in this Support Plan is a review of many of the materials the Working

Group considered in developing this plan (in particular, the white papers provided by

the Service academies). This literature review is provided in section II. 

The Support Plan also contains four appendices that provide sample tools that

may be useful for the Department of Defense and the Services in developing and

executing education and training related to repeal. Appendix A contains recommended

talking points. Appendix B lays out the Working Group’s recommended education and

training framework, including learning objectives for specific policy areas. Appendix

C is a recommended leadership implementation guide to assist leaders at all levels

in addressing practical issues associated with repeal. Appendix D provides a set of

frequently asked questions (FAQs) and answers regarding repeal, as well as training

vignettes covering a number of the Working Group’s policy recommendations. 

Finally, Appendix E suggests some strategies for undertaking follow-on review

and ongoing monitoring of implementation of repeal.
5

Before developing the recommendations in this Support Plan, the Working

Group reviewed the most recent thinking from military and academic professionals,

to include external groups, and compared this review to the research and engagements

the Working Group conducted. The Working Group found consistent themes across

all the data considered. The Working Group specifically invited the Service academies

to submit white papers and received submissions from the United States Air Force

Academy (USAFA), the United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA), the United States

Military Academy (USMA),3 and the United States Naval Academy (USNA). These papers

represent contributions from 37 uniformed and civilian faculty, commanders, staff, and

cadets at the Service academies. 

In addition to these white papers, the Working Group reviewed several books and

articles published on implementation issues, along with papers submitted by interested

groups. Two publications the Working Group reviewed were RAND’s 1993 report and

it’s updated 2010 study. The Working Group also reviewed literature representing

both sides of the issue, including books such as Parco and Levy’s 2010 Attitudes Aren’t 

Free: Thinking Deeply about Diversity in the U.S. Military Services. Other major works

reviewed by the Working Group in the preparation of this Support Plan are listed in the

bibliography. The Service academy white papers, the two RAND reports, and Attitudes 

Aren’t Free would, in particular, serve as good resources for planners and leaders who

want to understand issues associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, should it

occur.

The Working Group’s research, literature review, engagements with the force,

and assessment of impact of repeal resulted in the key implementation message of

Leadership-Professionalism-Respect as described in section I, and discussed further

in section IV. This concept, when combined with the Working Group’s approach to

education and training, constitutes an implementation strategy that reflects many of the

Service academy recommendations in their white papers. Those papers identified four

ideas that are similar to the Working Group’s key implementation message: 

1. Leadership Matters Most. Unified, strong leadership is the most important

factor in successful transition. The manner in which DoD military and civilian

leadership executes transition will determine the success of the transition

process. To be effective, leaders must be given clear, equitable, and enforceable

standards of conduct and the tools required to enforce standards and maintain

good order and discipline in a sexual orientation-neutral way. 

3 The USMA Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis (OEMA) also wrote a white paper, which predated the

first Service academy white paper from USMA.

II LITERATURE REVIEW
6

2. Minimize Management. It is clear that effective management is important to

any change process but management cannot be the driver of change. Therefore,

while the Department of Defense will need effective and efficient management

tools and processes, it is important to ensure that the processes developed to

manage change should not dominate the change process. Unnecessary layers

of new management requirements will slow down the transition process.4

3. Communicate and Educate. Some training on the new rules and procedures

will be needed as part of implementation. However, most training can be

incorporated within already existing training programs, and extensive new

or sensitivity-type training will not improve the implementation process.

Communication and education should focus on actions and policies needed

to maintain good order and discipline of an effective fighting force. Many

Service members are uncertain about the prospect of serving with known gay

or lesbian personnel, and have misunderstandings about the implementation

process. Effective communication and education can provide needed

information for effective post-repeal decision making.

4. Promote Strength through Professionalism. Values such as respect,

freedom, service, patriotism, integrity, and honor are some of the bonds all

military professionals share. While each Service articulates these values

slightly differently, these values share a common heritage with the military

professional’s oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Military professionals are often called upon to subjugate their personal beliefs

to this sworn oath as they obey the legal orders of those appointed over them.

Our strength as an effective fighting force comes from our ability to apply our

professional values to our conduct in training and in combat. Change must be

grounded in these important professional values.

Service Academy White Papers

The idea for the Service academy white papers developed from Working Group

Co-Chair General Carter Ham’s vision of including the thoughts of Service academy

scholars and leaders in the Working Group process. The concept solidified after an

annual meeting of the Service academies (51st Annual Conference of Service Academy

Superintendents (COSAS)) hosted at West Point in the spring of 2010. During the

conference, senior Working Group leaders, including Co-Chair Jeh Charles Johnson,

were at West Point for a scheduled engagement with academy personnel. During that

visit, the Working Group leaders met with the COSAS group to discuss the Working

Group process, and the academies began discussing their white papers. The United

States Military Academy at West Point completed its white paper on May 18, 2010.

Working from a draft of the West Point paper, the United States Air Force Academy

completed its white paper on June 24, 2010. The United States Coast Guard Academy

and the United States Naval Academy worked independently from these two papers and

completed their papers in August 2010. By working this way, the Service academies

were able to create a body of work that represents the joint expertise of all the Services

4 Kotter, Leading Change (1996)
7

and provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the

process of organizational change. 

United States Military Academy (USMA) white paper 

The USMA white paper “provides a series of scholarly, evidence-based perspectives

on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from the “academic disciplines of history, public

policy, comparative politics, civil-military relations, sociology, psychology, organizational

behavior, management, and law.” As the first of the four Service Academy papers, the

USMA white paper provides more context than applied recommendations. This paper

is important as the foundational work from the Service academies and represents a

thorough review of many of the issues related to repeal. This paper also introduced the

first three of the four themes that guided the Working Group’s study of implementation.

The ability of the USMA authors to succinctly, yet thoroughly, frame issues from a

multidisciplinary perspective was a valuable source of information for the Working

Group.

United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) white paper

The USAFA white paper team sought to supplement and build on the

interdisciplinary review provided by their West Point colleagues. The USAFA team

sought to “go beyond the contextual and scholarly analysis of the issues related to

changes in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and provide actionable suggestions to assist

decision makers in creating a culture of inclusiveness.” The authors framed the problem

in the values of the profession of arms, the oath of office, and Service core values. The

authors especially focused on the value of respect for human dignity. Other ideas

offered by the USAFA team included suggestions on the use of training scenarios or

vignettes, developing sexual orientation-neutral standards and training, the importance

of initially focusing on behavior rather than attitudes or culture, developing a leadership

information “tool-kit”, working training into pre-existing programs as much as possible,

and developing specialized training for medical and legal professionals. The authors

emphasized seven points:

1. Focus on military readiness, cohesion, and effectiveness and not difficult

moral debates on sexual orientation.

2. Focus on “strength through respect” as a unifying theme embedded in military

values.

3. Resolve practical issues such as housing and privacy quickly and with little

fanfare.

4. Swift accountability for non-compliance.

5. Incorporate training into existing training as much as practical.

6. Culture change is a long-term process that will require persistence.

7. Do not allow a small vocal minority to dominate the debate.
8

United States Naval Academy (USNA) white paper

The USNA white paper summarized the USMA and USAFA white papers and

provided five independently written perspective papers. Three perspective papers were

written through the lenses of the three primary mission areas at USNA of moral, mental,

and physical development; a fourth was from the Admissions Office and the fifth was

from the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC).

The moral perspective paper proposed a “minimalist approach to change” similar

to the West Point theme of minimizing management. This perspective identified the

most important factor in successful repeal as “the steadfast and unwavering support

of leaders from the most senior officers to the most junior midshipmen.” A seamless

transition marked by ethical leadership will create “a sense of ownership in the process

and promote the readiness of future leaders.” The mental perspective paper also

provided recommendations for swift implementation should the law change. Finally,

this perspective suggested that sexual orientation-specific policies and standards not be

created and that existing conduct standards be used to address breaches to good order

and discipline. The physical perspective paper discussed issues related to NCAA athletics

and provided insights that may be useful to the other Service academies post-repeal.

In addition to the perspective papers covering the three main mission elements at

USNA, papers from the Admissions Office and the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator

round out the USNA white paper. The admissions perspective discussed tactical

implementation practices related to training admissions staff to ensure new accessions

are aware of the change in policy, creating communications, and collecting data on

the impact of repeal. The perspective paper from the SARC expressed the opinion

that policies and procedures are currently in place to support victims of sexual assault

irrespective of their sexual orientation. This paper suggested that SARC offices already

handle cases of same-sex assault and that repeal would remove some of the barriers for

victims of same-sex sexual assault to report assaults.

United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) white paper

The USCGA’s interdisciplinary analysis cautioned against linear,

compartmentalized thinking and offered perspectives on how organizational

change theory can assist in the transition process. Based on their findings, the team

recommended a professionalism-based framework for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal

using the themes of leadership matters, minimize management, maximize education,

and promote professionalism. The USCGA paper also expanded the discussion on

organizational change introduced in the USMA paper and further developed in the

USAFA paper. Leader-led change throughout the organization was identified as an

important component of successful organizational change. 

An important contribution of the USCGA paper was a thoughtful discussion of the

religious and moral issues related to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The authors offered the idea
9

that religious plurality is a core American value and that constitutional protections allow

all Service members to retain their personal views regarding homosexuality without fear

of reprisal. The United States is characterized by both religious freedom and religious

diversity and citizens do in fact make different choices about their personal spirituality.

As such, there is diversity of opinion on homosexuality both across religions and within

denominations. Military leaders must lead all members without prejudice regardless of

their religious or personal convictions. 

In its recommendations for implementation, the USCGA white paper authors

suggested five coequal components of a successful repeal process:

1. Consistent professional ethos and core values linkages.

2. Leader-led implementation at all levels.

3. Providing resources and tool sets to all leaders.

4. Focusing on unit cohesion and military effectiveness and readiness.

5. Assessment and leader accountability.

Finally, the USCGA white paper suggested that preparation, communication, and

execution of the repeal process “should be based in the core values and professional

ethos of the individual Services.” Each Service should personalize its implementation

plan in a way that demonstrates ownership of the process in the context of Service

values and respect for human dignity. 

United States Military Academy Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis 

(OEMA) white paper

In a April 28, 2010, white paper that predated the four Service Academy white

papers, the United States Military Academy Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis

(OEMA) provided a baseline analysis of implementation issues related to the repeal of

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Not surprisingly, OEMA’s main contribution to the discussion was

a focus on the process of assessing the impact of repeal on the force. In order to prepare

for follow-on review, the OEMA report recommended collecting data on several metrics

to provide the Department of Defense a pre-repeal, baseline measure. 

The OEMA white paper offered a list of recommended implementation efforts

based on their analysis, to include:

1. Leadership must provide unqualified and committed support for the policy

change.

2. Any non-discrimination policy should be adopted in concert with regulations

governing all behavior, regardless of sexual orientation.
10

3. Enforcement of the policy must be uniform.

4. Training in support of the policy should address inappropriate behaviors

without reference to sexual orientation.

Finally, the OEMA white paper cautioned that whatever policy is ultimately

adopted by the Department of Defense, the costs to military readiness of being reactive

versus proactive can be significant. Therefore, early preparation for any potential

change will assist in both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the change process.

The report suggested that metrics collected pre-repeal will greatly assist in a proactive

understanding of repeal issues. This position was echoed in the USNA white paper:

“Once the Department of Defense gives the direction, we should be ready to make the

change without delay.”

Other Academic Literature Related to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

In addition to the Service academy white papers, the Working Group reviewed the

1993 RAND study, the 2010 RAND study, Parco and Levy’s (2010) Attitudes Aren’t Free,

other academic writings on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; interacted with multiple groups such as

the Brookings Institution/Palm Center Forum on the Experiences of Foreign Militaries;

received inputs from interested groups; and issued multiple data calls. The total body of

literature reviewed overwhelmingly converged on the four themes of leadership matters

most, minimize management, communicate and educate, and promote strength through

professionalism. 

In addition to these four themes, the literature also suggested the following goals

for each stage of the implementation process:

1. Goals of Pre-repeal.

a. Develop a strategic vision and a strategic communications plan.

b. Develop a plan for change (e.g., policy review, training/education

materials).

c. Cultivate unified leadership committed to change.

d. Stress organizational values related to change (e.g., respect, team,

integrity).

e. Emphasize preparation.

2. Goals of Implementation.

a. Publish revised policies, instructions, and regulations.

b. Roll-out education and training materials.

c. Ensure senior leaders and commanders brief change to the force, public,

retirees, and other interested groups.
11

d. Conduct specialized training for chaplains, JAGs, medical, counselors,

recruiters, and personnel specialists.

e. Ensure standards of conduct are equally applied without reference to

sexual orientation.

f. Emphasize behavior (not attitudes) and standards.

3. Goals of Sustainment.

a. Conduct on-going assessment and adjustment.

b. Continue to train new personnel.

c. Manage resistance with ongoing education and swift, appropriate

response to violations of standards.

d. Provide support to people most impacted by the change.

e. Monitor changes in Federal law and adjust as needed.

f. Emphasize a culture of respect and inclusiveness.

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, the most frequently cited idea across all the data sources

reviewed for this Support Plan was that successful transition depends on effective

leadership. Leadershipmustbeunifiedatalllevelsofthechainofcommand. Commanders

must have the authority to effectively execute the change and be held accountable for its

implementation. Several other ideas also emerged consistently across most of the data

sources. Ultimately, these frequently-cited ideas are all variants of the Working Group’s

key message for successful implementation of a repeal: Leadership-ProfessionalismRespect. Nonetheless, as the Department of Defense and the Services work to frame

the change process from pre-repeal preparation through sustainment, there is value in

noting a few more particularized concepts:

  A clearly articulated vision of what the Department of Defense expects as a result of

repeal, should it occur, is an important part of the change process. An essential part

of this vision is the ability to apply unifying military values, especially respect for all

Service members, to the transition process. 

  Many Service members’ views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have a strong religious

and moral component. Religious pluralism is a core American value and Service

members have a wide range of religious views on this issue. Service members will

not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs. They must,

however, continue to respect and co-exist with others who may hold different views

and beliefs, consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service.
12

  Each Service culture is unique and implementation must account for and align with

Service core values.

  Unit cohesion is a leadership responsibility and leadership is the best way to mitigate

potential cohesion problems.

  Respect strengthens the team and is the most important value associated with the

effective inclusion of any new group. Respect does not mean agreement with a

person’s point of view. Respect does mean honoring a person’s right to hold their

point of view even if it differs from yours. 

  Education and communication will be important aspects of the implementation

process. Accurate and timely information is important. People want to know “What

does this change mean to me?” Information that answers this very basic question

will greatly assist in the implementation process. 

  Focus on military readiness, cohesion, and effectiveness and keep sexual orientation

a private matter as much as possible. Behavior consistent with the military mission

should guide implementation. 

  Focus on standards of behavior and not attitudes. Policies and standards should

be sexual orientation-neutral, clearly worded, and equally enforced. The goal is

equitable treatment for all without endorsing any particular point of view or belief

system.

  Recurring assessments that measure performance and impact of repeal on military

readiness, cohesion, and effectiveness are important.

Note on the Service Academy White Papers

The Service academy white papers occupy a unique position in the scholarship

on military service by gays and lesbians in the United States, primarily because Service

academies are responsible for developing future officers and preparing them for military

leadership. The current legal and legislative landscape is unclear, but it is likely that

this issue will be an ongoing source of debate among Service members as the broader

national conversation about sexual orientation continues. Academy and ROTC students

of today will be asked to lead any changes that may arise in the future, first as junior

officers, and later as commanders and senior leaders. Current academy perspectives,

therefore, have an important impact on leadership trends in the years ahead. Further, as

educational institutions, the academy faculties represent some of the best thinking of the

Military Services. The white papers not only provide a rigorous analytical approach to

the issue of gay and lesbian service, but also reflect the breadth of first-hand command

experience of senior military officers. For these reasons, the Support Plan draws on the

analysis and conclusions of those papers to inform its approach to implementation.
13

The pre-repeal stage would begin at the direction of the Secretary of Defense,

prior to the enactment of any legislation that would bring about repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654.

During this stage, the Department of Defense and the Services would continue to review

existing policies and issuances affected by repeal, and prepare new or revised issuances

based on the recommendations in the Working Group’s report, should the Secretary

approve those recommendations. The Department of Defense and the Services would

also develop education and training materials and communications plans that would be

used in the implementation stage. 

Because the pre-repeal stage assumes that no repeal legislation has yet been

passed by Congress, this section focuses on actions that may appropriately be taken

prior to Congressional action and while 10 U.S.C. § 654 remains in effect.

Key Implementation Message

As previously mentioned, the key message for successful implementation is

Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. Among these three, leadership matters most.

Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for members in the unit

and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit effectiveness, readiness, and

cohesion. All Service members must remember their professional military obligations

and their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. In the profession of arms,

adherence to military policy and standards of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness,

readiness, and cohesion. Finally, each member of the unit must be treated with respect

and dignity. A clearly articulated message of Leadership-Professionalism-Respect

will enable any change in policy to be executed with minimal disruption to the force.

Pre-Repeal Overview

During the pre-repeal stage, the Department of Defense and the Services should

prepare for repeal in four key areas: policies and regulations, education and training,

leadership communication, and implementation assessment.

III PRE-REPEAL STAGE
14

A. Legal, Policy, and Regulatory Issues

  Reviewandprepare for revisionofnecessarypolicies, regulations,andinstructions

affected by repeal.

  Review and prepare for required changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice

(UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).

  Further study the fiscal impact and timing of repeal actions.

B. Education and Training

  Services draft initial training documents and lesson plans for specialty areas

(e.g., judge advocates, chaplains, medical, personnel, recruiters) and the force.

  Services prepare content for Service member education (e.g., FAQs, leader

toolkits, vignettes for issues related to repeal). Plan for distribution via various

media: manuals, websites, and social media.

  Services develop training documents and lesson plans for BMT, officer accessions,

professional schools, and other educational forums.

  Develop sexual orientation information for future incorporation into human

relations and sexual assault prevention training programs as appropriate.

  Develop informational materials appropriate for distribution to military spouses,

supporters, and families.

C. Leadership Communications

  Develop and articulate a clear leadership vision.

  Prepare memoranda to be issued by senior DoD and Service military and civilian

leaders.

  Prepare press releases and senior leader talking points.

  Inform retired and active duty General Officer and Senior NCOs/CPOs on the

Working Group study and recommendations.

D. Pre-Repeal Preparation for Implementation Follow-On Review

  Identify and begin to prepare appropriate monitoring mechanisms to measure

the success of follow-through on repeal. 
15

Pre-Repeal Analysis

A. Legal, Policy, and Regulatory Issues

The Working Group reviewed existing DoD policies, regulations, and UCMJ

articles related to repeal and recommends the Department of Defense and the Services

review the following and develop appropriate guidance in the pre-repeal stage:5

1. Separation for Homosexual Conduct

  DoDI 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, March 29, 2010, and DoDI

1332.20, Officer Separations, March 29, 2010, should be amended to eliminate

homosexual conduct as a basis of separation.

  DoD discharge code for homosexual conduct should be deleted.

  Services should review any specific instructions or regulations regarding

separations on the basis of homosexual conduct, alongwith any corresponding

separation and re-enlistment codes. 

2. Standards of Conduct

In the Working Group’s engagements with the force many Service

members questioned whether standards of conduct would be maintained after

repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Many of these concerns were about conduct

that is already regulated in the military environment, regardless of the sexual

orientation of the individuals involved. 

As such, the Working Group does not recommend an extensive set of new

or revised standards of conduct in the event of repeal. Instead, the Working

Group recommends that the Department of Defense issue generalized guidance

that all standards of personal and professional conduct should apply uniformly

without regard to sexual orientation. The Working Group also recommends

that the Services review existing standards of conduct to ensure that they are

sexual orientation-neutral and provide adequate guidance, to the extent each

Service considers appropriate, in the following areas: 

  Public Displays of Affection (PDA)

  Dress and Appearance

  Unprofessional Relationships

  Harassment

5 This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. The Working Group anticipates that there may be additional

policies, directives, and instructions not identified here that require review and, where necessary, amendment

or alteration.
16

The Working Group recognizes the uncertainty many Service members

currently have about this issue and notes that commanders will be instrumental

in providing clarity for their units where there may be confusion. Therefore, the

Working Group strongly recommends that commanders rely on the FAQs and

vignettes provided in this Support Plan to answer questions and communicate

policies to Service members. In the event of repeal, leaders must ensure that

all Service members understand that the military’s current high standards of

conduct will continue to apply to all Service members.

  Services should aim to ensure they have standards clearly addressing the

responsibility of leaders, supervisors, and subordinate personnel at all levels

to foster unit cohesion, good order and discipline, respect for authority,

personal safety, and mission accomplishment.

  Leaders at alllevels shouldunderstandthat repealdoesnot change theirduty to

ensure the impartial administration of standards of conduct. In cases where

conduct is prohibited, leaders should be expected to take unbiased corrective

or disciplinary action as necessary to preserve good order and discipline, unit

cohesion, morale, military readiness, and combat effectiveness. 

  Service members should understand they will be held accountable for their

behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

3. Moral and Religious Concerns

In the Working Group’s engagements with the force, a large number of

Service members expressed religious and moral objections to homosexuality

or to serving alongside someone who is gay. Some feared repeal of Don’t Ask,

Don’t Tell might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of

religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of

homosexuality. The concerns expressed by the force, including the concerns of

many in the community of 3,000 military chaplains, should not be downplayed.

In today’s U.S. military, people of very different moral values and religious

convictions already co-exist, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis.

Policies regarding Service members’ individual expression and free exercise of

religion already exist and are adequate. Therefore, the Working Group does not

recommend any policy change regarding Service members’ exercise of religious

beliefs, nor has it recommended any change to policies on the chaplains corps

and its duties. Service members, to include chaplains, will neither be encouraged

nor required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must,

however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and

beliefs. Specifially for chaplains, the existing guidance developed by and for our

chaplains, should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning

repeal. These regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a

chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to care for all. 
17

4. Equal Opportunity

The Working Group does not recommend that the Department of Defense

place sexual orientation alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin

as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and the

Military Equal Opportunity program complaint resolution processes. Instead, if

aServicemember experiences inappropriate interpersonalbehaviorwhere sexual

orientation is a factor, he or she should use existing (non-MEO) mechanisms to

file the proper complaint.

The Working Group recommends that, in a post-repeal environment,

gay and lesbian Service members be treated under the same general principles

of military equal opportunity policy to “promote an environment free from

personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service members from

rising to the highest level of responsibility possible” and to evaluate Service

members “only on individual merit, fitness, and capability.” 

The Department of Defense should issue guidance on the prevention of

discrimination, harassment, or abuse based on sexual orientation.

  Sexual orientation may not, in and ofitself, be a factor in accession, promotion,

or other personnel decision-making.

  Gay and lesbian Service members, like all Service members, shall be evaluated

only on individual merit, fitness, and capability. 

  Harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is unacceptable.

  All Service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect

regardless of sexual orientation.

The Department of Defense and the Services should ensure that MEO

policies are clearly communicated to the force so Service members and leaders

understand the proper manner in which to process discrimination complaints

related to sexual orientation issues.

The Department of Defense should review its current MEO Program as

established in DoDD 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity 

(MEO) Program, August 18, 1995, to discuss how allegations based on harassment

and “sex stereotyping” are actionable under the DoD MEO program, to the extent

these allegations are based on gender (sex) as opposed to sexual orientation. 

The Department of Defense should consider whether to issue guidance on

how to process Service member complaints alleging discrimination based on

sexual orientation. Any such guidance should discuss the distinction between

complaints based on sexual orientation and complaints based on sexual

harassment or sex stereotyping (gender) which are actionable under DoD MEO.
18

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) should draft

additional fact-based vignettes to supplement those in Appendix D in order to

aid leaders in identifying and resolving discrimination-based complaints on

“sex stereotyping” and “sexual orientation.”6

All Service MEO programs should be reviewed to ensure consistency

regarding discrimination based on “sex stereotyping” and/or “harassment.”

5. Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data

The Working Group does not recommend any new guidance. The

Department of Defense and the Services should continue their policy against

requesting, collecting, or maintaining information about the sexual orientation

of Service members.

6. UCMJ

The Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense

proceed with the Joint Service Committee (JSC) proposals to seek repeal of

Article 125 of the UCMJ in its entirety and to amend Article 120 of the UCMJ to

include forcible sodomy and sodomy offenses against children. The Department

of Defense should also proceed with the JSC’s related proposal to amend the

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) to include other aspects of Article 125 not

barred by Federal court decisions (e.g., sodomy that is Service discrediting) in

the punitive offenses section of the MCM under Article 134. 

Additionally, the Working Group recommends the JSC review all other

UCMJ offenses involving sexual conduct or inappropriate relationships to ensure

sexual orientation-neutral application. For example, the offense of adultery

defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial should be revised to apply equally to

heterosexual and homosexual sex that is engaged in by or with a married person.

7. Privacy and Cohabitation

In most of the Working Group’s engagements with the force, a large

number of Service members expressed their discomfort with sharing bathroom

facilities or living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian. Leaders

at all levels should be aware of the frequency and intensity of discussion on

this topic, and the broad range of views that exists among Service members.

As with standards of conduct, leaders should rely on the FAQs and vignettes

provided in this Support Plan to answer questions and communicate policies

to the force. The Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense

prohibit the creation of separate bathroom and shower facilities based on sexual

orientation. Besides being logistically impractical, “separate but equal” facilities

would wrongly isolate and stigmatize some Service members. Consistent with

6 DEOMI assisted in the development of the vignettes in the Appendix D.
19

the military mission, commanders retain their authority to alter berthing or

billeting assignments and may accommodate privacy concerns of individuals on

a case-by-case basis. 

Therefore, the Working Group recommends that: 

  The Department of Defense prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based

on sexual orientation, except that commanders should retain the authority

to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case

basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline,

consistent with performance of mission.

  The Department of Defense prohibit the designation of separate bathroom or

bathing facilities based on sexual orientation except that commanders would

have the authority to accommodate privacy requests on an individualized,

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and

discipline, consistent with performance of mission.

8. Benefits

For reasons laid out in the recommendations section of the Working

Group’s report, the Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense

not create a new status of “committed relationship” applicable to same-sex

relationships for the purpose of benefits eligibility at this time. The issue of

benefits eligibility is very complex and is part of the ongoing national political

and legal debate concerning same-sex relationships and gay marriage. The

Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense and the Services

continue to treat all Service members not in a federally recognized marriage as

“single Service members” for benefits purposes. However, to ensure all Service

members have the support of important people in their lives—be they a spouse,

long-time partner, parent, or friend—the Working Group recommends that the

Department of Defense and the Services review those benefits that may, where

justified from a policy, fiscal, and feasibility standpoint, be revised to give the

Service member the discretion to designate a person or persons of their choosing

as a beneficiary. By extending these benefits and resources, the Department of

Defense would enhance the vital role that a Service member’s supporters can

play in enabling them to accomplish the mission, especially during times of

deployment stress.

Service members can currently designate beneficiaries of their choosing

for several benefit and notification purposes. Federal law and DoD Instructions

often establish the priority for the distribution of benefits and notifications for
20

Service members. For married Service members, the Service member’s spouse

is typically the first beneficiary, followed by children, parents, and then other

relatives in the priority set by law. For single Service members, the typical order

is children, followed by parents, and then other relatives. However, all Service

members may designate other people to receive some benefits and notifications.

These designations are usually made on the Service member’s DD Form 93,

Record of Emergency Data (RED) and the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance

(SGLI) Policy. Service members may want to designate permissible benefits to

someone other than a person in the priority list set by law. This could include

an unmarried partner, significant other, friend, or distant relative. Service

members must be diligent to ensure their desired beneficiaries are properly

documented in the event the Service member dies or goes missing while serving.

As such: 

  The Department of Defense and the Services should ensure benefit-related

administrative processes and educational materials are sufficient to provide

Service members with the information they need to properly designate

beneficiaries and ensure that people they designate receive proper notification

in the event the Service member dies or goes missing while serving. 

  Commanders and other leaders should proactively counsel subordinates on

the need to keep emergency data current. A thorough review of all emergency

data must be conducted on a regular basis and prior to any deployment.

  Table 1 lists benefits the Working Group identified for which Service members

can currently designate to a beneficiary of his or her choosing. This may not

be an exhaustive list. The Working Group recommends that the Department

of Defense and the Services study other possible benefits and beneficiary

designations that currently exist.

  The Department of Defense and the Services should determine what other

additional benefits and beneficiary designations could be extended to

supporters of single Service members as allowed by law and where justified

by policy, fiscal, and feasibility considerations. 
21

Table 1. Benefits for Which Service Members Can Currently Identify a Beneficiary 

of His or Her Choosing

Benefit	 Eligibility

• Se r vi c e memb e r s ’ Group Li fe

In su r an c e (SG LI ) – Eligibl e

Be n e fi ci a r y

• Ve te r an s ’ Group Li fe In su r an c e

(VG LI ) – Eligibl e Be n e fi ci a r y

A Se r vi c e memb e r can de sign a te anyo n e

to re c eive SG LI / VG LI paym e n t s if prop e rly

d e sign a ted as a be n e fi ci a r y. If und e sign a ted ,

a pe r so n migh t only re c eive as a re sidu al

b e n e fi ci a r y if au t ho ri zed by law. (3 8 USC §§

19 6 5 -19 8 0A )

• Po s t Vi e t n am - E r a Ve te r an s

As si s t an c e Prog r am (VE AP )

• All -Volun te e r Fo r c e Edu c a tio n al

As si s t an c e (VE A ) Prog r am

( M o n tgom e r y G.I . Bill – Ac tive

Du t y ) , De a t h Be n e fi t

A Se r vi c e memb e r can de sign a te anyo n e

to re c eive unu sed co n t ribu tio n s if prop e rly

d e sign a ted as an SG LI be n e fi ci a r y. (3 8 USC §§ 

3 2 01- 4 3 and 38 USC §§ 3011-3 0 2 0 )

• Be n e fi ci a r y fo r De a t h Gr a tui t y

• Be n e fi ci a r y fo r Fin al Se t tl em e n t

of Ac c oun t s : De c e a sed Memb e r s

(P ay and Allowan c e s )

A Se r vi c e memb e r may de sign a te on th e DD

Fo rm 93 a pe r so n or pe r so n s of th ei r choo sing to

re c eive th e full valu e of thi s be n e fi t . (10 USC §

1477 and 10 USC § 2771; Impl em e n ted by Do DI

13 0 0 .18 )

• Su r vivo r Be n e fi t Pl an (SBP ) A Se r vi c e memb e r may de sign a te anyo n e to

re c eive th e re ti rem e n t annui t y if th e Se r vi c e

m emb e r is no t ma r ri ed and do e s no t have

a dep e nd e n t child . (10 USC §§ 14 47-14 5 5 ;

Impl em e n ted by Do DI 13 3 2 . 42 )

• Righ t s Reg a rding Ca re ,

Man ag em e n t , and Tr an si tio n of

Re c ove ring Se r vi c e Memb e r

( Wound e d Wa r rio r Ac t )

A Se r vi c e memb e r can appoin t anyo n e as a

d e sign a ted ca regive r fo r a wound ed Se r vi c e

m emb e r du ring re c ove r y. (Pub Law 110 -181 Se c s

16 01 - 1676 ; Impl em e n ted by DO DI 13 0 0 . 24 )

• Th ri f t Saving s Pl an (TSP )

Be n e fi ci a r y De sign a tio n

A Se r vi c e memb e r can de sign a te anyo n e as a

b e n e fi ci a r y. (S e e Ch ap te r s 83 - 4 of Ti tl e 5. )

Notes :

1. Eligibility always follows a priority set by law unless other wise properly designated by

 the Ser vice members. Ser vice members should always confirm the proper designation of

 all benefits with the appropriate installation personnel.

2. Federal law will not permit an unmarried par tner to qualif y as a “spouse,” “widow,” or

 “widower.”

3. Unused benefits not properly designated by the Ser vice member will follow the priority

 set by law for each benefit.
22

9. Medical Policy

The Working Group has assessed that, in the event of repeal, there will be

no change in the safety of the blood supply and no significant change in overall

HIV prevalence. Consistent with the letter provided to the Working Group by the

Surgeons General of the military departments, the Working Group recommends

no new policies or modifications to existing medical policies.

10. Accessions and Recruiting Policy

As stated in item 5 above, it is the policy of the Department of Defense

and the Services not to ask applicants for entry into military service to reveal

their sexual orientation. The Working Group does not recommend any change

to this policy. 

  All recruiting and accession instructions of Service members should

be changed to remove references to homosexual conduct as a basis for

administrative separation or for denial of entry into military service. In

particular, appropriate portions of DoD Instruction 1304.26 should be deleted.

  Recruiter training should continue to include a section addressing the

prohibition on requesting or collecting information regarding applicants’

sexual orientation.

  Interaction with the public is a fundamental part of recruiters’ mission.

Therefore, recruiters should be prepared to answer questions on repeal that

they will inevitably receive from potential recruits and in public venues.

  Language pertaining to administrative separation for homosexual conduct

should be removed from briefings given to applicants for enlistment and

appointment regarding separation policy and personal conduct in the

Military Services.

  Policies derived from subsection (c) of 10 U.S.C. § 654 requiring every

applicant be briefed on the homosexual conduct prohibition in the Military

Services, should be deleted or amended and relevant references from the

periodic briefing requirement for enlisted members should be removed.

  The policy to brief every applicant for enlistment on personal conduct while

at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) should be updated to

reflect changes.7

  USMEPCOM Form 601-23-5-R-E, Introductory Pre-Accession Interview 

(requiring applicant to affirm he/she has been briefed on DoD separation

policies and restrictions on personal conduct) should be updated as necessary.

7 MEPS personnel are required to administer the DoD Applicant Briefing on Separation Policy and Restrictions

on Personal Conduct in the Military Services, USMEPCOM Form 601-23-4-E, to all applicants processing

through MEPS for enlistment.
23

  DoD Applicant Briefing on Separation Policy and Restrictions on Personal

Conduct in the Military Services for Officer Candidate School personnel

should be amended.

  DoD Directive 1322.22, requiring each Service cadet or midshipman be briefed

on separation policies within 72 hours of reception should be amended as

appropriate.

11. Re-Accession

The Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense issue

guidance to the Services permitting Service members previously separated on

the basis of homosexual conduct to be considered for reentry, assuming they

qualify in all other respects. 

  Prior service personnel who meet all qualifying conditions and were

discharged solely on the basis of homosexual conduct under 10 U.S.C. § 654

should have the same opportunity for reentry as other similarly qualified

prior Service personnel.

  The fact that the basis of the separation was homosexual conduct should not

be considered to the detriment of the applicant. If, however, there are reasons

for discharge other than just homosexual conduct, these may be considered in

the way they would for any other Service member. For example, a separation

that resulted in an “other than honorable” characterization of service would

disqualify a previously-discharged Service member from reentry under this

policy recommendation. 

  The Department of Defense should leave to the discretion of each Service

how to change reentry codes in some uniform manner or, alternatively, to

issue guidance to ensure that a disqualifying reentry code on a DD Form 214

will not prohibit consideration of a candidate qualified for reentry. (Some

prior Service personnel may desire the DD Form 214 to remain historically

accurate.) 

  The Department of Defense and the Services should process claims for redress

by Service members previously separated under 10 U.S.C. § 654 according to

policies and procedures applicable to all prior Service members (i.e., through

Service Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review

Boards).

  The Department of Defense should coordinate with the Department of

Veterans Affairs to determine if any veteran benefits for Service members

separated under 10 U.S.C. § 654 need to be reinstated. 
24

12. Release from Service Commitments

TheWorkingGroup does not recommend additional policies or procedures

to allow for release from service commitments for Service members opposed to

repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 or to serving and living with gay and lesbian Service

members. 

  Service members may request to be voluntarily discharged under the Military

Department Secretary’s plenary authority. Under current policy, such

discretionary discharge may only be granted when the Military Department

Secretary has determined the early separation would be in the best interest

of the Service. 

  If a chaplain is unable to reconcile serving with or caring for gay and lesbian

Service members with his or her faith, the chaplain may request that the

relevant endorsing agency withdraw its ecclesiastical endorsement for him

or her. This would trigger an administrative separation under DoDI 1304.28.

13. Family Readiness

Benefits and services are discussed in item 8 above. In addition, the

Department of Defense and the Services should publish information to military

spouses and families about repeal. The Working Group asked military spouses to

identify how they would like to receive information about repeal. The responses

to that question are presented in Table 2:

Table 2. Spouse Preferences for Information on Repeal from the Spouse Survey

Question 11. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, the military will want to prepare and assist

spouses in understanding the new policy. How would you like the military to provide you with

information on the new policy? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

Overall

N o sp e ci al ac tivi ti e s or communi c a tio n s would be ne c e s s a r y 43.0 %

D i s t ribu te prin ted in fo rm a tio n to spou se s abou t rep e al 37.4 %

P rovid e in fo rm a tio n abou t th e rep e al on mili t a r y Web si te s 34.3 %

H ave in te r a c tive ch a t s avail abl e on lin e to an swe r qu e s tio n s from Se r vi c e

m emb e r spou se s

8.2 %

C o ndu c t in fo rm a tio n se s sio n s on ba se s and in s t all a tio n s abou t rep e al 13.5 %

P rovid e in fo rm a tio n th rough mili t a r y ch apl ain s tr ain ed to wo r k wi t h spou se s

and family memb e r s on rep e al

14.5 %

P rovid e in fo rm a tio n th rough ot h e r mili t a r y coun selo r s tr ain ed to wo r k wi t h

spou se s and family memb e r s on rep e al

14.1%

P rovid e in fo rm a tio n th rough Family Re adin e s s Group / Wo r k- Li fe Prog r am

l e ad e r s tr ain ed to wo r k wi t h spou se s and family memb e r s on rep e al

21.2 %

O f fe r cou r se s to spou se s on how to di s c u s s rep e al wi t hin th ei r famili e s 9.1%

O t h e r 3.6 %
25

Based on these results and engagements with the force and military

spouses, the Working Group recommends that the Department of Defense and

the Services provide information to spouses and families as follows:

  The largest percentage of spouses who indicated they would like information

about repeal would like printed or web-based materials. Family readiness

personnel could use information in the appendices of this Support Plan

to develop printed information for distribution to military families. This

information should also be posted to military family websites (e.g.,

MilitaryOneSource.com).

  Family support staff, including counselors and military chaplains, should

be trained to assist Service members and their families in discussing issues

related to repeal. Links to helpful resources for talking to children and youth

about repeal and sexuality could be placed on military family websites.

  The ability to send in questions to the Department of Defense and Service

experts on repeal would help ensure accurate information is available. 

  Place links to web-based resources in printed materials. Wallet-cards could

be an efficient and cost-effective manner to advertise web site locations.

B. Pre-Repeal Education and Training

The Department of Defense and the Services should begin to prepare education

and training programs for the force in the pre-repeal stage. The Working Group

developed a framework for education and training with three tiers of education, each

targeted towards different categories of DoD personnel for the most efficient distribution

of information.8A tiered approach to education and training will enable the Services

to tailor information to a Service member’s position, occupational specialty, and level of

responsibility: 

Tier 1 (Expert Level). Material targeted toward Service members responsible for

administration or policy implementation, or whose occupation specialty requires that

the Service member needs to understand the implications of any policy change. At a

minimum this includes: judge advocates and civilian lawyers, chaplains, recruiters,

personnel specialists, military law enforcement personnel, military criminal

investigators, family support staff, military equal opportunity advisors, and health

services personnel.

Tier 2 (Leader Level). Material targeted toward Service members in leadership

positions who are responsible for maintaining standards of conduct, good order and

discipline, and military effectiveness. At a minimum this includes: senior leaders

(general/flag officers and senior executive service), commanding officers, chief

8 A complete description of the recommended education and training guide developed by the Working Group

is located in Appendix B. The Working Group relied on the expertise of Service Headquarters Training

leadership, Service Academy and War College academic leadership, OUSD(P&R) representation, and DEOMI

leadership to identify the training requirements associated with the Working Group recommendations.
26

warrant officers, senior enlisted advisors, senior non-commissioned officers and

chief petty officers, and civilian supervisors.

Tier 3 (Service Member Level). Material designed for all members of the Military

Services, to be distributed as soon as practical after passage of legislation and prior

to the effective date of repeal, and during accessions training for all personnel. At a

minimum, all Service members should be briefed on the new policy and expectations

of personal conduct in the military.

Education and training guidance at Tiers 1 and 2 should include more detailed

information for senior leaders, commanders, and personnel responsible for implementing

policy and should be more detailed than the general guidance provided to all Service

members in Tier 3. As currently envisioned, Tiers 1 and 2 are discretionary requirements

provided on a “need to know” basis, while Tier 3 is mandatory to ensure the education

and training of all personnel on policies and standards of conduct. Effective education

and training ensures that Service members have uniform, clear information, which

allows them to follow new policy readily. The Department of Defense and the Services

should prepare much of the education and training in the pre-repeal stage in order to

enable execution of education and training in the implementation stage prior to the

effective date of repeal.

  The education and training framework sets out what training must be provided,

to whom, and the appropriate level of detail. The question of how to conduct the

training should be left to Service training commands as much as possible.

  The framework (see Appendix B) is organized in tiers, each tier describing

the target audience, learning objectives, training guidance, and measures of

effectiveness for the policy topic at issue. 

  Much of the Level 1 and 2 training would occur as early as practical in the

implementation stage, after the development of policies, to ensure that personnel

responsible for executing those policies are adequately prepared. Tier 3 training

should be rolled out to the force as soon as possible prior to the effective date of

repeal.

  The Department of Defense and the Services must ensure that deployed troops

receive adequate training quickly and without disrupting combat operations.

The Working Group recommends that Service members deployed to a combat

zone be informed about the basics of the change in policy and the key message

of Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. The message to these troops must

not degrade the combat mission but must succinctly and clearly inform troops

of the new policy and the expectations for respecting all members of the force.

Additional recommendations on education and training of deployed troops are

located in section IV (Implementation Stage).
27

  The Department of Defense and the Services must also ensure that personnel in

Special Duty assignments (e.g., fellowships, joint assignments, and attaché duty)

are informed of the change in policy expeditiously.

  Recommendations for training content are included in the Recommended

Training and Education Framework, Leaders’ Implementation Guide, vignettes,

and FAQs (see Appendices B–D). During the pre-repeal stage the Services should

adapt this material to their Service culture.

  For some specialty areas, especially combat arms, greater proportions of

those surveyed expressed concerns about the impact of repeal. Training

personnel should be aware of particular areas of concern and the concerns of

particular specialties within the force (as described in the survey, assessment,

and recommendations sections of the report) when they develop lesson plans

and educational materials.

C. Pre-Repeal Leadership Communication

Communication from DoD leadership should consistently reinforce that, unless

and until Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may be repealed, homosexual conduct remains a basis for

administrative discharge and existing policies remain in effect. This section recommends

an approach to communications based on the findings of the Working Group.

1. Pre-Repeal Internal Leadership Communication

  Should repeal occur, leadership will be the best predictor of successful

transition.

  Leaders throughout the chain of command should be familiar with the

concerns voiced to the Working Group during its engagements with the force.

  Senior leaders should actively explain to Service members the Working Group

process, findings, and recommendations. 

  Senior leaders should reinforce professional military values such as respect

for human dignity, integrity, and selfless service so that the force is best

prepared for repeal should the law change. 

2. Public Communication 

In addition to internal communications for the force, leadership should

prepare to engage with the public, media, and key constituencies like veterans’

groups, Service academy graduate organizations, and advocacy groups that

provided input to the Working Group. The message should emphasize that,

with or without repeal, exemplary behavior is expected from all personnel and

the professional focus of the Services will remain on combat readiness. Talking

points should be prepared for leaders and targeted for different audiences,

consistent with the law and with the President’s and Secretary of Defense’s intent

and vision.
28

D. Pre-Repeal Preparation for Implementation Follow-on Review

The Department of Defense should establish baseline metrics for post-repeal

review and an ongoing program to monitor military effectiveness and the workforce

climate after repeal to ensure continued success in implementation, as specified in the

Working Group’s Terms of Reference. 

  In keeping with the theme of minimizing impact on the force, the Working Group

recommends that, to the extent possible, assessments be incorporated in existing

surveys such as the DEOMI Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS) and DoD IG

processes. (See Appendix E.)

  The Working Group does not anticipate the need for an extensive survey similar to

the surveys conducted during the preparation of this report. DEOMI and Service

MEO specialists should be consulted to provide subject-matter expertise on effective

DoD-wide and Service-specific monitoring approaches.

Summary

During the pre-repeal stage, the primary goals are the preparation of: 1) the

necessary policies, regulations, and instructions required to implement a repeal; 2) the

education and training plans that will best inform Service members and their families

of the changes a repeal would bring; and 3) communications plans to be used during the

implementation stage. Preparations that the Department of Defense and the Services

make beforehand will enable an efficient implementation, should 10 U.S.C. § 654 be

repealed. During this period, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy remain in effect,

and the Department of Defense is obliged to and will enforce the law.
29

The implementation stage would begin upon the enactment of legislation bringing

about repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654, should such legislation be enacted. This stage would last

until some point after the effective date of repeal, once the roll-out of new policies has

been completed. During the implementation stage, prior to the effective date of repeal,

the Department of Defense and the Services would finalize the policy revisions started

during the pre-repeal stage. Education and training programs necessary to prepare the

force for repeal and to communicate the upcoming policy changes would then begin.

Upon the effective date of repeal, the Department of Defense and the Services would put

any new or revised policies into effect.

The Department of Defense and the Services must be mindful during this stage

that, until the effective date of repeal, 10 U.S.C. § 654 and associated policies remain in

effect, and, as such, homosexual conduct remains a basis for separation from military

service. Depending on the provisions of the legislation enacted, the Department of

Defense and the Services may need to adapt the content of this section.

Throughout the implementation stage, leaders should focus on the key message of

Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. Committed, joint leadership will be the most

important catalyst for success. Leaders must emphasize the professionalism of the force,

and promote respect among Service members to execute the new policy effectively. 

Implementation Overview

RAND’s approach to implementation in its 2010 report is consistent with the

Working Group’s recommendations. The implementation chapter in the RAND report

is a good supplement to this Support Plan that leaders, trainers, and planners may find

useful in their preparation for repeal. Specifically, the following four activities are

helpful in framing an execution strategy:

A. Update and Publish Policies

Policy changes drafted by the Department of Defense and the Services should

be distributed quickly. These initial policies may need revision as implementation is

executed.

IV IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
30

B. Communicate the Change

Information should also be straightforward and communicated swiftly to the

force. The vision for the Department of Defense should be clearly articulated and

standards should be unambiguous and orientation neutral to the extent possible. A

central idea that leaders should promote is that the new policies require changes in

behaviors, not attitudes.

C. Provide Training 

Training should be efficient and should not burden the force. Expectations for

behavior should be clearly stated. Training should answer the question most Service

members will ask during any change process: “How will this change affect me?” Special

attention should be paid to providing education and training for deployed forces in a

manner that does not impede their operations. 

D. Emphasize Key Implementation Message

Leaders should promote and continually reaffirm the key implementation

message: Leadership-Professionalism-Respect during implementation. 

Implementation Analysis

A. Update and Publish Policies for Implementation

Listed below are legal, policy, and regulatory action items that the Working

Group recommends the Department of Defense and the Services consider during the

Implementation Stage:

1. Separation for Homosexual Conduct

  Publish new versions of DoDI 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations (March

29, 2010), and DoDI 1332.20, Officer Separations (March 29, 2010), reflecting the

elimination of homosexual conduct as a basis of separation. 

  Publish regulations eliminating the separation code for homosexual conduct and

provide guidance on how to interpret DD-214s. 

  Services publish amendments to Service-specific instructions or regulations

regarding separations on the basis of homosexual conduct, along with any

corresponding changes to separation and re-enlistment codes. 

2. Standards of Conduct

  The Department of Defense should issue generalized guidance that all standards

of personal and professional conduct shall apply uniformly without regard to

sexual orientation. The Department of Defense should also instruct the Services
31

to review their policies on standards of conduct to ensure that they are sexual

orientation neutral and provide adequate guidance, to the extent each Service

considers appropriate, on the following topics: public displays of affection (PDA),

dress and appearance, unprofessional relationships, and harassment. 

  Service standards should clearly address the responsibility ofleaders, supervisors,

and personnel at all levels to foster unit cohesion, good order and discipline,

respect for authority, and mission accomplishment.

3. Moral and Religious Concerns

  Current DoD and Service policies on Service members’ ability to freely exercise

their religious beliefs are adequate. The Working Group does not recommend

any new policies with respect to Service members’ religious practices; however,

the Department of Defense and the Services should continue to educate Service

members on these policies. 

  The Service should reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their

religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their

religious beliefs, but must continue to care for all Service members, and that

evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains will remain consistent with

these long-standing principles.

4. Equal Opportunity

  The Department of Defense should issue guidance on the prevention of

discrimination, harassment, or abuse based on sexual orientation, to include the

following:

  Sexual orientation may not, in and ofitself, be a factor in accession, promotion,

or other personnel decision-making.

  Gay and lesbian Service members, like all Service members, shall be evaluated

only on individual merit, fitness, and capability. 

  Harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is unacceptable.

  All Service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect

regardless of sexual orientation.

  The Department of Defense and the Services should issue appropriate policy

guidance reaffirming DoD’s commitment to promoting “an environment free

from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service members

from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible” and prohibiting the

evaluation of Service members on bases other than “individual merit, fitness,

and capability,” within the confines of the law and existing DoD policy. 

  Execute new training requirements to include updates to existing MEO training,

Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) training, UCMJ training under UCMJ

Article 137, complaint procedures under UCMJ Article 138, and Sexual Assault

Response Coordinator (SARC) training.
32

  Services should review and update existing Service MEO programs to ensure

that they are consistent with the updated DoD program. Consider: 

  Means of referring complaints of discrimination/harassment based on sexual

orientation to leadership, to include level of commander discretion to either

initiate investigation (command investigation, IG investigation) or resolve

without an investigation using techniques of conflict resolution.

  Methods to refer complaints of harassment to military law enforcement for

criminal investigation, where appropriate.

  Use of existing MEO resources to investigate complaints that allege samesex harassment or “sex stereotyping” as opposed to discrimination based on

sexual orientation. 

  Commanding Officers should be trained on the possible implications for failing to

take action on complaints that allege discrimination based on sexual orientation.

5. Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data

  The Working Group recommends no new policies. The Department of Defense

and the Services should continue their policy against collecting or retaining

information on Service members’ sexual orientation. 

6. UCMJ 

  The Department of Defense should proceed with the Joint Service Committee

(JSC) proposals to seek repeal of Article 125 of the UCMJ in its entirety and to

amend Article 120 of the UCMJ to include forcible sodomy and sodomy offenses

against children. The Department of Defense should also proceed with the JSC’s

related proposal to amend the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) to include other

aspects of Article 125 not barred by Federal court decisions (e.g., sodomy that is

Service discrediting) in the punitive offenses section of the MCM under Article

134. 

  JSC should continue to review all other UCMJ offenses involving sexual conduct

or inappropriate relationships to ensure sexual orientation-neutral application,

and take actions as appropriate.

  Update MCM training materials as necessary. 

7. Privacy and Cohabitation

  The Department of Defense should issue guidance prohibiting berthing or billeting

assignments being based on sexual orientation, except that commanders retain

the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, caseby-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline,

consistent with performance of mission.
33

  The Department of Defense should issue guidance prohibiting the designation

of separate bathroom or bathing facilities based on sexual orientation except

that commanders have the authority to accommodate privacy requests on an

individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good

order, and discipline, consistent with performance of mission.

8. Benefits

  Where it is permissible to do so under existing statutory definitions and where

justified by policy, fiscal, and feasibility considerations, the Department of

Defense should redefine the eligibility for benefits and/or support resources to

allow Service members to designate a beneficiary or supporter of their choosing.

(See “Benefits” in section III.)

  The Department of Defense and Services should continue to study extension of

benefits in accordance with the law.

  The Department of Defense should provide clear guidance on benefits to all

Service members so they have the information needed to properly designate

beneficiaries for relevant benefits, including notification to appropriate family or

support persons in the event the member dies or is missing.

9. Duty Assignments

  The Department of Defense and Services should develop and implement the

appropriate guidance on lawful and unlawful behaviors for individual countries

for pre-departure briefings when Service members are traveling to OCONUS

assignments. 

  The Services should make voluntary counseling available to gay and lesbian

Service members on issues relating to same-sex partnerships and family

relationships in various U.S. jurisdictions and foreign countries.

10. Accessions and Recruiting Policy

  The Department of Defense and the Services should ensure that recruiters,

Military Entrance Processing Command personnel, Service Academy Liaison

Officers and other accessions and recruiting personnel understand accessions

and recruiting policies as described in “Accessions and Recruiting Policy” in

section III. 

11. Release from Service Commitments

  Services should communicate to the force that no new procedures will be

developed for the early separation of Service members based on opposition to

repeal or to serving and living with gay and lesbian Service members. Service

members may requestto be voluntarily discharged under the Military Department

Secretary’s plenary authority, which will be granted only when the Secretary has

determined the early separation would be in the best interest of the Service. 
34

12. Family Readiness

  Publishanddistributeprintedmaterials onrepealtofamily support organizations,

counseling centers, pediatric clinics, family practice clinics, and other areas

frequented by military families.

  Publish information for families on appropriate websites (e.g., MiltaryOneSource.

com) and social media sites (e.g., Facebook.com).

  Ensure family support staff, including counselors and military chaplains, are

prepared to assist Service members and their families in discussing issues related

to repeal. 

13. Re-Accession

  Services review and publish regulations pertaining to Service Boards for

Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Boards as required.

  Services, in consultation with OUSD(P&R), issue guidance to their military

personnel commands detailing necessary changes to separation codes to be

executed promptly. 

  Services should develop a communication plan to inform former Service members

about the Department of Defense and Service policies regarding re-accession, as

well as separation and reentry codes. This plan should include communications

to the public to assist previously separated Service members, whose records were

completed using pre-repeal codes.

14. Follow-On Review

  Identify new or existing review and monitoring processes (see Appendix E) that

the Department of Defense and the Services can use to collect appropriate data

to analyze success in implementing repeal. 

  Establish a program of ongoing review of the implementation of repeal, to

include reviewing and updating policy related to same-sex partner benefits when

appropriate.

B. Implementation Communication

The senior leader communication announcing the change in policy should be clear

and candid. All communications should capture the broader strategic vision and be

grounded in professional military values such as respect, integrity, and service. Leaders

at all levels of the chain of command must deliver consistent messages about the change

in policy. Recommended talking points for leaders are provided in Appendix A to assist

in developing and delivering the message. Tools for leaders and Service members such

as the Leadership Implementation Guide (see Appendix C) and the FAQs and vignettes

(see Appendix D) should also be disseminated quickly to provide accurate information

about the change as soon as practical. 
35

The Department of Defense should develop and execute an overarching

communications plan that delivers a consistent message tailored to the wide range of

interested parties. Interested parties will include uniformed Service members (both

active and reserve), DoD civilians,family members, retirees and veterans, Veteran Service

organizations, advocacy groups, and potential recruits. Central to this communications

plan will be the vision and a statement from senior leaders explaining the rationale for

repeal and the related policy changes.

Behaviors, not attitudes. Part of the communicated message should be a focus

on behaviors rather than private attitudes, which will help promote unit cohesion and

military effectiveness in environments of diverse opinions. 

The Working Group recognizes that some Service members object to the repeal

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on religious or moral grounds. The Department of Defense and

the Services should emphasize that no Service member is being asked to change his or

her personal beliefs as a result of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The United States is

characterized by great diversity of religious and spiritual practices; it follows that there

is diversity of opinion on homosexuality. Focusing on behaviors not attitudes will allow

for this diversity of personal opinion while also leading to the most successful and least

disruptive implementation of policy change. 

Military leaders must lead all members without prejudice regardless of their

religious or personal conviction, and Service members are expected to act professionally

at all times even when they strongly disagree with another Service member’s beliefs

or sexual orientation. All personnel are subject to uniform standards of conduct as

published by their Service and their Commands. Harassment and discrimination will

not be tolerated.

C. Provide Implementation Education and Training

As discussed in the previous section, Services should provide specialty (Tier 1)

and leadership (Tier 2) training as early as practical in the implementation stage, after

the development of policies.9Tier 3 training for all members of the force should occur

as soon as practical after leadership is trained on the new policies.

It is important that leaders and specialists be the first to be trained so the force will

receive a consistent and accurate message about repeal. Methods of training delivery

are left to the discretion of the individual Service training commands. 

Education and Training for Deployed Forces. The U.S. military has forces

deployed worldwide in a variety of high stress assignments such as battlefields in the

CENTCOM AOR, Training Teams in South America and Africa, and U.S. Embassy

Guards. Training and education for deployed forces must not in any way impede the

operations of forces directly engaged with the enemy. When training is delivered to

9 See Appendix B for the Working Group recommended training framework.
36

deployed forces, it must be concisely written and efficiently delivered. Commanders

ensure minimum disruption by keeping the training requirementfor all Service members

simple, and this requirement is even more critical the closer the Service member is to

the fight. 

Commanders should become familiar with the information in the Leadership

Implementation Guide, FAQs, and vignettes as they apply to deployed troops. Information

that is applicable only to garrison settings, such as base housing assignments, should be

omitted from training until the force returns to a garrison setting. The Services should

include a training session on omitted information when deployed Service members

return to garrison. 

Combatant commanders must ensure that Service members have the information

from their chain of command before hearing about it on the news or other social and

media outlets. Leaders should use the Leadership Implementation Guide, FAQs, and

vignettes to prepare their message to the troops. At a minimum, all Service members

must understand the expectations for exemplary conduct and the key elements of the

policy change. (See the Tier 3 training requirements in Appendix B.) The best place to

start with the expectations for exemplary conduct is to emphasize the key implementation

themes of Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. 

The key elements to be communicated to deployed Service members should

include the following:

  The Department of Defense will no longer separate service members solely for

engaging in homosexual conduct.

  The Department of Defense will not require anyone to disclose their sexual

orientation.

  Local commanders are authorized to determine potential privacy requirements

and accommodations based on mission and supportability. 

  All Service members are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner

that maintains good order and discipline within the force.

  All Service members will treat each other with dignity and respect in keeping

with Service core values.

  Leaders at all levels will comply with this change in policy and establish a climate

that fosters tolerance and respect of all individuals within their command.

  Any issues or questions about the policy change should be handled through

respective Service member’s chain of command.

  Harassment or violence towards another Service member will not be tolerated

and will be swiftly and appropriately dealt with.
37

Finally, when units return to their forward operating base and have an opportunity

to further consider the change in DoD policy, front line leaders must proactively address

issues and concerns with their troops as soon as they are able. Leaders must be

comfortable with the information in the FAQs and vignettes in order to discuss concerns

of their troops when behind the wire and have free time on their hands. The most likely

place for incidents of harassment and abuse is when Service members have disengaged

from combat operations and have the free time to process and discuss the new policy.

Maintaining good order and discipline will require leaders to support the new policy in

their actions and words, fairly enforce orientation-neutral standards of conduct, and be

role models of leadership, professionalism, and respect.

D. Emphasize Key Implementation Message

The Working Group has identified the key implementation message for

implementation as Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. Each of those three elements

is examined in greater detail here:

1. Leadership matters most. The message “leadership matters most” has been

repeated throughout this Support Plan because the Working Group’s research

indicates that this is the most critical predictor of successful implementation.

Without strong leadership,the views of a vocal minority could negatively impact

cohesion, readiness, and, ultimately, the effectiveness of a given unit.10 This

research clearly indicates that the best mitigator for potential problems postrepeal is the frontline leader. For the past 17 years under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,

leaders have successfully led Service members with widely divergent opinions

on gay and lesbian military service. After repeal, leaders will continue to lead

Service members with widely divergent opinions on gay and lesbian military

service. The policy will have changed, but the leadership challenges will remain

the same: the leader’s task is to build unit cohesion and maintain readiness

in a diverse force so the unit is able to accomplish the mission effectively. By

providing leaders at all levels with accurate information and the appropriate

authority to carry out the mission, we enhance our ability to assure a smooth

transition with minimal disruption to the force. 

2. Focus on professionalism. The American military mirrors the diversity

of the broader United States in many respects. As such, the force will have

diverse opinions on complex social issues. Nonetheless, all Service members

have taken oaths as military professionals to support and defend the U.S.

Constitution, and have made a commitment to their Service’s core values.

Emphasizing these professional obligations in a post-repeal environment will

reinforce behavior that helps a unit accomplish its mission, thereby reducing

any impact a policy change may have on military effectiveness. 

10 For further information on this issue, see the USAFA White Paper, p.18, which discusses the concept of

pluralistic ignorance—a situation where fear of judgment and the passionate expression of a minority opinion

suppresses opposing views. This can lead to a false perception that a minority perspective is the norm in the

community—particularly where there is an emotional component to the view, as is frequently the case with

views on gay and lesbian military service.
38

3. Promote strength through respect. Each Service should capitalize on the

strengths of their values and traditions as the foundation for maintaining the

strength of our force. An important aspect of that strength is respect for the

dignity of all people. Even where a Service member may personally object to

another Service member’s sexual orientation, the Service member is expected

to treat that person with respect. Service leaders should emphasize the value

of every member of the team.
39

The sustainment stage would begin at some point after the new policies have

been put into effect, and would be ongoing. The sustainment stage would involve

follow-on review and ongoing monitoring of implementation of repeal, in order to make

adjustments to implementation based on the experiences of the Department of Defense

and the Services to that point.

Successful sustainment of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell depends upon

continued leadership support and responsiveness to the results of monitoring efforts.

The Department of Defense and Service implementation plans must continue to

provide leaders and Service members with the information and support they need to

continue to implement repeal effectively. The Department of Defense should devise and

employ appropriate monitoring mechanisms that will identify key metrics measuring

implementation success in policy areas of concern, collect sufficient data for meaningful

analysis at regular intervals, and determine and make appropriate adjustments to

implementation.

Sustainment Overview

To accomplish an effective program of sustainment and analysis, the Department

of Defense and the Services should:

A. Identify and monitor policies and regulations in those areas that will be the

greatest barometers of implementation success.

B. Devise and employ a follow-on review strategy that will help OUSD(P&R) and

the Services adapt and refine the policies and training approaches for greater

implementation success.

C. Adapt education and training tools to better implement repeal and continue to

reduce potential impact to unit cohesion, effectiveness, and readiness. 

Sustainment Analysis

A. Legal, Policy, and Regulatory Monitoring 

The Department of Defense and the Services should monitor and evaluate the success

of all the policy and regulatory changes identified in previous sections of this Support Plan;

they are not all listed here. A small number of policies, however, would require additional

specific sustainment action to continue facilitating a repeal with minimal disruption to the

force. Those policies and the related additional actions are as follows: 

V SUSTAINMENT STAGE
40

1. Equal Opportunity

The Department of Defense and the Services should seek input from

leaders to assess whether the DoD MEO policy has been successful in handling

complaints based on sexual orientation as follows:

  The Department of Defense and the Services should collect data to determine the

number of cases involving sexual orientation that have been filed/adjudicated.

These cases would include military justice, complaints of wrongdoing filed

under UCMJ Article 138, IG investigations, and complaints submitted (but not

actionable) under MEO policy.

  The Department of Defense and Service legal communities should monitor

legislation and Federal case law regarding sexual orientation, sex stereotyping,

and related issues, and modify or update policies accordingly.

  The Department of Defense and the Services should survey the force to measure

reactions to additions to the MEO training to determine whether the training

needs modification.

  At some time interval after repeal, the Department of Defense and the Services

should assess whether DoD policy on sexual orientation-based complaints is

consistent with any changes in legislation and/or Federal case law.

2. UCMJ

At an interval determined by OUSD(P&R), the Department of Defense

should request feedback from the Service military justice legal communities to

determine whether additional changes to the MCM or UCMJ should be made to

facilitate the most effective administration of justice post-repeal. The Services

should review the data collected regarding the number of cases involving sexual

orientation (e.g., hate crimes, harassment), to determine whether the force

requires additional training to decrease the frequency of such behaviors. The

Service legal communities should monitor Federal statutes and case law for any

changes concerning crimes committed against or involving gays and lesbians.

This information should be relayed to the Department of Defense so that, where

appropriate, recommendations can be made for changes to the MCM and UCMJ.

3. Privacy and Cohabitation

Services retain the discretion—as budgetary constraints and mission

needs permit—to modify facilities to provide one or more private showering/

changing areas consistent with current DoD design guidance. Small

modifications to improve privacy, such as installing privacy curtains where

feasible, can be accomplished at the unit level with little impact on the force.

As in civilian society, there will be locations, either at the fitness facility or in

the field, where privacy will be minimal. Members of the Military Services

must understand that the mission frequently demands operations in austere

conditions where privacy is not a concern to operational planning.
41

As with shower and bathroom facilities, the Working Group does not

recommend any new construction or modifications to facilities beyond low-cost,

unit-funded adaptations where appropriate. Existing design criteria are

adequate to support most billeting and berthing concerns in the the Department

of Defense. DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) require that all new permanent

party unaccompanied housing be designed to afford members private bedrooms

and bathrooms shared by not more than one person (the “1+1” standard). DoD

UFC will remain in effect regardless of repeal of 10 U.S.C § 654, as will existing

Service waivers or exceptions and Services’ ability to apply for such waivers and

exceptions. The continued construction of unaccompanied housing facilities in

accordance with the 1+1 standard, subject to Service waivers and exceptions,

will, over time, provide greater personal privacy to Service members as

budgetary constraints and mission needs permit. Regardless of the availability

of individual bedrooms for Service members, such construction would not affect

berthing or billeting in deployed or shipboard environments. 

4. Benefits

OUSD(P&R) should revisit the issue of benefits eligibility again in the

future, specifically during the designated follow-on review, and perhaps

periodically after that, as the national debate on same-sex marriage and partner

benefits is ongoing and the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of

flux. During this review, depending in part on the degree to which the external

landscape may have changed, the Department of Defense may consider creating

a “qualifying relationship” status for same-sex relationships, or for both same-sex

and unmarried opposite-sex relationships, if the experience of repeal to that

point indicates that the extension of benefits in this manner would be desirable.

Toeffectivelyimplementrepeal,theDepartmentofDefensemustcontinually

monitor and evaluate changes to the law throughout the implementation process.

The Department of Defense should be especially attentive to changes in law that

could trigger swift and unexpected changes in benefit eligibility for all Service

members and their families.

Legislative changes could occur at the Federal or state level, with Federal

changes likely to have a more immediate impact on the expansion of benefit

entitlements than would be the case for changes at the state level. For example,

changes to, or repeal of, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7,

and similar laws, would change the legal and regulatory definition of “spouse”

upon which the Department of Defense and Services currently rely to determine

eligibility. Likewise, Federal legislation redefining “dependent” to include a

same-sex partner, or child of a same-sex partner,would broaden benefit eligibility.

5. Family Readiness

Readiness of Service members’ families has a direct impact on the overall

military readiness of the force. As such, in the event of repeal, the Working
42

Group recommends that OUSD(P&R) engage with Service family members on a

regular basis to reassess their readiness as part of ongoing sustainment efforts.

OUSD(P&R) should address, at minimum, the three major subcategories of

family readiness: mobilization and deployment readiness (deployment); mobility

and economic readiness (relocation/PCS); and personal and family life readiness

(garrison). Further, OUSD(P&R) should develop and employ the appropriate

tools to gather data directly from the force and also from the various Service

support centers catering to families’ needs. OUSD(P&R) should work with the

Services to assess and, where needed, improve family engagement initiatives that

facilitate the transition from an environment in which gay and lesbian family

matters have not been contemplated to an environment in which they are.

B. Devise and Employ Follow-On Review Strategy

1. Monitoring and Assessment

The Department of Defense and the Services should consider using exit

surveys to assess Service member reasons for separating from the military and

be able to measure success of implementation and any attendant changes in

retention. Tracking andmonitoring thenumber of reentry applications submitted

by former Service members discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is another

means of evaluating success in communicating the change to former Service

members and the public. The Department of Defense and the Services should

utilize existing surveys and assessments already developed across the Services

to monitor implementation of repeal on an ongoing basis. (See Appendix E.)

2. Fiscal Impact

OUSD(P&R) and the Services should, in conjunction with standard

budgetary analysis and management procedures, track any costs directly

attributable to repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Services should also account for

those costs in budget projections for future fiscal years. Such costs might include

benefits adjusted so that all Service members may designate a beneficiary of

their choosing regardless of relationship. 

C. Adapt Education and Training

Education and training programs will also need to adaptto the changing landscape

of the public debate over gay rights. The first several years after repeal may produce

adjustments to policies and regulations based on legislative and legal changes that may

occur. The Department of Defense and the Services should posture themselves so that

they do not have to react without preparation to new laws, judicial rulings, or executive

directives. Similar to the contingent nature of this support plan, the Department of

Defense and the Services should continue with a contingency planning process that

anticipates future changes and prepares appropriate education and training programs.
43

Senior leaders should also continue to engage the force, both to monitor implementation

and continue to reinforce the key implementation message. 

Summary

OUSD(P&R) and the Services should engage in a systematic sustainment effort

by collecting data, analyzing trends, and making policy adjustments as needed to better

implement repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Each of the policy areas of concern discussed

in sections III and IV of this Support Plan should, at least initially, be monitored as part

of the sustainment effort, and amended as needed.
44
45

Background: If Congress repeals 10 U.S.C. § 654, commonly known as 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” then Service members must be informed of repeal, how it 

occurred, and new policies and practices. 

  During the January 2010 State of the Union address, the President called on Congress

to repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654.

  In support of the President, on March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense established an

intra-Department, inter-Service working group to conduct a comprehensive review

of the issues associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

  The review was completed on November 30, 2010, and assessed and considered the

impacts a change in the law might have on military readiness, military effectiveness,

unit cohesion, retention, recruiting, and family readiness, and how to best manage

any such impacts during implementation.

The New Policy: Service members will no longer be discharged for engaging 

in homosexual conduct. This includes homosexual acts; statements that they are 

gay, lesbian, or bisexual; or marriage to someone of the same sex.

  Sexual orientation remains a personal and private matter.

  It remains the policy of the Department of Defense to evaluate all Service members

on the basis of their individual merit, fitness, and capability. 

  Sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion, or

other personnel decision-making.

  This policy change recognizes that the most valuable component of our national

defense is the men and women in uniform who make up America’s all-volunteer force.

  Our military remains a lethal and professional fighting force. Fidelity in our values

and our culture of mutual respect and obedience to orders provides the foundation

for the superior strength of the U.S. military. The hallmark of military culture is

professionalism: our laws, rules, customs, and traditions require adherence to high

standards of personal and professional conduct to ensure mission accomplishment.

A RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS

APPENDIX
46

Details Regarding the New Policy: Regardless of sexual orientation, we will 

continue to hold Service members to the same high standards of conduct. 

  Applicants for military service will not be asked or required to reveal their sexual

orientation. 

  Service members will not be involuntarily separated for lawful, consensual

homosexual acts; a statement by a Service member that he or she is a homosexual

or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person

known to be the same biological sex.

  The Department of Defense is committed to maintaining an environment that is free

from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service members from

rising to the highest level of responsibility possible.

  The UCMJ remains the legal foundation of good order and discipline in the Military

Services and is the vehicle for enforcement of proper conduct. 

Key Messages For Our Leaders: In accordance with our mission to fight 

and win our nation’s wars, our military will foster a climate of mutual respect 

consistent with our standards of professional conduct and core values.

  A clear focus on Leadership-Professionalism-Respect will enable this change in

policy to be executed with minimal disruption to our already combat-stressed force.

  Commanders and leaders at every level must work to reinforce the importance of

dignity and respect for all Service members. We promote these values by living

them, and reaffirm our commitments to enforcing standards of conduct and the

expectations for a military culture where Service members are valued for their

contributions to national defense.

  The views and beliefs of those who are opposed to “open” service by gays and lesbians

on well-founded moral or religious grounds are not being rejected, and leaders have

not turned their backs on them. We do not expect individual Service members to

change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality, but we do

expect every Service member to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent

with the core values that already exist in each Service. 

  Commanders remain responsible for maintaining good order and discipline.

Harassment or violence among Service members will not be tolerated.

  Leaders reinforce standards of conduct and expectations for exemplary conduct

of all Service members. Commanders’ leadership and personal commitment to

implementation must be visible and unequivocal. 

  Commanders are expected to communicate standards of professional conduct and

build on their Service cultures where members are valued for their contributions and

performance, respected, and treated fairly.

  The core of this issue is allowing all qualified citizens to serve based on individual

merit, fitness, and capability, without regard to sexual orientation. 
47

Education and Training Framework

The intent of providing an Education and Training Framework is to assist the

Services in developing Service member knowledge of issues related to repeal based on

their subject matter needs, rather than to provide a checklist of topics or number of hours

of instruction required. As a starting point for commanders, leaders, training managers,

trainers, and those being trained, the framework is organized by tier and describes the

target audience, learning objectives, and training guidance for each policy issue topic.

Education and training guidance at Tiers 1 and 2 include more detailed information

for senior leaders, commanders, and personnel responsible for implementation that

expands what is provided to all Service members in Tier 3. Tiers 1 and 2 are designed as

discretionary education requirements based on the needs of leaders and specialists who

will be charged with leading repeal efforts. Tier 3 is recommended mandatory education

and training of all personnel. The Education and Training Framework provides three

levels of understanding for the following categories of DoD personnel:

Tier 1 (Expert Level). Material targeted toward Service members responsible for

administration or policy implementation, or whose occupation specialty requires that

the Service member needs to understand the implications of any policy change. At a

minimum this includes: judge advocates and civilian lawyers, chaplains, recruiters,

personnel specialists, military law enforcement personnel, military criminal

investigators, family support staff, military equal opportunity advisors, and health

services personnel.

Tier 2 (Leader Level). Material targeted toward Service members in leadership

positions who are responsible for maintaining standards of conduct, good order and

discipline, and military effectiveness. At a minimum this includes: senior leaders

(general/flag officers and Senior Executive Service), commanding officers, chief

warrant officers, senior enlisted advisors, and senior non-commissioned officers and

chief petty officers, and civilian supervisors.

Tier 3 (Service Member Level). Material designed for all members of the Services,

to be distributed as soon as repeal is effective, and during accessions training for all

personnel. At a minimum, all Service members should be briefed on the new policy

and expectations of personal conduct in the Military Services.

Services should determine appropriate measures of effectiveness for each training

area. This appendix provides a basis for the content Services should consider in their

education and training lesson plans. The Services are responsible for education and

B RECOMMENDED EDUCATION AND

TRAINING FRAMEWORK

APPENDIX
48

training program delivery to support implementation. This framework was written

in close collaboration with OUSD(P&R), and while it anticipates key elements of a

successful implementation, it should be acknowledged that this issue is dynamic and

subject to a shifting legal and legislative landscape. OUSD(P&R) and the Services may

need to deviate from some of the recommendations found in this appendix to reflect any

changes in policy that occur after the Support Plan was written.

Education and Training Principles

Based on the Working Group’s engagements with the force and research, the

Working Group recommends the following principles when the Department of Defense

and the Services are creating lesson plans to support repeal:

  Develop tools so leaders at all levels can deliver the key messages to the force as much

as possible. The most important message in mitigating potential concerns related to

repeal is: leadership matters most.

  Conduct training and education in a manner that minimizes the burden on the force

to ensure military mission is not negatively impacted: keep it simple.

  Maximize autonomy of the Services for execution.

  Embed training and education in existing programs to the greatest extent possible.

  Promote sexual orientation-neutral execution to greatest extent possible.

Education and Training Guidance 

The framework below lays out a statement of each policy topic and a basic

explanation of education and training on that policy. The training guidance further

expands the basic issue and how it should be approached in implementation. Service

education and training programs should impress on all Service members the importance

of exemplary conduct. This framework is designed to assist the Services in:

  Achieving and maintaining adequate and applicable uniformity of education and

training requirements in support of the implementation of repeal.

  Understanding and interpreting standards of conduct and new policies for all tiers of

training (Tier 1 Expert Level, Tier 2 Leader Level, and Tier 3 Service Member Level).

  Achieving consistency across implementation of education and training programs,

mandatory instructional information, and discretionary materials.
49

  Developing instructional material related to implementation of repeal in a manner

that is grounded in the profession of arms and an organizational climate of dignity

and respect for all Service members.

Learning Objectives

1. Topic: Standards of Conduct 

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  Services will conduct a review of existing standards to ensure that they

provide adequate guidance in relevant areas, to the extent the Service

consider appropriate, and that they apply uniformly without regard to sexual

orientation. Services will place special emphasis in their review on standards

for personal displays of affection, dress and appearance, unprofessional

relationships, and harassment.

  Standards shall clearly address the responsibility of leaders, supervisors, and

subordinate personnel at all levels to foster unit cohesion, good order and

discipline, respect for authority, and mission accomplishment.

  Leaders at all levels are trusted to ensure the impartial administration of

these standards. Service members will be held accountable without regard

to their own, or another’s sexual orientation. In cases where conduct is

prohibited, leaders shall be expected to take such corrective or disciplinary

action as necessary to preserve morale, good order and discipline, unit

cohesion, military readiness, and combat effectiveness.

  Training guidance: Tier 3. 

  Service members occupy a unique position in society and represent the military

establishment. This special status brings with it a responsibility to uphold and

maintain the dignity and high standards of the Military Services at all times

and in all places. Service members must be ready at all times for worldwide

deployment. This fact carries with it a requirement that Service members

possess high standards of morale, good order, discipline, and cohesion. As a

result, military laws, rules, customs, and traditions include restrictions on

personal behavior that may be different from civilian life.

  Standards of conduct regulate many aspects of Service members’ personal

lives that generally are not regulated in civilian society. The unique nature

of military service requires regulation of behavior that brings discredit

on the Military Services, adversely affects good order and discipline, or is

inconsistent with military customs, traditions, and decorum.

  The Uniform Code of Military Justice remains the legal foundation of good

order and discipline in the Military Services and is the vehicle for enforcement

of Service standards of conduct.

  Service-specific standards of personal and professional conduct shall apply

uniformly without regard to sexual orientation.
50

  The Uniform Code of Military Justice remains the legal standard for enforcing

proper conduct, to include existing laws against harassment or violence

against any Service member, for any reason.

  Violations of Service standards of conduct may be punished as violations of

lawful regulations, orders, or derelictions of duty, as the case may be, under

the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

  Service members may be involuntarily separated prior to the expiration of

their term of service for various reasons established by law and military

regulations, to include violations of Service standards of conduct.

2. Topic: Moral and Religions Concerns (Chaplains)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Chaplains facilitate the free exercise of religion for all personnel, regardless

of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the individual. 

  Chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are not required to take

actions that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Existing policy

regarding chaplains’ free exercise of religion and duty to care for all continues

to apply. 

  Evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains will continue to be

consistent with these long-standing Service policies.

3. Topic: Moral and Religions Concerns (Service Members)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Existing policies regarding Service members’ freedom of expression and free

exercise of religion continue to apply.

  Service members can continue to freely practice their religion, being aware

of the expectations set forth by the UCMJ and appropriate Service standards

of conduct.

  Service members are not expected to change their personal religious or moral

beliefs; however, they are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect,

consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service.

  Service members do not have the right to refuse duty or duty assignments

based on a moral objection to another’s sexual orientation.

  Service members remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction

with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an unwillingness to do so is based

on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs. As expressed in the

Manual for Courts-Martial regarding a Service member’s obligation to obey
51

orders: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy

cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

  Ser v ice members may, in appropr iate circumstances and with in

the limitations of law and policy, express their moral or religious beliefs

regarding sexual orientation. However, Service members may not make

statements detrimental to good order and discipline and must obey lawful

orders. Service members who feel that their religious beliefs regarding

homosexuality require religious accommodation, may request such

accommodation of that belief under DoDI 1300.17.

4. Topic: Equal Opportunity 

  Training guidance: Tiers 1, 2 & 3. 

  Sexual orientation is not specified as a class eligible for the MEO complaint

resolution process.

  Gay and lesbian Service members are treated under the same general

principles of military equal opportunity policy to “promote an environment

free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service

members from rising to the highestlevel of responsibility possible” and Service

members are evaluated “only on individual merit, fitness, and capability.” 

  Sexual orientation may not, in and ofitself, be a factor in accession, promotion,

or other personnel decision-making. Gay and lesbian Service members, like

all Service members, are evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and

capability. 

  Harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is unacceptable. All Service

members are to treat one another with dignity and respect regardless of

sexual orientation.

  If a Service member experiences inappropriate interpersonal behavior where

sexual orientation is a factor, he or she should use existing (non-MEO)

mechanisms to file the proper complaint, namely the chain of command, the

Inspector General, and other means as may be determined by the Services.

  Tiers 1 and 2 personnel should be trained on the possible implications for

failing to take action on complaints that are not cognizable under MEO,

but allege discrimination based on sexual orientation. Possible implications

include being the subject of anIGinvestigation, being the subject of a complaint

of wrongs filed under UCMJ Article 138, being the subject of a Command

Investigation, or being investigated for possible criminal misconduct under

the UCMJ (e.g., dereliction of duty).
52

5. Topic: Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Sexual orientation is a personal and private matter.

  The Department of Defense and the Services will not create a data category

for Service member sexual orientation.

  Service members will not be required to identify their sexual orientation, nor

will any such information be collected and maintained in a system of records.

  Information implicating a Service member’s sexual orientation could be

incidentally collected when, for example, a Service members designates a

same-sex partner as an SGLI beneficiary, or a person to whom emergency

notifications may be made.

6. Topic: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1, 2, & 3.

  Service members occupy a unique position in society and represent the

military establishment. This special status brings with it a responsibility to

uphold and maintain the dignity and high standards of the Military Services

at all times and in all places. Service members must be ready at all times for

worldwide deployment. This fact carries with it a requirement for Service

members to possess high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and

cohesion.

  The UCMJ remains the legal foundation for good order and discipline in the

Military Services and is the vehicle for enforcement of proper conduct.

  Harassment, sexual assault, or other violence against any Service member,

for any reason, is prohibited.

  Violations of Service standards of conduct pertinent to professional

relationships, and public displays of affection may be punished as violations

of lawful regulations, orders, or derelictions of duty, as the case may be.

  Sodomy under Article 125 of the UCMJ may be punishable if it is without

consent (forcible). In light of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Court

of Appeals for the Armed Forces, private acts of sodomy between consenting

adults, regardless of their sex, are not punishable absent factors unique to

the military environment (such as a superior-subordinate relationship or

other circumstance adverse to good order and discipline). In light of these

decisions, and the repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654, conforming amendments to

Article 125 of the UCMJ may be considered for presentation to the Congress

and/or action by President.

  The Department of Defense is considering other changes to the Manual for 

Courts-Martial to ensure sexual orientation-neutral application. For example,

the adultery offense may be redefined to include both homosexual and

heterosexual sex.
53

7. Topic: Privacy and Cohabitation (Showers, Dressing Areas, and 

Comparable Facilities)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  Service in the military makes it necessary at times for Service members to

accept living and working conditions characterized by little or no privacy.

  Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter.

  Berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation are prohibited,

except that commanders retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting

assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of

maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with performance

of mission.

  Compliance with professional standards of conduct will be essential to

fostering respect among fellow Service members and resolving concerns

about privacy. Commanders should use existing tools, to include counseling,

non-judicial punishment, and court-martial, to deal with misconduct in

living quarters or showers.

8. Topic: Benefits

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  The Defense of Marriage Act and current benefit laws do not allow the

Department of Defense to extend many key benefits—including dependent

medical coverage, dependent-rate BAH, and dependent-based travel and

transportation allowances—to a Service member in a relationship with a

same-sex partner.

  Federal law and DoD regulations do not restrict a Service member from

designating a same-sex partner as a beneficiary for certain benefits such as

the posthumous disbursement of funds from the Service member’s ThriftSavings Plan, or the selection of a beneficiary for the proceeds from a life

insurance policy provided under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance

(SGLI). Service members should be informed about these benefits so that

they may take advantage of them for their same-sex partners, should they

desire to do so.

  The Department of Defense and the Services are studying whether some

benefits may, consistent with current law, be revised to give the Service

member the discretion to designate a person or persons of their choosing as

a beneficiary. By extending these benefits and resources, the Department

of Defense would enhance the vital role that a Service member’s supporters

can play in enabling Service members to accomplish the mission, especially

during times of deployment stress.
54

9. Topic: Benefits (Military Family Housing)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  The Department of Defense and the Services currently authorize assignment

to military family housing (MFH) to those Service members eligible for Basic

Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the with-dependent rate.

  Current federal law including the Defense of Marriage Act precludes the

Department of Defense from providing BAH to Service members at the

with-dependent rate unless the Service member has a statutorily authorized

dependent such as a child.

  Current Service policies state that non-dependents are not allowed to reside

in military family housing. There have been no changes to these policies. 

  Any exception to policy to allow a non-dependent to reside in military family

housing must be administered without regard to sexual orientation.

10. Topic: Privacy and Cohabitation (Berthing/Billeting) 

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Services maintain individual unaccompanied housing policies in accordance

with DoD guidance.

  Service in the Military Services makes it necessary at times for Service

members to accept living and working conditions characterized by little or

no privacy.

  Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter.

  Service members shall not be asked to identify sexual orientation as part of

any routine application for assignment to unaccompanied quarters.

  The Services shall not establish quarters or berthing assignment regulations

or policies that segregate Service members according to sexual orientation.

Applicable male/female segregation requirements remain in effect.

  Commanders retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on

an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale,

good order, and discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission.

  Compliancewithprofessional standards of conductwillbe essentialto engender

respect among fellow Service members and resolve concerns about privacy.

11. Topic: Benefits (Committed Same-Sex Relationships)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  The Department of Defense is not at this time creating a new relationship

status applicable to same-sex relationships for purposes of eligibility for

benefits or personnel management policies and practices.
55

  As part of the post-repeal follow-on review, the Department of Defense will

revisit the issue of benefits and support resources eligibility, including whether

a “qualifying relationship” status should be established for committed samesex relationships, or for both committed same-sex and committed unmarried

opposite-sex relationships, for these purposes.

  The national debate on same-sex marriage and partner benefits is ongoing,

and the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of flux. It is possible

that, in the future, additional policy options may be available.

12. Topic: Duty Assignments (Co-Location)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  The Department of Defense provides the Services discretion to consider dualmilitary spouse status in matters of duty assignment. The term “spouse” can

only refer to opposite-sex married couples under the Defense of Marriage

Act. As a result, a Service member in a same-sex relationship with another

Service member is not eligible for collocation consideration.

  The Department of Defense is not at this time creating a new relationship

status applicable to same-sex relationships for purposes of eligibility for

benefits or personnel management policies and practices.

  Gay and lesbian Service members in committed same-sex relationships, like

their unmarried heterosexual counterparts, can make an individualized,

hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment.

  As part of the post-repeal follow-on review, the Department of Defense will

revisit the issue of eligibility for personnel management policies and practices,

including whether a “qualifying relationship” status should be established

for committed same-sex relationships, or for both committed same-sex and

committed unmarried opposite-sex relationships, for these purposes.

  The national debate on same-sex marriage and partner benefits is ongoing,

and the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of flux. It is possible

that, in the future, additional policy options may be available.

13. Topic: Duty Assignments (Overseas Assignments)

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  There areno restrictions onoverseas assignments of gay and lesbianpersonnel.

  All Service members will be provided with information on host-country

laws and related military policies regarding homosexuality and homosexual

conduct in standard overseas deployment briefings.

  Current law limits the ability of the Department of Defense to fund and

support accompanying travel for a Service member’s same-sex partner.
56

  Gay and lesbian Service members in committed same-sex relationships, like

their unmarried heterosexual counterparts, can make an individualized,

hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment.

14. Topic: Medical

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  No modifications to existing medical policies have been made. Existing

policies and procedures for HIV screening and testing, management of HIVpositive personnel, and management of the military blood supply continue to

be effective. 

  The Service Surgeons General have determined that repeal does not affect

the medical readiness of the force and that changes to medical policies are

not necessary.

  Member information revealed during medical evaluations and treatments

continues to be protected under the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (HIPAA).

  Current policy that HIV-infected members shall not be retired or separated

solely on the basis of HIV infection remains in place. Active duty members

with HIV determined to be fit for duty are allowed to serve in a manner that

ensures access to appropriate medical care.

  Annual Service medical and first aid/buddy care training will continue to

focus on modes of transmission and the prevention of HIV and other sexually

transmitted diseases, with a requirement that more detailed education and

training continue to be provided to healthcare professionals and other

individuals working within patient care.

15. Topic: Accessions and Recruiting Policy

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  The Department of Defense will not create a new policy for recruiting.

  The current policy of not requiring an applicant to declare his/her sexual

orientation remains in effect.

  Sexual orientation alone is not a bar to military service or continued service.

  The requirement for briefings given to applicants for enlistment and

appointment regarding personal conduct in the Military Services and

separation policy remains in effect. Previous provisions pertaining to

homosexual conduct as a basis for discharge have been deleted.
57

16. Topic: Re-Accession

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  Prior Service members discharged on the basis of homosexual conduct who

seek reentry are evaluated according to the same criteria as other Service

members seeking reentry,whichmay include their past record of performance,

characterization of service, and needs of the Service.

  In considering requests for reentry for those previously separated on the basis

of homosexual conduct, the fact that the basis for separation was homosexual

conduct is not considered to the detriment of the applicant, and those personnel

who have DD Form 214 documents that show an honorable discharge (or an

uncharacterized discharge for those occurring during initial training) and a

separation code reflecting homosexual conduct are to be considered for reentry.

  Services have discretion to determine whether to change reentry codes in

some uniform manner or to issue guidance to ensure that a disqualifying

reentry code on a DD Form 214 will not prohibit consideration of a qualified

candidate for reentry.

  Services shall not require all Service members to first petition a Board

for Correction of Military Records to change adverse reentry codes prior

to applying for reentry as this may substantially delay consideration of

applications.

  Prior service personnel—whether applying for reentry or not—who seek

a change to adverse reentry codes or discharge characterizations or other

redress may petition their Service Board for Correction of Military Records

and Discharge Review Boards for relief under existing procedures. 

17. Topic: Release from Service Commitments 

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2.

  The Department of Defense does not establish a specific policy permitting

the early discharge of Service members based upon opposition to repeal or to

serving or living with gay and lesbian Service members. 

  Service members may request to be voluntarily discharged under the Military

Department Secretary’s plenary authority. As under current policy, such

discretionary discharge may only be granted when the Military Department

Secretary has determined the early separation would be in the best interest

of the Service. 

  Service members are not guaranteed a certain legal or policy landscape for

the duration of their service commitment. 

  If a chaplain is unable to reconcile serving with or caring for gay and lesbian

Service members with his or her faith, the chaplain may request that the

relevant endorsing agency withdraw its ecclesiastical endorsement for him

or her. This would trigger an administrative separation under DoDI 1304.28.
58

18. Topic: Re-Accession (Claims for Compensation and Other Redress)

  Training guidance: Tier 1 & 2. 

  There is no change to existing policy regarding compensation, separation

pay, or other redress for Service members previously discharged on the basis

of homosexual conduct.

  Lawful standards in effect at the time of a Service member’s separation are

not changed with retroactive effect.

  Service members separated on the basis of homosexual conduct (or any

other reason) may petition for redress through the Service Boards for the

Correction of Military Records or Service Discharge Review Boards under

existing procedures and standards.

19. Topic: Separation for Homosexual Conduct

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Service members are no longer subject to administrative separation on the

basis of homosexual conduct (homosexual acts, statements, or marriage).

  Sexual misconduct, regardless of sexual orientation, that violates a Service

standard, rule, regulation, policy or law, will still be considered grounds for

administrative or legal action, to include possible discharge.

  The Department of Defense and the Services are updating training modules

regarding administrative separation to remove references to homosexual

conduct as a basis for separation.

20. Topic: Key Policy Features

  Training guidance: Tiers 1, 2 & 3. 

  Sexual orientation remains a personal and private matter. Service members

and applicants to military service will not be asked or required to reveal their

sexual orientation.

  Sexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service.

  Service memberswill not be subjectto administrative separation for otherwise

lawful homosexual acts, statements, or marriage.

  The Military Services do not tolerate harassment or violence against any

Service member, for any reason.
59

21. Topic: Frequently Asked Questions 

Consist of issues and answers to a range of questions derived from the

Working Group’s engagement of the force.

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Provide standardized responses to the range of issues associated with repeal.

  Reinforce expectations of exemplary conduct and professionalism in the

force.

  Reinforce DoD policies and directives to address practical issues for

commanders and leaders.

22. Topic: Vignettes 

Consist of hypothetical, policy-related teaching scenarios for training

created to assist commanders and leaders implement the change in policy. Not

meant to provide “correct” outcomes, but serve to illustrate approaches to the

range of issues associated with repeal.

  Training guidance: Tiers 1 & 2. 

  Reinforce expectations of exemplary conduct and professionalism in the

force.

  Achieve minimum disruption through practical examples.

  Ensure common examples of personal and professional behavior.

  Ensure leaders and commanders have significant practice applying the

change in policy with fact-based scenarios.
60
61

This Leadership Implementation Guide is a tool to help leaders at all levels address

practical issues associated with a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. 

Key Implementation Message

Based on engagements with the force and the assessment of the potential effect

of repeal, the Working Group distills the key message for risk mitigation and successful

implementation to Leadership-Professionalism-Respect. 

Leadership. The clear message from the Working Group’s assessment is “leadership

matters most.” Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for

members in the unit and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit

effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. 

Professionalism. Leaders must emphasize Service members’ fundamental

professional obligations and the oath to support and defend the Constitution that is

at the core of their military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military

policy and standards of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and

cohesion.

Respect. Unit strength depends on the strength of each member. We achieve that

strength by treating each member with respect. 

A clear focus on Leadership-Professionalism-Respect will enable any change

in policy to be executed with minimum disruption to the force. Strong and supportive

leadership rather than over-regulation will ensure successful implementation. Leadership

guiding principles are:

  Leadership matters most. Leaders at all levels are responsible for mission

accomplishment, unit cohesion, and the care and treatment of all those under their

command.

  Leaders are responsible for ensuring that personnel are evaluated on individual

merit, fitness, and capability. 

  Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter. All members of the

unit must be treated with respect and dignity.

C RECOMMENDED LEADERSHIP 

 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE

APPENDIX
62

  Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious

beliefs. They must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different

views and beliefs. 

  All Service members will be held to the same standards of conduct. Harassment,

bullying, or victimization of any kind is unprofessional and will not be tolerated.

This guide, along with vignettes and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), are

available to provide leaders and Service members with the facts about repeal, but it

cannot account for every situation that might occur. Leaders are expected to use their

judgment and knowledge of regulations and standards to ensure a smooth post-repeal

transition with minimum disruption to the force. Leaders, both officer and enlisted, are

essential to implementing this change in policy fairly and consistently.

Summary of the Working Group’s Report

What follows is a very brief summary of the work of the Comprehensive Review

Working Group and the Report provided by its Co-Chairs to the Secretary of Defense. 

Leaders should review the Working Group’s Report to obtain a complete account

of Co-Chairs’ assessment and recommendations.

Mission

On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense established a working group to

undertake a comprehensive review of the impacts of repeal, should it occur, of Section

654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

law. The Working Group’s assignment from the Secretary was two-fold: 1) assess the

impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit

cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness; and 2) recommend appropriate

changes, if necessary, to existing regulations, policies, and guidance in the event of

repeal. The Secretary of Defense also directed the Working Group to develop a plan of

action to support implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

The Secretary of Defense directed the Working Group to “thoroughly, objectively

and methodically examine all aspects of this question,” and include, most importantly,

the views of men and women in uniform.

Engagement of the Force

During the course of its review, the Working Group, among other things:

  solicited the views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component Service

members with an extensive and professionally-developed survey, which prompted

115,052 responses—one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military;
63

  solicited the views of over 150,000 spouses of active duty and reserve component

Service members, because of the influence and importance families play in the lives

of Service members and their decisions to join, leave, or stay in the military, and

received 44,266 responses;

  created an online inbox for Service members and their families to offer their views,

through which a total of 72,384 entries were received;

  conducted 95 face-to-face “information exchange forums” at 51 bases and installations

around the world, where the Working Group interacted with over 24,000 Service

members;

  conducted 140 smaller focus group sessions with Service members and their families.

What the Working Group Heard

Survey Results. The results of the Service member survey revealed a widespread

attitude among a solid majority of Service members that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission. The

results of the survey are best represented by the answers to three questions:

  When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he

or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70%

of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect. (Question

68a.)

  When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that

you believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.

(Question 36.)

  When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who

they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together”

was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.” (Question 47a.)

Consistently, the survey results revealed a large group of around 50–55% of Service

members who thought that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have mixed or no effect;

another 15–20% who said repeal would have a positive effect; and about 30% who said

it would have a negative effect. When spouses were asked about whether repeal of Don’t

Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for their Service member’s future plans to

stay in the military, 74% said repeal would have no effect, while only 12% said “I would

want my spouse to leave earlier.”

These survey results did reveal a significant minority—around 30% overall (and

40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties)—who predicted in

some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal
64

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. However, there were a number of other factors that still led the

Co-Chairs to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.

Frequently raised issues. In the Working Group’s other engagements with the

force (information exchange forums, focus groups, online inbox, confidential online

communications), certain issues and concerns were raised repeatedly. Three of these

are summarized below:

Standards of conduct. Many Service members raised the possibility of inappropriate

conduct that might take place in the event of repeal, including unprofessional

relationships between Service members; public displays of affection; inappropriate

dress and appearance; and acts of violence, harassment, and disrespect. 

Moral and religious concerns. A large number of Service members raised religious

and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay.

Some feared repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell might limit their individual freedom of

expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal

beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. Some of the most intense and sharpest

divergence of views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was found among the chaplains corps.

Privacy. A large number of Service members expressed discomfort with sharing

bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian. 

Assessment

Based on all they saw and heard, the assessment of the Co-Chairs of the Working

Group was that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations

they provided, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness

is low. The Co-Chairs concluded that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely,

in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion

and retention, they do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting,

and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations they offered. The Co-Chairs

stated that longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of

leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, they are convinced that the U.S. military

can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.

Summary of Working Group Recommendations 

The most significant policy change resulting from repeal is that Service members

will no longer be separated solely on the basis of homosexual conduct (acts, statements,

same-sex marriage). 

The Working Group provided a number of recommendations for other policies in

the event of repeal. These recommendations were based on the conclusion that repeal

will work best if it is accompanied by a message and policies that promote fair and equal
65

treatment of all Service members, minimize differences among Service members based

on sexual orientation, and disabuse Service members of any notion that, with repeal, gay

and lesbian Service members will be afforded some type of special treatment. 

A brief summary of post-repeal policy guidance based on the Working Group’s

recommendations follows. Leaders should review the Working Group report and

Support Plan for Implementation and subsequent DoD and Service-level policy guidance

to ensure they understand current policies in full. Leaders must also stay aware of

future changes and developments related to implementation of repeal.

  Standards of Conduct: Service standards of conduct must be sexual orientation

neutral. All members are responsible for upholding and maintaining the high

standards of the U.S. military at all times and in all places.

  Privacy and Cohabitation: Berthing or billeting assignments or the designation

of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation are prohibited. Commanders

retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments or accommodate

privacy concerns (to include concerns regarding privacy in bathing facilities) on

an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interests of morale, good order and

discipline, and consistent with performance of mission.

  Moral and Religious Concerns: Service members will not be required to change

their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and

serve with others who hold different views and beliefs. Consistent with existing policies,

in the context of their religious ministry chaplains are not required to take actions

inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must still care for all Service members.

  Benefits: For the time being, all Service members not in a Federally-recognized

marriage will be treated as “single” for the purposes of benefits eligibility. The

Department of Defense is studying ways to extend additional benefits to Service

members to improve personal readiness, especially during deployments and other

stressful times.

  Equal Opportunity: Sexual orientation is not specified as a class eligible for

complaint resolution processes under the MEO Program. Sexual orientation is treated

under the same general principles of MEO policy that apply to all Service members.

Sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion,

or other personnel decision-making, and gay and lesbian Service members, like all

Service members, are evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability.

Command and Supervisory Responsibilities and Guidance

  Remember the key implementation message of Leadership-ProfessionalismRespect at all times when interacting with the people in your unit.
66

  You will encounter situations that are not covered in this guidance. Many Service

members have strong personal opinions about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,

which will likely cause spirited debate and raise difficult questions. Key to successful

implementation is the application of well-informed and firm leadership and a

common-sense approach. You are encouraged to seek further advice and guidance

from your chain of command, legal advisors, and appropriate command staffs.

  Commanders and leaders at every level must work to reinforce the dignity and

respect of all Service members within Service cultures, courtesies, traditions, and

core values. We promote these values best by living them. 

  Uniform, dress, and appearance standards are not modified with the repeal of the

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation. All Services will continue to enforce their respective

standards as prescribed by their traditions and values. 

  Service members will refrain from unwanted discussions of sexual desires, practices,

and experiences that could cause offense to others. These types of discussions are

unprofessional and are not conducive to ensuring or maintaining a unit’s morale,

cohesion, and good order and discipline.

  Commanders and supervisors at all levels have the authority and the responsibility to

maintain good order, discipline, and morale within their units. They are accountable

for their actions in all cases. 

  As indicated above, some specialty areas, especially in the combat arms,

expressed more concerns about repeal than other specialties. However, this

is not to say all combat units oppose repeal while all support units are in

favor of repeal. Each unit and individual Service member is unique. Leaders

must take the time to get to know their people and the concerns of their

particular unit in order to guard against stereotypes negatively impacting the

cohesion and effectiveness of their unit. 

  Leaders must never use their position of authority to inappropriately or illegally benefit

or disadvantage another person for any reason. Misconductinvolving abuse of position,

trust, or rank is particularly egregious and will be dealt with swiftly and severely.

  As a general rule, leaders intervene in the private lives of their subordinates only

where it is necessary in the interest of accomplishing the mission or to ensure the

health and well-being of the force. 

  Typically, early andeffective counseling cancurtailunprofessional conduct. More serious

cases may warrant administrative action, non-judicial punishment, or court-martial. 

  Devotion to our values, our culture of mutual respect, and our obedience to lawful

orders is one reason why we remain the world’s greatest military power. 
67

  Personal privacy is a concern for many Service members. Service members accept

living and working conditions that are often austere, primitive, and characterized by

forced intimacy with little or no privacy. Leaders continue to have the discretion to

grant privacy requests (e.g., related to latrines, showers, billeting) where necessary

in the interest of maintaining morale, good order and discipline, and consistent with

performance of mission.

  Commanders’ leadership and personal commitmentto implementation must be visible

and unequivocal. Commanders are expected to exemplify standards of professional

conduct and build on their Service cultures to ensure all Service members are

respected, treated fairly, and valued for their contributions and performance. 

  Misconduct must be addressed quickly, appropriately, and in proportion to the

seriousness of the offense. A leader’s initial response may constitute a formal

warning, official censure, or other disciplinary action. In particularly serious cases,

or where an individual persists with or has a history of acts of social misconduct,

formal disciplinary or administrative action should be taken.

  Service members have the right to reveal their sexual orientation or keep it private.

Leaders must ensure that unit members are respectful and do not refer to individuals

or groups in a derogatory way. This includes gay and lesbian individuals as well

as people who have moral or religious concerns with repeal, all of whom could be

stereotyped in a negative way. 

  Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life. The military society is

characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions. Service members

accept numerous restrictions on personal behavior, which require them to routinely

subjugate personal desires andwell-being for the good oftheunit. While the traditions

and standards of military service may not be acceptable in much of civilian society,

they are necessary to accomplish the duties of military service. Repeal of Don’t Ask,

Don’t Tell does not alter this fundamental characteristic of military service. Leaders

must exemplify and develop in others the ability to put Service before self to execute

the mission.

  The bonds of trust among individual Service members are important to the combat

effectiveness of a unit. Leaders must continue to create within their units strong

bonds of trust in training to ensure success in the field. 

  The standards of conduct for members of the military regulate a Service member’s

life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The consistent, unwavering application of the

standards of conduct is necessary because Service members must be ready at all

times for worldwide deployment.
68
69

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and training vignettes were developed as

an efficient and effective way to get information rapidly to the force. The Leadership

Implementation Guide in Appendix C and the FAQs and vignettes in this appendix are

designed to give the Services a basis from which they can develop education and training

materials. 

The FAQs can be adapted to many audiences, to include Service members,

families, and the public. The vignettes were developed as tools for leaders and trainers

to address some of the areas of concern the Working Group heard in its engagements

with the force. The FAQs and vignettes are not all-inclusive. The Services should review

the content and subject areas represented in this appendix to ensure they address

Service-specific areas of concern and that the language is appropriate for their Service

culture. Service Headquarters Training representatives, Service academy and war

college academic faculty, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel &

Readiness (OUSD(P&R)) representatives, and Defense Equal Opportunity Management

Office (DEOMI) personnel assisted in the creation of these tools. 

As the Department of Defense and the Services adapt the FAQs and the vignettes

for their use, they should continue to work with DEOMI training specialists. In addition,

the Department of Defense and the Services should consider creating an online resource

where Service members and their families can ask questions not covered in the tools

provided. The Working Group used the following framework to create the FAQs and

vignettes and recommends that the Department of Defense and the Services follow

similar guidance when working with these products.

  Use language that is respectful of all perspectives and does not inadvertently refer

to individuals or communities in a derogatory way. This includes gay and lesbian

individuals as well as people of faith who have moral concerns with repeal, all of

whom can be stereotyped in a negative way. The Working Group recommends

following American Psychological Association conventions on sexual orientation and

suggests using the terms “gay” (or gay men), “lesbian” (or lesbians), and “bisexual” (or

bisexual individuals) instead of the term “homosexual” (or homosexuals) as the use

of “homosexual” tends to be associated with more negative stereotypes. Similarly,

the Working Group recommends avoiding language that stereotypes people of faith

(e.g., extremist, fundamentalist, fanatic) who hold strong moral convictions about

homosexuality. 

D FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

 AND VIGNETTES

APPENDIX
70

  While it is critical to address the issues and concerns Service members expressed

in the Working Group’s engagements with the force, this should be done without

validating stereotypes and misperceptions regarding gay men and lesbians. FAQs

and vignettes should be phrased to ask broad, neutral questions. Language that

perpetuates a stereotype of any group, as well as hypothetical situations based on

stereotype, should be avoided.

  FAQs and vignettes should be written in clear, concise, jargon-free language and

cover topics and issues that are either frequent concerns in the force or have the

potential for high negative impact if not addressed.

  The Working Group’s research indicates that existing policies and regulations will

adequately address most of the concerns and issues regarding repeal. This research

also suggests that unified leadership along with the professionalism of the force will

mitigate most concerns. Therefore, the Working Group does not find it necessary to

address every possible variation of repeal and recommends that the Services adapt

the FAQs and vignettes to meet their needs and concerns. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the new policy on sexual orientation in the military?

Service members will not be involuntarily separated for lawful homosexual

conduct.

Sexual orientation remains a personal and private matter. Sexual orientation

or homosexual conduct (statements, acts, same-sex marriage) are not a basis

for separation, reassignment, or special consideration. Service members

may inform others of their sexual orientation at their own discretion.

The Department of Defense will not ask Service members to identify their

sexual orientation. The Department of Defense will not collect or maintain

data on an individual’s sexual orientation.

2. How will repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect recruitment and 

retention policies?

If otherwise qualified, individuals may join and serve in the Military Services

without regard to sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not a factor in recruitment or retention in the Military

Services, and the Department of Defense does not have sexual orientation

targets or quotas for recruiting.
71

3. Will Service members honorably discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell be allowed to reenter the Military Services?

All honorably discharged Service members have an equal opportunity to

apply for reentry. Services will determine re-accession based on need and a

number of other factors, but sexual orientation will not be a factor.

4. Can transgender or transsexual individuals join the Military Services?

No. Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the

Military Services. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has no effect on these

policies. 

5. Does repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect benefits for partners of gay 

and lesbian Service members?

Gay and lesbian Service members are eligible for the same benefits as any

single Service member. For example, any single Service member may extend

to someone of their choosing benefits such as notification instructions on

their Form 93, Record of Emergency Data (RED), and listing the designated

individual as an SGLI beneficiary. The Department of Defense is also

examining other benefits that may be included in this set.

Context: Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Federal

Government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one

woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of

the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Under DOMA, married/spouse

benefits cannot be extended to an unmarried partner, to include same-sex

partners. 

6. Does repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the religious rights of 

chaplains?

No. 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 Service members and facilitate the free

exercise of religion for all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of

either the chaplain or the individual.

Chaplains minister to members 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 a
72

chaplain’s discharge of his/her broader duties within the unit, he/she is

faced with an issue contrary to his/her individual faith, he/she may refer the

Service member to other appropriate counsel.

If a chaplain is unable to discharge his/her duties as a result of a repeal,

current regulations permit a chaplain to request that the relevant endorsing

agency withdraw its ecclesiastical endorsement of the individual chaplain.

7. Does repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the speech, morals, or 

religious rights of Service members?

No. There will not be any modifications or revisions to policy regarding

Service members’ protections and obligations with respect to free speech

and free exercise of religion.

The Department of Defense recognizes the right of all Service members of

the Military Services to hold individual beliefs consistent with their moral

foundations and conscience and does not seek to change them.

Service members can continue to freely practice their religion and express

their personal views within the limitations ofthe UCMJ and Service standards

of conduct.

8. Will the Department of Defense establish a new category of early 

release from service commitments for Service members based on 

moral, religious, or other objections to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell?

No. The Department of Defense does not permit the early discharge of Service

members based upon their opposition to the repeal of any new policy. This

includes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or objection to serving with or living in the

company of any Service member. 

Existing regulations allow Service members with a service commitment to

request early, voluntary discharge under their Service Secretary’s plenary

authority. Granting these types of requests is at the discretion of the Service

Secretary and is granted only when the early separation would be in the best

interest of the Service. Commanders retain their current authority under

existing Service personnel management policies to assist personnel within

their units who desire to separate from the Service when in the best interest

of the Service, the unit, and/or the individual in question. Service members

are advised to talk to their chain of command and/or seek legal assistance

to ensure they understand the available options within their Service for

pursuing separation for any reason. 
73

9. Will repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have health implications for the 

military?

No. DoD research found that there would be no increase in Service member

health risk. Existing policies and procedures for HIV screening and testing,

management of HIV-positive personnel, and management of the military

blood supply will continue to be effective following a repeal of the law. The

Service Surgeons General have examined this issue and determined there

would be no increased risk.

10. Does the new policy apply equally to all Active, Reserve, and Guard 

components? 

Yes. DoD regulations generally apply equally to all members of the Active,

Reserve, and National Guard (when in Federal status) components.

Note: Leaders can clarify for Reserve and National Guard personnel which

policies apply in a non-duty or Title 32 status.

11. Are there any new restrictions on duty assignments or employment?

No. There will be no special treatment or special arrangement for the

assignment or employment of gay and lesbian Service members. In these

matters, all Service members will be considered equally regardless of sexual

orientation. 

12. Will the Department of Defense build separate living or bathroom 

facilities for gay and straight Service members?

No. Building separate facilities would create divisions within units and

inappropriately isolate a portion of the force.

13. Does a Service member have the legal right to refuse to share 

accommodations and/or facilities with a gay and lesbian Service 

member?

No. Service members do not have a legal right to reject (or select) assignment

with any other Service member within shared military accommodations and

facilities. In addition, Service members do not have the legal right to refuse

work or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another individual’s

sexual orientation.

If a Service member has a concern with a billeting or work arrangement for

any reason, he or she should address those concerns appropriately within

their chain of command. Commanders may use discretion in personnel

assignments to berthing, housing and other facilities to maintain morale,

good order, and discipline based on Service policies and space available.
74

Accommodation requests for any reason are considered on a case-by-case

basis.

Mission readiness, unit effectiveness, and good order and discipline, remain

the priority. Refusal to comply with lawful orders may result in disciplinary

action.

14. Does repeal affect standards of conduct?

No. Standards for personal and professional conduct apply uniformly

without regard to sexual orientation.

Service members will continue to conduct themselves consistent with

Service customs and traditions, and the law. Service members are expected

to conduct themselves professionally at all times.

Unprofessional behavior by any Service member that fails to meet standards

of conduct should be corrected by explanation, counseling, administrative

action, or legal action depending on the nature, severity, or repetition of the

offense.

Sexual misconduct of any kind is inconsistent with our values and will be

dealt with swiftly and severely. Harassment or violence of any kind between

Service members will not be tolerated.

15. Is consensual sodomy still a punishable offense under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice?

Only in limited circumstances. Unrelated to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the U.S.

Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that

private, consensual sexual activity, to include consensual sodomy, regardless

of sexual orientation, is a protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Consensual sodomy can only be punished if it is prejudicial to good order

and discipline or service discrediting (e.g., in public, between a superior and

a subordinate), or there are other factors involved in the commission of the

act such as force, coercion, or involvement of a minor. This was true before

repeal and it remains true now.

16. How will the military handle discrimination towards gay and lesbian 

Service members?

Unlawful discrimination against any individual or group is unacceptable.

General MEO policy requires the promotion of “an environment free from

personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service members

from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible” and prohibits the
75

evaluation of Service members on bases other than “individual merit, fitness,

and capability.” 

Complaints regarding harassment or discrimination based on sexual

orientation are dealt with through the chain of command, the Inspector

General, and other means established by the Services. Criminal harassment

should be referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation.

17. What training will be required for Service members and their families 

when repeal occurs?

Service members will be informed of the change in policy and expectations

for behavior. Members involved in certain functions (e.g., administrative,

legal, investigative) may receive additional training focused on specific

changes to their specialty. Family members will be informed of the changed

policy and advised where to go to seek any specific information they need.

Further guidance is available from the chain of command, the appropriate

Service policy staff, lawyers, chaplains, and medical personnel.

Vignettes

The following training vignettes consist of hypothetical, policy-related teaching

scenarios that commanders and leaders can use to assist them in implementing the

change in policy. They are not meant to provide all the “correct” outcomes, but serve

to illustrate approaches to a sample of issues that may arise should 10 U.S.C. § 654

be repealed. The vignettes will assist leaders in addressing potential issues related to

repeal in order to:

  Reinforce expectations of exemplary conduct and professionalism from all Service

members.

  Achieve minimum disruption though practical examples.

  Provide commanders with common examples of personal and professional behavior.

As a general guide, Service members should attempt to resolve issues at the

lowest level of the chain of command appropriate for the situation. Leaders should

mentor Service members in means of resolving individual disagreements and conflict by

instilling in their subordinates a willingness to properly confront and, where required,

correct improper behavior. 

The best way to work through most conflict is to clarify the situation and seek

understanding with the other person. Most of the time, talking with a teammate will

clear up the misunderstanding. If an informal meeting does not address the concern,
76

have a formal meeting that includes, for example, a senior mentor, outside observer, or

chaplain. Try to be developmental, not punitive. If these meetings do not resolve the

issue, then bring in the chain of command. Hold people accountable when they misuse

their authority for any reason. If the chain of command cannot resolve the issue, then

the IG and other grievance processes are available and appropriate to use when other

options are exhausted.

1. SITUATION: You are the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer at a high 

tempo recruiting office. Your top notch, high performing recruiter 

who has served in the military for 14 years asks to meet with you. Due 

to his personal religious beliefs, he tells you he cannot process an 

outstanding applicant who voluntarily states he is gay. 

Issue: Accessions and Recruiting Policy. What actions should the SNCOIC

do? Has the Service member committed misconduct?

Discussion: Normally, counseling and education should be your first course

of action. As his supervisor, you counsel him on the new policy, informing

him that sexual orientation is not a bar to military service, and his duty is

to recruit the best qualified applicants within the enlistment standards set

by the Service. Due to the Service member’s stated religious concern, you

may suggest the Service member meet with the chaplain or another spiritual

advisor. If, the recruiter continues to refuse to process an otherwise qualified

recruit, he could be subject to disciplinary or adverse administrative action.

However, if the recruiter’s performance and professionalism is otherwise

high, and he is able to carry out assigned duties, but still cannot resolve

the conflict with his personal beliefs, the SNCOIC could work with the

chain of command to explore their available options to include possible

reassignment. In all situations, leaders are expected to enforce standards

and correct behaviors that undermine unit cohesion. Positive leadership

with a focus on professional obligations to uphold the policy while recruiting

the best qualified applicants should be reinforced. Service members are

expected to obey lawful orders and could be subject to discipline or adverse

administrative action if they refuse orders, even if such refusal is based on

strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs. 

2. SITUATION: You are the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer at a high 

tempo recruiting office. Your top notch, high performing recruiter 

from Situation 1 has been doing a good job for the past couple of 

months after your discussion with him about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He 

requested a reassignment but it was denied. The recruiter asks to see 

you and informs you that while he appreciates how the situation was 

handled, he has tried but he cannot resolve his personal beliefs with 

the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He has two years remaining on his 

current enlistment and wants to know how he can request an early 

separation. 
77

Issue: Release fromServiceCommitments. What actions shouldtheSNCOIC

do? Can the recruiter be released early from his service commitment?

Discussion: The Department of Defense does not permit the early discharge

of Service members based upon their opposition to a new policy. This includes

a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Service members with a service commitment

may request early, voluntary discharge under the plenary authority of their

Military Department Secretary. Granting these types of requests is at the

discretion of the Military Department Secretary and is granted only when

the early separation would be in the best interest of the Service. Your best

option would be to keep your chain of command informed of the situation

and contact the legal office for advice on pursuing early separation within

existing Service policy.

3. SITUATION: An applicant comes into a recruiting station and says that 

he would like to enlist. In accordance with DoD policy, the recruiter 

does not ask any questions about the applicant’s sexual orientation; 

however, the applicant reveals of his own accord that he is gay.

Issues: Accessions and Recruiting Policy; Collection and Retention of Sexual

Orientation Data. What should the recruiter do after hearing the applicant’s

statement?

Discussion: Applicants will not be asked or required to reveal their sexual

orientation during the accession process. If an applicant comes into a

recruiting office and volunteers a statement that he or she is gay or lesbian, the

recruiter should explain to the applicant that sexual orientation is considered

a personal and private matter and no Service member is required to declare

their sexual orientation. The recruiter should continue to administer the

application unless the applicant is otherwise ineligible for service in the

military.

4. SITUATION: A junior officer complains to her immediate supervisor 

that she believes that the reason for her non-selection to a much-desired 

school was due to her sexual orientation. The supervisor informs the 

member that the panel used for the selection process had no way of 

knowing her orientation, but he would check into the situation and 

get back to her. After an informal inquiry of the panel members, the 

supervisor concludes that the selection process used was fair and 

equitable. The member is still not satisfied and wants to know what 

other course of action she can take. You refer her to the Commander 

who understands the Service member has a right to redress suspected 

wrongs in the selection process, but is unsure if this is a matter for the 

Equal Opportunity Advisor, the IG, or the chain of command.
78

Issue: Equal opportunity. The commander wonders if this is an issue under

the Military Equal Opportunity Program, the IG, or something the chain of

command should be made aware of to determine if the selection board acted

appropriately. 

Discussion: Service members should be evaluated only on individual merit.

The supervisor’s attempt to resolve the complaint through informal inquiry

did not satisfy the Service member’s concerns. The Service member should

attempt to continue to resolve the complaint within the chain of command,

if possible. If the complaint is not resolved within the chain of command

the Service member can seek resolution through the Inspector General or

other means established by the Services. In this case, the MEO program is

not appropriate for resolution because sexual orientation is not specified as a

class eligible for the MEO complaint resolution process.

5. SITUATION: A Service member requests emergency leave after 

receiving a Red Cross message concerning the critical condition of his 

same-sex partner. 

Issue: Benefits. Is the Service member eligible for Emergency Leave? 

Discussion: Yes. If the situation places a severe or unusual hardship on

the Service member, he or she is eligible for Emergency Leave. The sexual

orientation of the Service member’s partner has no bearing on the decision. 

DoDI 1327.06 states that emergency leave may be appropriate when:

  A member of the household or immediate family has died.

  The Service member’s presence would contribute to the welfare of a dying

member of the household or immediate family.

  Serious illness of a member of the household or immediate family imposes a

demand on the Service member that must be met immediately and cannot be

accomplished from the duty station or by any other means.

  The Service member’s failure to return home places a severe or unusual

hardship on the Service member, his or her household or immediate family.

Commanders may grant up to 30 days of emergency leave. In this situation,

the leave may or may not qualify as emergency leave depending on the

circumstances. The Commander should meet with the Service member

to obtain information about the emergency and verify that the Service

member’s presence can resolve or alleviate the situation. If in doubt, the

Commander should seek legal advice and consult the chain of command. If
79

circumstances and the military mission warrant granting emergency leave,

theCommander should ensure swift processing ofthe request. Ifthe situation

does not fall within the guidelines of emergency leave and the mission will

not be unacceptably impacted, every attempt should be made to resolve the

situation swiftly and compassionately through other authorized alternatives.

Considerate, professional understanding is the humane approach to granting

leave requests, regardless of the situation or circumstances. 

6. SITUATION: You are the leading Chief Petty Officer aboard ship. A 

top performing Petty Officer, who is known to be a lesbian, approaches 

you and states she can no longer tolerate her roommate. Through 

positive reinforcement, counseling, and mentorship, you attempt 

to resolve the issue at the lowest level in the chain of command. 

However, you notice her performance starting to diminish and she 

and her roommate are making derogatory comments to co-workers 

about each other. The behavior has become disruptive to the entire 

unit and others are starting to complain. She puts in a request to be 

re-assigned to another berthing area onboard ship. 

Issue: Privacy and Cohabitation. What options does the leading Chief Petty

Officer have to address conflicts between roommates? What actions should

the chain of command take to address this issue?

Discussion: The Chief Petty Officer must take a very active and positive

leadership approach with a focus on conflict resolution and professional

obligations to uphold the policy. The Chief Petty Officer should counsel

the individuals and help them to resolve their personal differences. A clear

message must be received by both, that respecting each other’s rights within a

closed space is critical to maintaining good order and discipline. Standards

of conduct apply equally to all Service members and inappropriate conduct

by either roommate should be corrected appropriately. If the issue cannot

be resolved and alternative berthing arrangements can be made within

command policy and without degrading good order and discipline of the

unit, the Commander may consider reassignment of roommates.

7. SITUATION: You are the admin chief of a unit personnel office. 

A newly commissioned Lieutenant reports to the unit with the 

expectation of starting his BAH at the “with dependent” rate. He 

informs you that he got married while executing PCS orders. He 

presents his marriage certificate. While reviewing the documents, 

you notice the Service member was married to his same-sex partner 

in Vermont where same-sex marriage is legal. The newly-reported 

member informs you he thought he would receive BAH at the “with 

dependent” rate once Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was rescinded. 
80

Issue: Benefits. What entitlements are available to same-sex partners?

Discussion: Because the Federal government does not recognize same-sex

marriages, a Service member cannot claim dependency for a same-sex

partner, for BAH purposes. You inform the Lieutenant that he’s not entitled

to BAH at the “with dependent” rate based on a marriage to a same-sex

partner. However, if the Service member has a qualifying dependent such as

a dependent child, then he is eligible for BAH at the “with dependent” rate.

The question of benefits for unmarried partners is being studied by the DoD

at this time. For further explanation of the law and current entitlements

available to the Service member and his family, refer the Lieutenant to the

Legal Office or Family Support Center.

8. SITUATION: You are the supervisor of a Service member who wants 

to file a complaint against a chaplain. The Service member informs 

you that she attended a worship service at the base chapel over the 

weekend and the chaplain’s sermon included several direct statements 

that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage should be only between 

a man and woman. The Service member disagreed with the chaplain’s 

remarks and felt they were discriminatory and biased and should not 

be allowed. 

Issue: Moral and Religious Concerns. Can the Service member file a

complaint of discrimination or harassment against the chaplain? Should

chaplains revise their sermons to avoid the perception of discrimination?

What alternatives are available to assist the member or the chaplain?

Discussion: Chaplains have the right to express their religious beliefs during

their conduct of a service of worship or religious study. Unless a chaplain’s

speech is otherwise prohibited, such as publically maligning senior leaders,

their sermons and/or teachings cannot be restricted, even with regard to

socially controversial topics. This situation is an excellent opportunity to

have a discussion with the Service member about religious respect and the

proper boundaries of religious expression within the military. You could offer

to meet with the Service member and the chaplain to facilitate a discussion

on the topic. If either the chaplain or the Service member feels that due to

their religious views, speech, or practice, they have been improperly treated,

redress is available through their chain of command, existing Service policy,

or the IG if necessary. Chaplains facilitate the free exercise of religion for

all personnel, regardless of the religious affiliation of either the chaplain or

the individual. At the same time, regulations also recognize that chaplains

minister to members in accordance with, and without compromising, the

tenets of their faith. These boundaries are not always clearly defined. Finally,

the Service member may request assistance from the chaplain’s office in

finding a different religious service to attend. 
81

9. SITUATION: You are a Senior NCO. After a company run, you witness 

two of your fellow Service members in the locker room joking and 

having a loud inappropriate conversation about gays and lesbians. 

The comments were directly related to their refusal to be naked and 

shower in front of a gay Service member. 

Issues: Standards of Conduct; Privacy. How do you address this situation?

Is there a violation of the Standards of Conduct? 

Discussion: Leaders at all levels are responsible for maintaining trust,

cohesion, effectiveness, and readiness of the all-volunteer force. Leaders are

expected to dispassionately enforce standards and correct behaviors that

undermine unit cohesion. You should advise them of the Service policy and

inform them that discrimination or harassment against any Service member

is inappropriate. If a request is made to avoid showering with an individual,

Commanders have the discretion to grant personal requests within unit

policies and if the mission is not unacceptably impacted. As a general rule,

the person making the request would have the burden of adapting to a

different schedule. However, publicly joking about this issue is inappropriate

behavior.

10. SITUATION: You are a civilian working in the housing office. A 

Service member, who is known to be a lesbian, recently adopted a 

son and reports to your office to discuss her Military Family Housing 

application. She requests to be assigned specific quarters that are 

more isolated than others, for concerns of potential harassment of her 

family. She also requests that her same-sex partner, who is her son’s 

primary care provider, occupy the quarters as well. 

Issues: Benefits; Standards of Conduct. Are there guidelines for same-sex

partners occupying Military Family Housing? How should the housing office

consider the request for specific quarters?

Discussion: You should inform the Service member that because she has

a qualifying dependent son that she is indeed authorized Military Family

Housing. Local policies regarding live-in child care providers or other

non-dependents living in base housing should be followed for the same-sex

partner. You explain to her that in accordance with the Military Family

Housing assignment policy, she will be given several options pertaining to

assignment of quarters,buther special requesttobe assignedisolatedquarters

may not necessarily fall within the guidelines of “special considerations.” If

quarters are found inadequate for her needs, she has the option to obtain

outside housing or discuss the issue with her chain of command. Since the

Service member also expressed a concern about harassment, it would be

appropriate to refer her to her chain of command to discuss these concerns.

Harassment for any reason is not tolerated within the Department of Defense

and should be appropriately reported and corrected at all times.
82

11. SITUATION: You are the Executive Officer of your unit. While 

shopping at the local mall over the weekend, you observe two junior 

male Service members assigned to your unit and in civilian clothes 

kissing and hugging in the food court. 

Issue: Standards of Conduct. Is this within standards of personal and

professional conduct? 

Discussion: Standards of conduct regarding public displays of affection

(PDA) are orientation-neutral. If the observed behavior crosses acceptable

boundaries as defined in applicable standards of conduct for your unit and

Service, then an appropriate correction should be made. Your assessment

should be made without regard to sexual orientation.

12. SITUATION: A Service member has been observed entering, leaving, 

and generally “hanging around” a gay bar. The Commander is notified 

of the observations but isn’t sure what action, if any, she should take.

Issue: Standards of Conduct. What should the Commander do? Can the

Commander take administrative disciplinary action and charge the Service

member for going to a gay bar? Should she conduct a Commander’s inquiry?

Discussion: Installation Commanders can place an establishment off-limits

for certain reasons, such as known or suspected criminal activity or drug

use. An establishment would not be placed off-limits just for catering to gay

clientele. Unless the establishment is designated off-limits by the installation

Commander or there is evidence of behavior by the Service member that

is counter to Service and/or Command standards of conduct, there is no

prohibition against going to a gay bar. In this case, the Commander should

take no action.

13. SITUATION: A Warrant Officer is watching the local TV news coverage 

of a gay rights parade when he notices a female Service member 

assigned to his unit marching in the parade in civilian clothes, 

carrying a handmade placard. As the television camera zooms in on 

the Service member’s sign, the Warrant Officer can clearly read the 

handwritten words “Support Gays and Lesbians in the military!” The 

next morning, he reports the incident to his Commander.

Issue: Standards of Conduct. Is this prohibited activity? Should the

Commander inquire into what meaning this Service member had intended

to convey by carrying that particular sign in the gay rights parade?

Discussion: A Service member’s participation and carrying a banner or sign

in a gay rights activity would not in and of itself constitute misconduct unless

the Service member’s actions are otherwise prohibited or would discredit

the military. For example, participating in uniform or while on duty hours
83

would be prohibited unless approved by authorized command authorities.

In this case, the Service member chose to carry a sign that acknowledged

positive support for gay and lesbian Service members serving in the military.

The parade was a local community-sanctioned event and was not a protest

or dissident activity prohibited by existing policy. Furthermore, the Service

member was off-duty and in civilian clothes. Participation in the parade as

described is within the Service member’s right of expression and consistent

with good order and discipline. However, if there is any doubt about

participating in any off-base event, the Commander should contact the JAG

for advice.

14. SITUATION: You are the Command Master Chief of a base. A Service 

member with 16 years of service requests to see you about her next 

assignment. Due to a medical concern of her same-sex partner, she 

would like to request a base where she has access to the medical care 

she requires. She states that if she cannot get the care, she intends to 

turn down her next assignment. She wants to know if she can receive 

any assignment priority based on the needs of her partner. 

Issue: Duty Assignments. What actions should the Command Master Chief

take? Can the Assignment Officer take into consideration the member’s

honest acknowledgement concerning her partner and assign her to the

desired location? Can the member decline assignment orders without

consequences?

Discussion: Service members are assigned permanent change of station

orders based on the needs of the Service. Service members can share

personal information with assignment personnel for consideration in

making assignments. Assignment personnel then make assignments within

existing Service assignment policy. In general, a Service member’s sexual

orientation should have no bearing on the assignments process. In this case,

the same-sex partner would not qualify the Service member for assignment

priority under existing DoD policy. However, the Service member can

provide any information that she is comfortable sharing for consideration.

The Service member could also share her concerns with the Commander

who could make an input to the assignment process within existing Service

regulations. If the assignment can be made within existing assignment

policy and the needs of the Service, then this request could be considered.

The Service member may turn down the assignment and separate if she

does not have an existing service commitment that would prevent her from

separating. If the Service member has further questions about assignment

priority based on her situation, she should be referred to the legal office. 
84
85

TheTermsofReferencefromtheSecretaryofDefensedirectthattheWorkingGroup

“assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness

that support successful follow-through on implementation.” This appendix identifies

methods that may be used to accomplish that task should repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 occur.

Monitoring methodologies are currently available through a variety of resources and

tools that DoD entities already use. The Working Group reviewed these existing DoD

surveys and assessments; a brief summary of those instruments is provided here. As

much as possible, follow-on review and monitoring should use existing processes and

minimize disruption to the force that might result from establishing new, potentially

burdensome reporting instruments.

There is no single, unified instrument for collecting and assessing organizational

data within the Department of Defense. At present, the Department of Defense uses a

variety of interrelated resources; several entities conduct analyses that could be adapted

to collect data on, and monitor the success of, implementation of repeal. These entities

and instruments include:

  Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) – “Status of Forces” Surveys. Periodic,

fast, accurate assessments of attitudes and opinions of the entire DoD community.

Capable of developing additional evaluations targeting specific interests.

  Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) – “Command Climate”

surveys. Allows leaders to proactively assess critical organizational climate

dimensions that can impact their organization.

  Inspector General – “Command Assessments.” Inspections of commands and

leadership to ensure proper application and enforcement of policies.

  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO). Single point of contact for

accountability and oversight of sexual assault policy, facilitates resolution of issues

common to all Military Services and joint commands, submits annual report on

sexual harassment, assault, and violence to the Department of Defense.

The Working Group recommends that OUSD(P&R) work with established DoD

entities that specialize in surveys and assessment, and leverage their resources to conduct

follow-on review and monitoring of implementation of repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654. The

list below highlights reporting instruments routinely used across the Department of

Defense that could be adapted for follow-on review purposes: 

E RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-ON

 REVIEW STRATEGIES

APPENDIX
86

  “Status of the Forces” Surveys – Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC)

  Provide the Department of Defense with fast, accurate assessments of

attitudes and opinions of the entire DoD community to: 1) evaluate existing

programs/policies, 2) establish baseline measures before implementing new

programs/policies and, 3) monitor progress of programs/policies and their

effects on the total force.

  Command Climate Surveys – Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute

(DEOMDoDD 1350.2: DoD Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program Assessments)

  DoDD 1350.2: DoD Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program Assessments

  DEOMI Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS): The questionnaire

uses shared perceptions of an organization’s members to measure climate

factors associated with military equal opportunity (MEO) and civilian equal

employment opportunity (EEO) issues, as well as organizational effectiveness

(OE) factors. This survey allows leaders to proactively assess critical

organizational climate dimensions that can impact their organization. There

are 13 Climate Factors:

1. Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination

2. Differential Command Behavior Toward Minorities

3. Positive Equal Opportunity Behaviors

4. Racist Behaviors

5. Religious Discrimination

6. Age Discrimination

7. Disability Discrimination

8. Organizational Commitment

9. Trust in the Organization

10. Work Group Effectiveness

11. Work Group Cohesion

12. Leadership Cohesion

13. Job Satisfaction

  Commanders can add up to 10 locally-developed questions and five shortanswer questions to their survey, helping them target specific areas of concern.
87

  Command Assessments – Inspector General

  Service Inspectors General could include, as an item of specific interest

in their inspection, the training of those charged with application and

enforcement of the policies related to repeal, and implementation of sexual

orientation-neutral policies.

  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)/Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor

(DAPA)/Sexual Harassment

  The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) serves as the

single point of accountability and oversight for sexual assault policy, provides

guidance to the DoD components, and facilitates the resolution of issues

common to all Military Services and joint commands. The objectives of DoD’s

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response policy are to specifically enhance

and improve: 1) prevention through training and education programs, 2)

treatment and support of victims, and 3) system accountability.

  DoD Annual Report: The Department of Defense is required to submit to

Congress an annual report on sexual assault in the military. The report is

divided into the following major sections: DoD SAPR Program Overview,

Program Highlights, Aggregate Report of Sexual Assault Incidents, Way

Ahead for Program, and Strategic Observations.

  Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the U.S. Military Service 

Academies: The annual reports on sexual harassment and violence at the

three Service academies provide data on reported sexual assaults involving

cadets and/or midshipmen, as well as policies, procedures, and processes

implemented in response to sexual harassment and violence during the

Academic Program Year.

  DoDI 6495.02: SAPR Program Procedures.

  DoDD 6495.01: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program.
Staff Leadership

Captain Anne G. Hammond, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief of Staff

Mr. Doug McCoy, Assistant Chief of Staff

Writing Team

Dr. Gerald F. Goodwin, Lead Writer

Colonel Gary A.Packard, Jr., PhD, U.S. Air Force

Lieutenant Colonel Jenny Caruso, U.S. Army

Major Linell A. Letendre, U.S. Air Force

Mr. James A. Cadogan

Mr. Jonathan L. Lee

Dr. Robert P. Trost

Editors

Mr. Benjamin Bryant, Lead Editor

Mr. Thomas J. Zamberlan, Technical Editor

Layout and Design

Support Plan for Implementation

Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Mr. Nicholas Doyle, Lead Designer

Ms. Kathleen Jones

Mr. Kelly Guerrero

Mr. Floyd Stewart
Support Plan for Implementation

Report of the Comprehensive Review of 

the Issues Associated with a Repeal of 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

November 30, 2010