Gay soldier gets upgraded discharge; now seeking PTSD benefits for humiliation

I’m quite sure liberal progressive socialists and radical gay Lefties are going to be angry with this post — oh well, get over it.

The Obama administration’s social equality transformation of the U.S. military continues and now sets a serious precedent for negative ramifications. Will every gay Soldier now lobby to have his/her discharges upgraded in order to claim benefits? Our nation can barely care adequately for veterans as it is.

According to Military.com, “Thirty-five years after being kicked out of the U.S. Army for being gay, an Oklahoma City woman has won her fight to have her discharge upgraded from “other than honorable” to “honorable.”

“It’s crazy,” said Lisa Weiszmiller, 53, proudly displaying an honorable discharge certificate backdated to June 22, 1979. On paper, it’s just like the “other than honorable discharge” 35 years ago never happened.”

What is crazy is that this former Soldier volunteered to be in the U.S. Army fully aware of rules and regulations, and violated one that resulted in her discharge under “other than honorable” conditions. Now, years later because of an executive order repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” regulation, she is afforded an upgrade in her discharge?

Ms. Weiszmiller violated a regulation in existence at that time. The repeal today has no bearing upon her willing violation of that regulation. No one forced her into joining the U.S. Army, she did so voluntarily.

Military.com details how policies toward gay military service have changed dramatically in recent decades. In 1993, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy replaced a complete ban on gay military service. That policy later was repealed, and restrictions on gay military service were lifted in 2011.

Weiszmiller was able to get her discharge upgraded to honorable through an appeal to the Army Boards of Correction for Military Records. Data was not readily available concerning how many former service members discharged for being gay successfully have appealed and had their discharges upgraded.

Weiszmiller said her next step is to try to get the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department to pay for a post-traumatic stress disorder service disability. But get this — Weiszmiller believes she suffers from PTSD not as the result of combat, but because of the intentional humiliating treatment Army officials inflicted on her because she was gay.

“Back then, the treatment was barbaric,” Weiszmiller said. She and another female soldier were accused of being gay, interrogated for hours and assigned extra duties as punishment — including mowing fields of grass with a hand sickle.

I remember screwing up as a cadet in our officer boot camp in Ft. Lewis, Washington and having to clean the latrine with small scrub brushes. And some of us remember the ultimate “dummy cord” punishment for those prone to losing or misplacing their individual weapon.

However, what really gets me is that Ms. Weiszmiller is using the new radical gay agenda tactic of aligning her objectives with the struggle of blacks and civil rights.

Weiszmiller said she grew up in New Jersey and that her military police training at Fort McClellan, Ala., during 1978 and 1979 was a culture shock — not just in the treatment of gays, but blacks as well. “I learned what racism was down there,” she said, recalling a visit to a bar where the waiters refused to serve black friends. “I got a hell of an education down there in Alabama,” she said.

After her discharge, Weiszmiller went on with her life, working as an emergency medical technician for a while and as a nurse for 20 years. She said she believes her military experience left her traumatized in a way that contributed to her having reckless tendencies and addictions. Methamphetamine abuse got her into repeated scrapes with the law.

“I’m not asking for unreasonable things,” she said. “I’m just asking for the ability to get medical treatment (and disability benefits).”

For the record, as a commander in the Army I never discharged a Soldier for being gay. I discharged Soldiers for excessive check bouncing, not being able to pass the PT test, being overweight, use and abuse of drugs and alcohol and other violations of rules and regulations.

You could punish a Soldier for not having a proper haircut or being chronically late or missing formation — and yep, I had some tough first sergeants and command sergeants major who were quite creative with grass cutting or other “extra duty” tasks as part of disciplinary actions.

My concern is the precedent this will create. Now any former military members who have been discharged “other than honorable” will come back and appeal for upgrade of discharge years after — and claim back pay or benefits.

Here we are struggling to care for veterans who served honorably — but then again, in Obamaworld, everyone deserves a trophy for showing up (or not). After all according to Susan Rice, even a deserter served with honor and distinction.

320 COMMENTS

      • NO heterosexual has ever engaged in inappropriate conduct while serving? Based on all the men who rape and commit sexual assault, or fraud, or anything else, maybe being heterosexual or male is incompatible with military service.

    • why are you all for gays in the military?? I hold no hate for gays, but I believe that their presence in certain areas of life are potentially harmful to the circumstances and other folks they are with.
      Are you all for gays in the classroom? I am opposed to any teachings that are out of the ordinary for children. If you suggest that same sex sex is not out of the ordinary, then I guess I have only one more multipart question for you – did you serve in the military; did you serve with a gay; are you gay?

      • What are you stupid? I was raised in a military family, jerk. I am not GAY, BI, Butch or whatever is your choosing. Straight and I am a woman. You apparently are the ones that have a problem with them. What is wrong with gays being in the classroom? Are they hurting anything or anyone? No. You really have a problem, don’t you? Many gays are very strong and quiet capable. My brother is one of them, pal. Many are more than capable of doing a job. Their presence in certain areas of life are potentially harmful? You need to go crawl under a rock.

      • I was just running a test to determine the temperamental caliber of folks who are “all for gays in the military”. It was not a pass/fail test, but had it been, you would have had the lowest mark in the survey.

        In the future , sweet mouthed lady, remember that the expressions one uses are to tell how one feels. Your “I am all for gays” signifies that you are a firm supporter of the issue. What makes someone a firm supporter? That is what I was trying to find out.

        I am not your pal. Remember this as you go through life: Tolerance is the virtue of those without conviction.

        I could range far afield with the numbers of ways that attitude is destructive to a society, especially from and angry woman.

        I served time in the military, too, does that grant me some special indulgence from you? Your brother is what??? A military gay? A gay teacher? Wow!!!

        See you under that rock!!!

      • @milootoole, you’re quite the ignorant, bitter troll, aren’t you? who are you to test anyone else? where is your intelligence or your morals? are you just an angry man? angry white old fart?

      • I see where you’re from. I cannot believe you are here as a conservative. Are you tracking for the DNC? I may be a bitter troll (I don’t think so; angry, but not bitter), and not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I am not ignorant. My life lessons show me that those who call other people ignorant are usually those who lack good intelligence. You give hints of racism with your reernce to a “white old fart”. You give hints to your basic intellect with use of a vulgar word.

        I now wonder what emotion caused you to leap in on the side of someone who is “all for gays in the military. You are being sill, since you do not even know my position on it. Leap to the fray without knowing why.

      • So, the following doesn’t tell what your position is and your restrictive tolerance or allowance on what gays should or shouldn’t be allowed to do? If my status is going to be second class, I sure as hell hope my responsibilities are limited and lessened. Right now, I work more than full-time, haven’t had a raise in years, get no continued education or training on the job, and pay a rather high rate on taxes at both the state and the federal level. So, where do I come from? And, I’m no fan or member of the DNC.

        why are you all for gays in the military?? I hold no hate for gays, but I
        believe that their presence in certain areas of life are potentially
        harmful to the circumstances and other folks they are with.
        Are you all for gays in the classroom? I am opposed to any teachings that are out of the ordinary for children.

      • You are from MA, so am I . I left that hotbed of progressives many years ago and would never go back. The norm is to be a liberal Democrat (redundant). So when I see an MA person jump imn on my discourse with someone else and do so in a very insulting fashion, what would anyone think?

        “@milootoole:disqus , you’re quite the ignorant, bitter troll, aren’t you?”

        Remember?

        It is hard to conceive that you are not a DNC member.

    • Really? Gays in the military?!! I have nothing against gays when it comes to their sexual preference just keep it behind closed doors. NOW… when they start pulling stunts where they have the power to exclude the National Guard from setting up tents in the San Francisco LGBT parade route then I say go FCUK yourselves!!! Then again it is no loss for the National Guard because quite frankly they should not be associating themselves with these whackos who’s only agenda is to destroy anything good this nation has to offer. Bottom line is their history is that they are never satisfied with any outcome they accomplish but they want to destroy the fabric of this nation that worked so well.

  1. I’m all for the gay community, however this person is looking for something free. It’s people like her that give the rest a bad name!

      • Apparently you’re too stupid to understand: it means, judge an individual on his or her actions, and don’t judge an entire group or population based on the actions of one or even of a few. If we did that, I’d be advocating the lions be set on all the phony christians in politics (let’s start with Bachmann, naturally).

      • my current one is to see the demise of the tealiban, hopefully by their/its moving to Iraq.

      • Who are you to answer for sjmodesto? What did you derive from my question that so stirred your hatred and intolerance. Actually “all for” means you are in complete support of those whoever you are addressing. I still do not know what sjmodesto meant. Does it mean he/she is tolerant of others desires, lifestyles? We will never find out with an angry person like you leaping in where you are not needed. So, I ask you, are you “all for” the gay community or simply, tolerant of it. Do you march with them oir does your definition of “all for” have yet another meaning.

    • “however this person is looking for something free.”

      Looking for something she earned that has been unjustly kept from her, more like.

  2. He/She now has a sense of entitlement because he/she is gay. BS, this is a money grab. People like this are the EXACT reason people don’t support gays and their self-serving agenda.

  3. There’s always someone who will defraud the government. This is no exception. This is yet anoher fine example of barry’s foot print on the neck of the country

    • No white person, no heterosexual, no phony christian ever defrauded the government? Let’s discuss all the GOP/tealiban old white heterosexual politicians who have never served in the military and yet are cutting or blocking benefits to veterans? Your hypocrisy is pretty blatant.

  4. She grew up in Jersey but didn’t see racism until she went to Alabama? I grew up in Pennsylvania and witnessed more racism there than anywhere down south. I guess, maybe because most of the racism in PA was done by union members it doesn’t count?

    • Sure it does, however they will claim it is conservatives, because they cannot bear the thought that they are at fault

    • Clarence Thomas, who grew up in Georgia, stated he encountered more racism in the North than the whole time he was growing up!

      • Moved to the south in 1989. I had been in the south years ago in the military. There was a lot of problems then. In the 25 years I have been here this time, I have not seen any of the old problems. I find the south to be much better at interracial relations. Most folks here see each others as just folks.

  5. Boo-freakin’-hoo.

    “that this former Soldier volunteered to be in the U.S. Army fully aware of rules and regulations, and violated one that resulted in her discharge under “other than honorable” conditions.”

    She was fully aware of the rules in place when she went into the service and the challenges she faced. I’d say, she made a bad decision and now wants compensation for her poor choice.

    No. Just no.

    • Maybe she was just that committed to serving HER country, too? First, let’s discuss all the heterosexuals who lied to get out of service when they were being drafted. you can call them whatever you want – scared, traitors, anything – they’re still one of YOU, one of YOUR kind.

      • Nice deflection. I DO NOT CARE if she’s gay. I DO NOT CARE that she had her “other than honorable” discharged changed to Honorable. What I care about is that she is scamming the system with the PTSD crap. Especially when there are veterans who have seen combat and actually served HONORABLY that cannot get the care they need. THAT I care about. So yeah, if I’m one of THEM, then I am on the right side.

      • the overwhelming majority of comments are based on condemning her, as a lesbian, and then by extension all gays and lesbians and whether or not they should be allowed to serve their damn country like anyone else, based on MERIT.

  6. The point here is that at the time gays could not serve in the military and she intentionally violated the UCMJ. End of story. I am gay friendly and believe there are alot serving (gay and straight) that should not be in service. As a woman who served 26 years in the AF with majority of men who I trust with my life I find it funny that I can share a room with a lesbian but I can’t share one with a man. When I was deployed the womens tent was far from the men’s tents. I didn’t know these women (3 of whom were lesbians having sex in the tent) and I asked to be moved to a mens tent with the 4 men I worked with (they were all for it as well- not for sexual reasons but for protection and alert reasons). I was told I can’t do that. How is a man and a lesbian different for a woman?

  7. I totally agree with your post! She broke the existing rules and did so voluntarily. End of story! She should not have even gotten the upgrade for the same reason.

  8. Sure, send her to the VA for treatment for her “PTSD” (Post Traumatic Sexuality Disorder)… I’m sure they’ll be seen really soon. I hear they’re good for that.

  9. Nothing can be more hurtful to the service, than the neglect of discipline; for that discipline, more than numbers, gives one army the superiority over another.- George Washington

    This is why barry let’s gays into the military,

      • Moshe! damn glad to see you, I am well, getting by. Have you heard from Mossberg? I Haven’t heard from Mossberg lately. Other than that everything is cool bro be well

      • Moss went on a road trip and as far as I know he is still on it with his wife. He sometimes comes on WZ, but not with the frequency he once did. Glad to hear your doing well and I’m sure I’ll see you on here again so take care bro and be well.

  10. Weiszmiller!
    Listen up stupid. How the F’k can you have PTSD when your “humiliation” was self enflicted?
    That’s like someone shooting themselves in the foot on purpose to get a Purple Heart. GTFOH!!!

  11. This is wrong on so many levels. A fine example of what’s wrong with our country. Come on, here we go again blaming someone else for the CHOICES SHE made as an ADULT. When are people going to be accountable for their own lives? No one forced her to make bad decisions and saying, she had PTSD because of what she went through 30+ years ago makes me SMDH. What a crock of dog doo.

  12. When the government itself fails to follow the laws and rules what else is to be expected of the citizenry than to be just as heinous, offensive and self-centered?

  13. The funniest part about this is the guy writing it. He avoided court martial for having broken the law but is complaining that someone else is getting an honorable discharge, just like he did, when they have broken a rule.

    And let’s put this in perspective, West threatened a prisoner. No one denies he fired his pistol near the head of a man in his custody, a man he has a sworn duty to protect from harm. No one denies he did this in order to threaten the man, whether or not he intended to carry out the threat doesn’t matter. All that matters is does the person think he will. But the person he’s all full of piss and vinegar about, well they uhh, well they don’t like the kind of genitals Mr. West thinks they should like.

    When did Mr. West refuse his honorable discharge? I presume that he mailed it back in with a demand that his pension be revoked, his benefits eliminated and he be given an Other Than Honorable conditions discharge since he knowingly broke the law and thus did not serve honorably?

    West’s argument that he only did it to protect is men is unpersuasive. He knew the rules and he broke them. We have a thing in the Army, at least some of us do. We call it integrity, it means choosing the hard right over the easy wrong. West chose the easy wrong. But it seems his morality has evolved since then.

    So when did you request the downgrade for your discharge Mr. West?

    • Your argument holds no water. He was discharged honorably AND he is not claiming disability for PTSD. She was discharged with “other than honorable” and was awarded honorable decades later. That is not the real argument here as is claiming PTSD to get free bennies for being gay. REALLY????!!!

      Though West didn’t do the right thing he is more apt to having a better argument of being in combat AND suffering PTSD especially after the high pressure of Fallujah. If you were there then you’d know what it was like IN FALLUJAH!!!!

      Signing off….

      • Signing off, you never even tuned in.

        West’s argument:
        “this former Soldier volunteered to be in the U.S. Army fully aware of rules and regulations, and violated one that resulted in her discharge under “other than honorable” conditions”

        So where is his demand that his discharge be downgraded. Or does he think being gay is worse than threatening to murder a person who is in your care and custody?

      • Comparing an incident in a combat situation to a gay woman who says she has PTSD because she had to cut the grass as a punishment for LYING is just so funny I can’t help but think that you are a comedian. I could care less what you think of Col. West, but I have to tell you, I would rather my husband serve under his watch than yours. You would be one of those officers that everyone hates because you don’t take care of your people. Col West didn’t shoot anyone – he scared the truth out of a prisoner. He saved lives. He took responsibility for he did. Now, when this chick takes responsibility for what she did, we can talk!

      • Now this is funny, so her punishment for lying includes an Other than Honorable discharge, which West seems to think is very well deserved. The punishment for threatening to kill a prisoner. Honorable discharge, fat pension, and a fairly large crowd of sycophants.

        By the way, what actions are you thinking she should take responsibility for? At worst it would have been lying about something the military never should have been asking in the first place. As opposed to say threatening to kill someone and watching your Soldiers beat them.

        By the way, under my watch your husband would never have to defend me for having committed an illegal act because of a very simple difference between me and West.
        I accept responsibility and accountability for my actions.

        Do I care if they loved me, not one bit, they could have hated me. Because I wasn’t there to be liked, I was there to bring them home, whole, to the greatest extent possible. Meaning including their honor.

        But guess what my units did see, decrease in Domestic Violence, decrease in Sexual Assault / Sexual Harassment cases, decrease in DUIs and other alcohol related incidents.
        We did see some increases, weapons proficiency, APFT score, maintenance readiness.
        You know, the kind of things you see in well disciplined units.

        And my Soldiers came home whole, honor intact.

        P,S. For Mr. West’s criminal actions and his oversight of a beating there is no verified good intel ever came of it. West said they got some good intel of a pending attack. An attack they prepped for and would have decimated them if it was real. But it seems it wasn’t, what he claimed was good intel is indistinguishable from fiction. Which is entirely in keeping with what we know of torture, it gets unreliable info as the victims of it will say anything to get it to stop.

    • You know, I a very well constructed discussion for you but I have deleted it and replaced it by the following. You obviously don’t like West and that is your prerogative. However that has nothing to do with someone volunteering for the military knowing they didn’t fit the prescribed service requirements of the time. Now she is coming back 20+ years later and asking for benefits? You claim to be military and you support this? I can pick up my phone and call any of 20+ friends in or discharged from the military who have already voiced their disgust when I mentioned this article. As for you, unless you have been brainwashed by liberals since your discharge, there I don’t believe there is a prayer in hell that you actually served.

    • You know, I had very well constructed discussion for you but I have deleted it and replaced it by the following. You obviously don’t like West and that is your prerogative. However that has nothing to do with someone volunteering for the military knowing they didn’t fit the prescribed service requirements of the time. Now she is coming back 20+ years later and asking for benefits? You claim to be military and you support this? I can pick up my phone and call any of 20+ friends in or discharged from the military who have already voiced their disgust when I mentioned this article. As for you, unless you have been brainwashed by liberals since your discharge, there I don’t believe there is a prayer in hell that you actually served.

      • Sorry you feel that way. But what you imagine occurred is not reality. I don’t care if you believe I was in the Army or not, the fact is I was, retired, after more than two decades of honorable service. But that is neither here nor there. The question is why is West such a hypocrite?

        I doubt you had any sound argument, because it really is that simple. He knowingly broke rules and got an honorable discharge. By his own standards he should not have.

        So when did he seek to have his discharge downgraded?

      • and I’ll ask again, if a soldier was other than honorably discharged in the past due to a rule which was in effect at that time, why does that now give the person the right to petition for an honorable discharge and benefits now? West’s military history is of no concern in my question, other than the fact that you disregard his comments which is again, your right it is of no importance regarding my question.

      • Charecterization of service is baed upon the totality o service, to base it only one one incident would be wrong in my reasoning. But this is about West’s reasoning, he thinks it is proper, therefore he should be demanding an Other Than Honorable.

        Secondly, if a rule was never proper to begin with then it is only proper to make amends for that injustice. Since I don’t think it is improper to prohibit threatening to murder people I can’t make the kind of allowance for Wets as I would for the woman in the story.

        I am not disregarding his comments, I am taking them at face value. He said:
        “this former Soldier volunteered to be in the U.S. Army fully aware of rules and regulations, and violated one that resulted in her discharge under “other than honorable” conditions”

        So I ask, does he hold himself to the same standard, when did he demand his Other Than Honorable Discharge for knowingly violating the law?

      • OK, so your opinion is that any rule that is improper should be done away with and persons affected by this rule should now be rewarded? Were there any other rules you felt this way about when you say you were in the military or was it simply this one which you have felt so deeply about for all of these years? In this respect also, since you obviously disagreed with this rule, what have you personally done to see that it was quashed? Do you feel that following some orders should also be outlawed and only common sense should prevail? If so, if you were ordered to advance on a position which was firing upon you, would you feel that is an order/rule that you should have to obey because common sense dictates that running into fire is dangerous? I’m just trying to get a baseline for where you personally decide rule/regulations/orders are subject to be disregarded, thanks.

      • You aren’t being rewarded when an injustice done to yu is lifted, you are being made whole.
        Personally I helped fund those groups who sought to have the law overturned. Personally I refused to give money to groups which were seeking to keep the rule in place. Personally I refrained from engaging in witch hunts even though I could have and knew the rest of the CoC would have had my back.

        I did what every single Soldier is supposed to do when confronted with orders they perceive may be immoral or unethical, seek clarification and then make a decision knowing they will be held accountable and responsible for their action or inaction. Or have you not heard, just following orders is not a defense for doing the wrong thing?

        In short I chose the hard right over the easy wrong.

        Now back to my question, When did West ask for the downgrade for his characterization of service. Since he did a thing he knew was wrong? Or is he simply a hypocrite holding others to a different standard than he holds himself?

      • Really, so which orders was it that you purposely chose to ignore, since a witch hunt is not an order nor a rule which is being broken. Since you keep bringing up (West, which I have not), when are you going to speak to them about your downgrade?

      • Well, how about a simple example then. For instance, in the early 1990’s there was a Soldier I suspected of being gay. I kept my suspicions to myself, when I heard others say something about it I told them it was none of their business. Of course these kinds of orders are the implicit types, but an order is an order, it doesn’t have to be typed, it doesn’t have to be explicit, it can be implicit. I presume you already understand that there is no such thing as a direct order, there are only orders. So an order to discharge homosexuals, and a duty to report them requires one do so in the manner and procedure that is the accepted norm. Which if you didn’t know at that time was rather different. this was before don’t ask, don’t tell. The norm for the time was we would ask, and investigate, and dig, it was just a tad bit of witch hunting actually. Keep looking until you find something. Simply being at a rally demonstrating for homosexuals to have equal rights was considered sufficient grounds to say a person might be gay and therefore investigate them. Just signing a petition was grounds, simply being known to have been around a gay person, associating with known homosexuals, got a few investigations going at Fort Bragg in those days.

        Now the reason I am not going looking for a downgrade is my ethical framework doesn’t require it. West is writing from a different view, a very literal and legalistic one. If the rule says don’t do it, but you did it, you must be punished. Most people grow out of it by the time they get to middle-school. It s a sign of mental maturity actually, that we understand that simply because something has been written down as a rule doesn’t make it right. hat is also how we can still condemn dictatorships, even though they have written rules tat say they can act that way we still know it to be wrong. So again, West dd a thing he knew was illegal, and knows today was illegal. Then will he be seeking a downgrade in keeping with his thinking, or is he a hypocrite?

      • Well, you said it, you had a duty to report them, it wasn’t an order…What you chose to do in regard to investigating someone or performing a witch hunt is how you chose to handle the issue at hand (which by the way, I commend you on) due to your morals. MY issue isn’t with the fact that she was gay, it’s that she chose to volunteer for the military knowing at the time that being gay, you were not admitted to the military ranks. Right or wrong today is not the issue, it’s her character and her morals which were in question 35 years ago and I don’t believe she should be rewarded for it today. As for West, don’t know him personally, don’t really know much of his history and don’t really care to be honest. Feel free to call for a dishonorable discharge if you wish but considering what they do to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay these days you might find that they would like him to re-enlist and command down there…lol.

      • Wrong in your reasoning? Perhaps. Not wrong in reality. This gal committed fraud when she enlisted; when she enlisted, you had to answer questions about being homosexual and homosexual acts. If you answered affirmatively, you didn’t get in.

      • Yes, those questions were on my enlistment contract also.

        And no, we have judged those rules to be and have been wrong, in reality. Just like slavery was once legal,then it was illegal, yet it was always wrong.

        Now that is an analogy, I am not saying it is identical but that it illustrates how a thing can be legal and yet still be wrong.

        Or do you imagine slavery was right when it was legal? Because that is what you would have to argue. That being legal makes anything right.

      • Not seeing the connection between slavery and lying. Not even close to a realistic comparison. Hmmmm…we got rid of slavery because is was bad, therefore fraud is now acceptable.

      • “Secondly, if a rule was never proper to begin with then it is only proper to make amends for that injustice.” Who said it was improper? obama? Just because HE says, doesn’t make it so.
        The “don’t ask don’t tell” rule should have never been repealed.

      • No, rules are judged proper or improper by every individual. We have to weigh them against our moral code. For example, at one point our nation thought it proper to lock up people based on their ancestry (the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII), we since then realized it was wrong, and in fact paid some form of restitution to many of them.

        Just like we realize kicking people out of the military with Other Than Honorable Discharges based solely on their preference of genitalia was wrong, so we make corrections to their records to account for that.

        West disagrees, and from his reasoning I wonder when he will ask for a downgrade to his characterization of service.

      • Ooooo, sorry, forgot to mention some things…According to you “Charecterization of service is baed upon the totality o service, to base it only one one incident would be wrong in my reasoning.”. I’m happy to see that you attribute this to only your reasoning. With this, was her totality of service up to the end of her originally specified tour dates? If she is to receive an honorable discharge, should she not also be responsible to complete all of her time and duties which she had originally signed up to do? Wouldn’t this now honorable discharge be equal to those that completed all necessary time and service requirements thereby lessening their theirs by allowing hers to be ‘upgraded’ to honorable? She has been out of service for 35+ years, become an EMT and Nurse and is finishing off her Masters degree, it sure sounds like her PTSD has really effected her life…doesn’t it?

      • Wow, you really suck at this. I’ll make it easier for you. I guess I’ll have to rewrite it in simply sentences so you’l understand.

        Characterization of service is based on totality of service. That is the rule the military uses. By my reasoning to base the characterization of service only on one detail then is not in keeping with that requirement.

        Now, unless you think the totality of her service was dependent solely on what kind of genitals she liked then you are simply wrong. If you do think it was then please indicate by what MOS description you think she was trained in. Please describe the training environment you think she worked in.

        The rest of your post is just more non-sequiter and isn’t germane to my original question. If West thinks her receiving an honorable discharge would be wrong based on her having knowingly violated a rule then has he asked for his to be downgraded?

      • Wow, what a pathetic attempt at an insult, try again later and maybe you will find something good on Google. Maybe I should type s-l-o-w-e-r s-o y-o-u c-a-n u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d t-h-e q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n. You have answered nothing and chose to deflect, why? Probably because you can’t defend a logical response. I will state again, in assessing her “totality of service” would you agree or disagree that she did not serve the required time and perform the required duties to be granted an Honorable Discharge? Regardless of whether you feel the gays in the military rule was arbitrary or capricious in nature is irrelevant in the fact that she lied when stating that she was not gay. As for her MOS, what the hell does that have to do with anything in this regard unless you are now claiming that her specialty caused her to choose to be a lesbian all of a sudden. As for your dismissive attitude claiming the rest was “non-sequiter” (did you mean non-sequitur? spell it correctly when trying to be arrogant), you still haven’t told me if this is the only rule you disagree with and what else you would like to see changed. This question is right on point with your stance with disregard of a regulation in that you feel that since it was unjust 35 years ago, it should not have been followed. If this is how you feel, what other rules do you feel are unjust? What have you done to remedy the situations? Surely a person with your sympathetic nature would want to protect others in the military from unjust rules…right? In regard to West, you continue to go there even though I have yet to mention him, nor do I care about his military service, I’m actually staying on topic while you go off on a tangent. Oh, by the way, I have no issue with gays in the military, i do however have issue with people skirting the law and choosing to renegotiate later during a more favorable time. MY stance is that if you couldn’t handle it at the time, you damn well shouldn’t get the reward because the touchy/feely people chose to change the rules.

      • Holy crap, you slow down and actually get worse. Do you understand paragraph breaks? Communicate one idea, then insert a break so as to make something more readable. Even West includes them, sometimes after only one sentence. Use a few the electrons are cheap enough.

        Well your question is malformed, because it ignores a few things. The government set up a situation so as to make it impossible for her to fulfill those commitments, then the question becomes was the woman unjustly treated, and if so what is the proper remedy. So it isn’t as simple of a question as you portray it to be. When she was handed an Other Than Honorable discharge it appears to have been based entirely on one point, not the totality of her service. And since an Honorable Discharge is the default discharge today for a Soldier who completes their tour and leaves through no fault of their own yes it is proper to give her one. Because an injustice on the part of the government/military means we don’t get to presume she wouldn’t have met that criteria. So we have to evaluate if the rule was proper in the first place, it becomes the heart of the matter.

        And I keep bringing it back to West because that was the basis of my original post, you know, the one you replied to. That if this is how he views the proper way to do things then why has he not asked for a downgrade to his characterization of service. I don’t need to wait for you to bring it up, I brought it up before you said word one. You chose to respond to it.

        But that is an interesting set of ethics you have there. So let me ask a question to make sure I understand you. During WWII the United States detained Japanese-Americans without trial, in some cases for the duration of the war. This action was immoral, illegal, and unjust. Should the government have made amends for that injustice or simply said that is how it was at the time, and we aren’t going to address it just because some people have gotten touchy feely about it since then.

      • Nah, I enjoy writing in one contiguous sentence, it drives people like you crazy…Now, with that said…”The government set up a situation so as to make it impossible for her to fulfill those commitments” It was a rule 35 years ago, she broke it and there is no denying this fact. The fact that she can now be rewarded for it even though she had not completed her original tour is liberal BS and you know it. The fact that she could not fulfill the commitment should not be the fault of the government which operated 35+ years later. In regard to “leaves through no fault of their own”, yes, she was at fault even though she did not leave on her own. She lied when joining the military, the fact that rules change should not negate the fact that she had no moral objection to lying when she joined. You keep assuming there was an injustice, as I said, rules change people change, the only constant is change. This does not exempt her from her original actions. As for WWII and the internment camps, property should have been returned or a monetary value for them and any wages that could have been lost during their imprisonment. See but the fact is that they did nothing to incur their imprisonment, you continue to skirt the fact that she lied to volunteer for service. She was not forced there as the Japanese were. Wow, wanna’ talk about a non-sequitur…Since you bring it up, I will ask again, when will you be requesting a downgrade to your service record for not following orders? Oh, I guess you must have followed orders or you would have been dishonorably discharged wouldn’t you have? Not participating in a “witch hunt” is not, not following orders. If you actually gave a damn about this, you would have been at the forefront petitioning Congress to let anyone who you feel was wrongfully discharged for an ‘upgrade’. Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone was dishonorably discharged that was a pot smoker, since it’s legal in several states for recreational use and will likely be spreading, I wonder how long it will be before they get a new ‘upgraded’ discharge?

      • JacobBe5 is a closet fag… If he had been a member of Allen West’s unit, and had his life saved by Allen West’s actions, he wouldn’t be on here defending this “female”…

      • sniff sniff, oh no your incorrect assertion has my feelings so much.

        Of course I still noticed you seem incapable of addressing the argument.

    • When you have the responsibility of over 2,000 soldiers in your command and it’s your job to make sure that they come out of it alive and come home to their family, then you can come back and talk to us. You know nothing about what it’s like being shot at day in and day out and watching your brothers/sisters getting parts of their body being blown up and die in front of you. That is what is wrong with civilians and politicians running a war because they have no inclinations what it takes, the suffering, the lack of sleep on days on end, the lack of decent food, lack of simple hygiene articles, and the knowledge that while you are looking down a barrel of a gun and missing your family back home that you haven’t seen for 15 months. Having your children born without you being there. Having your children graduate high school without your being there. So go ahead and put down Col. West all you want but in my book (and others as well) he did what he had to do to protect his men. And that is what a good leader does. Which we don’t have now as President.

      • That was a great post. I never served in the military but I have total respect for those who did. I get angry that Bergdahl has a team of medical professional helping him when our vets are dying from lack of care. The woman Mr. West wrote about doesn’t deserve back pay & benefits.

      • Oh good, glad I already met the criteria you have in mind.

        Of course that really has nothing to do with it an d amounts to just special pleading. By your logic he President should be able to do far worse and not be subject to rebuke since he has arguably millions of lives depending on choices he makes.

        West doesn’t seem to agree though that the amount of responsibility lessens the amount of accountability.

  14. She is rather confusing in her statements was she a cadet? or a Military Policemen? Was she enlisted or an officer? I too had soldiers who were gay under my command and never discharged them. I had to break up two sharing a room in the barracks but other than that those gay soldiers were the least of my problems with personnel I do suspect she had other issues and will guess was one was unfit for military service..

    • That is West, he is tossing in anecdotes about what it was like when he was in cadet training. His style of making the focus be around him and how hard it was on him as a Commander might make it a bit more confusing.

      The story at military.com isn’t as garbled. She indicates she completed training, was preparing to PCS to her first assignment and then was accused of being gay after which she says the problems began.

      The other thing she describes is being assigned extra duty but then later being told sign hte papers or face a court martial. But West would know that would have made the extra duty an unlawful punishment. He also should have mentioned that if they did receive Article-15s (which would explain the loss of a months pay) then no court-martial for the same offense was even possible, except in the most egregious cases (like a commander making a rape accusation go away by ART-15, rather than have it adjudicated)

      • In my time in the 1980’s though I worked in intelligence and also the military police and we had in some cased higher clearances than the average soldier a situation like this would of been dealt with an administrative discharge. Maybe other-than-honorable but that was normally the offer that was made in place of harsher action. The loss of a clearance along was the easiest way out the door.

      • I’d go so far as to say the overwhelming majority of discharges for homosexuality were administrative discharges, very rarely did I ever see a court-martial with a punitive discharge.

        But I also know threat of CMs were made to get a Soldier to go ahead and take the discharge. What I was saying is if they had been given actual extra-duty for an offense then in most circumstances it couldn’t go to CM. Administrative discharge is still a possibility in those cases, but the threat of a CM would have been hollow.

        Then again it isn’t like a private just done with AIT would know that.

  15. “even a deserter served with honor and distinction.”

    Oh, so you deserve an Article 32 hearing, but Bergdahl doesn’t?

    You are slime, West. A dishonor to the uniform you wore, a stain upon the Congress you pretended to serve in while lining your own pocket, a scandal to the UCMJ codes that you violated, and a shame upon the Constitution you pretend that you served.

    • Whats your agenda dude? Lets guess… Bergdahl will get his hearing and if what wr are hearing is true he should be labeled a desertet but he should get his proper hearing or whatever it is they do. As far as you, you go crawl bac
      k under rock you slimed out of. Probably the Msnbc blog rock.

      • I go where I wish, and post as I choose, Colleen. I am not answerable to you for either of those things.

    • In the Military, once you walk away from your post it’s away without leave. Once it goes over a certain time period, it’s desertion and if in a combat zone and fighting at the time, it’s desertion in the face of the enemy. The only thing Bergdahl needs is his hearing to ascertain his guilt, then sentencing either to death or life at hard labor. If you find that too terrible, I’m sure there are plenty of other countries that will take you if you don’t like this one. As for Col. West, why don’t you tell us how long you wore a uniform?

      • Incorrect in one detail–a conviction for desertion requires knowing the intent of the person in question.

        “The only thing Bergdahl needs is his hearing to ascertain his guilt”

        Or they could just ask you, and skip the hearing entirely, since in your mind he seems to be guilty until proven innocent.

      • Knowing the intent of the person in question? So him asking questions about taking certain pieces of equipment and leaving a note renouncing his US citizenship isn’t enough to point out the obvious to you?

        Here’s a better idea: Since you obviously only came to this page to be a dickhead troll, just go away and ignore what you don’t agree with. It’s really that simple.

      • It’s not sufficient for a conviction. However, since you seem to be disinterested in the process of law, perhaps such technicalities don’t matter to you.

      • Actually state of mind is often the crux of a criminal case. If we are now discussing Bergdahl, the facts state that he 1. walked away from the compound with no defensive weapons other than a knife in a war zone, 2. he left a note denouncing his American Citizenship, 3. he shipped all of his personal belongings home. Now, I am not an attorney but walking away, saying you don’t wish to be an American and sending all your crap home sort’a makes it seem like you left with a purpose. There were also all the discussions with Platoon mates and reports of them purportedly speaking with villagers who reported an American soldier looking for English speaking Taliban but I’ll leave that for you to look into if you so choose. Those points alone make a really strong circumstantial case…

      • John: Agreed. One of the things the Art 39 hearing will doubtless look at is whether or not he would have been considered mentally competent (stress, temporary insanity, whatever–it does happen).

        Frankly, considering the other stuff that has come out about Bergdahl before his enlistment, the man should have never been accepted for enlistment. But done is done–he was accepted, he swore the oath, and then he left his post–and his actions bit him in the ass.

        Bergdahl’s actions, however, do nothing to defend West’s.

      • OK, so we agree on Bergdahl. However, I’m not sure why you mention West’s actions as i have yet to use him as a comparison to anything. I don’t know the man, I don’t really know his history beyond him being in the military and I don’t really care. Some of his views are along the same line as mine and I enjoy reading the articles. If you would like to discuss West’s history, I would need to ‘bone up’ on it as I am woefully unprepared to defend or attack his service record.

      • “However, I’m not sure why you mention West’s actions as i have yet to use him as a comparison to anything.”

        My apologies for the confusion–that was more in the context of the other conversations going on, not in direct response to your statements.

        Politically, I disagree with many of West’s statements … OK, people of good will are going to disagree from time to time, and disagreements can be discussed. While I vehemently disagree with West’s actions that led to his Art 34 hearing, we all make mistakes. My problem is that he is accusing another service member of doing the same thing he did (violating UCMJ), condemning Bergdahl for something he got away with via a legal loophole.

        West is a liar, and a hypocrite. To my mind, West has prostituted whatever honor he may once have had to get votes and make money. I hold West in the same contempt I hold most politicians.

      • I’m aware of the process of military law. The #1 charge he should be facing is desertion, a charge punishable by death. The facts coming out are more than enough to convict.

      • If you’re aware of the process of military law–or of the law in general–then you know that the “facts” coming out by way of the news media are _hearsay assertions_, not evidence.

    • I think you have sniffed too much glue!!! Have you served? Have you worn a uniform? If not then you do not know anything about the military and there for you do not have a say on what it is like being in the military!! Col. West is a man of honor something you know nothing about!!!

      • If you have to descend to making wild and false accusations about drug use, you obviously have no interest in an actual discussion. Good day to you.

      • You people are some of the most illiterate in the world! You can’t even read. Mr. West does not say she was a druggie those are HER words. Read the piece correctly. Did you serve your country? Do you work and hold a job? If you do then I guess you don’t mind sharing what you work your butt off for? To give to other people who do nothing but sit on their butts and get welfare and want others to support them. For them to spend that hard earned money you give them in the form of welfare and they go out and buy drugs, diamond studs in their ears or get new tattoo’s and you know those aren’t cheap! So what is it? You sit here with your mealy mouth flapping in the wind because you have nothing better to do! Or is it because you are a racist? You can’t stand the idea that Mr. West and others like him are black and they don’t buy into your entitlement! They and millions like him, black, white, yellow, red, purple with pink polka dots, don’t care what color your skin is. We care about what the other needs and what we can do to better help our fellow man and our great country. So grow a brain if you want to have a decent discussion and maybe the grownup will play with you! Good day to you!

      • I was referring to LadyWolf’s accusation that I was using drugs.

        As for accusations of racism, I am of mixed race.

      • You do seemed out of it with all your talk. Like I asked before…have you served? But I guess the answer is no. So like I said before, if you haven’t served then you know nothing about how the military works so stay out of it!!!

      • just an honest question here. Does any race or mix of races exclude you from being racist? Because it seems that your clarification seems to carry with it the ex-post-facto argument that because you are of mixed race you therefore cannot be racist. Or… does “racism” occur only to those of one or another race?

      • Were I condemning West because of his race, regardless of my own race or mix of races, yes–I would be guilty of racism. Ms. Stroud, however, accused me of racism with utterly no evidence–an argument to deflect from my statements that she could not counter.

      • Questions that start with accusations are no longer “simple questions,” LadyWolf. By starting with such an accusation, you’ve made it quite clear that you have no interest in the answer–you simply with to silence those who disagree with you.

        But no, I have not served in the military. Does my wheelchair mean that I am less American? Does my disability mean that I have no right to express my opinion?

      • You being in a wheelchair has nothing to do with anything. Now you want everyone to feel sorry for you? Why even bring up you being in a wheelchair? If you haven’t served in the military then you know nothing how the military works. You can have all the opinions all you want but your opinion about what happens in the military doesn’t mean a thing.

      • “You being in a wheelchair has nothing to do with anything.”

        My failure to serve–regardless of reason–is, in your eyes, an indicator that I have no right to voice my opinions. If I were seeking pity for my physical condition (I am not), I would count myself honored to avoid _your_ pity … if you had any concept of that emotion,

      • You asked if I had served. I explained that I had not, and why. Now, are you interested in discussing the issues, or in flinging more inapplicable insults?

      • When you have the responsibility of over 2,000 soldiers in your command and it’s your job to make sure that they come out of it alive and come home to their family, then you can come back and talk to us. You know nothing about what it’s like being shot at day in and day out and watching your brothers/sisters getting parts of their body being blown up and die in front of you. That is what is wrong with civilians and politicians running a war because they have no inclinations what it takes, the suffering, the lack of sleep on days on end, the lack of decent food, lack of simple hygiene articles, and the knowledge that while you are looking down a barrel of a gun and missing your family back home that you haven’t seen for 15 months. Having your children born without you being there. Having your children graduate high school without your being there. So go ahead and put down Col. West all you want but in my book (and others as well) he did what he had to do to protect his men.

      • “When you have the responsibility of over 2,000 soldiers in your command”

        Madame, you may have to pee on the electric fence yourself to know it’s a bad idea. Some of us are able to learn from the experiences of others.

        West dishonored his military oath by violating UCMJ. Rather than defend his actions in a court martial, he resigned his commission.

        Bergdahl also dishonored his military oath by violating UCMJ. Yet West holds himself up as a “hero,” while condemning Bergdahl.

        West is a hypocrite.

      • How did Col. West violate the UCMJ? Show me where it states in any article of the UCMJ that Col. West violated it?

      • West was charged with violating Articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) for the beating and simulated execution of a prisoner that he and his men apprehended. He himself admitted that what he did was in violation of UCMJ.

        And you’re going to chide me for supposed ignorance?

      • You can look up anything just like you did now. You still don’t know anything about the UCMJ or anything about the military. You are ignorant. And I would rather have Col. West watching my back than Bergdahl any day!!! Like I said …you know nothing about military. The case stems from an incident August 20 at a military base in Taji, just north of Baghdad, when West was interrogating an Iraqi policeman, who was believed to have information about a plot to assassinate West with an ambush on a U.S. convoy.

        In testimony at an Article 32 hearing — the military’s version of a grand jury or preliminary hearing — West said the policeman, Yahya Jhrodi Hamoody, was not cooperating with interrogators, so he watched four of his soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion beat the detainee on the head and body.

        West said he also threatened to kill Hamoody. Military prosecutors say West followed up on that threat by taking the suspect outside, put him on the ground near a weapons clearing barrel and fired his 9 mm pistol into the barrel.

        Apparently not knowing where West’s gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West’s convoy, thwarting the attack.

        West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.

        “I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers,” West testified to a military courtroom of observers and some teary-eyed troops formerly under his command.

        Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, “If it’s about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

        This is the difference between someone with HONOR and some like Bergdahl that doesn’t.

      • As though that somehow makes it right.

        But then again, you RWNJs have never had a problem with others being tortured, as long as it isn’t happening to you. I mean, aren’t you the same people who supported waterboarding, even to the point of saying that you yourself could be waterboarded (which Sean Hannity did); only to take the coward’s way out?

        There’s a word for people like you in the military, and that word is “fragged”.

      • And you can copy and paste whatever you want. Regardless of your assertions, yes, West violated the UCMJ.

      • There is a big difference between protecting his troops to voluntarily leave his post and go out looking for the enemy. What do you know about HONOR? What organizations that you belong to that are honorable?

      • No, there is not. Both are violations of the oaths that were sworn. _Motive does not matter_–you violate your oath, you’re gone.

      • No, it means you should go back and re-read your own statements, you are both in the wrong in this instance.
        I haven’t read LadyWolf before, but Justin, you’re carrying a chip.
        I got no dog in this fight, state facts, give sources, if people can check what you say they got no bitch, which is why; I got no dog in this fight.

      • “Justin, you’re carrying a chip.”

        Yes, I am. Dishonesty such as West’s disgusts me. Seeing people who talk about “You were never in the military so shut up” disgusts me. And yeah, the assumption that I was looking for “pity” truly disgusts me.

        I try not to let that chip take over the conversations … and _sometimes_ I succeed. This time, not so much.

  16. If they get it then I get it….I was subjected to harsh duty and passed over for promotion all because I wouldn’t ‘put out’ to my CO and Plt SGT! PTSD my ass!

  17. This is ridiculous. She knew what the rules were when she enlisted. She chose to be gay, AND YES I SAID IT! Get over yourself. My husband served in Nam and has the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and the commendation that went with the Silver Star states that at great peril to himself he single handedly saved his whole platoon and much needed ammo that was detrimental to the war. He suffers from PTSD. How dare her put herself in the same category as him and others who served. It seems to me that if she was able to become a medical tech and then a nurse then she wasn’t too stressed from her ordeal! Get a life, get over it and quit wanting something for nothing. I for one am tired of paying for people like her that think they are entitled!

      • He was put in for the DSC but he refused to salute a newly arrived LT. who was running around with body parts on his bayonet so they knocked him down to Silver Star. I often thought about sending a request to have it reconsidered but I knew Jim would not want me to. See his medals mean nothing to him. According to him he was just doing his job like anyone else! In my eyes he is a great man.

    • @sherlenestroud:disqusShe CHOSE to be gay? DID you choose to be heterosexual? or, did you only choose to be ill-informed, uneducated, and ignorant?

      • Worcest, your an idiot! You think people are born that way? Homosexuality is a preference and choice. Nature did not intend for males/male to have sex or female/female. It just doesn’t work that way. You better do some research before you make YOURSELF look ignorant.

      • Riiiiiiight. I mean, homosexual behavior NEVER happens anywhere else in nature.

        God, you’re simple.

      • No, she did choose what she would do with her life; seems that it was going well. Wait, when did she start with the drug problem, about 20 to 30 years after the military?

      • @georgeloder:disqus I’m not challenging that this woman joined the military when being openly gay was against regulations. I’m challenging @sherlenestroud:disqus ‘s ridiculously outdated and ignorant statement about the woman’s alleged choice to be gay.
        Should she have been dishonorably discharged based on a rule that shouldn’t have existed in the beginning? I’m not in a position to judge. What I find disturbing and what pisses me of is that heteros who engage in misconduct, of whatever kind, are judged on their actions; far too often, gays and lesbians are judged on their sexual orientation, not on their own actions. That’s generally the tone and attitude through this discussion (NOT everyone’s) and on sites such as military.com – seeing and judging all LGBT persons as ill-intentioned and ill-equiped to handle military service. Some are, some aren’t – just like ‘all women’, ‘all blacks’, ‘all hetero men’, etc. some people can hack it and some people can’t – regardless of any other label. And those who can hack it should be accepted to serve. (and as ‘liberal’, progressive’, or any other label, no, I don’t support unrestricted, uncontrolled affirmative action – it should be available to those with true economic need and meet the job or university qualifications to succeed. In theory, it’s still needed; the practise of AA has been a mess.

        If Weiszmiller’s action’s were wrong, the military could should charge and prosecute her *based on her actions*. Gays and lesbians who want to serve in the military want to be accepted or rejected based on their competency. I doubt I would have qualified, I would just like to that that decision would have been based on merit, not who I am.

      • WMN. Couldn’t agree more on making judgment based only on individual/situation. Please read my other comments on this article, as I seem to be

      • There is nothing outdated about the Word of God. What was sin then is still sin today! Besides how do you explain bisexuals? If according to you a person is “born” that way then how come some people can choose between male and female partners at random? You can’t convince me that is normal! Homosexuality is a perversion. It is man lusting after man and woman lusting after woman. Or how about bestiality? Is that normal? Or a pedophile is that normal? Should we make laws that allow for these things? Just because a few want to soothe their conscience by trying to shove their perverseness in everyone’s face and holler at the top of their voices that we are the ones who are wrong doesn’t make it right! It is wrong and I really don’t care what you think about me as I have the right to my own belief and opinion just as you do. Oh and by the way if you’d do your research you would find out that was not why she was discharged! She did something that no soldier, no matter the sexual orientation, did!
        If she succeeds it will be a slap in the face to all who serve honorably! But don’t ask me, go ask her what she did!

      • @sherlenestroud:disqus, dragging bestiality and pedophilia (two predominately, overwhelmingly heterosexual behaviors) into the discussion just shows that you and your arguments are irrelevant, you’re not even looking to have an adult conversation. bestiality and pedophilia have NOTHING to do with adult, same-sex consenting relationships (which is NOT what the fable of Sodom and Gomorrah was even about, BTW).

        You’re just bitter – mental health services and medication are available for you, courtesy of “ObamaCare” – you might want to seek out help.

        If lust is wrong, then may G-d strike down 99% of heterosexuals – but funny how you all are judged based on your actions, we’re judged (by phony bible-thumpers with skeletons in their own closet) based on who we are.

        Did I say anywhere that she should be excused because of her sexual orienatation or let off any easier than anyone else? NO, I DIDN’T. I wrote: If Weiszmiller’s action’s were wrong, the military could should charge and prosecute her *based on her actions*. So, how in the hell can you disagree with that?

      • No I chose NOT to follow the path of destruction. I chose to live the way nature intended and God ordained! We are each faced each day with a choice. Whether to lie, steal, cheat, commit adultery, or any number of choices but it is up to us if we do those things. If God say all of those things are wrong, a sin, then all things He names is wrong and a sin! You can not pick and chose to suit your self. They are all wrong! He doesn’t change His mind to keep up with the times or whims of people. He is God plain and simple. He loves each and everyone of us but He hates the sin! So when you talk about a choice, you better make sure it is the right one! The Word of God say that even if you condone homosexuality but are not one, you are just as guilty! Go read it for yourself. Romans 1:32

      • @sherlenestroud:disqus, Romans is part of your sequel, therefore it, like you, are irrelevant. you’ve let your unquestioning faith and blindness cloud your humanity. you may be pious but are you a good and decent person? I wonder. Do you follow ALL 613 commandments, or just cherry pick which ones to follow? I tend to think the latter.

      • Me thinketh thou doest protest too much! Usually it is those who are screaming the loudest and putting down those whose opinion is different than yours that are trying to either hide something or soothe their conscience. Which is it for you? Can’t stand it if someone disagrees with you can you. You must be a liberal you know one of those people who wants something for nothing. One of those who all for killing innocent unborn babies. One of those bleeding hearts who say don’t punish people with the death sentence. Btw I bet you would be the first one in line to throw the switch if it was your child that was murdered, Oh wait, I forgot innocent babies don’t matter to you so it wouldn’t matter if someone murdered it! Would it!!!

  18. She got into drugs and it had nothing to do with her being discharged from the military. If she went on to become an EMT and a nurse it seemed she did just fine but it was her drug abuse that became her downfall. I’ve seen people on drugs (I’m also a Vet and I am an ER Nurse) that have money, dirt poor, and in between. Drug addicts know no boundaries.

  19. It is difficult to follow the posts with the uses of HE then SHE back and forth. The one thing that is for sure is that the homosexual community had not reached their acceptance until their “Overhauling Straight America,” agenda until a new generation arose with different values and morals. Now that America is becoming desensitized in what is right or wrong and adherence to situational ethics is embrace, we are seeing an increase in the controversies. With the vulgarity and hatred, accusations being exercised in the many posts I read today there are a lot of new candidates for ISIS and al-Qaeda for sure. The mouth diffidently reveals the true nature of the hearts contents just as Jesus warned us it would be about men in a rapid changing society.

      • I doubt you would’ve trained me, it was an engineering position working as a desk jockey, nevertheless glad I didn’t bother.

  20. Kinda like when Manson & his crew killed Sharon Tate, all her friends & the LaBianca’s. They were sentenced at that time to death. Then along comes this lib bi%$h judge turned around and changed the sentence to life instead. This woman gets an “other than honorable” discharge, and comes forward NOW to claim they hurt her feelings. Boo frickin Hoo. At least you came home with your arms & legs. My point here, and I know some people won’t like, is that when idiot libs come forward to thwart good law to make it “fair” seems to always turn out bad. What it usually creates is Americans paying for these law breakers for eternity. We’re still buying manson dinner, health and rent, and now this he/she wants money for hurt feelings. I’m calling bullshit.

  21. If queers want to be treated like everyone else take the punishment given.
    Stop wanting more than what is earned..
    STOP demanding to be treated special.!

    • Then start showing respect to gays and lesbians, not “queers”, you my-dick-is-so-small-I-have to DEMAND Open Carry to threaten others, tealiban cracker (oh, was that a stereotype?), and demand that heterosexuals live up to the same damn set of standards and rules.

      • Maybe you should grow up yourself. As a straight person we don’t have to respect the choices you choose to make. This is America! Just like you have the right to be gay, straight people have the right not respect your sexual choices!

      • It figures that, on Allen West’s webpage, there would be some simple idiot that thinks that sexual orientation is a choice.

      • Like a friend of mine once said, “If you want to stop people from
        being gay then tell there parents to stop have gay kids…….”

      • Explain why you think people don’t have a choice on sexual orientation? Please use credible information to support your belief! Your opinion means nothing to me. Why can’t gay people just admit that they like sucking dick or eating pussy, instead of hiding behind some half transparent curtain using the excuse, “I was born this way and have no choice”. Also, for your other smart ass comment on another post, where else do you see Homosexuality behavior happening in nature? Again, give substantial data that’s proves this. Not some video from YouTube that has a monkey shoving his finger up another monkeys ass!

      • Why? Why should I expect that ANYthing I should you would be met with any sort of credible acceptance?

        Why should I assume that scientific reports, showing that gay men’s brains are wired the same as straight women’s; or actual video of male bears fellating each other; why should I assume that you would accept that as fact? Everybody knows that things like “science” and “fact” are anathema to the Tealiban! Why should I expect any different from you?

        Let’s test this theory and see if I’m correct:

        SCIENTIFIC information: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php

        and

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080616-gay-brain_2.html

        Bear Video:

        http://news.discovery.com/animals/brown-bears-seen-performing-oral-sex-140618.htm

        But that’s all fake, right? It’s a “false flag” operation!!

        Stupid

      • It fascinates me that you demand respect be given and then turn around and stoop to the same level you blame others for. Do you not see that as a problem? Or is it that as long as they did it first, then it’s fair game to be as foul and vicious as you feel? There could have been a far better way to voice your opinion that would have left me supporting your statement, but now, you are really just no different than you blamed two previous people.

  22. Just what our society needs more useless people that want victim status. What ever happened to personal responsibility and taking care of things for yourself? If a woman walks around looking like a “man” or the other-way-around what would you expect?

    • That you treat your damn coworkers as a human where it shouldn’t – but still does – matter if one is a man or a woman, gay or straight. Give them the same level of respect and expectations.

      • They all started with equal levels of respect and expectations. What happend from there was up to them. Just like everyone starts the school school year off with an A. I know people now that served our Military with distinction and honor , didn’t know back then they were gay, but thats my point. At the time thats what was expected.

  23. Unless the military kickstarted her meth addiction by force-feeding it to her, she has no case. Her abysmal choices after her discharge are her own responsibility, not the taxpayers.

  24. Yep, I agree, I served. When I enlisted I understand the rules, raised my right hand and swore that I would live by those rules. And I did, and I was given an honorable discharge at the end of it all. She on the other hand, raised her right hand and swore to live by the same rules but decided that she only needed to follow some of them. She didn’t serve honorabley so therefore she didn’t deserve or receive an honorable discharge.
    We seem to be living in a world today where the word honorable has lost it’s meaning. But let me say it again, she did not honor the commitment she made, because she didn’t follow the rules that she commited herself to follow. She doesn’t deserve the honorable discharge, let alone benefits she seeks to gain by it.

      • I don’t believe people who joined while gay didn’t serve honorably. Some are great soldiers. They hid their orientation, but that didn’t effect their work ethic or willingness to die for this country. Yes, it’s wrong to pick and choose what rules to follow, but just as the tattoo ban will cause the same thing, you will miss out on some outstanding individuals I would be proud to fight along side with. Unfortunately this woman is not one of them.

      • “I don’t believe people who joined while gay didn’t serve honorably.”

        So, you think that lying on your government documents to procure a position in which you do not qualify constitutes serving honorably?

        I need to recheck my definition of honorably.

    • “No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: ‘Come back with your shield, or on it.’ Later on this custom declined. So did Rome.” – Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein.

      Seems appropriate to the discussion about honor.

    • Ya i get PTSD every time i go there. Last summer they had signs for 99 cent ice cream cones up. Yet every time i asked for one the ice cream machine was “down” WTF!!! They got their minimum wage hike so maybe I can expect better in the future.

  25. Guess my two brothers will be filing to have their dishonorable stati reversed as well; one for a chronic refusal to obey orders, the other for selling drugs on base. After all, how dare the military have, like, RULES and stuff!

  26. Mr. West , I was stationed at Ft McClellan from December 1978 to
    February 1979. What she is claiming is BS. There were known homosexuals
    during my basic training at McClellan (some female Drill Sgts.) and
    throughout my 3 years in the military. to the contrary there was a big
    problem with lesbians harassing heterosexual women to join them. It was
    such a big problem when I was stationed in Germany that the once all
    female floor of the barracks was dispersed throughout the building and
    organized by platoons instead of gender in order to alleviate the
    problem.

    Where is my PTSD incurred by their harassment during that time.

    And
    the bit about having to “mowing fields of grass with a hand sickle.”
    That’s not harassment, that’s just part of duties that you are assigned.
    i had to scrub an entire floor of my barracks on my hands and knees, I
    had to peel potatoes by hand (lots 0f potatoes) and once myself and
    another serviceman had to rake an entire quadrangle with a ordinary
    rake. Cry me a river.

    It will sicken me if she prevails because
    it is likely she did harass heterosexual women when she was there. Isn’t
    that sexual harassment?

    • Lesbians and gays are special don’t you see? They want to be accepted but they also want special treatment. It is beyond me why anyone would want to be known for what kind of sex they prefer. This is sick and so wrong on so many levels.

    • While I was in I was also came onto from lesbians. I also had to scrub the floors in Maintenance Control on my hands and knees using steel wool.

  27. People amaze me! This woman is blaming everyone else for her bullshit life and now, trying to collect because she was not responsible enough to live her own life making responsible adult choices. Since Marijuana, more than likely, will be made legal, you will have every soldier trying to get their dishonorable discharge upgraded to an honorable. I’m so sick of the Gay community and they’re bullshit excuses to justify the life they choose to live. I think people are now starting to realize that Homosexuality is a preference and choice.

  28. Allen West lecturing someone about expecting their pension when they don’t follow military rules and regulations. I’m getting dizzy from all the eye rolling.

      • If by taking his punishment you mean was found in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, relieved of his post and yet managed to be allowed to retire honorably then yes Mr. West was punished appropriately.

        Not only that, but now he gets paid to comment on how people should conduct themselves in the military. Never mind that his conduct since leaving the military includes accusing legislators of being communists while producing no evidence, claiming that he has higher security clearance than the president, and stating that “…if ballots don’t work, bullets will”.

        What an inspiration.

    • What pension are you talking about? She doesn’t deserve any disability. She was humiliated because she was gay while lying to get into the military and now she has PTSD? Must not have bothered her too much since she became an EMT and a Nurse. I am also a Veteran and while in the military I also had to get down on my knees and scrubbed the floor with steel wool more than once. So do I get disability because I subjected to being on my knees?

    • Pension?!? Did she serve 20 years and RETIRE from the Army? No, she didn’t! Don’t you dare go there Jim. My Dad served 20 years in the Army, went to Vietnam twice (voluntarily) and earned his retirement and disability status.

  29. Maybe it’s being gay that left her traumatized which I would imagine it could. I also imagine the military left a lot of people traumatized for various ligitimate reasons

  30. My boyfriend who also is a 9 yr Army Veteran said while his father was a drill instructor had him and his 2 sisters use a mess kit knife and dig up all the dandelions by the roots in their yard. And here she is complaining about mowing the grass using a hand sickle? And while I was in the military I had to get down on my knees and scrub the floor in Maintenance Control with steel wool. And this happened more than once. So do I get PTSD because I had to get down on my hands and knees?

  31. It’s the same as repearations for slavery you jackass. What was wrong should be made right. The regulation was wrong and as such, was her discharge. Manual labor and humiliation may be part of serving but when it crosses a line into attacking a person for race, gender, religion, sexual identity etc, it goes too far. People in the military (I’m a hetero male 11B, 9yrs in and 3 deployments) think that being a soldier means you don’t deserve dignity and your humanity and that if you ask for those things then you are not a soldier. That is complete BS and anyone that can’t see that, is either weak minded and brainwashed or just needs to get educated and grow up emotionally. We’re people first and soldiers second! Don’t judge until you’ve walked a mile in someone’s shoes.

    • No. You are speaking as if this civilian law applies. The military goes by the UCMJ in order for it to be the same through out the services without regard of location. As for the rest , that is this century, judge the action in its context. there is a legal term for it: Res Judacota (sp) The way the law was.
      Opinions NOW apply to now not then.

      • See that’s why we have higher powers in this country, because as society evolves, laws must do so as well, and when injustice has been determined, as much as can be done to right it, no matter how far back it goes, must be done. It doesn’t matter if its civilian or military law, right is right and people are starting to realize that the short sighted neglect of this fact has led to long term damage in our soldiers and society that has still yet to unfold.

      • Sorry. As noble as your statement is, in a court of law, once a judgment is made according to the law at the time it stands even if the law is abolished. Example: People sentenced (for boot legging) during prohibition had their sentences commuted, when booze became legal again. Those who had served their time, were not compensated for the time served. The point is the law (good or bad) was violated; the judgment was valid according to the law (at the time) it was not an unjust act. If that were the case, every change in any law would give grounds for re-trial, the legal system would collapse due to the log-jamb it would cause and there would no access for a just trial by anyone. I chose boot-legging and prohibition as an example; suppose assisted suicide became legal in all states10 years ago, then suddenly the laws are passed making it illegal. Can you go back and apply the new law to all of the past assistants? What are the charges, “You violated the law before it was a law.”?

      • There are at times grounds for retrial, that’s why they never like to make such changes, because it makes to many people look bad. Seems they have to wait for such people to die off. : / As far compensation goes, I don’t know much about it. I would imagine there’d have to be a filing on behalf of the lineage, which as far down the road as these things happen they probably don’t get filed and even if they did, they’d have to take it to the Supreme Court because every lower judge would tell them to screw and I don’t think most people have the time or care to go the distance. Especially with something that they feel little about since it probably happened before them. Save for such big things like slavery.

      • I understand where you are coming from; what I’m saying is the simple fact that the restrictions for enlistment have changed in the past 35 years is not enough grounds for a retrial.
        Bear in mind that this woman neither retired from the military nor was she discharged for medical reasons, she has no benefits now except as a vet (because of the up-grade to honorable status) she can receive medical treatment for PTSD if she can prove that it was service connected, but no disability payments from the service. (My back is screwed up because I fell off the top of a communications truck when someone moved it while I was making repairs, It didn’t bother me much when I was in the service but has grown worse with age; Neither I nor the Army has a copy of those medical records from 1973 at hand. I can’t prove the circumstances of that service connected injury: I can’t file until I produce a copy of those records.) Legitimate or not, I don’t see any logical way the subject claim could be made and/or verified.

    • I think reparations are wrong, who do you know now living, and was a slave in the 1800’s? Why should taxpayers dole out money for everything, and anything some may feel wronged about? How about a pension for all those in gitmo. Maybe the have PTSD. PTSD is a serious condition, and I’m all for helping veterans who truly have it, because of battle, etc. What about women in the military who have sexually assaulted. These women DO need help.

      • Reparations are not payed by taxes, the money is taken from old money families that still have profit made from the days they owned slaves and given to the linage of said slaves. It is a small gesture at best to try and right a horrible wrong that can never be undone. They are entitled to that money as their linage earned it. I don’t know if you mean prisoners or soldiers @ GTMO. I am 100% with you on the issue of military sexual assault, against both men and women. It is something that the military has been trying to get a handle on for sometime now, with little result. If a soldier has PTSD from such an assault, they can and should absolutely put in a claim for PTSD disability, if they feel they need it. All the tax money that goes towards policing the world and weapons R&D, would be much better spent on getting solders well and back to normalcy.

      • You may not be complaining but some of the guys from your day and before are in the groups I attend. If you were not affect in such ways by your service then I am happy for you but don’t assume that is the same for all.

      • You misunderstood me. No complaint here, I meant no complaint here because of being treated bad, or messed around by some of higher rank. I still see counselors,etc. been in groups. I would never assume you, or I, or anyone else escaped any war without some emotional toll. I truly hope you’re getting help, and hopefully some good results. I just can’t see this woman complaining and claiming PTSD because of her being lesbian. I struggle daily with everything. I hope you see what I meant. You keep going to your sessions, I really hope you’re getting the help you deserve.

      • I understand and I hope you continue to get what you need as well. Try to remember there are many different from of trauma that can lead to PTSD and bullying is one of them, especially when it is due to something so personal are core to ones being as sexual identity. This is something that you and I can never know how it feels.

    • How do you know she didn’t ask to get out because she couldn’t hack it? Maybe that is why everyone knew she was a lesbian back then because she brought it out. While I was in I knew many (men and women) who were gay did their duty and didn’t complain like this lady did.
      “Back then, the treatment was barbaric,” Weiszmiller said. I was in back then and as a woman I wasn’t treated any different than others. I got down on my knees and scrubbed Maintenance Control floors with steel wool then had to clean and buff it. Should I try to get PTSD because of this? It must not have bothered her because she became an EMT and then a Nurse. Believe me working as a Nurse in the ER (btw I am a RN) we should get PTSD from all the screaming, yelling, biting, hitting, thrown up on, peed on, and all the gore we see every day!!!

      • Well, if you have difficulties performing your job because you get PTSD then you will be comped one way or another. No one should presume to know how anything affects anyone at any rate.

    • Yea, well, reparations for slavery are wrong, too, unless you’re going to demand them of the raiding Muslim hordes and rival black tribes in Africa who sold their black brethren into slavery to begin with. Stick that crap where the sun don’t shine.

      • I’m sure if there were any sort of stability brought to those regions it would be handled but as of now, warlords are still raping and mutilating, while people die of starvation and disease, so your point does not apply there. As for reparations here, the money is taken from old money families that still have profit made from the days they owned slaves and given to the linage of said slaves. A small measure at best, but if you can’t see the worth in that, then I find no worth in further dialogue.

      • Those “profits” were mostly lost when the South was crushed. Almost everybody in the South lost everything….especially the slave owners. Think this thing through…..Native Americans, Irish, Jews, Chinese rail workers, Hispanics….everyone has been crapped on including most white Americans. Just pay everyone….oh, we are doing that now with this admistration…..for doing nothing. Now I have PTSD.

      • Not sure where you get that the plantations lost their profits but it’s not just about being crapped on it’s about the ability to thrive and be successful. I for one would rather money goes away all together.

    • The point you’re missing is, the fact that, she needed to lie in the first place, was a violation of human rights, making the regulations unjust and void. I don’t get why these principles are so hard for people to understand. . .

      • Frankly, that’s your opinion. You’re free to have it. I think you’re missing another point that seems to be in serious jeopardy in this country: integrity.

        Lying in order to enlist is an offense that is punishable by court-martial and other-than-honorable discharge, period. It doesn’t matter what you lie about, or what year in which the lie occurred.

        It doesn’t matter how you feel about it either. It’s an issue of integrity. If you would lie to get in, what else would you lie about while you were serving?

        If you think that is a violation of human rights, then it speaks to your understanding of integrity, and I hope that you are not currently enlisted, nor attempt to represent the integrity of our military.

        At the end of the day, regardless of your opinion, she committed that violation voluntarily, and therefore did not earn an honorable discharge. There are plenty of other relevant questions I could ask, but I doubt I’ll ever have all of the answers or details. I’ve got to go on what I know, and the fact is that she did not earn what she’s now gotten, based solely upon her own actions, which were and still are a violation of the UCMJ.

        What kind of precedent does this set? Not a good one. You might not see it that way.

        That’s your right, and I will defend it. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with you or compromise my own moral compass, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the Army should compromise their standards to accommodate your opinion.

      • My understanding of integrity is well grounded and was well formed before I enlisted in the Army of which I am still an 11B in a line company. Integrity is not just blindly following orders, rules and regulations. That mentality is what lead to slaughters in villages ordered by maladjusted officers. Integrity is doing what is “right” always, regardless of the consequences, weather someone is watching or not. Like not pulling the trigger when the ROE says you can, because know you don’t need to. Rules and right are not the same thing. That is why for decades there have been good homosexual soldiers throughout the military, because good people did what was right by ignoring an unjust rule for what was right and made efforts to either ignore the presence of a homosexual soldier or shield them from ignorant people and an ignorant reg. I worked for a year and a half with a blatant homosexual and he was more of a soldier and more of a man than plenty of those that thought of themselves as being so. Unfortunately there was and still are brainwashed or bigot soldiers that think a discriminatory rule was more important that fostering equality, and taking advantage of everything that any soldier has to offer and that is something our society should be ashamed of not defending. Don’t throw around military values like you know something about it because you have squat to teach me.

      • Sure thing, bang-bang. Don’t preach to me about integrity. Don’t quote the Army definition to me either. I know more about it than you’ll ever understand. It’s why I left the Army. Not that it matters. My moral compass is straight, and I earned my honorable, and the disabilities that came with it. Since we aren’t likely to be exchanging DD-214’s anytime soon, we’re both just going to have to take one another on their word that what they claim, pertaining to military experience, is true.

        There is equality, and then there is special treatment. You can’t have both. I’m pretty sure I served with a few gay men and women who were smart enough to follow the rules, behave professionally, and do their jobs. Their bedroom practices were, and remain, none of my business. They didn’t have to hear about my sexual proclivities, and I didn’t have to hear about theirs. Honestly, they were great soldiers. That kind of professionalism should be far more commonplace, but some people apparently have trouble separating their personal and professional lives. However, DADT was alive right up until a few months before my discharge,
        so it really didn’t matter as long as they acted with professionalism.
        They didn’t have to lie about their sexual preferences in order to
        serve.

        As long as they were soldiers, and served honorably and professionally, I didn’t care about their sex lives. I had a straight soldier wind up getting the boot from my unit because his wife’s idea of “sexy” landed him up at the aid station on one too many occasions. That’s not professional. That causes problems. This woman enlisted prior to the enactment of DADT, and neither one of us knows the full extent of the details and circumstances surrounding her discharge. There were probably factors involved to which we will never be privy. I knew a woman who was almost the very definition of “bull-dyke,” and who claimed it proudly, but only after her honorable discharge at retirement. Prior to her enlistment (in the 1970’s) she married a male friend who was also enlisting, and they maintained a very healthy “straight” relationship during their time in the Navy. Once they were both retired, they separated, and were still friends until she recently passed away. She had integrity- she sacrificed and followed the rules because she wanted to serve.

        Your argument is based on an opinion that a lawful and just regulation (“lying on enlistment forms is perjury and an offense punishable by discharge,” paraphrased) is nullified when it applies to a person’s sexuality. I disagree.

        While I commend the effort to serve, as I do not have enough factual information to rationally perceive or assert otherwise, I cannot condone the lie. If you can, then I can’t say I’m thankful for your “service,” because frankly, I cant trust you, regardless of how much you might profess to be a champion of human rights.

        If you are willing to condone perjury, which is not the same thing at all as “not firing when the R.O.E. say it’s ok, because taking the shot would be wrong,” then you have no integrity. It’s almost as if you’d be okay with taking a “justified” shot despite a prohibition by the R.O.E., because you think the R.O.E. are flawed. Even when the R.O.E. are downright dangerous and wrong, you hold your fire, bang-bang.

        That’s my opinion, and your opinion is not going to change it. That is our right. I’ll defend yours. At this point, I can’t say I trust you to defend mine. Have a nice evening.

  32. PURE B.S. Hell, lets turn the military into fun and games mixed bag of people with any issue and give them all the M.O.H. and an honorable discharge. Our country has become so P.C. ass kissing everyone and all beliefs. This ” Lez ” is a joke wanting benefits for PTSD. Why disgrace the military members who serve honorably, may be truly considered PTSD. Ok, you bleeding hearts out there let’s hear your rants because I disagree with this woman.

    • if she engaged in misconduct – and NO ONE here is privy to all the details – then, charge her. But, DON”T make this about ‘all gays and lesbians’ -make it about the one woman under discussion. Otherwise, we can make it about all hetero men who commit fraud, rape, sexual assault, and anything else, based on the example of one or a few. Either, be objective or admit one’s bias.

      • I am referring to the woman under discussion, I didn’t say”all gays and lesbians”. I know their are some gay and lesbians who most likely serve in many jobs, professions, with honor, never doing like this woman.

      • The problem is that she may be one person but there is no doubt that there is an agenda by the gay community. Individual people who are gay may not be involved but u they aren’t they sure aren’t speaking up or against this systematic abuse of everyone and everything that doesn’t conform with their belief. If ur not part of the solution then u r part of the problem. In this case not speaking out against this abuse is the same as condoning it and allows others to make generalized comments that encompass all gays. If u don’t want to be lumped in with that crowd and are a gay person then start speaking up against other gays who are giving people like u a bad name.

      • Lol not once did they say anything against all gays and lesbians…. you might wanna learn how to read again, seeing how you miss this point and what the article said. She was gay during a time being gay in the military was not allowed and allowed to be other then honorable discharge. Now that she has honorable discharge because thw military is trying to fix its past, she wants to claim ptsd now so she can get money. She was commit an infringement against military policy at the time. The military did enough by correcting her discharge. She’s also saying she got hooked on meth because she was humiliated and doesbt know what coping skills are… please dont shout out crap before actually thinking how dumb you might sound.

  33. This should remove any doubt that the “Gay” agenda is about money and benefits. This druggie, can now claim some mental illness, turn around claim she loves another druggie of the same sex get married an get some benefits for that person. This is all about money.

  34. This is unbelievable! My mom joined the Army in 1968 in fact her name is on the Women’s Dedication Memorial in Washington D.C. as being one of the last of the original WACs. I used to love listening to all her old Army stories. One time she told me her and someone got in trouble for talking in ranks and she had to clean the latrine with a toothbrush! She’s not claiming PTSD over it! I have no problem with gays as long as they don’t brag about it. I mean my cousin is gay and I love him to pieces. But I will tell you I have more respect for the homosexual men and women who do not use their sexual orientation to get ahead in life. I have gay friends and not one of them have asked for special treatment just because they were gay. I remember watching this news clip about a possible candidate running for New York mayor election. She was making a big deal about her being gay and that if she was elected mayor she would be the first ever openly gay female mayor in New York City. All I could think was Lady as long as you can do your job as mayor I don’t care whether you take a damn donkey to bed with you. Its o.k. to be gay and proud of it but when you start expecting special treatment then you have gone to far.

  35. and before anyone says anything about her “DESERVING” her Honorable Discharge —-

    “Ms. Weiszmiller violated a regulation in existence at that time. The repeal today has no bearing upon her willing violation of that regulation. No one forced her intojoining the U.S. Army, she did so voluntarily.”

    The rule/law at the time was DON’T ASK DON’T TELL, She signed up VOLUNTARY and AGREED to that rule, she VIOLATED the UCMJ so therefor she does NOT deserve it!

  36. ,,,,,,,,,, nor does she “DESERVE” the PTSD rating. They are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of HONORABLE Veterans out there going back to the KOREAN war who STILL have not gotten their RIGHTLY DESERVED PTSD rating, and she its because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! %#%$#@%[email protected]#!%$#[email protected]%$#@%$#@%$#@%$#@%#

  37. I was stationed in McClellan ’73-’76. Half the base was lesbian. My CO was gay. My roommate was gay. NOBODY CARED! Seriously, and half of my friends were black, both civilian and military. Anniston loved the military folk. I don’t know what her issues are but maybe, just maybe, the problem was with HER and she just didn’t like how people wouldn’t celebrate who she was.

  38. Can we just give her more meth……A LOT MORE METH! What a scammer. She likely used her nurse status to access drugs daily.

  39. Does this mean that all of us Veterans who are being forced to endure the horrors of the Dept Veterans Affairs, Benefits can claim PTSD for all of the stress of dealing with the endless appeals, more required documentation, and years of waiting for VAB to “give” us proper disability ratings?

  40. I went for basic training @ Ft McClellan in 1970 and this person is full of bull crap. My Sarge and Command Officer were both gay and even though there were restrictions in place…they never approached any of the straight females in an inappropriate way. Also, went to several bars while on pass and none of the black girls had any issues with the townies.

      • only in your head mark.I served then in the marines..I never saw gays have any issues or blacks for that matter.fact is this scum lied on a federal document. which is a crime and she got caught.BWAAAAAAA

      • I was stating facts Mark. My personal experiences. Nothing racist or sexist at all.
        Why make it something it isn’t?

  41. So you deserve your pension even after torturing an Iraqi prisoner but gay people who decided to serve a country that denied them equal protection and civil rights do not? Interesting value system you’ve got there

    • You need to be in combat before you judger the actions of them that have ,as for her she lied on her contact to get in .at the time and by the current law it was the least they could do and she is not a victim except of her own making

      • We’ve been working to repair the legacy of racism in this country. We now began addressing the legacy of homophobia. Get with the program or become increasingly isolated and irrelevant and slowly die off like the rest of the old, bigoted, and out of touch.

  42. Did these people serve?

    Is their sexual orientation the only reason that they are being denied benefits?

    If the answer to both of these questions is, ‘yes’, they are entitled to benefits. Sorry, the “the pie is too small” argument doesn’t really fly when we’re talking about equal protection under the law here.

      • actually this did not even fall under dadt.this was during my time in the 70s dadt did not exist. at the recruiters office.on the federal form you filled out under penalty of perjury.question was.are you a home sexual or have you engaged in any homosexual acts.YES—–NO

    • Served, yes.

      Sexual orientation – this is where your argument fails. Upon entry, recruits were asked questions about orientation upon penalty of perjury (yes, during DADT, I had to answer those questions in June 1999). Lying on that portion IS/WAS perjury, meaning unlawful enlistment. unlawful enlistment changes everything.

  43. This is an absolute travesty. I’d like to give him “PTSD” with my size 11D shoved so far up where the moon don’t shine that it would take an ear-nose-throat specialist to remove it! As a Vietnam Combat Vet’ I have seen PTSD up close and personal and being kicked out for aberrant behavior is total BS.

  44. This is some kind of a joke, right? Where is General Patton when the Armed Forces needs him the most? A stiffy up the anal cavity is no substitute for a backbone.

  45. Now, years later because of an executive order repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” regulation, she is afforded an upgrade in her discharge?

    I know this is hard for you please try to stop lying. There is no “executive order” repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. There is a law that repealed it.

  46. There is a key detail missing here: how many of these cases were cases where the DADT violation resulted from a third party outing that was not under the control of the discharged soldier? I would need to view each case on a case-by-case basis to see who actually was wronged and who was not.

      • What question on a federal document would have been there there that asks of one’s sexual orientation, especially under don’t ask, don’t tell? Such a question would have violated at least the spirit if not the letter of that law. That thus leaves the question of who was outed by a third party…and violated the soldier’s 4A rights.

      • military give up rights to enlist.this happened in the 70s .when I joined.the question on the form reads as follows are you a homosexual or do you participate in homosexual acts. YES——NO.she lied ofa federal ffrom.plus her behavior was substandard.. to blame her meth addiction and brushes with the law due to the military is just a lie.

  47. “Now, years later because of an executive order repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” regulation, she is afforded an upgrade in her discharge?”

    Executive order? Don’t you mean Act of Congress? Remember, you campaigned against it and promised to vote against it if elected? I feel like you would remember that.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here