U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–495 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–546 

TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ‘‘DON’T ASK, 

DON’T TELL’’ POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 18, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

JOSEPH W. BOWAB, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ‘‘DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL’’ POLICY

MARCH 18, 2010

Page 

Sheehan, Gen. John J. USMC (Ret.), Former Supreme Allied Commander, 

Atlantic, and Former Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command ............. 6 

Almy, Michael D., Former Major, U.S. Air Force ................................................. 9 

Kopfstein, Jenny L., Former Lieutenant Junior Grade, U.S. Navy .................... 13 

(III) 

(1) 

TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE ‘‘DON’T ASK, 

DON’T TELL’’ POLICY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:51 a.m. in room SH– 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) 

presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, E. 

Benjamin Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, Burris, Kaufman, McCain, 

Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, and Collins. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; 

Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; and Roy F. Phillips, professional staff 

member. 

Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican 

staff director; Michael V. Kostiw, professional staff member; Diana 

G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Christine G. Lang, 

and Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: James Tuite, assistant 

to Senator Byrd; Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator 

Lieberman; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Ann Premer, 

assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Patrick Hayes, assistant to Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Jennifer 

Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Lindsay Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Roosevelt Barfield, assistant to Senator Burris; Halie Soifer, assistant 

to Senator Kaufman; Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator 

Chambliss; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; and Chip 

Kennett and Meghan Simonds, assistants to Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

We’re going to come to order, but we’re then going to recess for 

10 minutes, until 10 o’clock, and—for the benefit of colleagues, because we have an order of speaking, here, as to who’s actually here 

when the gavel bangs. This will count. So, this will be the order 

2 

we’ll establish, and we’ll pick up that order at 10 o’clock, when we 

will begin our hearing. 

But, we are going to recess now until 10 o’clock or a few minutes 

thereafter. 

We will stand in recess. [Recess.] 

The committee will come to order. 

We meet this morning to continue to receive testimony on the 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy on gays in the military. 

The Secretary of Defense testified before this committee, on February 2, 2010, that he supported the President’s decision to work 

with Congress to repeal the law known as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ 

and said that, ‘‘The question before us is not ‘whether’ the military 

prepares to make this change, but ‘how’ we best prepare for it.’’ 

At the same hearing, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, expressed his personal belief that allowing gays and 

lesbians to serve openly could be the right thing to do. He said, ‘‘No 

matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by 

the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and 

women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally,’’ he said, ‘‘it comes down to integrity, 

theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.’’ 

Today, we will hear testimony from witnesses who do not represent the Department of Defense (DOD), although each of them 

has served with distinction in the military. 

We welcome General John Sheehan, United States Marine 

Corps, retired. While on Active Duty, General Sheehan served in 

various command positions, ranging from company commander to 

brigade commander in both the Atlantic and Pacific theater of operations. General Sheehan’s combat tours included duty in Vietnam 

and Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. His last assignment 

was as Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in 

Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command. 

Michael Almy served as an Active Duty Air Force officer for 13 

years before he was discharged in 2006 under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell.’’ He deployed to the Middle East four times during his Active 

Duty career, serving in Operation Desert Fox, Operation Southern 

Watch, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was named Officer of the 

Quarter and Officer of the Year several times throughout his career, and in 2005 was named the top communications officer for the 

Air Force in Europe and was recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel prior to his discharge in 2006. 

Jenny Kopfstein, a Naval Academy graduate, served on Active 

Duty in the Navy for nearly 3 years. She revealed her sexual orientation to her commanding officer during her first shipboard assignment. Apparently, knowledge of her sexual orientation had no 

impact on her duty performance, as she was sent on a second deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. She earned 

several awards and honors, and was promoted during her service. 

Significantly, two of her commanding officers testified at her separation hearing that, while they understood she was a lesbian, she 

was an excellent officer who should remain in the Navy. Despite 

that testimony, Ms. Kopfstein was discharged under ‘‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell’’ in 2002. 

3 

Cases like this make it clear to me that we should repeal this 

discriminatory policy. I do not find the arguments used to justify 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ convincing, I did not find them convincing 

when it took effect in 1993, and they are less so now, as made evidence by the experiences of Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein and so 

many like them. What matters is a willingness and an ability to 

perform the mission, not an individual’s sexual orientation. 

In the latest Gallup poll the American public overwhelmingly 

supports allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. 

Sixty-nine percent of Americans are recorded as supporting their 

right to serve, and many gays and lesbians are, in fact, serving in 

our military. 

As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John 

Shalikashvili, who supports ending the policy, has pointed out, the 

majority of troops already believe they serve alongside gay or lesbian colleagues. It’s hard to know for sure, but one recent study estimated that 66,000 gays and lesbians are serving today, forced to 

hide their orientation, at a constant risk of losing the chance to 

serve. 

Supporters of the current ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy argue 

that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would damage unit 

cohesion and morale, crucial factors in building combat effectiveness. But, there is no evidence that the presence of gay and lesbian 

colleagues would damage our military’s ability to fight. Gay men 

and women are serving now, and their fellow servicemembers often 

know that they are serving with them. Their service is not damaging unit cohesion and morale. 

Other nations have allowed gay and lesbian servicemembers to 

serve in their militaries without discrimination and without impact 

on cohesion or morale. The most comprehensive study on this was 

conducted by RAND in 1993. RAND researchers reported on the 

positive experiences of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, and Norway, all of which allowed known homosexuals to 

serve in the Armed Forces. We’ve asked the Department to update 

that 1993 report. 

Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein were discharged, not because of 

their duty performance, not because their presence interfered with 

unit cohesion, and not because their sexual orientation compromised the military mission; they were discharged solely on the 

basis of who they are, what their sexual orientation is. 

Senator Lieberman has introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, of which I am cosponsor, that would replace the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed 

Forces with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

I hope we can move quickly and deliberately to maximize the opportunity for all Americans to serve their country. We can and 

should do that in a way that honors our Nation’s values while making us more secure. 

The committee has received many statements for the record. 

Some of them are from: American Veterans for Equal Rights; Center for American Progress Action Funds; Association of the Bar of 

the City of New York; Servicemembers United; Human Rights 

Campaign; and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. They and 

4 

other statements that are relevant to this subject and will be made 

part of the record. 

[The prepared statements of: American Veterans for Equal 

Rights; Center for American Progress Action Fund; Association of 

the Bar of the City of New York; Servicemembers United; Human 

Rights Campaign; and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network follow:] 

[See Appendix A] 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join you in welcoming our witnesses, thanking each of them for 

their military service and their willingness to share their views 

with us today. 

As we all know, the committee’s focus today is on the ‘‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell’’ policy, which, since 1993, has not barred gay and lesbian individuals from serving in the Armed Forces. It has not 

barred gay and lesbian individuals from serving in the Armed 

Forces, but it’s prevented them from doing so openly. We will hear 

testimony for and against the policy based on our witnesses’ military experience. I look forward to listening with an open mind, and 

learning from each of them. I urge all my colleagues to do the 

same. 

Since early February, our committee has received testimony on 

this issue from Secretary Gates and the Service Secretaries, echoing the desire of the President, a campaign commitment, to have 

Congress repeal the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy. We’ve also heard 

the moving personal views of Admiral Mullen and several of the 

combatant commanders during their posture hearing testimony. 

Finally, we’ve heard from the Service Chiefs, who have responsibility under law for the organization, training, and overall readiness of their forces, and for providing their best military advice to 

the President on matters that might affect their ability to ensure 

sufficiently trained and ready forces. Each of the Service Chiefs has 

expressed his support for the comprehensive high-level review that 

Secretary Gates has directed. However, each has indicated that he 

is not prepared to support a repeal of the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ 

policy at this time. Each has also testified that he opposes your 

suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of a moratorium on discharges while the 

review is being conducted. 

Based on their testimony, I urge my colleagues to await the completion of the review in order to give the Service Chiefs the information they have asked for before any attempt is made to legislate 

a change for political reasons that our military leaders will be required to implement. 

I will strongly oppose any attempt to change the current law 

based on an incomplete and inadequate review of this policy. I appeal to all my colleagues to take this approach in the interest of 

national security. 

With respect to the review itself, I have expressed my concerns 

about its focus and scope. Unfortunately, in his testimony to this 

committee, Secretary Gates described the mandate as ‘‘A review of 

5 

the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the 

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. The guiding question,’’ as Secretary 

Gates put it, ‘‘should be not whether the military prepares to make 

this change, but how we best prepare for it.’’ This is consistent with 

the President’s goals, but it gets things backwards. 

The current Pentagon review should be an objective study of the 

relevant military issues, not an implementation plan. This issue 

that Congress must decide, and the issue the Service Chiefs should 

be asked to give their best military advice about, is whether the 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy should be repealed. We should ask 

that question to our Service personnel at all levels, and their families and genuinely consider their views in our debate. Clearly there 

are many policy and logistical challenges that would have to be 

overcome if the law is repealed, but that should not be the primary 

focus of this review. 

I will continue to insist that we use the next 8 months to study 

not ‘‘how’’ to implement a change to the current policy, but ‘‘whether’’ and ‘‘why’’ the men and women of the Armed Forces—the generals, the officers, the noncommissioned officers, and the privates— 

support or oppose such a change. I would then expect, and I think 

the American people have every right to expect, the views of the 

Service Chiefs to incorporate this critically important information. 

As I have stated before, I am proud and thankful for every American who chooses to put on the uniform of our country and serve 

this Nation, particularly in this time of war. The ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell’’ policy is not perfect, but it reflects a compromise achieved 

with great difficulty that has effectively supported military readiness. However imperfect, the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service. I 

honor their sacrifices, and I honor them. We should not change the 

current policy until we are confident, from a military standpoint, 

with the informed advice of the Service Chiefs, that such a change 

is consistent with military effectiveness. 

I would ask, also, for unanimous consent, that copies of recently 

passed resolutions from the American Legion, the largest veterans 

service organization, with a membership of 3 million veterans, and 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, with a membership over 1,500,000, recommending against repeal of the current 

law, be included in the record. 

Chairman LEVIN. They will be made part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[See Appendix B] 

Senator MCCAIN. Finally, in summary, and I would say to my 

colleagues, we have the best-trained, best-equipped, most professional military that I have known in the many, many years I’ve 

had the honor of serving and knowing men and women in the U.S. 

military. Retention and recruitment is at an all time high in the 

history of the All-Volunteer Force. We are in two wars. Before we 

implement a change in policy that clearly, by objective indicators, 

seems to have given us a best military that we have had in the history of this country, that we ought to have a careful and thorough 

review, not only of the views of the men and women in the military 

6 

who serve at the top, but the views of the men and women who 

are serving today in harm’s way. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

We’ll now turn to General Sheehan. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JOHN J. SHEEHAN, USMC (RET.), 

FORMER SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, ATLANTIC, AND 

FORMER COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. ATLANTIC COMMAND 

General SHEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. If you 

have no objections, I’d like to read my statement—— 

Chairman LEVIN. That’d be fine. Is your mic on? 

General SHEEHAN. It is. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

General SHEEHAN. First, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before this committee on a very complex issue. I’m here not out of 

any political conviction, but because I was asked by this committee 

to share my views as part of the debate in this issue. From my previous experiences with this committee, I know this committee is 

charged with an awesome responsibility that is, in part, shared 

with the Commander in Chief, but the Constitution commits, exclusive to Congress and this body, the responsibility to raise and regulate this Nation’s Armed Forces. 

My point of view and convictions were formed from my experience during 35 years of service as a Marine Corps infantry officer 

who has served in combat, led a platoon, three companies, an infantry battalion, and an infantry regiment. My career also includes 

command of units from 26 different nations. 

My basic belief is that everyone can and should serve this great 

country in some way. We also know and agree that not everybody 

is qualified or eligible to serve in the military, for a variety of reasons, including age, health, education, and so on. 

The 1993 review, which resulted in the adoption of section 654 

of title 10 U.S.C., arrived at a number of findings. The most important in my mind, that there is no constitutional right to serve in 

the Armed Forces. The findings of 1993 also confirmed something 

that my family and I already knew and accepted, which is that 

military life is fundamentally different from civilian life, and that 

military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, 

and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be accepted in normal civilian life. 

I can acknowledge that popular culture has changed in many 

ways. However, the nature and requirements of military life have 

changed very little. Military culture is deliberately developed and 

structured to mold individuals from all walks of life into a coherent 

group that willingly sacrifices self for the strength of the unit. In 

fact, the cohesion of a unit is predicated, in part, on the lack of individuality of its members. No special accommodations need to be 

afforded to anyone of them. To the degree possible, we try to make 

marines interchangeable. This makes the military a unique institution within the broader American society. It asks—no, it really demands—that individuals put aside individual interests and behavior for the good of the unit. Self-sacrifice is the cornerstone of the 

unit cohesion that builds effective combat organizations. 

7 

The ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy, however awkward and difficult, reinforces the critical maxim that, first and foremost, you are 

a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. Your preferences and desires 

are not relevant. Effectiveness in training and mission accomplishment on the battlefield are the standards that you judge them by. 

Because the military is a human institution, it is, by definition, 

imperfect, and there are some who fail to maintain their eligibility 

after entry, thus rendering them ineligible for further service. The 

past good work of servicemembers who are attracted to the same 

sex is an indication of only one thing: that they have been able to 

serve well prior to becoming ineligible. 

To my knowledge, nobody’s making the argument that a man or 

woman being attracted to the same sex debilitates them, either intellectually or physically. The question under review is whether the 

behavior of a person who openly declares a sexual attraction to the 

same sex directly or indirectly contributes to the—or detracts 

from—military cohesion. Make no mistake, this is not about consideration being given to someone who wants to serve in the military 

despite being attracted to the same sex, this particular argument 

has to do with the supposed right to declare oneself to be sexually 

attracted to a particular segment of the population, and insist on 

continuing to live in the most intimate proximity with them. 

If this committee were able to clearly demonstrate that this 

change would improve military effectiveness, then the change 

should be implemented. But, if someone were to insist on implementation because of an ulterior motive other than clear evidence 

and there was an uncertainty about the effect it would have on the 

unit cohesion, then that is a risk I would not recommend or support in today’s environment. 

As we sit here today, U.S. Forces are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting an armed enemy sworn to destroy our way of 

life. Our enemies respect and fear the United States combat capability. Unfortunately, our enemies, especially the extremists, do not 

care how enlightened or progressive our culture may be. The only 

thing that matters is the effectiveness on the battlefield. 

For over 200 years, the Marine Corps and other elite combat formations, like Special Forces, Airborne, and Ranger units, have developed training and performance-based systems that breed success 

in the battlefield. Effective units need to act as a coherent unit. As 

the law says, military life is fundamentally different from a civilian 

life. This is a difficult reality to accept for individuals who have 

never served or had such exposure to our Armed Forces. It goes 

well beyond just wearing a uniform to work on a daily basis. More 

than once, during my military career, the unacceptable behavior of 

one selfish marine has created a single point of failure for his unit 

and endangered lives. In every instance unit polarization occurred 

because of this selfish behavior. 

I also know that some will argue that the circumstances of warfare are different. I would argue that, in many ways, they’re very 

similar. Selfish behavior in Vietnam, Khafji, or Fallujah can affect 

entire units and detract from the success of combat missions. To 

state the obvious, warfare is difficult, ugly business. Congress 

should not impose more uncertainty in a battlefield that is already 

complex enough. 

8 

Each member of this committee must, in his or her own mind, 

feel absolutely certain that the change of the current law will improve this Nation’s combat effectiveness and minimize the risks our 

young men and women face in today’s battlefield. The change must 

also reduce the current environment of a hostile workplace that exists and is increasing today. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of General Sheehan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. JOHN J. SHEEHAN, USMC (RET.) 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee today on a very 

complex issue. I am here not out of any political conviction but because I was invited by this committee to share my views as part of the debate on this issue 

From my previous experiences with this committee I know the committee is 

charged with an awesome responsibility that is in part shared with the Commander 

in Chief. But the Constitution commits exclusively to Congress the responsibility to 

raise and regulate this Nation’s Armed Force. 

My point of view and convictions were formed from my experiences during my 35 

years of service as a Marine Corps infantry officer who has served in combat led 

a platoon, three companies, an infantry battalion, and an infantry regiment. My career also includes command of units from 26 other nations. 

My basic belief is that everyone can and should serve this great country in some 

way, but we also know and can agree that not everyone is qualified or eligible to 

serve in the military for a variety of reasons including age, health education and 

so on. 

The 1993 review which resulted in the adoption of Section 654 arrived at a number of findings; the most important in my mind was that ‘‘there is no constitutional 

right to serve in the armed serves.’’ The findings of 1993 also confirmed something 

that my family and I already knew and accepted which was that ‘‘military life is 

fundamentally different from civilian life; and ‘‘that military society is characterized 

by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on 

personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in normal civilian society.’’ 

We can all acknowledge that popular culture has changed in many ways. However, the nature and requirements of military life have changed very little. Military 

culture is deliberately developed and structured to mold individuals from all walks 

of life into a coherent group that willingly sacrifices self for the strength of the unit. 

In fact, the cohesiveness of a unit is predicated in part on the lack of individuality 

of its members. No special accommodation needs to be afforded any one of them. 

To the degree possible, we try to make Marines interchangeable. This makes the 

military a unique institution within the broader American society. It asks—no, it 

demands—that individuals put aside individual interests and behavior for the good 

of the unit. Self sacrifice is the cornerstone of the unit cohesion that builds effective 

combat organizations. 

DADT policy however awkward and difficult reinforces the critical maxim that 

first and foremost you are a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. Your preferences and 

desires are not relevant. Effectiveness in training and mission accomplishment on 

the battlefield are the standard. 

Because the military is a human institution it is by definition imperfect and there 

are some who fail to maintain their eligibility after entry thus rendering them ineligible for further service. The past good work of servicemembers who are attracted 

to the same sex is an indication of only one thing: that they have been able to serve 

well prior to becoming ineligible. To my knowledge, nobody is making the argument 

that a man or woman being attracted to the same sex debilitates them intellectually 

or physically, 

The question under review is whether the behavior of a person who openly declares a sexual attraction to the same sex directly or indirectly contributes to or detracts from military cohesion. 

Make no mistake; this is not about consideration being given to someone who 

wants to serve in the military despite being attracted to the same sex. This particular argument has to do with a supposed right to declare oneself to be sexually 

attracted to a particular segment of the population and insist on continuing to live 

in the most intimate proximity with them. If this committee were able to clearly 

demonstrate that this change would improve military effectiveness, then the change 

should be implemented. But if someone were to insist on implementation because 

of an ulterior motivation other than clear evidence and there was a uncertainty 

9 

about the effect it would have on unit cohesion, then that is a risk I would not recommend or support in today’s environment. 

As we sit here today, U.S. forces are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting 

an armed enemy sworn to destroy our way of life. Our enemies respect and fear the 

United States’ combat capability. Unfortunately, our enemies especially extremists 

do not care how enlightened or progressive our culture may be. The only thing that 

matters is effectiveness on the field of battle. 

For over 200 years the Marine Corps and other elite combat formations like Special Forces, Airborne and Ranger units have developed training and performance 

based systems that breed success on the battlefield. Effective units need to act as 

a cohesive unit. As the law says, Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life. This is a difficult reality to accept for individuals who have never served 

or had much exposure to our Armed Forces. It goes well beyond wearing your uniform to your day job. 

More than once during my military career the unacceptable behavior of one selfish 

marine has created a single point of failure for his unit and endangered lives. In 

every instance unit polarization occurred because of selfish behavior. 

I also know that some will argue that the circumstances of warfare today are different. I would argue that in many ways they are the same. Selfish behavior in Vietnam, Khafji, and Fallujah can effect entire units and detract from the success of 

combat missions. To state the obvious, warfare is difficult ugly duty. Congress 

should not impose more uncertainty on a battlefield that is already complex enough. 

Each member of this committee must in his or her own mind feel absolutely certain that the change to the current law will improve this Nation’s combat effectiveness and minimize the risks our young men and women face on the battlefield. The 

change also must reduce the current environment of a hostile workplace not increase it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Mr. Almy. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. ALMY, FORMER MAJOR, U.S. AIR 

FORCE 

Mr. ALMY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, Senators. 

My name is Mike Almy. I served as an officer in the United 

States Air Force for 13 years and attained the rank of major, until 

I was discharged under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ I’m honored to be 

here this morning to tell you a little of my story. 

I come from a family with a rich history of military service. My 

father is a West Point graduate, taught chemistry at the Air Force 

Academy, flew helicopters in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a 

senior officer from the Air Force. One of my uncles retired as a 

master gunnery sergeant from the Marine Corps, with service in 

World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Another one of my uncles, also 

with service in Korea, retired from the Army. 

My family’s military service inspired me to follow suit. When I 

was growing up, I didn’t really know what civilians were, I just 

knew I would always follow in my father’s footsteps and become a 

military officer. As such, I joined Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) in 1988, and shortly thereafter earned a scholarship through ROTC. In 1991, I went through Army Airborne training at Fort Benning and earned my jump wings. In 1992, I graduated from ROTC in the top 10 percent of all graduates nationwide. In 1993, I came on active duty, just as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ 

was becoming a law, and was stationed in Mississippi. Following 

this I was stationed in Texas, Illinois, Oklahoma, where I was 

named the top officer of my unit for the year, out of a group of 

about 1,000 people. Following this, I was one of six officers from 

10 

the entire Air Force selected to attend Professional Military Education at Quantico Marine Corps Base, VA. After this, I was stationed in Germany for 4 years, where I led the communications directorate of an air control squadron. 

During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times in 

support of our efforts in Iraq. In my last position in the Air Force, 

I led a team of nearly 200 men and women, whose mission was to 

operate and maintain the systems used to control the airspace over 

Iraq. On this deployment, we came under daily mortar attack, one 

of which struck one of my airmen and also caused significant damage to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment, I was 

named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air 

Force. 

During my time in Iraq, the Air Force restricted access to all private emails. Therefore, we were authorized to use work emails for 

personal and morale purposes. Shortly after I left Iraq, someone in 

the unit that had replaced mine was conducting a routine search 

and discovered my personal emails written to family and friends 

from the stress of a combat zone. The file was clearly labeled personal, and, as such, there was no military or work-related reason 

to search these emails. The commander in Iraq, during the height 

of the insurgency, ordered a search of my personal emails solely to 

determine if I had violated ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ and to gather 

whatever evidence could be used against me. 

These emails were forwarded to my commander back in Germany. He next called me into his office and demanded that I give 

him an explanation for these emails. I refused to discuss the nature 

of these emails, because I considered them personal and private. I 

told my commander I would not make a statement until I had first 

consulted with a lawyer. 

I was relieved of my duties leading nearly 200 airmen; my security clearance was suspended; part of my pay was terminated. Even 

as my commander was relieving me of my duties, he assured me 

that this was in no way a reflection of performance or my abilities 

as an officer. 

After that day, I was in limbo for 16 months. I was still in the 

Air Force, but I was given a meaningless make-work job, while the 

process slowly ground forward. In my discharge proceedings, several of my former troops and one of the squadron commanders that 

I had served with there on the base all wrote letters on my behalf, 

urging that I be retained in the Air Force. They expressed the 

greatest respect for me as an officer, they all wanted me back on 

the job as their leader, and they were all horrified at how the Air 

Force was treating me. 

Ultimately, after 16 months, I was discharged from the Air 

Force. The severance pay that I received from the Air Force was 

half what I would have received had I been discharged for any 

other reason. 

As a final insult, on my last day of Active Duty, I was given a 

police escort from the base as if I were a common criminal or a 

threat to national security. 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ failed me, despite the fact that I upheld 

my end of this law by never disclosing my private life. Never once 

in my 13-year career did I make a statement to the military that 

11 

violated ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ despite pressure from my commander to do so. 

The law also failed the Air Force. There was considerable disruption to my squadron’s unit cohesion after I was fired and replaced 

by a more junior officer with less experience. This had a negative 

effect on morale and unit cohesion, and the mission suffered as a 

result. 

Approximately a year after I was relieved of my position, my 

wing commander recommended that I be promoted to lieutenant 

colonel, even as the Air Force was actively pursuing a discharge 

against me. 

Being relieved from my duties as a 13-year career officer, enduring a 16-month administrative legal proceeding, and finally being 

discharged, was completely devastating to me. I felt betrayed by 

my country and treated as a second-class citizen, even as I had repeatedly risked my life on foreign soil. I understood the constraints 

of living under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ and never imagined that I 

would become a statistic, since I abided by its basic premise of 

never disclosing any aspect of my private life. 

My DD–214 discharge paperwork from the military categorizes 

the reasons for my separation as ‘‘homosexual admission.’’ I refused 

to sign this, because I never acknowledged anything to the military. Anytime I have applied for a Federal job, potential employers 

now see this on my record. I am now considered unfit for military 

service at a time when our Nation has actively recruited convicted 

felons, drug abusers, and high school dropouts. As a result of 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ and how the Air Force discharged me, I am 

now forced to reveal aspects of my private life to complete strangers, or once again lie about why I left the military. 

I only recently decided to come forward with my story as an example of a career of service to our country cut short by this discriminatory law. Multiply my story by nearly 14,000, and you begin 

to understand the magnitude of this law. Since I’ve gone public 

with my story, I’ve received emails thanking me for my service, my 

story, and, more importantly, for giving a voice to those who have 

none on this issue. Some of these servicemembers are currently 

serving in harm’s way. 

My greatest desire now is to return to the Air Force as an officer 

and a leader, protecting the freedoms of a Nation that I love, freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while I was serving 

in the military. This is my calling in life. I hope that you will allow 

this to happen. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Almy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY MICHAEL ALMY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, Senators. 

My name is Mike Almy, I served in the U.S. Air Force for 13 years where I attained the rank of major before I was discharged under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’. I 

am honored to be here today to share my story with you. 

I come from a family with a rich history of military service. My father is a West 

Point graduate, taught chemistry at the Air Force Academy, flew helicopters in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a senior officer from the Air Force. One of my uncles 

retired as a Master Gunnery Sergeant from the Marine Corps, with service in World 

War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Another uncle retired from the Army, with service in 

Korea. 

12 

My family’s military service inspired me to follow suit. When I was growing up 

I didn’t really know what civilians did—I just knew I would follow in my father’s 

footsteps and become a military officer. I joined Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps (ROTC) in 1988, and earned a scholarship through ROTC. In 1991, I went 

through Army Airborne training at Fort Benning where I earned my jump wings. 

In 1992, I graduated from ROTC in the top 10 percent of all graduates nationwide. 

In 1993, I went on active duty, just as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ was becoming a law, 

and was stationed in Mississippi. I then had assignments to Texas, Illinois, and 

Oklahoma, where I was named the Officer of the Year for my unit of nearly 1,000 

people. Next, I was one of six officers selected from the entire Air force to attend 

Professional Military Education at Quantico, VA. Following this, I was stationed in 

Germany for 4 years, where I led the communications directorate for an air control 

squadron. 

During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times in support of our efforts in Iraq. In my last position in the Air Force I led a team of nearly 200 men 

and women who’s mission was to operate and maintain the systems used to control 

the air space over Iraq. On this deployment we came under daily mortar attacks, 

one of which struck one of my airmen and also caused significant damage to our 

equipment. Towards the end of this deployment to Iraq, I was named one of the top 

officers in my career field for the entire Air Force. 

During my time in Iraq, the Air Force restricted access to all private e-mail accounts. As such, we were authorized to use our work e-mail accounts for personal 

or morale purposes. Shortly after I left Iraq and had returned to Germany, someone 

in the unit that replaced mine did a routine search of our computer files for continuity materials and found my personal e-mails, written from a combat zone to 

family and friends, including a person I had dated. Some of these e-mails were forwarded to my commander. In Iraq, during the height of the insurgency, someone 

in the Air Force ordered a search of my private e-mails solely to determine if I had 

violated ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ and to gather whatever evidence could be used 

against me. 

After my unit had been back in Germany for about 6 weeks, my commander called 

me into his office and demanded I give him an explanation of the e-mails. I refused 

to discuss them because I considered them personal and private. I told him I would 

not make a statement until I had first consulted with a lawyer. I was relieved of 

my duties, leading nearly 200 airmen, my security clearance was suspended, and 

part of my pay was terminated. Even as my commander was relieving me of my 

duties, he assured me this was in no way a reflection of my performance or my abilities as an officer. 

After that day, I was in limbo for 16 months. I was still in the Air Force, but 

I was given a meaningless make-work job, while the process ground slowly forward. 

In my discharge proceeding, several of my former troops and one of the squadron 

commanders I worked for on the base wrote letters urging that I be retained. They 

expressed the greatest respect for me as an officer, wanted me back on the job as 

their leader, and were stunned at how the Air Force was treating me. 

Ultimately, after 16 months, I was discharged from the Air Force. The severance 

pay I received from the Air Force was half what it would have been if I had been 

separated for any other reason. As a final insult, on my last day of active duty, I 

was given a police escort off the base, as if I were a common criminal or a threat 

to national security. 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ failed me, despite the fact that I upheld my end of this 

law by never disclosing my private life. Never once in my 13-year career did I make 

a statement to the military that violated ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ despite pressure 

from my commander to do so. 

The law also failed the Air Force. There was a considerable disruption to my 

squadron’s unit cohesion after I was fired and replaced by a far more junior officer, 

with less training and experience. This had a negative effect on morale and unit 

cohesion and the mission suffered as a result. Approximately a year after I was relieved of my duties, my wing commander recommended I be promoted to lieutenant 

colonel, even though the Air Force was actively pursuing a discharge for me. 

Being relieved from my duties as a 13-year career officer, enduring a 16-month 

administrative proceeding, and finally being discharged was devastating to me. I felt 

betrayed by my country and treated as a second-class citizen, after I had repeatedly 

risked my life in its defense on foreign soil. I understood the constraints of living 

under ‘‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’’ and never imagined I would become a statistic, since 

I abided by its basic premise, of never disclosing any aspect of my private life. 

My DD–214 discharge paper from the military categorizes the reason for my separation as ‘‘homosexual admission.’’ I refused to sign this form as I never once acknowledged anything to the military. Any time I have applied for a Federal job, poVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:16 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\57495 JUNE PsN: JUNEB
13 

tential employers now see this on my military record. I am now considered unfit 

for military service, and yet our Nation has actively recruited convicted felons, drug 

abusers, and high school dropouts. As a result of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ and how 

the Air Force discharged me, I am now forced to reveal aspects of my private life 

to complete strangers, or to lie about why I am no longer in the military. 

I only recently decided to tell my story as an example of a career of service to 

this country cut short by this law. Multiply my story by more than 14,000 and you 

begin to understand the magnitude of this discrimination. Since I’ve gone public 

with my story I’ve received numerous e-mails thanking me for giving a voice to 

those who have none on this issue. Some of these servicemembers are currently 

serving in harm’s way. 

My greatest desire now is to return to active duty as an officer and leader in the 

U.S. Air Force, protecting the freedoms of a nation that I love; freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while serving in the military. This is my calling in 

life, please allow that to happen. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Almy. 

Ms. Kopfstein. 

STATEMENT OF JENNY L. KOPFSTEIN, FORMER LIEUTENANT 

JUNIOR GRADE, U.S. NAVY 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

Senators. 

My name is Jenny Kopfstein. I joined the Navy in 1995 when I 

entered the Naval Academy. At the Academy, I majored in physics, 

and I was commissioned in 1999. I served openly as a lesbian officer for 2 years and 4 months before I was discharged under ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell’’ in 2002. 

The Naval Academy teaches you about honor and integrity. It 

places a special emphasis on these values. On the very first day, 

they give you uniforms, shoe polish, Brasso, and begin teaching you 

about the Academy’s Honor Concept. The Honor Concept starts out, 

‘‘Midshipmen are persons of integrity. They do not lie, cheat, or 

steal.’’ 

When I was a senior midshipman, I was an investigator for the 

Honor Staff. I investigated midshipmen who were accused of violating the Honor Concept. This experience brought home to me the 

importance of integrity and just what it means not to lie. 

I graduated from the Naval Academy and became a surface warfare officer. I received orders to the cruiser USS Shiloh. I was excited and happy to go serve on a combatant ship. 

It was difficult being on the ship and having to lie, or tell half 

truths to my shipmates. Under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ answering 

the simplest questions can get you kicked out. If a shipmate asks 

what you did last weekend, you can’t react like a normal human 

being and say, ‘‘Hey, I went to a great new restaurant with my 

partner. You should try it.’’ An answer like that would have gotten 

me kicked out of the Navy. But, if you don’t interact like that with 

your shipmates, they think you’re weird and it undermines working 

together as a team. 

So, after being on the ship for a while, and feeling deeply conflicted between the requirements of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ and the 

Navy’s core values, I wrote a letter to my commanding officer and 

told him I was a lesbian, because I felt like I was being forced to 

lie. I didn’t want to get out of the Navy, and I said so in my letter. 

I wanted to stay and serve honorably, and to maintain my integrity 

by not lying about who I was. 

14 

After I wrote the letter, I continued to do my job on the ship to 

the best of my ability. We went on a 6-month deployment to the 

Middle East. I qualified as Officer of the Deck, and was chosen to 

be Officer of the Deck during general quarters, which is a great 

honor. 

During all this time, I’m proud to say I did not lie. I had come 

out in my letter officially, and I came out slowly over time to my 

shipmates. I expected negative responses. I got none. Everyone I 

talked to was positive, and the universal attitude was that ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell’’ was dumb. I served openly for 2 years and 4 

months. 

One thing that happened during that time was the captain’s 

choosing me to represent the ship in a ship-handling competition. 

I was the only officer chosen from the ship to compete. My sexual 

orientation was known to my shipmates by this time. Nobody 

griped about the captain choosing someone being processed for discharge under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ to represent the ship. Instead, 

a couple of my fellow junior officers congratulated me and wished 

me luck in the competition. I competed by showing the admiral my 

ship-driving skills and won the competition. 

During the time I was serving openly, I earned my Sea Service 

Deployment ribbon, and my Surface Warfare Officer pin. During 

my pin ceremony, the captain took his own pin off his uniform and 

pinned it on mine. That was one of my proudest moments. 

My open service had a positive impact on the ship’s morale. I 

was able to treat my shipmates like human beings, and we could 

interact on a personal level. One time I was walking down the passageway on the ship and a senior chief petty officer stopped me and 

asked, ‘‘Ma’am, may I speak to you for a minute?’’ My first thought 

was, ‘‘Uh-oh, what is this going to be about?’’ We stepped into an 

empty room, and he pulled out his wallet. He showed me a picture 

of a teenage boy, ‘‘This is my son, and he’s gay. I’m really proud 

of him.’’ I was so shocked I didn’t know what to say. Finally, I said, 

‘‘Wow. Thank you, Senior Chief.’’ We could not have had that interaction if I was not out. Normal people interact and talk about their 

families. 

My commanding officer wrote in my fitness report in 2002 that 

my sexual orientation has not disrupted good order and discipline 

onboard the U.S.S. Shiloh. ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ has long been 

defended as necessary to preserve good order and discipline. It 

seems to me that the captain of a ship in the United States Navy 

is the most qualified judge of good order and discipline among his 

crew. 

On my assignment after I left the ship, my new commanding officer awarded me the Navy and Marine Corps achievement medal, 

which is an individual award. He knew about my sexual orientation from the first moment I arrived at his command, but it made 

no difference to him. 

During my service on the ship, I had two captains because there 

was a change of command while I was there. Even though they 

were four grades above me, both of them came and testified at my 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ discharge hearing to say they were opposed 

to kicking me out. 

15 

So, 2 years and 4 months after coming out in my letter and serving openly I was discharged under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ I should 

not be forced to hide who I am. When I was closeted, the pain ate 

away at the core of my being. The crew of my ship was my extended family, and being in the military is not a 9-to-5 job. A lot 

of the time when stationed on board a ship, going home is not even 

an option. I lived, worked, ate, slept, and went on liberty with that 

crew. Keeping parts of my life secret and separate was an incredible burden. It is an unnecessary burden, and no American soldier 

or sailor should be forced to bear it. 

I made a commitment to the Navy when I joined to serve 5 years 

after graduation from the Naval Academy. I’ve only gotten to serve 

3 and a half so far. I want the opportunity to live up to my commitment and serve out the rest of my time with honor. The way I see 

it, I owe the Navy a year and half more. 

There are 66,000 lesbian and gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 

marines who are currently serving this country in our Armed 

Forces. They couldn’t be here today because they are forced to be 

silent. I am here before you as living proof that this law is wrong 

and being forced to serve in silence is wrong. It’s time for a change. 

I love the Navy. I would still be serving but for this law. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kopfstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY JENNY L. KOPFSTEIN

My name is Jenny Kopfstein. I joined the Navy in 1995 when I entered the Naval 

Academy. At the Academy, I majored in Physics, and I was commissioned in 1999. 

I served openly as a lesbian officer for almost 21⁄2 years before I was discharged 

under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)’’ in 2002. 

I wanted to go to the Naval Academy because when I was a kid, I read the book 

Space, by James Michener, and many of the astronauts had come from the Academy. I wanted to have some of the adventures they had. In high school, I was ‘‘recruited’’ by one of the groundskeepers, who was a retired Chief Petty Officer. He 

knew I had an interest in the Navy, so he talked to me about it and steered me 

towards an official Academy recruiter so I could pursue my dream of attending a 

service academy. 

The Naval Academy teaches you about honor and integrity. It places a special emphasis on these values. On the very first day, they give you uniforms, shoe polish 

and Brasso, and begin teaching you about the Academy’s Honor Concept. The Honor 

Concept starts out, ‘‘Midshipmen are persons of integrity: they do not lie, cheat, or 

steal.’’ 

When I was a senior midshipman, I was an investigator for the Honor Staff. I 

investigated midshipmen who were accused of violating the Honor Concept. This experience brought home to me the importance of integrity and just what it means 

not to lie. 

I graduated from the Naval Academy and became a Surface Warfare Officer. I received orders to the cruiser USS Shiloh. I was excited and happy to go serve on 

a combatant ship. 

It was difficult being on the ship and having to lie, or tell half-truths, to my shipmates. Under DADT, answering the simplest questions can get you kicked out. If 

a shipmate asks what you did last weekend, you can’t react like a normal human 

being and say, ‘‘Hey, I went to a great new restaurant with my partner. You should 

try it out.’’ An answer like that would have gotten me kicked out of the Navy. But 

if you don’t interact like that with your shipmates, they think you’re weird, an it 

undermines working together as a team. 

So after being on the ship for a while, I wrote a letter to my commanding officer 

and told him I was a lesbian because I felt like I was being forced to lie. I did not 

want to get out of the Navy. I wanted to stay and serve honorably, and to maintain 

my integrity by not lying about who I was. 

After I wrote the letter, I continued to do my job on the ship to the best of my 

ability. We went on a 6-month deployment to the middle east. I qualified as Officer 

16 

of the Deck, and was chosen to be the Officer of the Deck during General Quarters, 

which is a great honor. 

During all this time, I am proud to say I did not lie. I had come out in my letter 

officially, and I came out slowly over time to my shipmates. I expected negative responses. I got none. Everyone I talked to was positive, and the universal attitude 

was that DADT was dumb. I served openly for 2 years and 4 months. 

One thing that happened during that time was the Captain’s choosing me to represent the ship in a shiphandling competition. I was the only officer chosen from 

the ship to compete. My orientation was known to my shipmates by this time. Nobody griped about the captain choosing someone being processed for discharge under 

DADT and wished me luck in the competition. I competed by showing the admiral 

my ship-driving skills, and won the competition. 

During the time I was serving openly, I earned my Sea Service Deployment ribbon 

and my Surface Warfare Officer pin. During my pin ceremony, the Captain took his 

own pin off of his chest and pinned it on mine. That was one of my proudest moments. 

I tried my best to do my job, and my command was pleased with my work. My 

June 2001 Performance Report included these assessments: 

A ‘‘top notch performer,’’ ‘‘a gifted shiphandler. Shiloh’s strongest Officer 

of the Deck. Possesses an instinctive feel for ship control seldom seen in 

such a junior officer. . . . When she has the deck, there is never any doubt 

who is in control.’’ An ‘‘exceptional legal officer.’’ ‘‘ENS Kopfstein is an outstanding officer.’’ 

My open service had a positive impact on the ship’s morale. I was able to treat 

my shipmates like human beings, and we could interact on a personal level. One 

time I was walking down the passageway on the ship, and a Senior Chief Petty Officer stopped me and asked, ‘‘Ma’am, may I speak to you for a minute?’’ My first 

thought was, ‘‘Uh-oh, what is this going to be about?’’ We stepped into an empty 

room, and he pulled out his wallet. He showed me a picture of a teenage boy: ‘‘This 

is my son, and he’s gay, and I’m really proud of him.’’ I was so shocked, I didn’t 

know what to say. Finally, I said, ‘‘Wow! Thanks, Senior Chief.’’ We could not have 

had that interaction if I was not out. Normal people interact, and talk about their 

families. 

My commanding officer wrote in my Fitness Report in 2002 that my ‘‘sexual orientation has not disrupted good order and discipline onboard USS Shiloh.’’ DADT 

has long been defended as necessary to preserve good order and the captain of a 

ship is the most qualified judge of good order and discipline among his crew. 

On September 11, my ship was in port at the Naval Weapons Station in Seal 

Beach, CA. On that morning, no one knew if further attacks were imminent. We 

received orders to go to sea and defend the coast of California. I was the Ordinance 

Officer, and shortly after it became clear we were being attacked, my first class 

petty officer came running up to me breathlessly. He said, ‘‘Ma’am, request permission to load the guns!’’ With the captain’s permission, I gave the order: ‘‘Load the 

guns.’’ I guarantee you, my first class petty officer was not at all concerned about 

my sexual orientation on that day. We had all trained to do a job, to protect this 

country, and we were going to do it. 

My Grandfather fought in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. On September 

11, I thought of him. My Grandfather surely sacrificed more than I did, as he fought 

the ground war in Belgium in 1944, but I am his blood, and I was ready and willing 

to fight for my country in a time of crisis. 

On my assignment after I left the ship, my new commanding officer awarded me 

the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, which is an individual award. He 

knew about my orientation from the first moment I arrived at his command, but 

it made no difference to him. 

During my service on the ship, I had two captains because there was a change 

of command while I was there. Even though they were four grades above me, both 

of them wanted to come and testify at my DADT discharge hearing to say they were 

opposed to kicking me out. This is what they told the Board: 

Her performance during deployment was ‘‘absolutely solid. She did a 

great job.’’ 

‘‘I think this person has an awful lot to offer the Navy. *** She’s an incredible officer and she has a lot to offer. I think it would be a shame for 

the Service to lose her.’’ 

I should not be forced to hide who I am. When I was closeted, the pain ate away 

at the core of my being. The crew of my ship was my extended family, and being 

in the military is not a 9 to 5 job. A lot of the time when stationed on board a ship, 

going home is not even an option. I lived, worked, ate, slept, and went on liberty 

17 

with that crew. Keeping parts of my life secret, and separate, was an incredible burden. It is an unnecessary burden, and no American sailor or soldier should be forced 

to bear it. 

I made a commitment to the Navy when I joined to serve 5 years after graduation 

from the Naval Academy. I’ve only gotten to serve 31⁄2 years so far. I want the opportunity to live up to my commitment, and serve out the rest of my time with 

honor. The way I see it, I owe the Navy a year and a half more. 

America is a great country. As Steven Decatur famously said, ‘‘My country! May 

she ever be right, but right or wrong, my country.’’ I joined the military to serve 

my country. There are those among us who cannot, for one reason or another, and 

I am proud to say I am the kind of person who would stand up and volunteer my 

service. I felt pride and responsibility every time I put on my uniform. I was humbled by every enlisted person who called me ‘‘Ma’am’’ and looked to me for leadership. 

There are 66,000 lesbian and gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are 

currently serving this country in our Armed Forces. They couldn’t be here today, 

because they are forced to be silent. 

I am here before you as living proof that this law is wrong, and being forced to 

serve in silence is wrong. It is time for a change. I love the Navy, and I would still 

be serving but for this law. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Ms. Kopfstein. 

Let’s try a 7-minute first round. 

We thank all of you for your testimony. 

Mr. Almy, should somebody be forced to be silent about their sexual orientation in the military? 

Mr. ALMY. In my opinion no, Senator. I think the ‘‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell’’ law is inherently in conflict with the Services’ core 

value, as Admiral Mullen reflected in his testimony before this 

committee in a hearing a month ago. 

The principal core value of the Air Force is, ‘‘Integrity First.’’ 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ says that gays and lesbians can serve in the 

military as long as they’re not who they are; as long as they lie 

about who they are. To me, personally, that was in direct violation 

of the core values of the Air Force. 

Chairman LEVIN. So, while you were willing to keep your orientation private, you don’t feel it is the right policy or a fair policy. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. ALMY. Correct, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, would you like to return to the military, 

if you could? 

Mr. ALMY. Absolutely. It’s my greatest desire. It’s my calling in 

life, and I miss the military considerably. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, you’ve been a NATO Supreme Allied 

Commander, and I assume that, as NATO Commander, that you 

discussed the issue with other military leaders of our allies. Is that 

correct? 

General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir. I have. 

Chairman LEVIN. Those allies who allow open service of gay and 

lesbian men and women, did they tell you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems? 

General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir, they did. If you don’t—beg the indulgence. 

Chairman LEVIN. Sure. 

General SHEEHAN. Most of this committee knows that current 

militaries are a product of years of development. They reflect societies that they’re theoretically paid to protect. The European militaries today are a product of the collapse of the Soviet Union. NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:16 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\57495 JUNE PsN: JUNEB
18 

tions, like Belgium, Luxembourg, the Dutch, et cetera, firmly believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability 

in their militaries. As a result, they declared a peace dividend and 

made a conscious effort to socialize their military. That included 

the unionization of their militaries. It included open homosexuality, 

demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were 

going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back. 

That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case 

in point that I’m referring to is when the Dutch were required to 

defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the 

soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World 

War II. 

Chairman LEVIN. Did the Dutch leaders tell you it was because 

there were gay soldiers there? 

General SHEEHAN. It was a combination—— 

Chairman LEVIN. But, did they tell you that? That’s my question. 

General SHEEHAN. Yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. They did? 

General SHEEHAN. They included that as part of the problem. 

Chairman LEVIN. That there were gay soldiers—— 

General SHEEHAN. That their—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—among—— 

General SHEEHAN. The combination—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—the Dutch force. 

General SHEEHAN.—was the liberalization of the military, a net 

effect of, basically, social engineering. 

[After the hearing, General Sheehan submitted the following information as an insert for the record.] 

My response was repeatedly interrupted and I was unable to complete my statement on why U.S. forces have to be different from European force like the Dutch. 

The premise of my response was that U.S. troops have to have a different focus 

and point of view from other militaries because of the need to deploy quickly to isolated worldwide locations, fight on arrival, and win. This unique capability allows 

other nations the opportunity to participate within their capability and national caveats. 

You have to look at a nation’s military forces on a continuum of decisions. Armed 

Forces reflect the choices and priorities of their governments. Issues like unions in 

the military, a focus on peace keeping, emphasis on social programs, et cetera, all 

have an effect positive or negative on unit cohesion and effectiveness. I used 

Srebrenica as an example of the unintended consequence of policies that at the time 

were thought to be acceptable, but in the end did not contribute to unit combat effectiveness. Moreover the rules of engagement in Srebrenica were inappropriate for 

the environment in which the battalion was placed. The battalion was not equipped 

for the threat profile they faced. Most importantly, the political leadership from the 

United Nations on down failed to adjust their mission and rules of engagement for 

the reality on the ground. The failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way 

the fault of the individual soldiers. The corporals and sergeants executed their orders based on the established priorities of the political authorities and the rules of 

engagement. 

Chairman LEVIN. You said that no special accommodations 

should be made for any member of the military. 

General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are members who are straight, who are heterosexual, allowed, in our military, to say that they are straight and 

19 

heterosexual? Are they allowed to say that without being discharged? 

General SHEEHAN. Are they allowed to—— 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. 

General SHEEHAN.—declare the sexuality? 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. Are they allowed to say that, ‘‘Hey, I’m 

straight. I’m heterosexual’’? Can you say that without being discharged? 

General SHEEHAN. There’s no prohibition, to my knowledge. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is that special accommodation to them? 

General SHEEHAN. I wouldn’t consider it special accommodation. 

Chairman LEVIN. Why would it be a special accommodation, 

then, to someone who’s gay, to say, ‘‘Hey, I’m gay’’? Why do you call 

that ‘‘special’’? You don’t call it ‘‘special’’ for someone heterosexual 

or straight. Why do you believe that’s a special accommodation to 

somebody who is gay? 

General SHEEHAN. I think the issue, Senator, that we’re talking 

about really doesn’t have a lot to do with the individuals. It has 

to do with the very nature of combat. Combat is not about individuals, it’s about units. We’re talking about a group of people who declare, openly, sexual attraction to a particular segment of the population, and insist and continue to live in the intimate proximity 

with them. That, by law—— 

Chairman LEVIN. But, you allow that for heterosexuals. 

General SHEEHAN. Yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. You don’t have any problem with that. 

General SHEEHAN. Don’t have a problem with that. 

Chairman LEVIN. You don’t have—— 

General SHEEHAN. But, that—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—any problem with men and women serving together, even though they say that they’re attracted to each other. 

General SHEEHAN. That’s correct. 

Chairman LEVIN. That’s not a special accommodation. 

General SHEEHAN. No. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. But, it is special to allow—— 

General SHEEHAN. It is, because it identifies a group as a special 

group of people who, by law, make them ineligible for further service. 

Chairman LEVIN. But, the whole issue is whether they ought to 

be ineligible. Whether we ought to keep out of—from our—— 

General SHEEHAN. That—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—service—— 

General SHEEHAN. That’s the debate. The current—— 

Chairman LEVIN. Right. 

General SHEEHAN.—the current law clearly says—— 

Chairman LEVIN. I know what the law says. The question is 

whether we ought to change the law. 

General SHEEHAN. My recommendation is no. 

Chairman LEVIN. No, I understand. Can you tell us what Dutch 

officers you talked to who said that Srebrenica—— 

General SHEEHAN. I—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—was in part caused because there were gay 

soldiers in the Dutch Army? 

20 

Chairman LEVIN. The Chief of Staff of the Army, who was fired 

by the Parliament because they couldn’t find anybody else to 

blame. 

Chairman LEVIN. Who was that? 

General SHEEHAN. Hank Von Bremman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Pardon? 

General SHEEHAN. Hank Von Bremman. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. Why is the burden to end a discriminatory policy based on people who would end the discriminatory 

policy? Why do you say that people who want to end the policy 

have to show that it would improve combat effectiveness? If we’re 

satisfied it would not harm combat effectiveness, and for many who 

would be allowed to serve, that they would be then permitted to 

serve without discrimination and without harm, why is that not 

good enough for you? 

General SHEEHAN. Because the force that we have today is probably the finest fighting force in the world. 

Chairman LEVIN. Maybe we could have an equally fine or even 

a better force, but if it’s—— 

General SHEEHAN. No—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—equal—— 

General SHEEHAN.—I think the—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—if it’s equally—— 

General SHEEHAN.—burden of—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—fine—if you could be satisfied that there 

would be no harm to combat cohesion or effectiveness, would that 

be satisfactory to you? 

General SHEEHAN. No, I think it has to be demonstrated, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. That there be an actual improvement. 

General SHEEHAN. That we are—an actual improvement. 

Chairman LEVIN. ‘‘No’’—— 

General SHEEHAN. The reason—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—‘‘harm’’ wouldn’t be good enough for you. 

General SHEEHAN. No, the reason I—— 

Chairman LEVIN. Pardon? 

General SHEEHAN.—the reason I say that, Senator, is because 

we’ve gone through this once before during our lifetime—you were 

in the Senate at the time; it was called ‘‘The Great Society’’—when 

it was deemed that we could bring into the military Category IVs 

and Vs, and help the military out, and make it part of a social experiment. Those Category IVs and Vs almost destroyed the military. 

Chairman LEVIN. I don’t know what that has to do with this 

issue. 

General SHEEHAN. It has to do with the issue of being able to 

demonstrate that the change in policy is going to improve things. 

We were told that this was going to help out combat deployable 

strength. It didn’t. It did just the opposite. It drove people out. So, 

I think the burden has to be on demonstrating that something is 

going to become better, not hoping that it’ll become something better. 

21 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. I think the burden to maintain a discriminatory policy is on the people who maintain the policy, not on the 

people who want to end it. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses. 

I’d like to ask all three witnesses, do you have any objection to 

a thorough, complete review of the present implications of the 

issue, as to whether it’s working or not, and whether it needs to 

be changed, and, if so, how? 

Do you have a problem with that Ms. Kopfstein? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, Senator. I don’t have a problem with a review. I think it’s clear that the law does need to be changed, because it’s unevenly—— 

Senator MCCAIN. But, you don’t have a problem with a review. 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Almy? 

Mr. ALMY. Senator McCain, actually I do. From the standpoint 

that this—— 

Senator MCCAIN. You have a problem with a thorough review—— 

Mr. ALMY. I have problem with—— 

Senator MCCAIN.—taking the input of the men and women in the 

military, the views of the Service Chiefs, as to whether it will enhance battle effectiveness or harm battle effectiveness, whether it 

should be maintained or not. Do you have a problem with that review? 

Mr. ALMY. I do, Senator. From the stand—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Mr. ALMY. From the standpoint that we’ve not done this on any 

other issues of change with the military, as far as, most recently, 

putting women in submarines, women at the Service Academies. 

We did not survey the forces then, under those issues. The military 

is not a democracy. I don’t see this issue as any different, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

General, let me get to the heart of the question here that’s being 

posed by those who want this law reversed. Why isn’t it sufficient 

to argue that sexual orientation is irrelevant to combat skills, and 

that, with proper training and leadership, openly gay or lesbian 

soldiers or marines can be relied on to perform as well as any other 

soldier or marine? 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, in my experience, homosexual marines create problems on the battlefield. Let me give you a case in 

point. 

Early years of Vietnam, 9th Marines, west of Da Nang, rifle company on a ridgeline combat outpost, the intelligence was that the 

North Vietnamese were going to attack that night. The unit was 

put on 50 percent alert, which meant one slept, one stood on watch. 

About 1 o’clock in the morning, a fight broke out in a foxhole because the young marine was being molested by his squad leader. 

To the right of that foxhole, there was a machinegun section that 

opened up and almost killed a combat patrol that was out in the 

front. 

22 

Now, the natural question is, ‘‘Okay. Well, fine, don’t you have 

rules that deal with assault?’’ and the answer to that is yes. 

The real issue, though, was that, after we sorted this whole thing 

out, the squad leader essentially said, ‘‘Look, I was just adjusting 

his equipment, waking him up because I thought there was something out to the front.’’ He denied it happened. The young private 

first class (PFC), who was new to the organization, said, ‘‘Wait a 

minute. This really happened to me. He was molesting me.’’ The 

unit took sides, naturally. The squad leader was a popular person, 

been around for a while. The PFC was a new kid. For about 3 days, 

that unit divided down the middle—those that supported the popular squad leader, those that thought the new kid might be believable. 

The only reason we sorted the issue out was because the sergeant committed the offense about 3 days later. But the real tragedy of this story is the young PFC continually insisted, for a long 

period of time, that nobody in his organization believed it happened. He lost faith in his chain of command. 

So, I would argue the case that, if you look at—and you can say 

that I’m some old guy that’s been around for a while, and been— 

probably been around for too long. But, I read—— 

Senator MCCAIN. You’re not the only one that—— 

General SHEEHAN. Well—but, I read DOD’s recently released 

sexual assault report. The thing that really bothers me about this 

issue is that the report says—and this is last year’s report—there’s 

been an overall 11 percent rise in sexual assaults in the military; 

16 percent rise in Afghanistan and Iraq; 32—over 3,200 cases of 

sexual—we’re not talking about sexual harassment, we’re talking 

about sexual assault. Seven percent of those—that’s about 226— 

male on male assaults, where rape and sodomy took place. DOD 

will clearly indicate that that’s an underreporting. 

I would stipulate that, from my days in Vietnam in the early 

1960s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol 

killed, that a—226 male soldiers and marines who are molested— 

that there’s something wrong with our sexual behavior policy. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, General. 

Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein, each of you was commissioned at 

a time the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy was in effect. While I understand you disagree with the policy and its effect, do you think 

you were confused about its meaning and potential applicability to 

you at the time you began your service? 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, when I came in on Active Duty in 1993, I 

will admit, I think there was a lot of confusion, on a personal level, 

for myself, as well for the Nation and the military as a whole. I 

don’t think—— 

Senator MCCAIN. There was confusion about the—— 

Mr. ALMY. I think—— 

Senator MCCAIN.—‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy? 

Mr. ALMY. I think the policy, when it was first implemented in 

1993, was not well understood. I think there are still issues where 

it’s not. 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you understand it later on? 

Mr. ALMY. After I was relieved of my duties. Yes, Senator. 

23 

Senator MCCAIN. Ms. Kopfstein, were you confused or misled 

about the meaning and applicability of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ at 

the time you began your service? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, Senator. I thought that I would be able to 

live under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ Unfortunately, I found out otherwise, because of the conflict between the core values of the 

Navy—honor, courage, and commitment—and the Navy teaching 

me how wrong it is to lie. To be an officer with integrity means 

that you tell the truth, and you tell the whole truth, even if it’s unpopular. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Although my understanding of the 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy is, you are not asked. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. But, what I am confused about 

here is why there seems to be an objection to a complete, thorough, 

objective review conducted not just on the basis of how to repeal 

the law, which seems to be what the Secretary of Defense stated, 

and what seems to be some sentiment here, but—we’re in two 

wars. I wonder why anyone would object to a thorough, complete 

review as to assess the impact on our military, on our battle effectiveness in two wars, and then allow the Service Chiefs to render 

their best judgment. To continue to suggest a moratorium, which 

is basic to repeal, before that review is conducted is something, 

frankly, that I do not understand in a time that we are in two 

wars. 

I will continue to argue and fight and do whatever I can to make 

sure that we have a thorough and objective review of the impact 

on the military of a change of this law. I think the men and women 

who are serving in the military deserve nothing less. 

I thank you for the time. I yield. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the three witnesses before us today, because I 

think that the testimony you’ve given and the different points of 

views you have on the proposal that I’m privileged to cosponsor 

with others, to repeal ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ really helps to elucidate the differences here. So, it’s been to my way of thinking, a 

constructive discussion. 

I’ve said before in different places, and I’ll say here, that it seems 

to me that, at a time in our country when some of the great institutions of country are held in disrespect—government, business, 

even, to some extent, religious institutions—the military continues 

to earn and get great respect. Part of it is because of the call to 

service, the bravery, the success of our military. But, also, a big 

part of it is that the American military is a unique institution 

which really lives, probably more than any other institution I know 

of in our society, by values. Nobody’s perfect, so people within the 

military break those values, violate them periodically, and they’re 

held to account, under military discipline—good order and discipline, standards, and procedures. 

One of the values is integrity. We’ve talked a lot about that. It 

seems to me that one of the other values, which the American military has historically embraced is e pluribus unum—one out of 

many. The common cause, defense of our security and freedom, is 

24 

the goal that overcomes every diversity. Because the American people are inherently diverse. So, over our history, immigrant groups 

and, more recently—a little bit further back, racial differences— 

were overcome in our military. There was a time that there were 

great fears about what it would mean if African Americans served 

next to caucasian Americans in our military; or women served next 

to men. 

Today, any of us who’ve been privileged to visit bases or battlefields know that the distinctions are gone, for the major reason— 

I’d quote from General Sheehan, ‘‘Military culture is intentionally 

structured to mold individuals from all walks of life into members 

of a unit willing to sacrifice themselves for shared tasks.’’ 

That, I think, is what we’re trying to do here with the repeal of 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ It’s to have gay and lesbian Americans who 

want to serve their country, and incidentally are not being asked— 

I say this respectfully, General Sheehan—like those Category IVs 

and Category Vs to go into the military as some kind of social experiment. They have been held, and they will be held, to the same 

high standards. In fact, as Major Almy said, maybe higher standards in a lot of cases, than others who are applying for the military. 

But, the point I want to get to—and this, I think, is key, and I 

think the various leaders of our military, civilian and uniformed, 

that have come before us have made this point—that repeal of the 

current ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy and law must maintain—it 

can only happen if it maintains the high standards of unit cohesion 

and personal conduct that makes our military so effective. 

So, Major Almy and Lieutenant Kopfstein, they’re not asking for 

special treatment. They’re asking to be treated like every other soldier, basically the way they perform in uniform. 

Here’s the question I want to get to. The episode you gave of the 

sexual assault, General Sheehan, with one man assaulting another 

man—could have easily, and unfortunately does, happen more with 

a man assaulting a woman in uniform. In fact, by your numbers, 

a 3,200-case increase in sexual assaults last year in our military— 

you said 7 percent of them were homosexual. That means 93 percent were heterosexual. 

So, I know there may be fears that if we repeal ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell,’’ there’ll be behavior inconsistent with good order and discipline, including sexual assault. But, if that happens they’ll be 

held to the same account and discipline. 

So, I wanted to ask all three of you to react to that statement, 

that all the rules of conduct in the military will apply, except that 

they’ll not be forced to live a life of lies. They’ll be held accountable, 

as every other marine, soldier, sailor, and airman is held accountable. 

General Sheehan, why don’t you start first. 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, that’s a very thoughtful question. My 

only answer, not that I would have to give you is that when you 

talk about the integration of forces—and I used the current DOD 

statistics; I haven’t seen the details, because all I’ve seen is the 

summary—I think you have to keep in mind that there is a combat 

exclusion for women. We do not put women in a combat situation— 

foxholes, bunkers, and whatever have you. So if we’re talking about 

25 

a 7 percent male-on-male type of a problem—and as you say, the 

remainder is male-on-female—and we put that whole group into a 

combat environment, I think those numbers would significantly increase. That’s my speculation, based on my experience. 

So, I think we need to be very careful about moving to somewhere that we don’t know what the outcome is. We do know that 

the incident rate of sexual assault, not just harassment—is on the 

increase. I think we need to clearly understand why those assaults 

are taking place. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General SHEEHAN. Something is fundamentally different today in 

the military, and I don’t know why. I don’t know whether it’s because the people who are coming in don’t know what their boundaries are. I don’t know whether it’s the educational system that 

we’re putting people through. But, clearly when you have a 16 percent increase in—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

General SHEEHAN.—sexual assault, there’s something that needs 

to be fixed. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Look, it’s a very important question. It may 

have to do with the stress of battle. But, I agree with what you 

said, just to come back to the bottom line. We have the best military in the world. We probably have the best military we’ve ever 

had. I don’t think, respectfully, there’s any basis for saying that, 

if we repeal ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ the number of homosexual assaults will go up. You may be right, but if it goes up, they’ll be disciplined. 

My time is up, but I wonder if I could just, Mr. Chairman, ask 

for a quick response from Major Almy and Lieutenant Kopfstein, 

to my general premise here? 

Mr. ALMY. There is no place in the military today for inappropriate conduct—harassment, assault—straight or gay. That won’t 

change once ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ is repealed. I’ve seen very similar scenarios to what the general described between men and 

women—in fact, probably far more so—and they were dealt with 

swiftly and appropriately and with discipline and punishment. Repealing ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ will have absolutely no effect on 

that. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Lieutenant Kopfstein? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. I agree with Major Almy. The Uniform Code of 

Military Justice applies to everyone, gay and straight. Misconduct 

and inappropriate behavior are dealt with in the military. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Sheehan, Mr. Almy, and Ms. Kopfstein, I’d first like to 

thank each of you for being here today and appearing before the 

committee. This is an issue that is very sensitive, and, frankly, it 

takes courage for all three of you to be here to talk about this in 

public. As this debate continues, it’ll be imperative that we hear 

from many other folks who share the same thoughts as each of you 

do. Again, thank you for coming. Thank you for your service to our 

26 

country. The fact that all of you served honorably should not be 

lost in this discussion. 

Mr. Chairman, you alluded, earlier, to some polling numbers of 

the general public in America. Let me share with the committee, 

and enter into the record, some polling numbers of United States 

military members. 

The Army Times, in February 2010, just last month, published 

a poll of a survey conducted in November 2009. Here’s what they 

found: 54 percent of military members thought the current policy 

was effective in maintaining order and discipline; 21 percent 

thought it was ineffective—a 33 percent differential. Fifty-three 

percent of military members thought the current policy was effective in maintaining unit cohesion; 22 percent thought it was ineffective—again, a 31 percent differential. Fifty percent of military 

members said they would be uncomfortable sharing a small tent or 

combat outpost with openly homosexual soldiers; 36 percent said 

they would be comfortable. Fifty-two percent of military members 

said they would be uncomfortable sharing a barracks room with 

openly homosexual soldiers; 35 percent said they’d be comfortable. 

Fifty-two percent of the military members said they would be uncomfortable sharing the bunk above or below an openly homosexual 

soldier; 34 percent said they would be comfortable. 

In today’s political world, anyone who wins by 10 percent is considered to have had a landslide victory. On each one of those questions asked to the military, the people that truly count in this 

equation and on this issue, the margin of distinction is obviously 

significantly different. 

Let me ask a question to each one of you. I’d like to give you an 

opportunity to answer this. My fundamental argument against repealing this policy has been that it will likely negatively affect morale, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and readiness. 

Let’s start with you, Ms. Kopfstein. What’s your opinion on that 

particular aspect of service to our military? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I’m not an expert on polling, but I do 

know the Army Times poll was conducted in a nonscientific way. 

I’ll give you an example from my personal experience. When I 

was on the ship, I had two captains; there was a change of command. So, we had a change-of-command party at my first captain’s 

house. He came into the wardroom, he announced the party, and 

he said, ‘‘Everyone’s invited—every officer is invited and everyone 

is allowed to bring their spouse or date.’’ I didn’t think too much 

of that at the time. I was serving openly, because I had already 

come out, and the captain of my ship specifically came up to me, 

after making that announcement in the wardroom, and said, 

‘‘Ordo,’’ because I was the ordinance officer, ‘‘you’re allowed to 

bring whoever you want to bring to the party at my house.’’ I was 

stunned. But, since it came right out of the mouth of my commanding officer, I took my partner to that party. When we arrived 

at the front door, the captain and his wife were standing at the 

door, greeting each guest as we came in. They greeted us warmly. 

We went inside, got a plate of food and a cocktail, and all of my 

fellow officers and their spouses were very pleased that we were 

there. Not all of them had met my partner at that point. They all 

27 

wanted to talk to us, and frankly, we were the life of the party. 

[Laughter.] 

I met my new commanding officer at that party, and he was very 

happy to meet me and my partner. It was a very normal cocktail 

party, and that was my experience. My shipmates were very accepting of me. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Mr. Almy? 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, in my experience, what had a far more negative effect in my unit was when I was relieved of my duties. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I’m sorry. Could you talk just a little louder, 

please? 

Mr. ALMY. Yes, Senator. What had a far greater negative effect 

on my unit was when I was relieved of my duties. Subsequently— 

while it’s true that I was not ‘‘out’’ to my entire unit, subsequently, 

afterwards, when I had some of troops write letters of reference for 

me, it was a complete nonissue for my troops. They all wanted me 

back on the job as their leader, and didn’t care one bit. 

The young men and women that are coming into the military 

today, fresh out of high school or college, have grown up with gay 

and lesbian characters on TV, have known gays and lesbians in 

their schools, in their communities, on their sports teams, and most 

assuredly in their military. Nearly everyone in their 20s and 30s 

today serving in the military knows of at least someone who’s gay 

or lesbian in their unit, and oftentimes these people are serving 

openly, with no negative or detrimental effects to their unit. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Okay. 

General Sheehan. 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, as I have testified, from personal experience in leading units in combat, this is a very risky proposition 

of an—including openly gay homosexual people in combat organizations. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Do you have any reason to believe that that 

is unique to the Marine Corps, versus other branches of the military? 

General SHEEHAN. I used to be what they call, 2IC, second in 

charge, Whiskey Company, O1 Commando, Royal Marines, and I 

was a physical fitness instructor with Special Operations at Fort 

Bragg, NC. I can assure you those two organizations, from personal 

experience, share my views. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Yes. General, in my view, many of our potential military recruits come from traditional families whose religious and moral beliefs likely conflict with practice of homosexuality. If the military allows open homosexual service in the core 

group of our military, who, by and large, have a traditional world 

view, are now pressured to accept such conduct, and in conduct 

consider it normal, and accommodate it within the military, what 

effect might that have on recruiting and retaining individuals from 

that core group? 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, I can’t comment on hypothetical situations. I know that speculative people have talked about mass exodus, et cetera, but I have no data to say that. My instincts say that 

there is an element of truth in your statement, but I have no hard 

data that would indicate I could give you a number but I do know 

28 

it would not sit well. But as the Major has indicated, there is an 

increasing acceptance of homosexuals in the military. People do 

know homosexuals. The real issue is not about the individuals; it’s 

the effect on combat cohesion and performance in the battlefield. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Yes. 

My time is up. 

Major Almy, I would simply say to you that you came in the military knowing what the rules were, and you tried to abide by the 

rules, and it’s unfortunate that, as you were trying to abide by the 

rules, that, because of personal intrusion—or intrusion into your 

personal email account, this arose; otherwise, you probably would 

still be serving, under current law, very valiantly. 

Again, to all of you, thank you for your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to just thank you for your testimony today, and your 

service. 

Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein, although the policy is referred to 

as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ as the law is currently written, members 

of the Armed Forces are involuntarily separated, regardless of how 

their sexual orientation is disclosed. Under existing law, the quality of your service does not serve as the criteria for retention due 

to a presumed disruption to unit cohesion and discipline. During 

your discharge proceedings, what impact did the recommendations 

from your leadership within your chain of command have on the 

decision to involuntarily separate you from your Service? I think, 

Mr. Almy, you were speaking about that. 

Mr. ALMY. Thank you, Senator. To my knowledge, it made absolutely no effect whatsoever on the Air Force’s decision to retain me. 

I had commanders that I had served with. I had superiors, peers, 

and subordinates, all alike, who knew my record, who knew my 

achievements as an officer, and supported me, and, even though 

they knew the full story, they still wanted me retained in the Air 

Force, and still wanted me back as their leader. To my knowledge, 

that had zero affect on the Air Force’s decision whether or not to 

retain me. 

Senator HAGAN. Ma’am? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, in my case, I was honored and lucky 

that both of my commanding officers came to my discharge board. 

They were not required to do so. They took time out of their busy 

schedules to come and testify on my behalf. 

The board—under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ its hands were basically tied. I had made an admission, and despite the vociferous recommendations of both of my commanding officers, two O6s, the 

board’s hands were tied and they had to vote to discharge me. 

Senator HAGAN. Mr. Almy, in your earlier discussion, I think you 

were talking about almost like a generational feeling of acceptance, 

more from the younger generation than the older generation, for 

homosexuals in the military. Can you elaborate on that? 

Ma’am, too. 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, I think you probably hit the nail on the head 

there. In my personal experience, this is a generational issue. I 

29 

have great respect for General Sheehan, for his leadership and his 

sacrifice to our Nation. From what I’ve seen, a lot of senior officers, 

senior military leaders from that generation, are the ones that are 

holding on to maintaining ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ with notable exceptions—Admiral Mullen, General Powell, General Shalikashvili. 

In my experiences, and that of my peers, the young men and 

women coming into the military today, the 20-somethings and most 

of the 30-somethings, which is the large demographic in the military—for that group of people, this is largely a nonissue. Obviously 

there are some exceptions, but, as I stated earlier, that generation 

of men and women are far more comfortable with gays and lesbians, because chances are that they know one. 

Senator HAGAN. General Sheehan, do you have any feelings on 

the generational attitudes? 

General SHEEHAN. I absolutely admit that I am old——[Laughter.] 

Senator HAGAN. We all are. 

General SHEEHAN.—and that my views are formed by 35 years 

of leadership in a multinational environment, U.S. troops, all Services. I think that, to say that those points of view count less than 

a younger generation, doesn’t really look at the issue in its totality. 

I think that the points that Senator McCain made, about the necessity for a true review of what—this issue—would be very helpful, 

because there are an awful lot of opinions. Some of my opinions are 

exactly what they are, they’re my opinions, based on experience, 

but they don’t, in all cases, reflect what reality really is. 

So, I think that, as we go through this process, as I said in my 

remarks, if you can demonstrate this, that it would improve combat 

capability, clearly demonstrate, then change the law. But, it ought 

to be based on fact those facts come from junior people, senior people, especially people at the company gunnery sergeant, first sergeant level, who lead these kids on a day-to-day basis. 

Senator HAGAN. Ma’am? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I agree with Major Almy. The younger 

generation definitely has a different view on this issue. 

I’ll give you a personal story. I certainly don’t have the General’s 

experience, but, on September 11, 2001, my ship was in port, in 

Seal Beach, CA, when we were attacked. I was standing in the 

wardroom, watching the television, watching events unfold. One of 

the young petty officers that worked for me ran into the wardroom 

and said, ‘‘Ma’am. Ma’am. Request permission to load the guns.’’ I 

was the ordinance officer, so I was responsible for our antiaircraft 

and self-defense weapons. So, I turned to the captain, and I said, 

‘‘Sir, request permission to load the guns.’’ He said, ‘‘Permission 

granted,’’ and we did. I can tell you, for a fact, in that moment, neither my captain nor the petty officer that worked for me cared one 

whit about my sexuality. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

The phrase ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ implies a mutual agreement, 

where the Services would not inquire about the sexual preferences 

of our members, and the military personnel would not publicly articulate your sexual orientation. However, under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell,’’ we still have instances of very capable servicemembers being 

30 

involuntarily separated due to investigations initiated on tips provided by third parties. 

Mr. Almy, in your situation, do you believe that private correspondence, via email, while deployed constitutes a breach of the 

existing policy? Or do you believe that your case serves as an illustration of how the policy is flawed? 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, I think it’s probably a little of both. I didn’t 

tell, the Air Force asked, and I refused to answer the question. So, 

I think, while it’s true I never made a personal—or a public statement to the military, I was still thrown out. I think that illustrates 

a flawed implementation of the current law. My understanding of 

what Secretary Gates has called for review, as far as the so-called 

‘‘third-party outings,’’ would have had a direct bearing on my case. 

In all likelihood, I would still be on Active Duty. 

Beyond that, I think it also illustrates that this law is just making our Nation and our military weaker by discharging qualified 

men and women who are patriotic and whose only crime happens 

to be that they might be gay or lesbian. All the while, we’re actively recruiting people who are under-qualified to fill some of 

those vacancies. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, all of you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for your distinguished service to our 

country and for your willingness to appear today in front of us and 

give us your thoughts on this very important matter. 

As has already noted, we are fighting two wars. We have to, I 

think, be very concerned about readiness, combat effectiveness, cohesion, recruitment, retention, all those issues. This would, of 

course, represent a very significant change from a policy that’s 

been well-established for some time, and by all indications, with 

some exceptions, has worked quite well. So, it’s something that I 

think needs to be very carefully considered before any sort of a 

change is made. 

I would ask this question of you, General Sheehan. Secretary 

Gates, last month, established this—as we all know, a high-level 

working group within DOD to review the issues associated with 

properly implementing a repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ The 

working group is to produce its findings and recommendations in 

the form of an implementation plan by December 1 of this year. 

Secretary Gates subsequently provided what he called ‘‘the terms 

of reference’’ for this working group. I don’t know how familiar you 

are with those, but do you believe that ‘‘the terms of reference’’ that 

are provided by the Secretary will permit a fair review of the issue, 

or are there elements that, in your opinion, are missing from ‘‘the 

terms of reference,’’ that should be included? 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, I have not read ‘‘the terms of reference’’ for that particular report. My only comment would be is, 

on an issue that is this serious, it clearly has to be a fair, honest, 

open evaluation. 

The second comment I would make is that, as this report comes 

close to finalization, that there be a genuine dialogue between the 

Service Chiefs, this committee, and the Secretary, so this doesn’t 

31 

become a sensationalized event. This is too serious an event to be 

left to a political event. 

Number one, the report has to be absolutely scrupulously aboveboard, not biased. Again, I have to assume that Senator McCain is 

correct, because he usually is in most of these issues—is that if the 

report is biased toward ‘‘how to,’’ then I think it’s flawed to begin 

with. 

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Let me direct this question to the entire panel. Admiral Mullen 

has made it clear that he supports the repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell,’’ but we’ve also heard from some of the Service Chiefs that 

they want the current policy to remain in place. General Conway, 

who’s the Commandant of the Marine Corps, said in testimony before this committee that: ‘‘My best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and the President, would be to keep the 

law such as it is.’’ General Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, 

has said that: ‘‘This is not the time to perturb a force that is 

stretched by combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and important missions elsewhere, without due deliberation.’’ General 

Casey has also weighed in on that issue in that direction. 

I guess the question I would ask all of you is, how should we 

weigh the fact that there isn’t a consensus among the Service 

Chiefs with regard to the issue of repealing ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’? 

General, if you want to start—— 

General SHEEHAN. I think that’s the value, Senator, of having 

this unbiased report. That starts the basis of a real dialogue. As 

I said before, I would hope that as the report becomes final, that 

it becomes a real discussion between this committee, the Service 

Chiefs, and the secretariat. So, I would hope, out of that process, 

you would then be able to make an informed decision that’s based 

on fact, not opinion. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

Major? 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, my understanding is that Secretary Donley, 

the Secretary of the Air Force, has basically contradicted General 

Schwartz and said that now is the time for repeal. I understand 

that there is some disagreement among the Service Chiefs, among 

the Secretaries. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullens have both 

called for repeal, as well as for the study of how to repeal ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ 

From my own limited understanding of this, there’s been ample 

research, both within the military and academia, from the militaries of foreign nations that have dealt with this issue, and they 

all showed that this was basically a nonissue. If you talk to the 

leadership of foreign militaries that have already dealt with this 

and have implemented repeal, they will all tell you that it was a 

great success. I think that to say that America is any less, that we 

have a less capable military of dealing with this issue, or a less 

professional force, I just think it’s simply not true. Clearly we have 

the greatest military in the world, and I think that this is an issue 

that we can deal with. Quite frankly, I think a few years from now 

we’re going to look back on this and say: ‘‘What was all the fuss 

about?’’ 

Senator THUNE. Ms. Kopfstein. 

32 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I agree that our military is the most 

professional, most capable military in the world. Repeal of this law 

will be a nonevent. The Service Chiefs have recommended against 

repeal, and there may be some division, but Congress is the final 

decisionmaker. The law is wrong, and it’s unevenly applied. We’re 

Americans too, and we just want to serve. 

Senator THUNE. I think the Service Chiefs have—as I have noted 

here, there’s consensus among the Service Chiefs that it should not 

be repealed. There may be others in the administration, I know I’m 

aware of, that have a different view of that, but that, I think, is 

an important consideration obviously we have to weigh too as we 

evaluate this. 

General, at the same time that Secretary Gates has stood up this 

working group to study how to implement repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell,’’ he’s also asked DOD lawyers to come back in 45 days 

with proposed changes on how to, within existing law, enforce this 

policy in a more humane and fair manner. That is a different approach to this issue, and that is, that we should be seeking ways 

to update or improve ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ rather than throw it 

out. Are there any approaches that we, as Congress, could take to 

improve the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ statute, rather than taking 

what would be a very significant and dramatic departure from existing policy and repeal it altogether? 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, I think that, because of the scope of 

the responsibility of this committee, you have a lot of opportunities, 

in various bills and things that come before this committee, to do 

three things. First, I think that, as we’ve discussed, and in this 

‘‘terms of reference’’ for this study, to make sure it’s absolutely 

scrupulously honest and organized. 

Second, is that ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ as a policy, is very, very 

imperfect. I think Congress recognized that when it passed the 

1993 law. They knew there were going to be ambiguities, and they 

knew that is was going to lead to problems, and that’s why it didn’t 

include it in the law. 

Over the last 5, 10 years since it was passed, there has been 

being built, in the public’s mind, a perception of inevitability that 

this law is going to get changed. That, I think, in turn, leads to 

young men and women who think they’re going to come into the 

military and the law’s going to be changed on their watch. It may 

ultimately be changed, but not necessarily on their watch. That 

puts them in a very difficult position, because they come in with 

the expectation that this law is going to change. 

I think that one of the things this committee could do is take a 

neutral position that says, ‘‘We’re examining this law’’ that says, 

‘‘It should be’’—or not—or that it—‘‘to investigate whether it is— 

should be changed,’’ not that ‘‘is going to be changed,’’ because 

you’re creating, in the minds of young Americans, not a false expectation, but a hope that may not be realized. 

The last comment I would make is that, in order to understand 

sexual behavior in the military, you can’t do that in just the isolation of the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ clause. As I said earlier in my 

remarks, there is something that—going on within the American 

military today that is fundamentally flawed, when you have a 16 

percent increase in sexual assaults in a combat zone. I don’t know 

33 

what the cause of that is, but as you investigate—all things kind 

of come together in one pot. So, if you try to parse this out and just 

deal with this, I think you’ll come up at an imperfect solution. 

I think this committee has a tremendous responsibility and a tremendous opportunity to rise above the political debate and do 

something that is really helpful to the American military. 

So I would recommend those three things: one, a clear statement 

of what the purpose of this study is; two, tampen down the expectations what allows young kids to come in, thinking that something’s 

going to be different tomorrow morning, when it may not be; and 

three, understand—truly understand—where we’re going with the 

sexuality in the American military, because it is a problem, a real 

problem. 

Senator THUNE. We need as candid and honest of assessments as 

we can possibly get about the impacts. In my judgment, bottom line 

is readiness, effectiveness, all those issues as we evaluate this. 

We appreciate all of your candor, and your being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Senator Burris. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to add my thanks to all three witnesses, who certainly 

have served this country well, and protected us. I just want to try 

to raise some questions. 

General, I will challenge you and the rest on age. I’m pretty 

much your age. If you’ve served 35 years in, I think that you 

have—— 

General SHEEHAN. Sir, I’ll concede to you. 

Senator BURRIS. I’m sorry? 

General SHEEHAN. I will concede age to you. [Laughter.] 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you. I can remember, General, when I 

was attorney general of my State, how difficult it was for me to 

make a change. But, on my staff there was a young lesbian lady 

who would sit down with me each day and explain to me the problems, of persons who were lesbian or gay, that never occurred to 

me because I grew up in a different era. We talked about them, we 

laughed about them. It was all these derogatory terms that we 

used to use. 

General, it also deals with the racial question. Do you know a fellow named Jackie Robinson? You ever heard of him? You talk 

about the brightest and the best. We don’t know if we have the 

brightest and the best serving in our Military Service until we let 

everyone serve with their best distinction, best ability. The brightest and the best may not be. 

You hear of a couple tennis players named the Williams sisters? 

You ever heard of the young man who had a little personal problem 

called Tiger Woods? We didn’t know how golf really could be until 

a black person got into the competition. They were all eliminated 

from the game of golf. They were all eliminated from the game of 

baseball, General. They were all eliminated from all types of sports 

which were for whites only. Now, we’re saying the military is for 

straights only. 

General, I think that we need to put a moratorium on this situation right now. Don’t let anyone be discharged from the military beVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:16 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\57495 JUNE PsN: JUNEB
34 

cause of their sexual orientation until we can change this law, 

which I’m certainly supporting as a cosponsor on Senator 

Lieberman’s bill to change the law. 

But, General, could you give me a little insight of your background? Did you ever command black soldiers under your command? 

General SHEEHAN. Sir, the American military has been integrated since President Truman was a President of the United—— 

Senator BURRIS. 1947, by executive order, sir. 

General SHEEHAN. I have never commanded a unit that there 

were not Hispanics, blacks, whites, and Orientals. At one time during the Vietnam war, as both Senator Lieberman and the Chairman will remember, 65 percent of my rifle companies were black. 

They sustained 40 percent of the casualties in Vietnam. They understand what it means to be in harm’s way. So, race in the military is not an issue. This institution that I represent—— 

Senator BURRIS. Pardon me, General, I have to interrupt you. 

General SHEEHAN.—has the finest record of integration than any 

institution in this country of ours. 

Senator BURRIS. Absolutely. How long did it take that to take 

place? What happened in World War II, with my uncles and my 

uncles-in-law when they were discriminated against? Prisoners 

were being brought back from Germany, and the black soldiers 

that were guarding them couldn’t even ride in their cars, they were 

put back in the back cars because of the color of their skin. That’s 

how far America has come. For you to now command those men, 

and they’re fighting and dying for us, and at one time, because of 

the color of their skin, they could not serve this country. They 

fought and clawed to get there, to have an opportunity to serve. 

These are the same things with the gay and lesbian people. They 

want to serve. That’s all they’re asking. 

Continue, General, I’m sorry. 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, I think that if you go back to the 

1993 discussions and hearings on ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ there’s a 

very rich history of discussion with Cal Waller, Colin Powell, and 

the committee about this very issue, when Congressman Pat 

Schroeder was trying to equate this to a racial issue. Both Cal 

Waller and Colin Powell objected strenuously to the analogy. Many 

of the black leaders and the black marines that I was with at the 

time objected to the concept that their civil rights movement was 

being hijacked by gays and lesbians. I’m not an expert on this 

issue. But, I will only defer to both Cal Waller and Colin Powell, 

and refer this good Senator to their testimony back in 1993. 

Senator BURRIS. Do you know what Colin Powell’s position is 

now on gays serving in the military, General? 

General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir, I do. He has said that he thinks it’s 

time to conduct this review. He has deferred to the Service Chiefs 

on their position and essentially says, ‘‘If they are for changing the 

law,’’ he will support that. 

Senator BURRIS. I’m sorry. I think we just have correction on the 

record. My understanding is, the General says that it’s time to end 

this ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy. That’s what my understanding 

of the retired Joint Chief of Staff’s position is. But, we can certainly 

double check that. 

35 

Do you have any statistics, General, on how many heterosexual 

rapes there are in the military? 

General SHEEHAN. The last report I saw, Senator, was the numbers that I quoted, that 87 percent of the 3,200-something were 

male-on-female. 

Senator BURRIS. So then there could be male-on-male or femaleon-male. In other words—— 

General SHEEHAN. The male-on-male is 7 percent of that—— 

Senator BURRIS. Yes. 

General SHEEHAN.—number. So—but, again, as DOD says, that’s 

an underreported statistic, so the number—the actual number may 

be—— 

Senator BURRIS. Sure. 

General SHEEHAN.—a lot larger. 

Senator BURRIS. You’re probably correct, and based on that, General, there are heterosexual rapes in the military, as well as there 

probably would be if—that takes place under young people as in 

our natural society. They’re still human beings. God forbid, there 

will be probably homosexual, unfortunately, rapes in the military. 

I mean, that’s not any reason for them not to be able to serve openly and forthrightly. 

My time is up, but I’m going to hope there’s a second round, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I want to commend these two brave men and women who put 

their life on the line and, for no reason of their own, they were discharged from the military because of their sexual orientation. I 

suggest that we have a stop order issued on anyone else being discharged at this point until this situation is satisfied. 

Very quickly, Major Almy, would you agree to that, that we probably should stop right now, so that none of your colleagues who are 

being investigated right now should be discharged? 

Mr. ALMY. I would agree, Senator. Any further man or woman 

that’s discharged under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’—just because of 

who they are, I think is an unacceptable loss to our military. 

Senator BURRIS. What would you say, Lieutenant? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I agree. No one should be separated 

from the military anymore because of this antiquated law, but it 

does need to be repealed in full. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Burris. 

Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I think the data you just used needs some clarification, 

in terms of African American casualties in Vietnam. With all due 

respect to everyone who served—and I grew up in the military. I 

grew up in the military at a time when it had been racially integrated. I’m very proud of everybody’s service. But, I’ve done a lot 

of writing and reporting on this issue, including 4 years on the 

House Veterans Committee as a committee counsel years ago. The 

statistics that we had at that time were that African Americans 

were about 13 percent of the age group, about 12 percent of the 

people in the military, and about 12 percent of the casualties, and 

about 10 percent of those killed in action. So, they certainly did 

36 

their share, along with everyone else. But, if you’re saying 40 percent, you may be talking about one rifle company at one particular 

piece of time, or something. I don’t know where that came from. 

General SHEEHAN. No, sir. The 40 percent number comes from a 

study that was done on those that were inducted into the military 

during the Project 100,000 era. 

Senator WEBB. So, you’re talking about—— 

General SHEEHAN. I’m talking about a specific group of people 

during that—— 

Senator WEBB. The Project 100,000—— 

General SHEEHAN. Project 100,000—— 

Senator WEBB.—draftee—— 

General SHEEHAN.—draftees that were brought—— 

Senator WEBB.—the casualties among that—— 

General SHEEHAN. Yes. 

Senator WEBB.—group. 

General SHEEHAN. Right. 

Senator WEBB. Well, now what I’m talking about is the overall—— 

General SHEEHAN. Yes, sir. I—— 

Senator WEBB.—casualties. So, now—— 

General SHEEHAN. Yes—— 

Senator WEBB.—this is—— 

General SHEEHAN.—yes, sir. 

Senator WEBB.—it’s clearly not a hearing about that issue, but— 

I think that what you said could have been misunderstood by a lot 

of people walking out of the room, and—— 

General SHEEHAN. Okay. 

Senator WEBB.—need to be clear on it. 

General SHEEHAN. Thank you for—— 

Senator WEBB. Let me—— 

General SHEEHAN.—the correction. 

Senator WEBB. Let me get into the subject of our discussion 

today. 

First, I’d like to express my appreciation for all of you for your 

testimony. I think the issues that were being discussed from your 

two perspectives are very much the issues of integrity, which is 

what Admiral Mullen was bringing to the table. I’ve known him 

since I was 18 years old. I have a great respect for his views on 

this. I’ve known General Sheehan for many years, and I think the 

validity of discussing the unique culture and environment in the 

military, and particularly the operational military, is something 

that really has to be also put on the table here. 

There can be nothing more important, in my view—and I think 

John McCain and I share this concern—than ensuring that, in this 

type of a process, that the military be allowed to report to the political side. 

General Sheehan, you’ll recall when you were Deputy Secretary 

Taft’s military aide and I was Secretary of the Navy. I had come 

under a number of questions, during my confirmation hearing, 

about my views on women in combat. A big part of my frustration 

during that period was the political process telling the military how 

to do its actual functions. So I convened a study: 14 males, 14 females, officer and enlisted, who went out and examined this issue 

37 

and then reported, not back to me, but through the warfare chiefs, 

then to the Chief of Naval Operations. All of them reporting—the 

military reported to the political process, and we opened up more 

billets to women than any Secretary of the Navy in history. But, 

we did it in a way where the military itself was invested in the end 

result. 

That’s why I believe that the nature of this survey that has been 

announced, defining it is so vital to addressing this issue. I think 

we need to review the state of play here so that we know we’re on 

the table. 

Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, when they announced their 

decision in front of our committee, they did say they wanted to take 

this time period to examine the issue and then report to this committee about whether this law should be reappealed. I asked them, 

after they had made their testimony, if that was clear. The answer 

was yes, that this was clear. 

So, General, your comment about our body, here, ensuring that 

we would be viewed objectively, is very important. 

The other part of this is, the study that was done in 1993 did 

not really examine attitudes in the military. We’ve had a lot of anecdotal comments today—and they’re valuable, in terms of understanding the issue—but we need the data, we need to be able to 

see, not in a political way, and not simply as to how this policy 

would be implemented, but in a way that we can understand the 

attitudinal characteristics in play—by age, by officer or enlisted, by 

Service; in many cases, I think, by occupational specialties—so we 

will truly have a matrix here in terms of understanding attitudes 

in the military. 

I don’t know where that will go. It may surprise you, General. 

I have no idea where it’s going to go, but it’s a vital piece, in my 

view, of moving this issue forward in the right way. Based on that, 

I believe we can come to a considered and intelligent decision. They 

may even go into distinctions based on types of units, General, 

something that you were referring to. I don’t want to predict at all 

where this is going to go. I just think that it is vital that we can 

say to the people in the military, and the American people, that 

we’ve been responsible in terms of how a decision has been made. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Webb. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, to all three of you. This is a delicate and sensitive 

topic. I commend the courage all three of you have shown in coming here today and sharing your point of view. 

General, before I direct a set of questions at you, and then follow 

with Mr. Almy and Ms. Kopfstein, I wanted to just make an editorial comment from one Senator. I am in the camp that thinks it’s 

time to repeal ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ It’s not whether, it’s how 

and when. I understand the need to study ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ 

in order to implement it. But, I share a deep concern that, if we 

continue the policy that’s in place, hearing the stories I’ve heard 

today, you have to ask the question who is going to be the last 

servicemember—maybe I should say patriot, frankly—to be disVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:16 Jul 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\57495 JUNE PsN: JUNEB
38 

charged under what I think is an outdated policy. I just want to 

make that clear for the record. 

General, let me turn, as I suggested I would, to you. I’m aware 

of about a dozen studies, that go back at least two decades, that 

show that there is no scientific evidence to back the assertion that 

open service is a detriment to unit cohesion and good order and 

morale. Are you aware of any reputable scientific study that does? 

Is there a study out there, to say it another way, from a reputable 

source, that lays out and gives weight to your belief that gays and 

lesbians are a threat to the military and its readiness? 

General SHEEHAN. Senator, the answer to that is no. As I said 

in my statement, my conclusions are based on combat experience 

and leadership. 

Senator UDALL. You said that we ought to prove that open service improves military effectiveness, and you did also mention this 

shouldn’t be about enlightenment, and there is a different standard 

to serve in the military than there is, if you will, to be a United 

States citizen. I agree completely, this isn’t, for me, about feeling 

good or feeling like we’re pushing society to be more open. For me, 

it is that we’re in a situation where we have 14,000 Americans who 

have been discharged, who’ve served honorably and with great effectiveness. 

But, back to my question—you were saying we need to prove that 

open service improves military effectiveness. Has anybody proved 

that the current law improves effectiveness? 

General SHEEHAN. Not that I know of, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. I appreciate your frank answer. 

Let me turn to the major and the lieutenant. The picture of our 

Armed Forces that General Sheehan paints is a very different one 

than I see. He’s suggesting that the patriotic young Americans who 

serve their country are afraid of gay servicemembers and lack the 

professionalism to focus on the task at hand. As I said, I agree with 

him that there’s no constitutional right to serve, and that some 

people are excluded, for any number of reasons. Where we differ is 

that I see all of reasons for exclusion as performance-related, except for sexual orientation. I believe we’re dealing with a generation of people who know the difference between body weight or educational qualifications, for instance, and someone’s essence, who 

they are, at their core. 

In your numerous years of service, did you see anything that led 

you to believe that General Sheehan’s view of our Armed Forces is 

based on today’s realities? Lieutenant, maybe I’ll start with you, 

and then turn to the Major. 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, Senator. In my experience, I only had positive experiences with my shipmates and the people I served with. 

Nobody had any complaints about taking orders from me or the 

quality of my work product and no one asked to be moved out of 

sharing a stateroom with me. All of the feedback I got after I came 

out was positive. People were happy and thankful that I was being 

honest with them, and that I could share parts of my life with 

them, and that we could actually be friends, that there wasn’t a 

wall between us. That helps teamwork, frankly, because we could 

communicate with each other on a level that was human and positive. 

39 

So, no, I had no negative experiences with anyone in the military. 

Senator UDALL. Lieutenant, if I might pursue that before I turn 

to the Major. Reading your very powerful, moving testimony, and, 

even more, hearing you deliver it, it seemed to me you were making the case that actually—when you live a lie, morale isn’t as high 

as it could be, not only for you, as the individual involved, but for 

those with whom you serve, whether they’re subordinates or superiors. Is that a fair way to characterize it—— 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator UDALL.—at least your—— 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL.—impression? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. People can sense when you’re not being fully 

honest with them, and they get the sense that you’re holding back 

and that there’s something strange about you. Not only does that 

make them curious, but it makes them not necessarily trust you 

completely. Trust is something that you have to have for unit cohesion and morale. If there is no trust, there is no teamwork. 

Under ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ it is very difficult to have trust. 

Senator UDALL. It undercuts the element of trust which, yes, as 

you point out, is really the crucial element, is it not? 

Major, I want to make sure I don’t run out of time before you 

can also comment. 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, from my own personal experience, ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell’’ is often the subject—it’s a bit of a running joke or 

the subject of mockery, from gays and straights alike in the military, from the standpoint that everyone knows gays and lesbians 

are serving in the military today, and oftentimes they are serving 

openly, they are valued and patriotic members of their units who 

make tremendous contributions. I think the general consensus, or 

the general attitude, among the population, at least the ones that 

I served, was that they all understand this law is a reflection, not 

upon an individual’s characteristics, their traits, their performance, 

but solely based upon who they are. So, as I said, it’s a bit of a 

running joke, because gays and lesbians are already serving. 

Senator UDALL. To that point, you served on 13 years of Active 

Duty, I think, alongside forces that did provide for gay 

servicemembers. 

Mr. ALMY. Correct, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Did that affect the cohesion or morale, in your 

opinion? 

Mr. ALMY. Not at all. What I’ve just stated, I found that attitude 

to be true, not only among the Air Force, but in my time serving 

with the Marine Corps, the Army, and the Navy. I’ve worked with 

all four branches. I have served for 4 years in Europe with our allies, none of whom have this discrimination anymore. In fact, the 

U.S. military is a bit of a joke among our allies, solely because of 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ on this issue. It’s a complete nonissue for 

our allies, as well as allies that I have served with over in Iraq. 

Senator UDALL. My time’s going to expire, but last question to 

the two of you. I think it’s a yes-or-no answer, but don’t let me require that. It’s been argued that ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ is working, 

40 

so why change? Do you believe ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ is working, 

Major? 

Mr. ALMY. I do not believe ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ is working, because it throws out qualified men and women who just want to 

serve their country. 

Senator UDALL. Lieutenant? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. It’s absolutely not working, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

I know, General, you believe it’s working. If it isn’t broken, why 

fix it. I appreciate your being here as well, today. 

So, thank you to all three of you, again. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

We’ll have a second round now. Why don’t we start with about 

3 minutes each, if we can, and then we can have a third round, 

if that’s not enough. 

General, we now serve with the Dutch in Afghanistan. You made 

reference to the Dutch Army a couple decades ago. The Dutch allow 

their troops to serve openly if they’re gay or lesbian. We’re fighting 

alongside with them now. Do you know of any problem with that 

relationship? 

General SHEEHAN. I have no firsthand experience of—— 

Chairman LEVIN. Have you heard of any problem? 

General SHEEHAN. I have not. 

Chairman LEVIN. Did you ever, when you were NATO Supreme 

Allied Commander, command gay servicemembers? 

General SHEEHAN. I never asked for the sexual—— 

Chairman LEVIN. But—— 

General SHEEHAN.—orientation—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—did you know whether or not you did? 

General SHEEHAN. No. I never—I—— 

Chairman LEVIN. You weren’t aware of it. 

General SHEEHAN. No. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. 

I just want to read—let me read Secretary Gates’s statement, because there was some question here, and Senator Burris, I think, 

asked a question, which elicited a response that was not—well, 

anyway let me read what Secretary Gates has said. ‘‘I fully support 

the President’s decision. The question before us is not whether the 

military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for 

it.’’ So, it’s not, in Secretary Gates’s view, a question of ‘‘whether,’’ 

but a question of ‘‘how.’’ So, I agree with what Senator Burris was 

saying, there, in terms of what Secretary Gates’s position relative 

to this is. 

In terms of General Powell, he basically supports, he said, Secretary Gates’s decision. They obviously support a study, but the 

study is not a study of ‘‘whether’’; it’s a study of ‘‘how’’ we are going 

to implement a repeal. That’s just clarifications for the record. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Major Almy, I wanted to ask you—perhaps I missed it—but what 

do you think was the motivation of the individual who went 

through your personal computer and then found these messages? 

In other words, did he have a gripe with you about something else, 

was he antigay, or was he just looking for trouble? 

41 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, I really don’t know for certain. But, I can 

speculate that either this person just had a bias against gays and 

lesbians serving in the military or perhaps he was of the mindset 

that this was a law, and he was—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ALMY.—being a good troop and following the letter of the 

law. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. But as—— 

Mr. ALMY. Maybe a combination of both. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. But, did you know him? Or happen 

to—— 

Mr. ALMY. Very briefly. This was an individual in the unit that 

replaced mine in Iraq, so I had a brief overlap with this—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. But as far as you know, there was no conflict between you or anything of that kind. 

Mr. ALMY. None that I’m aware of, Senator. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay. 

Let me ask Major Almy and Lieutenant Kopfstein this question. 

When you have a policy of discrimination in the United States, the 

burden has to be on those who are defending it. There’ve been arguments made about effect on morale, effect on unit cohesion. I 

think we’ve dealt with those very well, relevant to military values. 

One of the other arguments, which Senator Chambliss referred 

to, is the effect on recruiting, on the argument that a lot of people 

coming into the military, perhaps a disproportionate number—I 

don’t know what the numbers are—come from areas of the country 

that are more conservative, in terms of social values, et cetera. I 

know you’re not expert in this, but you have come out of experience 

in the military. What’s your judgment, the two of you, about what 

impact a repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ will have on recruitment? 

Mr. ALMY. Senator, I’m not aware of any particular studies or 

polls on that very question you ask. But, I am aware of the experiences of foreign militaries, and there were similar predictions of 

gloom and doom on recruiting and retention once they repealed 

their bans on open service. None of that came to fruition. In other 

words, if you talk to all the senior leadership of these militaries 

today, they will tell you that repealing their ban had absolutely no 

effect upon their recruiting and retention. 

I think we can draw similar analogies in our own military. That, 

as well as—I would like to say that—the military’s diverse culture—one of the strengths of our military is, we bring young men 

and women from diverse backgrounds and bring them together and 

basically tell them that they have to be professional and work with 

people that are different from themselves. Oftentimes, these young 

men and women have never experienced an interaction, professionally, with someone from a different race, from a different background, from a different country of origin. That’s one of the 

strengths of our military. In fact, our military celebrates in our diversity, and it’s true. I see this as just one more aspect of our diverse military culture. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Lieutenant, do you have a judgment on that? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Senator, I believe that repealing this law will actually improve recruiting. I know that there are many patriotic 

42 

Americans who do not want to work for an organization that discriminates. So, in that respect, I believe that recruiting will be improved. Also, when you’re talking about recruiting, you’re talking 

about the 18-to-24-year-old demographic. Today’s generation are 

most likely to know someone who is gay. When you know somebody 

personally, you’re much less likely to fear them, and I think that 

most discrimination is based on fear. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. So, it’s my opinion—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I just remembered something. This was a 

while back, on another issue, but related. I was talking to an executive of a Fortune 100 company, and he was saying that he felt, 

when his company goes out to recruit on college campuses—this is 

to validate your point—that it is a positive to say that they, essentially, have employment nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Burris. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say for the record that I’m not trying to base all 

of my questions on race. It’s just a framework to try to get people 

to start thinking beyond that. 

I’d like to raise a question with General Sheehan. In your 3 

years, as you served as Supreme Allied Commander, Commander 

of the Atlantic, you oversaw NATO troops from many diverse nations. Would you say that your forces bonded and were successful 

in the missions that they carried out? Did they have any problems 

in carrying out their missions, General? 

General SHEEHAN. The answer to that is no. The reason why 

that’s no is because NATO clearly understood the U.S. military was 

present, that we had the capability and the rules of engagement in 

place to do things that they could not do. You see, still, manifestations of this—withholds or caveats in the use of troops in Afghanistan today—that is still problematic. 

Senator BURRIS. General, I’m sure that you, over the course of 

your service, have seen many units bond, with the purpose of working as a cohesive group. Can you tell me what parts of Major 

Almy’s service record affected his unit negatively, or affected his 

readiness? 

General SHEEHAN. I do not have a detailed knowledge of Major 

Almy’s record. I do appreciate his service to this Nation. Both of 

them are to be congratulated for that service. 

As I said during my testimony, my experience in a combat environment essentially was that, when a homosexual marine molested 

another marine, the real problem with the unit, not that it was the 

discipline to the individual, but what it did to the cohesion of the 

organization. First off, because the young PFC didn’t believe that 

he was being supported; second, that people took sides. You cannot 

afford to take a unit out of combat for 3 to 4 days while you sort 

out these type of issues. The enemy doesn’t allow you the luxury 

of taking units off the line. 

43 

Senator BURRIS. Major, how was your effectiveness in terms of 

you operating—your readiness and your—any negativism under 

your command? 

Mr. ALMY. I would say, Senator, that certainly my being relieved 

of my duties had a negative impact upon my unit. 

Senator BURRIS. So, the releasing you. 

Mr. ALMY. Correct. That had a negative impact on the mission, 

the unit cohesion. Certainly, as I told some of my troops what was 

going on, it was a complete nonissue for them, to the point that 

they all wanted me back on the job as their leader. 

Senator BURRIS. Lieutenant, how about you, in terms of when 

you said you got the orders—the captain—to load up the batteries, 

and you said it had no impact, whether you were lesbian or not, 

as to just what the situation was. Is that correct? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. That’s right, Senator. 

Senator BURRIS. Now, did you experience any negative attitude 

when you came out in open? Was there anything negative that you 

experienced? 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. No, I only had positive experiences. 

Senator BURRIS. For being honest, forthright, and living up to 

the Navy—— 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. Absolutely. I believe my fellow sailors appreciated my honesty. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Burris. 

Mr. ALMY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if I could offer one quick 

comment. 

Chairman LEVIN. Sure. 

Mr. ALMY. I wanted to go back to your question to the General 

regarding the Dutch military. I have served alongside the Dutch 

military, I have been in an exercise in field conditions, in the Netherlands, where my unit served alongside the Dutch military, both 

officers and enlisted. The subject of sexual orientation, or ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ was a complete nonissue to both the Americans 

as well as the Dutch, and that was within the past 5 years. 

Chairman LEVIN. I think we all remember Srebrenica, but I 

think that any effort to connect that failure on the part of the 

Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals, or did allow homosexuals, I think, is totally off target, and I’ve seen no suggestion 

of that. I’ve seen the failures that you talk about, General, in terms 

of their training being peacekeeping and their not being trained to 

do the kind of work that needed to be done—is accurate. But, in 

terms of—any attribution to the fact that they had allowed gays in 

the military is no more on point than the fact that they may have 

allowed Dutch-Africans or women, if there were women. I think it’s 

just—— 

General SHEEHAN. My comment—— 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll check it out—— 

General SHEEHAN. My—— 

Chairman LEVIN. We’re going to—— 

General SHEEHAN.—comment was that it was the liberalization 

that caused—— 

Chairman LEVIN. I know, but the—I agree with the—liberalization can—— 

44 

General SHEEHAN. I am—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—mean that the—— 

General SHEEHAN. I am just repeating—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—you don’t train people to—— 

General SHEEHAN.—what was told me. 

Chairman LEVIN.—engage in combat. You don’t train people to 

have—to engage in the kind of activity that you have to do to enforce the law. I agree with that. They weren’t good in that respect. 

They were trained to be peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. I totally 

agree with that. 

But to slide over from that into a suggestion that it had something to do with the fact that homosexuals were allowed in the 

Dutch Army suggests that somehow or other homosexuals are not 

great fighters. I think that is totally—— 

General SHEEHAN. I didn’t say—— 

Chairman LEVIN.—wrong. 

General SHEEHAN.—they weren’t great fighters. 

Chairman LEVIN. Well—— 

General SHEEHAN. What I said was the liberalization of the 

Dutch military was a contributing factor to their failure in 

Srebrenica. 

Chairman LEVIN. The Dutch military, as you point out, were 

peacekeepers and not peace enforcers. I agree with that. But, what 

the heck that has to do with the issue before us is what mystifies 

me, because I don’t think it has anything to do with the issue in 

front of us. But, I’ll—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may—and I don’t want 

to prolong this, but I just do want to say—look, our closest military 

allies in the world, the Brits, have a policy by which homosexuals 

serve openly, and they have a great record. The British military, 

we would work very closely with them. They are side-by-side with 

us today in Afghanistan. In fact, when I was last there, in January, 

with Senator McCain, we were briefed by British General Carter, 

who’s overseeing his tactical direction of a large number of forces, 

including marines—U.S. Marines in the south—in Helmand Province, in the south of Afghanistan—so just to offer evidence, with 

which I would guess that you’d agree, that the British military is 

a great military, and great allies of ours, notwithstanding their policy on homosexuals serving openly. 

General SHEEHAN. Sir, not to prolong the discussion, but—— 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I did. 

General SHEEHAN.—just for the matter of record. The decision, to 

allow openly homosexual people to serve in British military, was 

not done by the British government, or by the British people. It 

was done because the European Union court imposed it on the 

British. So, depending on who you talk to within the British—and 

I lived in London during the time of this process, the—basically, 

the British military was told just to shut up and accept it. So there, 

it is not an open-and-shut case that there isn’t some tension over 

the issue. 

The issue, in terms of working for a British general and I—and 

both of you know this, because we’ve gone through this discussion 

on previous times when I’ve been here—there’s a difference—we 

don’t allow, because of incidents like dual-key, American forces to 

45 

become—under the operational control of non-U.S. commanders. 

We give them tactical control. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Tactical, right. 

General SHEEHAN. Tactical control does not affect much more 

than just a tactical activity. So, again, these are minor points in 

the discussion, and I have no problem with your analogy that the 

Brits are good soldiers. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. I would add the Canadians and a bunch of 

other allies to that. We visited the Canadians down in southern Afghanistan, in Helmand Province, and they’re doing one hell of a 

job, and they allow people to serve openly regarding their sexual 

orientation. I just think we have to be careful that you don’t stereotype people because they’re gay or lesbian, that somehow or other 

they are lesser fighters. That was the problem in Srebrenica, is 

that you didn’t have people there that were fighting to enforce the 

law against some people who were terrorizing and killing others. 

It had nothing to do with their sexual orientation; it had to do with 

their training and their rules of engagement. 

Let me close the hearing now with—first of all, with thanks to 

each of you for your service, as well as for your appearance here 

today. I think every one of us have thanked you for both your service to our country, as well as your willingness to appear today. 

Just one example of how ending this discriminatory policy could 

contribute to our military’s effectiveness—and I think the most important way it’ll contribute, it will allow patriots who are willing 

to fight and put on the uniform of this country, to join the cause. 

To me, that’s vitally important in this kind of a pluralistic and diverse democracy that we have. 

But, we have lost I don’t know how many linguists, just to give 

one example, who speak Arabic and Farsi, who’ve been forced out 

of the military because of this policy. We desperately need those 

folks. Now, I think we need all people who are willing to put on 

the uniform, and I use that as just one example. We probably have 

lost 13,000 or more Americans who are willing to serve, and that, 

to me, is a real loss of military effectiveness. But, just that one example, maybe, can highlight how we’re really damaging our own 

capabilities and our own effectiveness when we have a discriminatory policy. 

I also believe it’s unconscionable, when the Commander in Chief 

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both said we should repeal a policy, for us to continue to discharge people solely because 

of their sexual orientation, during a period when there’s a study 

going on as to how to implement that policy. Not ‘‘whether’’ to implement it; if you look at the policy guidance, it’s ‘‘how’’ to implement a new policy. It just violates my conscience. 

I’m in favor of repeal, and there’s no doubt about that. I’ve made 

that clear. I’ve cosponsored Senator Lieberman’s bill. But, that’s, 

for me—as important as that is, there’s this interim problem we 

have, that people are going to be discharged, apparently, pursuant 

to this policy, after the Commander in Chief has said they 

shouldn’t be discharged, and after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

has said they shouldn’t be discharged, and while we are having a 

study underway as to how to implement a repeal. That strikes me 

46 

as unconscionable and unfair, and I hope we can repeal this policy 

promptly. 

In the interim we surely ought to suspend the discharges until 

the completion of that study. If we can’t get this repealed—and I 

hope we can—at a minimum, I hope we can suspend the discharges 

under these circumstances. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Chairman Levin, just from—made me think 

about what Lieutenant Kopfstein said at the beginning. We made 

a big investment in her, and she owes us a year and a half. So, 

I want to give her——[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEVIN. We intend to get it back. I want you to know 

that, too. [Laughter.] 

Ms. KOPFSTEIN. I’m happy to give it, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Well, no, we are very grateful to all of you for 

coming forward, and we’ve had a good, lively discussion. That’s a 

part of this democracy of ours, too. Hopefully, we cannot only reach 

the right conclusion, but reach it promptly, and have an interim solution which is fair, as well. 

We will stand adjourned, with thanks to everybody. 

[Appendixes A and B follow:] 

47 

APPENDIX A 


318ful1.eps
48 


318ful2.eps
49 


318ful3.eps
50 


318ful4.eps
51 


318ful5.eps
52 


318ful6.eps
53 


318ful7.eps
54 


318ful8.eps
55 


318ful9.eps
56 


318ful10.eps
57 


318ful11.eps
58 


318ful12.eps
59 


318ful13.eps
60 


318ful14.eps
61 


318ful15.eps
62 


318ful16.eps
63 


318ful17.eps
64 


318ful18.eps
65 


318ful19.eps
66 


318ful20.eps
67 


318ful21.eps
68 


318ful22.eps
69 


318ful23.eps
70 


318ful24.eps
71 


318ful25.eps
72 


318ful26.eps
73 


318ful27.eps
74 


318ful28.eps
75 


318ful29.eps
76 


318ful30.eps
77 


318ful31.eps
78 


318ful32.eps
79 


318ful33.eps
80 


318ful34.eps
81 


318ful35.eps
82 


318ful36.eps
83 


318ful37.eps
84 


318ful38.eps
85 


318ful39.eps
86 


318ful40.eps
87 


318ful41.eps
88 


318ful42.eps
89 


318ful43.eps
90 


318ful44.eps
91 


318ful45.eps
92 


318ful46.eps
93 


318ful47.eps
94 


318ful48.eps
95 


318ful49.eps
96 


318ful50.eps
97 


318ful51.eps
98 


318ful52.eps
99 


318ful53.eps
100 


318ful54.eps
101 


318ful55.eps
102 

APPENDIX B 


318ful58.eps
103 


318ful59.eps
104 


318ful56.eps
105 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

Æ 


318ful57.eps