THE EFFECTS OF THE DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY ON GAY, LESBIAN AND
BISEXUAL VETERANS’ EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Social Work Division
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Chidera Madu-Egu
SUMMER 2013
© 2013
Chidera Madu-Egu
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE EFFECTS OF THE DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY ON GAY, LESBIAN AND
BISEXUAL VETERANS’ EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
A Project
by
Chidera Madu-Egu
Approved by:
______, Committee Chair Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Date
iii
Student: Chidera Madu-Egu
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.
, Graduate Coordinator Dale Russell, Ed.D., L.C.S.W. Date
Division of Social Work
iv
Abstract
of
THE EFFECTS OF THE DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY ON GAY, LESBIAN AND
BISEXUAL VETERANS’ EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
by
Chidera Madu-Egu
This mixed-methods, qualitative/quantitative study explores the emotional effects of the
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy on veterans’ emotional well-being. This study consisted of 20 participants from two sampling time periods. The first sample came from
2008 while DADT was in effect. The second sample came from 2013 after the repeal of
DADT. The study used a survey design. The focus of this project was centered on the concept of hidden sexual identity as it pertains to the emotional well-being of military veterans, through the lens of the Relative Deprivation theory and Social Identity theory.
The data illustrated that 100% of the sampled GLB veterans experienced high levels of anxiety pertaining to hiding their sexual orientation while serving in the military.
Findings included 90% of participants stating that even with the DADT policy in place; they would still recommend other GLB persons to join the military.
, Committee Chair Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Date
v
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this project to all of the men and women who voluntarily serve in the U.S. Military, fighting for the freedom of all people, both in foreign lands and domestically while being denied the right to fight for their own rights to serve as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. This is for all those who have felt they had to hide their sexual orientation in order to “blend in” and feel they are a part of something more important than themselves. I dedicate this to all the service members who have been emotionally violated by those they swore to protect. Last but not least, I dedicate this to all people of the GLBTQQIAAP Community everywhere. Just remember, being uniquely unique is better than being commonly common.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my proverbial thesis spouse
Meredith for having an unwavering amount of trust and belief in me through this entire journey that started five years ago. You have been by my side cheering me on to the finish line, even when I wanted to give up badly. Your response was always “you can do this.” I thank you for all you have done for and with me, as I know that I would not have been able to see that light at the end of the tunnel without your guiding light.
Secondly, I would like to thank my partner in crime, my spouse Patrick, for giving me the opportunity to challenge myself in ways that I did not know possible.
Thank you for having my back in this endeavor and taking on the responsibility of caring for three extremely active children. I give gratitude to you for making the financial aspect of this journey a non-issue and your encouraging words of hope.
To my three children Adanna, Obioma, and Chukwuma for always letting me know that everything was going to be alright. I thank them for staying up late with me
“helping” me write when I thought I had said all that needed to be said.
I would also like to thank my sister Cassandra for always knowing what to say and sometimes not say. I thank you for taking on many responsibilities that only a sister could, thank you. I thank you for challenging me to think outside the box when it came to giving meaning to my thoughts and words. I love you for the independent woman you have become and I admire your sense of self.
vii
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for raising a very independent person, who understands the emotional cost that sometimes comes along with being a unique individual. Thank you for teaching me that the human voice is the best asset one can have. Thank you.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ...... vi
Acknowledgments...... vii
List of Tables ...... xii
Chapter 1. THE ISSUE ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1
Background of the Problem ...... 5
Statement of the Research Problem ...... 6
Purpose of the Study ...... 7
Theoretical Framework ...... 7
Definition of Terms...... 9
Assumptions ...... 12
Justification ...... 13
Limitations ...... 13
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 15
History of Gays/Homosexuals in the Military ...... 15
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” Policy ...... 20
Anti-Homosexual Violence ...... 25
Military Service Members Affected by the DADT Policy ...... 26
ix
Mental Health Care and the DADT ...... 28
Identity in Response to DADT ...... 29
Concealed Identity ...... 29
Summary ...... 33
3. METHODS ...... 35
Study Timing ...... 35
Study Design ...... 35
Sampling Procedures ...... 36
Population ...... 37
Instrument ...... 38
Data Analysis ...... 39
Protection of Human Subjects ...... 40
4. RESULTS ...... 42
Findings...... 58
5. CONCLUSION ...... 63
Summary ...... 63
Implications for Social Work ...... 64
Limitations ...... 65
Conclusion ...... 65
Recommendations ...... 66
Appendix A. Approval Letter for Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center ...... 68
x
Appendix B. Flyer for Participant Recruitment ...... 69
Appendix C. Surveys ...... 70
Appendix D. Consent Forms...... 88
References ...... 92
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1. Ages of Service Members ...... 43
2. Gender ...... 44
3. Participant Ethnicity ...... 44
4. Sexual Orientation ...... 45
5. Military Status ...... 45
6. Branch of Service ...... 46
7. Military Affiliation...... 47
8. Familiarity with DADT Policy ...... 48
9. Revision of DADT ...... 49
10. Repeal of DADT Accommodates All Members ...... 50
11. Hiding Sexual Orientation Under DADT ...... 51
12. Hiding Sexual Orientation After Repeal of DADT ...... 52
13. Expression of Sexual Orientation Under DADT ...... 53
14. Expression of Sexual Orientation After Repeal of DADT ...... 54
15. Expression of Sexual Orientation and Inadequate to Serve Country
Under DADT ...... 55
16. Emotionally Adequate to Serve Country ...... 56
17. Concerned about Ridicule ...... 57
xii 1
Chapter 1
THE ISSUE
Introduction
The military’s past and present philosophy has always been based on the notion that all military personnel are indeed a small piece of something larger and when its ability to accomplish the mission is threatened or perceived to be threatened, it automatically begins to close ranks or form a united front against a problem or enemy.
At the core of the debate, the question at hand really then becomes, “Is the U.S. military capable of integrating openly gay personnel into its ranks while maintaining its ability to accomplish its mission? The military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) Policy has been around since the formation of the military, though it has also been called the sodomy clause; its stance on homosexuality did not change until more recently with the repeal signed into policy by President Obama. The earliest known homosexual discharge was on March 11, 1778 when Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin was dishonorably discharged from the Continental Army following his court-martial conviction on charges of sodomy and perjury (Shilts, 1993).
Due to the nature of the armed forces, policies, both past and present, continue to contain an underlying concept that homosexuals are less worthy of military service than their heterosexual counterparts. The perceived superiority heterosexuals have in the military has led persons of homosexual orientation to deny their sexual identity in an effort to conform to the standards of the DADT policy and current military practices.
2
There have been stressful working relationships in the military, numerous discharges, both voluntary and involuntary, according to the American Psychoanalytic Association
(APA) Position Statement (2009). Years of psychological research and experience have revealed that keeping one’s sexual orientation hidden has taken an extensive mental toll on service members (Barber, 2012). “Heterosexist environments and non-supportive social interactions have been highly correlated with depression and psychological distress” (Smith & Ingram as cited in Sinclair, 2008, p. 708).
The military is, in fact, an entity founded on the basis of discriminatory principles.
The many examples of exclusionary practices include felons (Militaryplainfacts, 2007), handicapped individuals, such as deaf persons (Nolan, 2012), transsexuals (Task Force,
2013), and persons with any number of medical conditions, determined by each branch’s individualized test questions (Today’s Military, 2013). The military also discriminates on the basis of genetics such as height and weight (Militaryplainfacts, 2007), physical and mental ability (Today’s Military, 2013), congenital and hereditary conditions, such as genetic mutation (Kaplan, 2007), and age (Militaryplainfacts, 2007). The military discriminates between individuals or groups with a strong potential for successful soldiering and those without. For example, while military personnel may serve until retirement age (varies), new enlistees must be between the ages of 17 and 34 (Today’s
Military, 2013). These discriminatory judgments are often made by Congress, the
Secretary of Defense, or even by the service secretaries in fulfilling their “obligatory”
3 duty to compose a strong, combat-ready, and efficiently administered armed forces
(Wells-Petry, 1993).
In the eyes of the military, perceived homosexuality is just as damning as actual homosexuality. For example, PFC Barry Winchel was murdered because he was perceived as being gay by the men who killed him (Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network [SLDN], 2007). From 1992 through 2003, numerous incidents left persons perceived to be homosexuals and actual homosexuals with emotional damages stemming from the witch-hunt to weed out “gays” in the military (SLDN, 2007). The Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell Policy also includes the tenet of Don’t Pursue. However, according to SLDN
(2007), it is the most misunderstood part of the policy. It allows military personnel to act on information from a deemed “credible” source pertaining to a member’s sexual orientation. The officer receiving the information could conduct an investigation, which could lead to any military personnel believed to be gay or bisexual to be discharged
(SLDN, 2007). One of the worst and most noted witch-hunts occurred in the U.S. Marine
Corps in Okinawa, Japan at Camp Hansen from March to June 1994 in which over 21 service members were questioned about their sexual orientation and activities as well as of other service members. Despite Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)’s careful documentation of abuses, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps officials have yet to acknowledge any impropriety in the witch-hunt (Osburn, Benecke, & Childress, 1997).
Witch-hunts are not the only way discrimination occurred regarding sexual orientation. Sometimes only one person was physically harmed; however, the event
4 affects many. October 27, 1992 marked the day Petty Officer Allen R. Schindler was brutally murdered in Japan by his shipmates in an anti-gay hate crime (Reza, 1993). In
1996, Marine Corporal Kevin Blessing was discharged after his Naval psychologist turned him in for merely asking questions about sexual orientation. Once again, these incidents show the type of goings on in the Armed Forces when the subject of sexual orientation is brought up.
The SLDN had made many written complaints that client-provider privileges were being violated when therapists willingly turned service members in for disclosing personal information pertaining to their sexual orientation during therapy sessions that were intended to be private (Barber, 2012). The SLDN stated that disclosure of sexual orientation does not fall under the duty to warn because there is no apparent suicidal or homicidal identifiers for those military personnel discharged based on their sexual orientation (SLDN, 2007).
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the DADT policy prior to its repeal, any member of the service could be discharged based on sexual orientation hidden under a number of other discharge categories (UCMJ, 2012). For example, if the military were unable to prove homosexual inappropriateness they would attempt to discharge service members under UCMJ articles 133 and 134, better known as Conduct
Unbecoming and General Article (SLDN, 2011).
5
Background of the Problem
Prior to Clinton’s, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, the Department of
Defense (DOD) policy was status based; the explicit terms of the regulations authorized military officials to determine not only what service members did but what they desired and intended, all with the intent on determining who the service members were. The policy prior to Clinton’s policy required the separation of any service member deemed to be “homosexual” and defined the excluded service member as “a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts”
(Halley, 1999, p. 27). On the other hand, if a service member merely stated he or she was gay, Clinton’s policy allowed the service member to remain in uniform as long as there are further findings proving the service member was not a homosexual or bisexual
(Halley, 1999).
President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address explicitly stated he would repeal the official U.S. military policy on homosexuality. The DADT policy has clearly been a pointed expression of denying voices and a specific requirement to be silent while serving in the Armed Forces. Military service members serving under this policy have been prohibited from articulating their minority sexual orientation and others have been prohibited from asking if said personnel are gay (Lubensky et al., 2004). A new
University of Montana (UM) study conducted by Bryan Cochran, a clinical psychologist and Associate Professor, along with Annesa Flentje, a UM doctoral graduate, found that military sexual minorities serving under the DADT policy were more likely to screen
6 positive for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Cochran, Balsam, Flentje,
Malte, & Simpson, 2013). Their study went on to show that 69.3% of the 409 GLB veterans they surveyed stated they experienced fear or anxiety about having their GLB identity revealed, while 68.7% reported they were constantly attempting to conceal their sexual orientation while in the service (Cochran et al., 2013).
The mental health of service members who serve with their sexual identity concealed have also taken on the voice of silence. Burks (2011) and Pachankis (2007) have stated the practice of concealment, along with the experiences of anti-gay harassment, victimization, and/or discrimination may result in a negative psychological toll on the GLB veteran, leaving the veteran with no voice when faced with an overwhelming feeling of being ostracized.
Statement of the Research Problem
For decades, the military has oppressed and discriminated against persons of homosexual orientation. The oppression has led to numerous GLB military personnel serving in secrecy and unable to truly serve their country due to the backlash against military service members who have openly self-identified and or were turned in by those who perceived them to be of homosexual orientation. Many self-identified homosexuals who serve(d) in the military were unable to serve as openly gay service members while their heterosexual colleagues/counterparts were allowed to serve as openly heterosexual without retribution.
7
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to increase awareness and understanding of the emotional affects the DADT has had on military personnel who have served or continue to serve in secrecy due to their sexual orientation and the historical presence of DADT. It also aims to illustrate that people affected by DADT are not necessarily ill equipped to perform their job duties in the military or be in the military, in general. With the newly repealed
DADT policy, many more self-identified homosexuals may feel emotionally adequate and emotionally safe to serve their country without the fear of retribution solely based on sexual orientation, as opposed to being discharged for poor job performance (San Diego
Military Counseling Project, n.d.). This study further attempts to answer the question of an individual’s wholeness as it relates to the person in environment and to acknowledge the underlying fact that all people are affected emotionally when there is a perceived inadequacy not based on fact but perception and fear of sexual orientation.
Theoretical Framework
The primary theory through which this study was conducted is that of Relative
Deprivation (RD) first purported in a primarily economic manner (Merton & Kitt, 2009).
Relative Deprivation states one group perceives themselves deprived of something another group has. While Relative Deprivation theory deals with perceptions of deprivation, Objective Deprivation deals with deprivations actually present. In the case of GLB military personnel, objective deprivation exists, as they are deprived of living a life in full disclosure without fear of retribution. However, with the DADT policy in
8 place, relative deprivation begins to emerge as emotions affect perceptions. GLB military personnel may feel stigmatized and marginalized due to the silence they must maintain to avoid being discharged despite DADT’s apparent lift of the ban of GLB service members in the military.
Though Relative Deprivation theory may stem from an economic perspective,
Relative Deprivation theory has been used extensively in the social sciences arena for over a half century. Relative Deprivation theory has been found to be extremely useful for explaining numerous paradoxes (Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). For example, Relative Deprivation theory was chosen as the ideal theory because of service members’ subjective comparisons to their heterosexual counterparts, while leaving them to have emotional reactions to objective circumstances (Walker & Smith, 2002).
Over the last 10 years, according to Walker and Smith (2002), Relative
Deprivation researchers have elaborated on the distinction of feeling deprived as an individual and feeling deprived as a representative group member, and have found that
Relative Deprivation theory can be integrated with related theories to include Social
Identity theory (Mummendey, Friedrich-Schiller-U, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999),
Social Comparison theory (Festingert, 1954), and Distributive Justice theory (Distributive
Justice, 2007). For the purpose of further understanding the stigmatization and marginalization GLB service members feel, Social Identity theory will be used. Social
Identity theory is based on intergroup relations and more importantly, various kinds of intergroup behavior (Mummendey et al., 1999).
9
In essence, a person is indicatively a sum of their parts. With that being the basis of an individual, Social Identity theory accentuates the cognitive aspect of ones self- identification, while Relative Deprivation theory emphasizes the role of expressive and motivating emotions as well as expectations of amelioration through a collective group
(Mummendey & Friedrich-Schiller, 1999).
Definition of Terms
The Department of Defense (DOD) uses the definitions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to define terms generally associated with the DADT policy.
The Uniform Code of Justice is the governing body of law for the Armed Forces. Under the DADT policy and Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the Armed Forces. The definitions of terms described by the UCMJ are used for the purposes of this study, except for the definition of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, and are as follows:
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)
The Air Force job classification given to military personnel upon completion of
technical school.
Bisexual
A person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or
intends to engage in both homosexual and heterosexual acts.
10
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy
“A byname for the former official U.S. policy (1993-2011) regarding the service
of homosexuals in the military. The term was coined after Pres. Bill Clinton in
1993 signed a law (consisting of statute, regulations, and policy memoranda)
directing that military personnel ‘don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and don’t
harass.’ When it went into effect on October 1, 1993, the policy theoretically
lifted a ban on homosexual service that had been instituted during World War II,
though in effect it continued a statutory ban” (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell [DADT],
n.d., para. 1).
Gay
A person, identified as male, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a
propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
Homosexual
A person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a
propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the
terms “gay” and “lesbian.”
Homosexual Act
Any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members
of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires and any bodily contact
that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to
engage in an act described as sexual in nature.
11
Homosexual Conduct
A homosexual act, a statement by the service member that demonstrates a
propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or
attempted marriage.
Transgender
Relating to, or being a person who identifies with or expresses a gender identity
that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth.
Lesbian
A person, identified as female, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a
propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
Member
An enlisted member of a Military Service
Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)
The Army job classification given to military personnel upon completion of
technical school.
Military Record
An individual’s overall performance while a member of a Military Service,
including personal conduct and performance of duty.
12
Propensity
Propensity to engage in homosexual acts means more than abstract preference or
desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a person
engages in or will engage in homosexual acts.
Release from Active Duty
Termination of active duty status and transfer or revision to a Reserve component
not on active duty, including transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).
Respondent
A member of a Military Service who has been notified that action has been
initiated to separate the member.
Separation
A general term that includes discharge, release from active duty, release from
custody and control of the Armed Forces, transfer to the IRR, and similar changes
in Active or Reserve status.
Separation Authority
A military official authorized by the Secretary concerned to take final action with
respect to a specific type of separation.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed many military personnel who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender service members withheld their sexual identity because of the
DADT policy. It was assumed military personnel had no way to express what was going
13 on for them emotionally with respect to DADT, especially considering that any mention of words or terms associated with homosexuality might have harmful retribution to the military service member and to their military career.
It was assumed the respondents answered the questionnaires truthfully.
Justification
This study will alert social workers to the effects policies have on military personnel and their emotional well-being. This study takes into account the basis of social work and builds on the person in environment (PIE) aspect of the profession.
Because of this study, the social work profession as a whole will be more capable and equipped to handle the multi-dimensional, contextual, and complex emotional nature of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender military personnel who currently serve or have served in the military while the DADT policy was in effect and after the repeal of the policy. Though the DADT has been repealed, the sodomy laws that existed during the
DADT era are still in effect.
Limitations
Though this study attempted to gain a larger sample size as the basis of data collecting, the limitations were evident by location of the study and the number of willing participants who have current military affiliation. The sample size consisted of 40 subjects, which is not a large enough, nor randomly selected, to allow for generalization to a larger population of military personnel. The subjects came from the surrounding
Sacramento, California area and Travis Air Force Base located in Fairfield; therefore, the
14 emotional effects they experienced may not be reflective of those exhibited by other military personnel in other cities across the United States. This study does not intend to describe or analyze the effects of the DADT policy on any military veteran in service prior to the DADT policy; however, it does include military veterans during and after the repeal of the DADT policy.
15
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Until recently, the words “armed forces” and or “military,” great innovations in the areas of modern medicine, logistics, and even aviation. One might even think of afforded opportunities for African Americans and women, or minorities in general.
Unfortunately, not all minorities have had the pleasure of serving in the armed forces without prejudice. Though the military has made great strides in its attempt to rectify some of the problems dealing with sexism, racism, and discrimination, there continues to be a disconnect between the military’s historical tradition of tolerance and the opportunities afforded to homosexual people who must serve in the armed forces in secrecy.
History of Gays/Homosexuals in the Military
The military has a long history of discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people (Brasch, 2007). To better understand the relationship between the Armed Forces and homosexual people, one must first understand the history of the military, the history of homosexuality or same-sex relations, and how the U.S. military views homosexuality with regard to a person’s ability to be of service in said military. First and foremost, the
Organized Military has been around since 1778 in the form of the Continental Army and, according to Smilts (1993), homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time.
However, what can be said is that since the beginning of the military or the
Armed Forces as we know it, there has been a long history of discrimination against
16 homosexuals or the practice of homosexuality in the military (Smilts, 1993). Since the
American Revolutionary War, the Armed Forces has based its actions against homosexuals in the military solely on the term sodomy (loosely defined as anal or oral sexual conduct) as the basis of dishonorable discharges among those suspected of homosexual acts. Under the above vaguely defined definition of sodomy, the first service member to be dishonorably discharged for homosexual sodomy in 1778 was Lieutenant
Frederick Gotthold Enslin by General George Washington (Smilts, 1993). In the Articles of War of 1916, which went into effect on March 1, 1917, sodomy was considered a sexual crime and grounds for dismissal for homosexual service members.
Though homosexuality or homosexual acts were based on acts of sodomy, it was not until World War I that the United States Military began to vigorously employ psychiatrists who believed they could identify persons with less grossly observable personality disorders, screen them out of the military, and prevent psychiatric casualties during times of combat (Berube, 1990). Up until World War II, the Army had successfully expanded their psychiatric interwar screening standards, which drew on the theories of personality development, to construct a list of psychiatric disorders (Berube,
1990). The military took these interwar screening standards and ranked them into hierarchical categories based on characteristics deemed “degenerate.” The “degenerate” deviation variation of characteristics were based on white, middle-class, native-born men
(Berube, 1990).
17
According to (Berube, 1990), any characteristics that resembled that of the opposite sex to include sloping narrow shoulders, broad hips, excessive pectoral adipose
(fat), with lack of masculine markings, would be grounds for unsuitability for military services. In addition to the feminine stigmata of degeneration, the interwar standards of
1921 listed,
“sexual pervasion”- a broad category that included oral and anal sex between
men-as one of many “functional” stigmata of degeneration. The Army standards
also listed “sexual psychopathy” as one of many “constitutional” psychopathic
states – biologically based psychiatric conditions that, through heredity, bad
habits, or injury, caused a person to lose the ability to adjust to civilized society.
(Berube, 1990, p. 14)
By December 1941, the nation was facing a challenge with the secretive ban on homosexuals; they needed people to join the military in support of World War II. For the
Army to obtain the needed persons, the military began to lower their standards for recruitment and retention, including ignoring minor defects of potential examinees, such as mild stuttering, marginal intelligence, and minor paralysis, which would not interfere with their military duties (Berube, 1990). While lowering the standards for those not deemed degenerates, the military tightened the anti-homophobic psychiatric screening procedures standards (Berube, 1990).
In 1942, the armed forces, through internal investigations and recruitment screening, introduced the homosexual clause as part of the sodomy prohibition laws in
18 the Articles of War as grounds for separation from the military (U.S. Naval Institute
[USNI], 2013). Under the new clause, any persons serving in the military labeled as homosexual or bisexual would be subjected to criminal sanctions and dishonorably discharged under Section 8 of the United States Army Regulation 615-360 and denied any and all veterans benefits. For those who were homosexuals to serve their country they had to suppress their sexuality. If they chose to fully be themselves they were discriminated against. In 1981, the DOD issued a directive on homosexuality or homosexual conduct.
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military
environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their
statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct seriously
impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such
members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline,
good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service
members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate
assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must
live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain
members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military
service; and to prevent breaches of security. (DOD, 1981, DOD directive
1332.14, section H)
19
While the 1981 DOD directive clearly states that homosexuality is not compatible with military service, the DOD has yet to produce evidence showing or stating that all military personnel have non homosexual propensities. In other words, the DOD directive assumes all military personnel are of heterosexual orientation or lacking the propensity to engage in homosexual conduct. The Department of Defense has also implied that homosexuality will seriously impair the accomplishment of military missions and has adverse effects on morale. Merriam-Webster’s online Dictionary defines morale as:
1a: the mental and emotional condition (as of enthusiasm, confidence, or loyalty)
of an individual or group with regard to the function or tasks at hand b: a sense of
common purpose with respect to a group: Esprit de Corps 2: the level of
individual psychological well-being based on such factors as a sense of purpose
and confidence in the future. (Morale, n.d.)
By the above definition alone, sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members, who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender. (The New York Times, 1993, p. A14)
Until more recently, the history of the United States Military has never been seen in any perspective other than groundbreaking. Such perspective was illustrated by actions such as the United States Military first giving African Americans the rights and freedom to serve alongside their Caucasian counterparts (Herek, 2012). However, with
20 regard to homosexuals, the military is determined to continue being perceived as a heterosexual-only service. Discrimination against homosexuals by the military was furthered by President Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” Policy
On May 29, 1992, the then Candidate Bill Clinton initially proposed allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans to serve openly in the Armed Services. However, when the House and Senate Armed Services Committees held hearings from March to
July 1993, there was an overwhelming opposition to allowing homosexuals in the military. During that time, the National Defense Research Institute issued an independent study that showed no justification for the continued ban on homosexuals serving in the military (National Defense Research Institute, 1993). On November 30, 1993, President
Clinton signed the new gay ban, now known as the DADT policy, into law. DADT was meant to be a compromise about how sexual orientation was seen within the military.
However, the DADT policy actually mandated the discharge of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members (SLDN, 2013). With the newly revised DADT policy in hand, many branches of the military continued with their witch hunts against service members, though the DADT intention was to protect service members from anti-gay harassment
(SLDN, 2013).
Since the implementation of DADT, command violations of the policy/law have caused a widespread, continued direct questioning of military personnel pertaining to their sexual orientation, such as the investigations onboard the USS Simon Lake, in which
21 sailors were threatened with being jailed if they did not accuse others of being homosexuals or confess themselves to being gay. Many military commanders have heavily pursued suspected gay service members with more fervor than before, leading to military discharges for homosexuality to soar (Osborn, 1996).
The Emotional Cost of DADT Policy
The DADT policy, though superficially written to allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to serve in the military regardless of perceived sexual orientation, did not stop the continued harassment received by military personnel of a certain sexual orientation (Brasch, 2007). In 1996, the armed forces repeatedly excused violations of the DADT policy to include witch-hunts, seizure of personal diaries, and making threats of imprisonment to service members unless those service members accused others of being gay. This practice was conducted in an attempt to target and flush out gay men and women currently serving their country (SLDN, n.d.).
The violations of DADT did not stop at verbal threats, but also included a form of sexual harassment culminating with character bashing known as “lesbian-baiting,” which has been defined by UCLA GLB terminology as the heterosexist notion that any woman who prefers the company of woman, or who does not have a male partner, is a lesbian
(Green, 2004). The practice of “lesbian-baiting” is a military practice in which women, straight or gay, are accused of being lesbian when the advances of men are rebuffed or in which women who are top performers in nontraditional jobs face perpetuated speculation and rumors of homosexuality. Commanders often respond to this tactic by investigating
22 the women under the DADT policy, instead of disciplinary actions for the men who start and perpetuate the cycle of sexual abuse. As a result, many women do not report the sexual harassment or assault out of fearing the label of lesbian and being investigated and worse, being discharged from the military (Borg, 1996).
Being a homosexual or perceived homosexual in the military comes with unwanted and unwarranted harassment of a sexual nature. Meyer (1996) stated,
To be the victim of sexual harassment is, in its own right, one of the most
degrading and emotional injurious positions one can be placed in, especially in
the military. But to be blackmailed for supposedly being a lesbian so that the
sexual harassment continues goes beyond the pale. (p. 23)
The emotional cost that accompanied the DADT policy came at the cost of many service members in the form of unwarranted emotional abuse and physical abuse. Some of the military tactics that occurred included forced “neurological testing” on service members, like that experienced by former Lieutenant Jay Hatheway (SLDN, 1997).
Other practices included locking military service members in broom closets without breaks until they “confessed” to being gay (Shilts, 1993). In San Antonio, Texas, an airman was asked repeatedly for the duration of a week if he were gay. He was discharged for trying to stop the harassment by telling them he was gay (SLDN, 1997).
The Significance of DADT
The DADT policy continues the tradition of governmental decisions being made about whom should be permitted or required to serve in the military and under what types
23 of conditions. These types of conditions have more frequently reflected society’s attitudes toward its stigmatized minorities (Herek, 2012). The DADT policy has been compared to the Revolutionary War in that Blacks (African-Americans) were not allowed or barred from serving in the military based solely on the color of their skin, not the basis of skill set or ability to perform the necessary tasks needed for a position, despite the shear eagerness and willingness of Blacks (African Americans) to volunteer for service (Herek,
2012).
The DADT policy has been compared to other military policies of discrimination such as that against those of non-European ethnicity and women (Brasch, 2007).
Stigmatized groups and individuals are often stereotyped with degrading characteristics and treated as “less than” by those not in the minority groups. At times, they have been given only menial jobs and considered a hindrance to society. “By limiting access to important life domains, discrimination directly affects the social status, psychological well-being, and physical health of the stigmatized” (Major & O’Brien, 2005, p. 396).
Stigma has also been noted as contributing to identity threat of the stigmatized (Major &
O’Brien, 2005). “Responses to identity threat can be involuntary (e.g., anxiety, increased vigilance, and working memory load) or voluntary (e.g., coping efforts)” (Major &
O’Brien, 2005, p. 398). The stigmatized group becomes aware of the dominant group’s image of them as well as the fact that they could be discriminated against based on the stereotyped characteristics (Major & O’Brien, 2005). DADT was significant because it kept homosexuals from living honestly, forcing them to hide a part of their identity. It
24 kept homosexuals stigmatized. Being part of a marginalized group may have caused them to feel the need to isolate themselves during off-duty times thereby lessening the bond of their unit as a whole.
Effects of DADT on Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals
The effect DADT has had on numerous homosexual service members is they are forced to compartmentalize their lives. Many gay service members report a sense of not belonging and having a need to hide their sexuality from their military peers to avoid being accosted or reported (Barber, 2012). One participant spoke of living two lives, one at home and one in the military. His friends and family knew he was gay but he was not out while on duty or with his coworkers in the military. In the end, he felt there was a barrier between his coworkers and him due to the lie he lived by not sharing his whole self with them (Trivette, 2010). Trivette (2010) also discussed the Gay Underground
Network, or GUN, referred to by several participants. “It is a very loosely structured network of gay and lesbian service members who find each other either by chance or through connections that other people know” (Trivette, 2010, p. 223). One service member and cofounder of OUTSERVE J.D. Smith (2011) recalled the effects the DADT had on him:
After a few years at the Air Force Academy I came to terms with myself as a gay
man and began an emotional journey during which I realized I was struggling
under the DADT policy. I began to realize that it wasn’t as easy to hide your
personal life in the military. I wouldn’t hang out with my Air Force friends
25
because I was terrified that they would find out I was gay; I was isolated. I spent
hours alone, depressed because I wanted to meet someone like me, gay, in the
military. It wasn’t until my straight friends forced me to admit the hard time I was
having that I came out to them. After graduation I believed DADT wouldn’t be an
issue anymore and that I would be able to keep my work and private lives
completely separate. But after just a few months I found myself blackmailed by
an instructor at a technical training course for my new job in the Air Force. When
I finally put my own career at risk and reported the instructor, he turned around
and outed me, and I was temporarily removed from my job; my ID card—as well
as my access to government computers—taken away. DADT didn’t protect me or
anyone else in my case. Instead, it helped foster criminal activity. A few days
later, with the help of a lawyer, I was back at my job, but my career remained in
question. The allegations against the instructor turned out to be true, and he was
fired for harassing not only me but other students that ended up coming forward
as well. (para. 5-7)
Anti-Homosexual Violence
According to National Defense Research Institute (NDRI; 1993), the best available data on anti-homosexual violence are restricted to the civilian population. The evidence on the personal characteristics and environmental factors associated with the occurrence of such violence provided some insight into the possible occurrence in the military setting if homosexuals were allowed to serve. The surveys of homosexuals,
26 most prominently, almost uniformly demonstrated a higher rate of physical victimization among males (Berrill, 1990; Comstock, 1991). The likelihood of predicting anti- homosexual violence, as one study has suggested, is other personal characteristics of homosexual men may affect the likelihood of becoming a victim. Harry (as cited in
NDRI, 1993) measured physical victimization among homosexual men to determine if there was a difference between personal characteristics in men who were attacked and those who were not. He surveyed 1,556 homosexual men in the Chicago area and found that those who identified themselves as being effeminate were more likely to have experienced violence (Harry as cited in NDRI, 1993). Harry later goes on to write that effeminate men may be more easily identified as fitting the stereotype for homosexuals.
He also reported finding that those who were more open about their orientation were more likely to have experienced violence. Of the 1,556 men surveyed in the study, 31% of homosexuals males agreed or strongly agreed, “it was more important to ‘be out’ to straight people” experienced anti-homosexual violence versus 21% of other respondents
(Harry as cited in NDRI, 1993).
Military Service Members Affected by the DADT Policy
The DADT as written did not take into consideration the actual ramifications of heterosexuals’ decision that having homosexuals in the military was not conducive to unit cohesion. MacCoun (1996) wrote:
Although concerns about the potential effect of permitting homosexuals to serve
in the military are not groundless, the likely problems are not insurmountable, and
27
there is ample reason to believe that heterosexual and homosexual military
personnel can work together effectively. The presence of acknowledged
homosexuals may reduce social cohesion in some units, but seems unlikely to
undermine task cohesion. Research indicates that it is not necessary to like
someone to work with them, so long as members share a commitment to the
group's objectives. If there is a reduction in social cohesion, it will probably
involve some degree of ostracism of the homosexual, rather than a complete
breakdown of the unit. Whereas some heterosexuals might refuse to cooperate
with known homosexuals, many factors will discourage this and promote
teamwork: effective leadership; military norms, roles, regulations, and
disciplinary options; and external threats and challenges. (p. 172)
The presence of acknowledged homosexuals may reduce social cohesion in some units, but seems unlikely to undermine task cohesion. Research conducted by Mullen and Cooper (1994) examined the long-believed idea that cohesion is composed of levels of interpersonal attraction, pride of the group, and commitment to the task at hand.
Mullen and Cooper (1994) of the United States Army conducted a meta-analysis on 49 studies measuring cohesiveness and performance. They utilized studies that satisfied specific criteria. They concluded that commitment to the task at hand was significantly related to performance and that interpersonal attraction and pride of the group were not independently related to their performance (Mullen & Cooper, 1994).
28
Mental Health Care and the DADT
The mental health aspect of the DADT policy has been under fire due to the military’s ramped service member discharges with a mental health diagnosis for homosexuality, even though the DSM removed homosexuality as a diagnosable
“disorder” in 1973 (Barber, 2012). While military mental health providers continue to serve the needs of all service members, homosexual service members continue to be
“outed” by their providers.
One of the noted military client-provider confidentiality incidents happened to
Kevin Blaesing, a U.S. Marine Corp Infantryman, who was outed by a Naval psychologist. All Blaesing did was begin to ask random generic questions pertaining to homosexuality, for example what it meant to be homosexual. The psychologist then turned Blaesing in to his command, informing Blaesing that it was in his “best interest” to separate from the service (SLDN, 2007). If a person in need of mental health care is unable to confide in a therapist for any reason, he or she may choose not to seek help
(Cianni, 2012). GLB military personnel were not always free to seek mental health care for fear of being discovered and discharged, much like Blaesing. GLB military personnel often did not know who to trust in general, but also with regard to mental health counseling (Cianni, 2012). Because of the continuous lack of confidentiality by military health care providers, many service members have chosen to seek mental health services within the civilian community (Cianni, 2012). GLB military personnel then had to find
29 mental health services outside the military to keep their identities secret and avoid being found out by anyone in the military (Cianni, 2012).
Identity in Response to DADT
The identity of self as it relates to the DADT can be divided into distinctive aspect of identity, the private or personal identity and the public or social identity (Cass, 1979).
With the DADT, the service member has to maintain their private identity of being identified as a homosexual, while maintaining their public identity as a heterosexual
(Cass, 1979). Self-identified homosexual service members often find themselves adopting an asexual position and may continue to avoid confronting information that might create any further situations causing the service member to engage in any type of personalization (Cass, 1979).
Many service members under the DADT continually express the emotional strain they felt caused by the lack of openness with their peers in fear of being “found out.”
The accumulated constraints and stressors continuously left the service member feeling inauthentic due to the constant splitting of the GLB service members’ life (Cianni, 2012).
The described emotional devastation GLB service members go through once exposed has left many with immeasurable anger and shame, which has left some contemplating suicide (Cianni, 2012).
Concealed Identity
Homosexuality is a concealable stigma requiring self-disclosure for the stigma to be known by others. People with nonvisible stigmas, such as homosexuality, deal with
30 their stigma differently than those with a visible stigma. Perhaps the biggest internal challenge for those with a concealable stigma is whether to expose their stigma and, if so, how and in what situations (Pachankis, 2007). Pachankis developed a comprehensive model based on several models having to do with varying aspects of concealable stigma, including the communication privacy management model (Petronio as cited in
Pachankis), strategic perception management theory (Olney & Brockelman as cited in
Pachankis), and identity management theory (Cain as cited in Pachankis). Pachankis portends the individual theories address certain aspects of concealable stigma but do not address it as a whole. His model “attempts to predict the cycle that anyone who conceals a stigma may encounter regardless of his or her unique predispositions” (Pachankis,
2007, p. 329). Thus, his model can be applied to any situations in which concealable stigmas play a part, including military life under the DADT policy.
Pachankis (2007) contends certain situations influence the cognition, affect, and behavior of a person and situational triggers affect self-esteem. A gay person at a gay pride parade is among others and is likely to have a positive experience being gay.
Pachankis states that if a gay person perceives himself to be the only gay in his environment, he is more likely to be negatively affected. His model includes consequences of being discovered and preoccupation. He notes that, according to Lane and Wegner (1995), being preoccupied with a secret, or keeping it in one’s consciousness, can cause distress, make it more cognitively available, and make it more
31 likely to be leaked. The consequences of leaking that secret under the DADT policy were discharge and victimization (Burks, 2011).
Very few studies have been published regarding military personnel’s experiences under DADT and its effects on their identity. Trivette (2010) interviewed 24 gay and lesbian (18 male, 6 female) former military personnel regarding the privacy-secrecy and camaraderie in the military under DADT. He found that although his interviewees mentioned a sense of family-ness and openness in the military, they were quite aware of the secrecy in which they needed to live with regard to their sexuality. One participant
“describe[d] feeling a great deal of paranoia and stress around having to keep quiet about being gay” (p. 219). That participant failed to reenlist due to fears of being discharged.
Trivette mentions the military encourages close bonds, but DADT inhibits those bonds by attempting to keep gays and lesbians shrouded in silence regarding their personal lives.
“Telling” could lead to more camaraderie, in seeming paradox to what DADT’s authors believed. “David says, ‘It wasn’t until I was more open that I did feel that level of camaraderie, that sense of family, that…everyone else gets from the military’” (p. 221).
David’s revelatory experience confirms the sense of isolation gays are bound to feel by keeping their sexuality secret as well as the bonding that comes with sharing one’s whole self.
Both veterans and LGB individuals experience stressors leading to increased incidence of mental health issues such as depression, PTSD, and suicide (Cochran et al.,
2013). Cochran et al. contend that LGB veterans may suffer from unique stressors
32 compared to the individual groups due to sexuality concealment. Their study consisted of
409 survey participants, with 93.2% lesbian or gay and 5.7% bisexual. They assessed
PTSD, depression and suicidality, alcohol misuse, and experiences related to the military and compared LGB veterans with those of an existing Veterans Affairs (VA) sample. A linear regression model was used to compare the groups’ questionnaires used for each assessment. Cochran et al. found “anxiety around concealment was a significant predictor of [PTSD] and [depression]” in the direction hypothesized, which meant LGB veterans had a higher propensity for those mental health issues than did the existing VA sample (p. 431). The LGB veterans denoted a significant amount of anxiety around being
“found out” while in the military. Cochran et al.’s study illustrates a connection between sexual identity concealment and mental health issues such as PTSD, depression, and suicide.
Dohrenwend (2000) did not study DADT specifically, but provided research on how adversity and stress impact or play a role in psychopathology. He studied three primary modes of adversity, including adversity in extreme situations, with “adverse” defined utilizing the second definition, according to the Random House Dictionary
(adverse, 2013), stating, “opposing one’s interests or desire” (para. 1). He also purports that extreme situations involve negative experiences rather than positive and involve loss as opposed to gain. Such description fits with soldiers living under DADT policy in the active military roles. Dohrenwend went on to state extreme adverse situations were more likely to play a role in psychopathology.
33
Summary
The history of the military has had a long and treacherous relationship with homosexuals and the ability of the GLB population to serve their country. The military’s history of discrimination against homosexuals or the practice of homosexuality has been going on since the formation of the military (Smilts, 1993). While the military has had a rich history of discriminating against homosexuals, the regulations governing inclusion standards were lowered for those not deemed degenerates, but the military tightened their anti-homophobic psychiatric screening procedures (Berube, 1990). History shows the military is willing to allow people of diminished capacity to join; however, if identified as a homosexual one is not deemed suitable for military service. Such actions continue to perpetuate DOD 1332.14, the long-standing notion that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
The 1993 DADT policy was enacted as a compromise for military service based on sexual orientation. Unfortunately, it had a more adverse effect than it was original intended. The policy as written alienated service members of the GLB population and left many GLB service members continuously worrying about being outed by their command, peers, and healthcare professionals. Under the policy, many service members felt unable to confide in their healthcare professionals. Many healthcare professionals in the mental health arena have outed GLB service members, citing in the “best interest” of the service members (SLDN, 2007).
34
Because of the overwhelming discrimination in the military as it pertains to sexual orientation, many GLB service members have been forced to serve in the military under concealed identity, leaving them continuously shifting from their private self-identity to their public self-identity causing numerous mental health issues including anxiety, PTSD, depression, and suicide as noted by Cochran et al. (2013). Due to the overwhelming feeling of true identity concealment and the fear of being outed, many GLB service members have chosen to seek mental health services in the civilian sector as self- preservation (Cianni, 2012).
The literature reviewed for this project was very limited with regard to experiences of GLB service members. However limited, there was a great deal of information on concealment of identity, DADT policy, and homosexuality in general.
The purpose of this study was to examine the emotional effects of the DADT policy has had on GLB service members. Chapter 3 describes this study’s methodology.
35
Chapter 3
METHODS
Study Timing
The purpose of this study was to determine any effects the Don't Ask, Don’t Tell
Policy (DADT) has had on the well-being of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual (GLB) veterans and active members of the U.S. military. This study began in 2008 when DADT was still in place. Surveying military personnel after the repeal of DADT allowed for a comparison between how GLB people experienced life in the military before and after the repeal of DADT. Hence the purpose of the study became an exploration of how the feelings of GLB military personnel after the repeal of DADT compare to those of GLB military personnel serving under the reign of DADT.
Study Design
This is a mixed-methods study of GLB military personnel. A case study is an examination of a group, individual, institution, organization, or community and the chief purpose is description and exploration (Rubin & Babbie, 2008). The case in this study is a sample of GLB military personnel serving under DADT and after its repeal. As Rubin and Babbie mention, case studies are often used when a group, family, or individual merits intensive investigation. Such groups would include any marginalized groups including GLB military personnel. “The focus is on connecting case study findings to a particular theory” (Rubin & Babbie, p. 424). The theory for this study is the Relative
Deprivation Theory in which the GLB soldiers may be deprived of specific aspects of
36 living that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy and, thus feel deprived. “Relative
Deprivation is the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment” (Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, &
Bialosiewicz, 2012, p. 203). This researcher utilized a quantitative and qualitative survey to discover how GLB soldiers felt about living under the DADT policy and what it felt like after it was repealed.
This researcher used a survey method rather than an interview method of collecting data due to the sensitive nature of this study, as it deals with the emotional effects of the DADT and also taking into consideration that some of the veterans participating in this study are or might be still serving in the military. Surveys also served as a way for the participating veteran to be as open and honest as possible without any added pressure of having to relive any traumatic event that might stem from their sexual orientation and experiences in the military.
Sampling Procedures
The researcher used two primary sampling procedures. The first method was purposive sampling in which the researcher contacted the Gay and Lesbian Center of
Sacramento (see Appendix A) to obtain permission for administering a survey to visitors to the center who had the criteria of being GLB and being veterans or active members of the military. Some original participants then referred other people, thereby enacting the snowball method of sampling. Purposive sampling as described above was used in both
2008 and 2013. However, in 2008, the researcher needed only post a flier at the Center to
37 get participants (see Appendix B). In 2013, the survey was also created on surveymonkey.com and tweeted via twitter.com. The survey link was retweeted twice by other people and posted on two separate websites implying further snowball sampling.
Population
The researcher’s identified population of interest included United States Armed
Forces Veterans who identified as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender. The inclusion criteria for this sample consisted of individuals who have served, are currently serving, or are now inactive and those who identified as a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. The sample of survey participants had to be at least 18 years of age with no set upper limit cutoff age; however, participants had to have served during the DADT era and after the repeal of the DADT policy. In 2008, 10 participants were surveyed via the Gay and
Lesbian Center of Sacramento. In 2013, six participants were surveyed at the center and four visited surveymonkey.com and filled out a survey.
In the original 2008 research, of the 10 participants, four identified as Sergeants, rank of E-5 or higher. The rank of Sergeant is a rank of identifiable leadership in the military. This rank states that one is capable of leading service members. Three self- identified as Specialists or E-4, which is the rank designated for those who are soon to become future leaders of service members. The remaining three identified as junior enlisted service members. These ranks are indicative of service members relatively new to the service and have not had any leadership training from the military; however, they
38 have completed the military’s basic training and completed their initial job classification schooling.
The research conducted in 2013 had two persons self-identify as an Air Force
Captains (Officers). The job classification of one officer was military engineering, while the other was a health professions officer. The data collected in the 2008 study had only enlisted service members participate. The participants’ military jobs included military police, supply specialist, radio technician, and medical technician.
Instrument
The researcher created a survey in 2008 with a total of 42 questions (see
Appendix C). It contained 10 demographic questions including the participants’ identities as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual. In included 25 Likert-type scale questions with the following possible responses: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree. The final seven questions were open-ended asking for further explanation of some responses to the Likert-type scaled questions. Each participant in 2008 was given a consent form (see Appendix D) to sign prior to taking the survey.
The initial 2008 survey initially began with a simple question. What job does one have to have in the military in order to serve without emotional backlash of sexual orientation? Then researcher began to ask service members from different job classifications that had disclosed their sexual orientation for assistance on what types of questions to ask with regard to emotional well-being. The instrument’s construction was influenced by the researcher’s online search of sample questionnaires.
39
The 2008 survey was altered in 2013 to include questions regarding the repeal of
DADT (see Appendix C). The survey contained the same 10 demographic questions with the exception of Transgender added to the possible GLB identities. The demographic questions were followed by 38 Likert-type scale question with the same five possible responses like the 2008 survey and nine open-ended questions. The 2013 participants from the Center also filled out a consent form prior to taking part in the survey (see
Appendix D). However, the Survey Monkey survey would not allow participants to take the survey without clicking “Yes” on the first page of the survey, which was the consent form.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to compare GLB military personnel’s feelings and experiences serving under DADT as compared to those personnel serving after the repeal of DADT. Hence, the data from 2008 was compared to that collected in 2013. The data analysis is descriptive in nature, which entailed providing percentages of which participants answered particular questions in specific ways. Because of the limited number of participants, the researcher utilized comparative analysis, which consisted of comparing the 2008 participant’s answers to those of the 2013 participants. The researcher also compiled the qualitative responses to questions that dealt with ability to express sexual orientation, emotional feelings, and encouragement of other GLB to enlist in the military.
40
Protection of Human Subjects
The researcher submitted a Human Subjects Protocol Application to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) in spring 2008 and the study was approved (#07-08-
120) April 18, 2008 with no conditions. On May 11, 2012, the researcher began the submission process for the second phase of the study. The application was approved with conditions. The researcher satisfied the conditions and resubmitted the application. The application was approved with minimal risk (12-13-074) May 3, 2013 and expires on
May 3, 2014.
To protect the human subjects, no identifying information was included on the survey, thus making it completely anonymous. The researcher gave participants brief instructions on the importance of signing the consent form to ensure participant’s survey would count toward research analysis (see Appendix D). Blank consent forms and surveys were individually numbered, and the corresponding numbered survey and consent form were administered to the same participant. The researcher then collected the consent forms after they were signed, and placed them in separate secure envelopes.
The participants were then given the surveys and asked to complete them to their level of their comfort. As soon as subjects finished their surveys, the researcher immediately collected them and placed them in a separate, secure envelope from the consent forms, while maintaining no identifying information on the surveys, and no other linkage between the participants’ names and their surveys.
41
The consent forms and surveys were kept separate so participants’ signatures could not be in any way linked with their survey. Participants were informed of the anonymity of the survey right away as well as of the confidentiality of the survey. The researcher and her advisor were the only people who had access to the survey information. The surveys were kept in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s home and were destroyed once the project was submitted.
42
Chapter 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the DADT policy on GLB veteran’s emotional well-being. The review of literature in Chapter 2 discussed the emotional aspects of the DADT and the impact its subsequent repeal had on GLB service members. The main question this study aims to answer is to what degree does the DADT policy and its repeal affect GLB service member’s emotional well-being in regard to sexual orientation and ability to openly express themselves?
The research sample consisted of 20 military veterans who identified as GLB.
The inclusionary criteria consisted of individuals who are currently serving, have served, or are now inactive and those who identify as U.S. Armed Forces veterans. The survey participants had to be 18 years of age with no set upper limit cutoff age; however, the first set of participants served during the DADT era and the second set of participants served after the repeal of the DADT policy.
The study presented here is represented by two different samples. The first is compiled of data collected in 2008 from 10 participants prior to the repeal of the DADT policy. Newer data was collected from 10 more participants after the repeal of the DADT policy. Hence, some questions will have a sample size of 10 while others will have a sample size of 20.
The participants of the survey were asked questions pertaining to demographics such as age, gender, and ethnicity. The participants were asked two sets of questions,
43 qualitative questions and quantitative questions to indicate GLB service members’ overall emotional well-being pertaining to the DADT policy and its repeal.
Table 1
Ages of Service Members
Response Number Valid Percent
18-24 (20,21,22) 3 15
25-34 (26,26,30,30,30,32,32,33,33,34) 10 50
35-44 (35,36,36,37) 4 20
45-54 0 0
55-64 (58,60,63) 3 15
Total 20 100
M=34.7; SD=12.13
The sample size of the participants consisted of veterans aged 18-64. The participants aged 18-24 and 55-64 are equally represented at 15% each, while 50% of the participants were represented by those aged 25-34. The participants between ages 45 and
54 are not represented at all in this study. The average age of the study’s participants was
35.
44
Table 2
Gender
Response Number Valid Percent
Male 14 70
Female 6 30
Total 20 100
The survey offered participants an open selection to self-identify their gender.
Survey participants identified themselves as either male or female. Male participants represented 70% and 30% of participants were female.
Table 3
Participant Ethnicity
Response Number Valid Percent
African-American 6 30
Caucasian 7 35
Native-American 1 5
Asian 1 5
Multi-Racial 2 10
Hispanic 2 10
Refused 1 5
Total 20 100
45
The ethnic background portion of the survey was left open-ended so participants could self-identify their ethnicity. The most identified ethnicity was Caucasian at 35%.
Thirty percent of participants were African American, 10% were Multi-racial, 10% were
Hispanic, and 5% were Native-Americans, Asians, or refused to answer.
Table 4
Sexual Orientation
Response Number Valid Percent
Gay 12 60
Lesbian 2 10
Bisexual 6 30
Total 20 100
The sexual orientation portion of the survey allowed participants to select a choice of three sexual identifiers, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual. Sixty percent of the participants self-identified as gay, while 10% selected lesbian. Bisexuals represented 30% of the participants.
Table 5
Military Status
Response Number Valid Percent
Active Duty 12 60
Non-Active 8 40
Total 20 100
46
Participants were asked to identify their military status. Sixty percent of the participants identified themselves as active duty veterans, while 40% self-identified as non-active veterans.
Table 6
Branch of Service
Response Number Valid Percent
Navy 5 25
Air Force 8 40
Army 6 30
U.S. Marine Corp 1 5
Total 20 100
In response to branch of service, 40% of respondents identified as being Air Force personnel, while 30% came from the Army. Navy branch personnel accounted for 25% and the U.S. Marine Corp had only 5% representation in this study.
47
Table 7
Military Affiliation
Military Affiliation
Response Number Valid Percent
Enlisted 18 90
- E1-E4 (12) (60)
- E5- above (6) (30)
Officer 2 10
Total 20 100
Enlisted persons made up 90% of participants, which was broken down even further indicating whether participants were junior enlisted or in leadership positions.
Junior enlisted comprised 60% and those in leadership made up 30% of the study.
Officers, on the other hand, comprised only 10% of the entire study participants.
48
Table 8
Familiarity with DADT Policy
I am very familiar with The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. Response Number Valid Percent
Strongly Agree 18 90
Agree 2 10
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total 20 100
When asked about their familiarity with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, 90% answered, “strongly agree” while 10% agreed to being familiar with the policy.
49
Table 9
Revision of DADT
The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy should be revised to accommodate all members of the service. Response Number Valid Percent
Strongly Agree 9 90
Agree
Neutral
Disagree 1 10
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Total 10 100
The question regarding DADT policy revision was only asked of those in the
2008 sample. Ninety percent strongly agreed the DADT should be revised to accommodate all members of the service. A mere 10% disagreed about the revision of the DADT policy.
50
Table 10
Repeal of DADT Accommodates All Members
The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy’s repeal is designed to accommodate all members of the service. Response Number Valid Percent
Strongly Agree
Agree 3 30
Neutral
Disagree 2 20
Strongly Disagree 5 50
N/A
Total 10 100
In terms of the repeal, 30% of participants agreed the DADT policy’s repeal was designed to accommodate all members of the service, while 25% disagreed and 50% strongly disagreed on accommodation of all members due to the repealed DADT policy.
51
Table 11
Hiding Sexual Orientation Under DADT
I had to hide my sexual orientation in order to protect myself from harm. Response Number Valid Percent
Strongly Agree 7 70 Agree 1 10 Neutral 1 10 Disagree 1 10 Strongly Disagree Total 10 100 Seventy percent of the participants of the survey strongly agreed to having to hide their sexual orientation to protect themselves from harm while the DADT policy was in effect. The participants who agreed, who were neutral, and who disagreed equally represented 10% of the participants for each category.
52
Table 12
Hiding Sexual Orientation After Repeal of DADT
I have/had to hide my sexual orientation in order to protect myself from harm even after the repeal of the DADT policy. Response Number Valid Percent
Strongly Agree 4 40
Agree 1 10
Neutral
Disagree 2 20
Strongly Disagree 1 10
N/A 2 20
Total 10 100
Though the DADT policy has been repealed, 40% strongly agreed they had to hide their sexual orientation to protect themselves from harm, while those who agreed and those who strongly disagreed represented 10% of the sample. Twenty percent of the sample disagreed and 20% stated the question was not applicable to them.
53
Table 13
Expression of Sexual Orientation Under DADT
I expressed my sexual orientation to
my fellow service to officers.** to enlisted members.***
members.*
Response Number Valid Number Valid Number Valid
percent percent percent
Strongly Agree 2 10
Agree 9 45 2 10 8 40
Neutral 8 40 2 10 4 20
Disagree 1 5 7 35 3 15
Strongly Disagree 2 10 9 45 3 15
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100
When participants were asked about their ability to express their sexual orientation, 40% answered neutrally with regard to expression to fellow service members.
Ten percent answered neutral with regard to expression to an officer and 20% answered neutral with regard to expression to fellow enlisted personnel. Ten percent strongly agreed with expression of sexual orientation to fellow enlisted members, 45% agreed with it to fellow service members, and 40% agreed with it to fellow enlisted members.
Thirty-five percent of participants disagreed about expressing their sexual orientation to officers and 45% strongly disagreed about expressing it to their officers. Ten percent of
54 participants strongly disagreed to expressing themselves sexually to fellow service members and 15% strongly disagreed with expressing it to fellow enlisted personnel.
Table 14
Expression of Sexual Orientation After Repeal of DADT
I expressed my sexual orientation to
my fellow service to officers. to enlisted members.
members.
Response Number Valid Number Valid Number Valid
percent percent percent
Strongly Agree 2 20 2 20 2 20
Agree 2 20 2 20 2 20
Neutral
Disagree 1 10 1 10 2 20
Strongly Disagree 1 10 1 10
N/A 4 40 4 40 4 40
Total 10 100 10 100 10 100
For the period after the repeal of the DADT policy, 20% answered strongly agreed and agreed that they could express themselves to their fellow service members, officers, and fellow enlisted members equally. Forty percent of the participants answered that the question was not applicable to them. Ten percent of the participants disagreed and strongly disagreed with expression to fellow service members and officers alike, whereas 20% disagreed to expression of sexual orientation to fellow enlisted persons.
55
Table 15
Expression of Sexual Orientation and Inadequate to Serve Country
I felt that expressing my sexual orientation would make me feel I was inadequate to serve my country.
while the DADT policy was in effect. after the repeal of the DADT policy.
Response Number Valid percent Number Valid percent
Strongly Agree 3 15 0 0
Agree 6 30 2 20
Neutral 1 10 0 0
Disagree 6 30 3 30
Strongly Disagree 4 20 4 40
N/A 1 10
Total 20 100 10 100
When participants were asked about their ability to express their sexual orientation and feeling inadequate to serve their country, 30% of participants agreed and
15% strongly agreed they would feel inadequate to serve their country if they expressed their sexuality while the DADT policy was in place. Fifty percent disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement while DADT was in place, while 70% disagreed and strongly disagreed after the repeal of DADT. Also, only 20% agreed with the statement after the repeal of DADT.
56
Table 16
Emotionally Adequate to Serve Country
I felt emotionally adequate to serve my country regardless of my sexuality.
while the DADT policy was in effect. after the repeal of the DADT policy.
Response Number Valid percent Number Valid percent
Strongly Agree 13 65 2 20
Agree 4 20 6 60
Neutral 1 5 0 0
Disagree 2 10 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 10
N/A 1 10
Total 20 100 10 100
Before DADT was repealed, 85% of participants felt emotionally adequate regardless of their sexuality; they strongly agreed and agreed with the statement. After the repeal of DADT, 80% strongly agreed and agreed with the statement. Ten percent disagreed and strongly disagreed both prior to and after the repeal of the DADT policy.
57
Table 17
Concerned about Ridicule
I am/was concerned about experiencing ridicule from fellow service members
while the DADT policy was in effect. after the repeal of the DADT policy.
Response Number Valid percent Number Valid percent
Strongly Agree 11 55 2 20
Agree 6 30 2 20
Neutral 3 15 1 10
Disagree 1 10
Strongly Disagree
N/A 4 40
Total 20 100 10 100
When participants were questioned regarding feeling concerned about experiencing ridicule from fellow members, 55% strongly agreed, while 30% agreed and
15% remained neutral about their concerns. With the repeal, those who strongly agreed and those who agreed to feeling concerned about experiencing ridicule after DADT comprised 20% of the sample and 10% represented those who remained neutral as well as those who disagreed. Those who stated that the question was not applicable made up
40% of the participants. After the DADT policy was repealed, many participants discharged from the military; hence, some questions did not apply to them. The researcher added the N/A category as an option so the results would show which
58 questions were answered as opposed to participants not answering questions that were not applicable.
When participants were asked if they had experienced any type of emotional distress pertaining to their sexual orientation while serving in the military, 100% reported high feelings of anxiety. Ninety percent reported feelings of anger and sadness about not being able to express their sexual orientation while serving in the military.
Several participants expressed that hiding their sexual orientation did not make them better military personnel because they were unable to bond with their fellow members due to their overwhelming sense of not belonging. They expressed the lack of bonding came from feeling like they were hiding something from their peers and felt they were going against the military’s code of integrity. Other participants stated the DADT policy made them feel like they were not showing their true selves. One participant wrote,
I had to hide my gay mannerisms and that was a difficult challenge because I had
to hide my feelings. I freaked out about getting caught holding hands in public. It
complicated my life in pretty unhealthy ways. I served eight years under the
DADT policy. I hid my work life and personal life all the time. It was very
stressful and discouraging.
Findings
This study compared the emotional affect the DADT policy has had on 20 GLB service members before and after the repeal. The findings focused on demographics,
59 emotional effects of the DADT policy, open expression of sexual orientation, adequacy for military service, and encouragement to other GLB persons to join military. The findings indicated that sexual expression of sexual orientation was very important to GLB service members’ feelings of emotional adequacy with regard to performing their military duties without ridicule.
Demographics
The primary demographic variables influencing the responses to the survey were age, gender, branch of service, active or inactive duty, and rank. The majority of respondents represented the 18-44 age group, which is a respectable age range for this study. However, no respondents represented the age range of 45 to 54 and only 15% were in the 55-64 range. Perhaps the older service members had long come to terms with serving in secrecy whereas the younger group were not as used to it. Males represented
70% to the 30% female representation of the participants. Often women do not identify as veterans even though they are military personnel. On the other hand, their male counterparts automatically do. Such an identity issue could have affected the study participation of women, as the word “veteran” was included in the survey questions.
The fact that 60% of respondents were, at the time of the study, active military personnel may have affected the responses to the questions. If veterans are inactive, they are less likely to be affected by the DADT policy on a regular basis. It was interesting that only one participant was from the Marines, the majority (40%) were from the Air
Force, and the rest were from the Navy and Army. In the researcher’s experience as prior
60 active duty Army and current Air Force reservist, many jobs in the Army, Navy, and
Marines are more male dominated. The Air Force has a more well rounded field of occupations and are not necessarily gender-specific. Hence, more Air Force service members may have felt a sense of ease with their sexual identity/orientation and were willing to take the survey.
Emotional Effects of the DADT Policy
Participants who were discharged due to the policy were saddened some when the policy was repealed only due to the limitations they experienced in their own lives. Other participants worked hard to keep silent and do their job the best they could so they would not lose their job and benefits. One of the most prominent emotional effects of the
DADT policy was participants felt they could not fully bond while in service under
DADT because they felt they were lying to their peers. They also felt they could never be on their “top game” when they hid part of themselves. Bonding is an important part of the military environment because it gives members a sense of unity. A lack of unity could lead to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and negative self-image as was discovered in the qualitative responses.
Some participants felt hiding their sexual orientation kept problems away. The fact that there were problems with their sexual orientation was more the issue than hiding it was. One participant enjoyed not being judged for his or her sexual orientation but did not appreciate lying about it because the façade created was not him or her. As Trivette
(2010) found, concealing one’s identity has negative emotional affects the person not
61 being open. It can even affect one’s cognitive function due to the energy needed to stay in secret, as expressed by one participant.
Open Expression of Sexual Orientation
In general, the percentage of participants who felt they had to hide their sexual orientation before the repeal of DADT (80%) decreased after the repeal (50%). This makes sense with the intent of the DADT repeal to end the secrecy. Now that the repeal is in place, the feeling of having to conceal one’s sexual orientation has decreased and as noted above, a decrease implies greater emotional health.
When taking into account to whom a participant would express his or her sexual orientation, 80% disagreed and strongly disagreed that they expressed their orientation to officers. Officers can make or break a service member’s career so it was safer to keep quiet. However, 50% and 45% would express their sexuality to enlisted members and fellow service member, respectively. It is clear participants felt more comfortable expressing their sexuality to their peers than they did expressing it to their superiors, most likely for fear of retaliation in the forms of military discharge and harassment.
Adequacy for Military Service
Almost half the participants (45%) felt they had to hide their sexual orientation to feel adequate to serve their country while DADT was in place, but after the repeal of the policy, only 20% felt that. The fact that they felt inadequate only if they expressed their sexual orientation is an indication of their level of internalized homophobia. While the
DADT was in place, 50% disagreed and strongly disagreed they would feel inadequate to
62 serve their country if they expressed their sexual orientation. However, 70% of participants disagreed and strongly disagreed after the DADT repeal. Repealing the
DADT validated GLB service members’ feelings of adequacy related to their expression of their sexual orientation.
Participants were asked about their feelings of emotionally adequacy to serve their country regardless of their sexuality. Eighty-five percent strongly agreed and agreed that they felt emotionally adequate to serve their country even while DADT was in place. After the DADT repeal, the percentage decreased to 80%. This finding seems backward. It could mean that due to the DADT having been in place for almost 20 years, participants who did not feel adequate despite their sexual orientation may have lasting emotional effects from serving under the policy.
Encouragement to Join Military
Many participants felt conflicted about encouraging other GLB people to join the military. Those serving under DADT felt the policy should not last long and should not stop one from joining if that is really what one wants to do. They also felt that due to the amount of emotional stress involved with concealing one’s sexual orientation, a person had to evaluate it based on his or her own emotional strength. Yet other participants would not recommend signing up for service until all members of society, including transgender persons, could enlist.
The following chapter presents the study implications for social work, recommendations, limitations, and conclusion of the study.
63
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
Summary
Many studies have been conducted on homosexuality in general (Barber, 2012;
Cass, 1979; Pachankis, 2007). However, there is limited research that assesses military personnel, the emotional aspect of homosexuality, and the effects of the hidden sexual orientation of a person on military service members. The research studies dealing specifically with homosexuality describe the many underlying issues such as concealed stigma as described by Pachankis (2007) who contends that certain situations influence the cognition, affect, and behavior of a person and that self-esteem can also be affected.
While the military attempts to remedy the effects of the DADT with the repeal signed into law in 2010, many service members who have been adversely affected by the witch hunts that occurred under the DADT policy remain. The DADT policy prior to its repeal had a tremendous impact on GLB individuals who had to hide their sexual orientation to remain in the military (Pachankis, 2007). The process of concealing their sexual identity to avoid experiencing anti-GLB harassment, discrimination, or victimization took a negative psychological toll on the GLB service members (Pachankis,
2007). Unfortunately, the military has yet to undertake a research study to better understand the implications of sexual orientation and the person as a whole when forced to conceal sexual identity for fear of a negative traumatic experience.
64
With limited available research, the military in general is unable to meet the needs of their GLB service members by including their physical protection, emotional well- being, and fulfillment of self-recognition as important experiences while in the military.
Military mental health professionals are also unable to meet the needs of the GLB service member’s needs because, while the policy has been repealed, protocols that were in place during the reign of the DADT policy continue to be implemented, with providers outing their patients and violating the client-provider privilege (Barber, 2012).
Implications for Social Work
The implications of this study on the field of social work are numerous. The intentions of this researcher were to shed light on a very underserved and under recognized population in our society. The researcher also wanted to recognize a marginalized subgroup of a major group known to everyone, the military. By conducting this research, the researcher hopes social workers working with members of the GLB population who are also veterans are able to understand the multidimensional, contextual person, and recognize GLB veterans come with more than just the generalized trauma that comes with serving in the military.
Social workers will also benefit from this study as it pertains to the person-in- environment and stigma of concealing one’s sexual identity. Hopefully they will be able to, as Cass (1979) stated, understand the distinction made between the private (personal) and the public (social) aspects of identity to better help the GLB community.
65
Limitations
There were several identifiable limitations of this study. One of the biggest limitations was the sample size of the participants. The researcher attempted to collect 40 surveys in both the original 2008 study and the subsequent 2013 study. The number of respondents was not enough to draw a generalizable conclusion on the greater military population. The second limitation was absence of randomization in sample selection and the location in which surveys were collected. The researcher was limited to the
Sacramento area and utilized a purposive sample. The researcher believes the survey might have generated many more responses if the survey was distributed to an area where
GLB veterans might feel more open to the survey topic, such as VA websites, San
Francisco GLBT centers, and more online domains.
The researcher also identified the survey to be somewhat lengthy and would shorten the questionnaire to no more than 20 questions versus 30+ questions. This would provide participants ample time to complete surveys and not feel overwhelmed with the number of questions.
Conclusion
Throughout the research, the researcher identified some common themes that emerged with elements of recommendation for other GLB persons to join the military.
The qualitative portion of the survey identified that even though the DADT policy was clearly unjust to GLB service members participating in this research, 18 of 20 participants or 90% would recommend other GLB persons join the service, while also
66 recommending that those wishing to join should clearly examine their potential career choice. Many participants recommended GLB persons not join specifically male dominant occupations such as infantry and military police.
Recommendations
The findings from Chapter 4 indicate a significant amount of service members felt they had to hide their sexual orientation from people in the military, including fellow service members and leaders alike to be able to (a) not be subjected to physical harm or abuse, (b) not be subjected to ridicule, (c) not be subjected to unfavorable actions by supervisors, and (d) avoid being discharged via Uniform Code of Military Justice actions.
The researcher explored evidence-based studies on homosexuality and the military (Cochran et al., 2013; Harry as cited in NDRI, 1993; Trivette, 2010), and it strongly appears that future studies of this research would need to include a larger sample size and provide adequate mental health assistance if more in-depth questions were going to be asked of the participants. Future research should also provide access to all necessary mental health assistance and access to resources dealing with issues specific to the population of GLB service members.
67
APPENDICES
68
APPENDIX A
Approval Letter for Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center
!
69
APPENDIX B
Flyer for Participant Recruitment
AND
PLEASE HELP GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF VETERANS’ EXPERIENCES WITH THE DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY By ANSWERING A SURVEY
HELP AN MSW STUDENT FROM CSUS EXPLORE THE EFFECTS OF THE DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY ON VETERANS
DATA WILL BE COLLECTED ANONYMOUSLY & CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE ASSURED
70
PLEASE CONTACT: CHIDERA EGU at (916) 670-8902 OR [email protected]
71
APPENDIX C
Surveys
2008 Survey Please read and sign the attached consent form and seal in the attached self-addressed stamped envelope labeled “Consent Form.” Please answer the questions below to the best of your ability. You may skip any question that you see as a problem for you to answer. When you have completed this self-administered questionnaire, please seal it in the attached self-addressed stamped envelope labeled “Questionnaire.” Please complete and mail both the consent form and questionnaire by June 6, 2008.
Gender_____ Age____ Ethnicity______
Length in military______Branch of military______
Presently in military______Resigned/retired from military______
Military job specialty ______Rank ______
Identify as (please circle one)
Gay Lesbian Bisexual
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Statement Strongly 1. I am very familiar with The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
(DADT) policy. 2. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy should be revised to accommodate all members of the service. 3. I had to hide my sexual orientation in order to protect myself from harm. 4. I was concerned about experiencing ridicule from fellow service members. 5. I was concerned about experiencing physical abuse from fellow service members. 6. I was concerned about being discharged. 7. I was concerned about receiving UCMJ actions.
72
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Statement Strongly 8. I felt my supervisors inhibited me from progressing upwards in the service because of my perceived sexual orientation. 9. I hid my sexuality while in the military. 10. I was comfortable serving in secrecy with regard to my sexual orientation. 11. I experienced stress while in the military due to my sexual orientation and the DADT policy. 12. I considered resigning from the military due to the stress surrounding the DADT policy and my sexual orientation. 13. I did resign from the military due to the stress surrounding the DADT policy and my sexual orientation. 14. My military occupation allowed me to express my sexual orientation without discussing it. 15. Because of my military occupation, my sexual orientation was not an issue. 16. I expressed my sexual orientation to my fellow service members. 17. I expressed my sexual orientation to officers. 18. I expressed my sexual orientation to enlisted members. 19. Expressing my sexual orientation would limit my ability to promote or change branches. 20. I believe there is a large Lesbian subculture in the military. 21. I believe there is a large Gay subculture in the military. 22. I believe there is a large Bisexual subculture in the military. 23. I felt that expressing my sexual orientation would make me feel like I was inadequate to serve my country. 24. I felt people suspected I was Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual even though I hid it. 25. I felt emotionally adequate to serve my country regardless of my sexuality.
73
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
A. How has the DADT policy affected you?
1. If you answered Strongly Agree or Agree to question 2, please explain what you think should be changed about the DADT policy?
C. If you answered Strongly Agree or Agree to question 3, why and from whom?
1. If you considered resigning from the military due to the stress regarding your sexual orientation, what made you stay?
74
2. During any time in your career did you ever feel that you could express your sexual orientation to your supervisor without feeling like less of a soldier? Please explain.
3. Hiding my sexual orientation made me a better service member. Yes or No and why?
4. Have you experienced any of the following as it relates to your sexual orientation while serving in the military? (Please check all that apply)
___ happiness ___ anxiety ___ sense of meaning
___ low morale ___ high morale ___ depression
___ life satisfaction ___ positive self image
___ negative self image ___ high self esteem ___ low self esteem
___ anger ___ joy ___ resentment
___ sadness ___ peace ___ serenity
H. Would you encourage other Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual people to join the military with the current DADT policy? Explain.
75
2013 Survey on Paper Please read and sign the attached consent form and seal in the attached self-addressed stamped envelope labeled “Consent Form.” Please answer the questions below to the best of your ability. You may skip any question that you see as a problem for you to answer. When you have completed this self-administered questionnaire, please seal it in the attached self-addressed stamped envelope labeled “Questionnaire.” Please complete and mail both the consent form and questionnaire by July 30, 2013.
Gender_____ Age____ Ethnicity______
Length in military______Branch of military______
Presently in military______Resigned/retired from military______
Military job specialty ______Rank ______
Identify as (please circle one)
Gay Lesbian Bisexual
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Statement Strongly 1. I am very familiar with The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
(DADT) policy. 2. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy’s repeal is designed to accommodate all members of the service. 3. I have/had to hide my sexual orientation in order to protect myself from harm even after the repeal of the DADT policy. 4. I am/was concerned about experiencing ridicule from fellow service members while the DADT policy was in effect. 5. I am/was concerned about experiencing ridicule from fellow service members after the repeal of the DADT policy. 6. I am/was concerned about experiencing physical abuse from fellow service members while the DADT policy was in effect.
76
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Statement Strongly 7. I am/was concerned about experiencing physical abuse from fellow service members after the repeal of the DADT policy. 8. I was concerned about being discharged while the DADT policy was in effect. 9. I was concerned about being discharged after the repeal of the DADT policy. 10. I was concerned about receiving UCMJ actions while the DADT policy was in effect. 11. I am concerned about receiving UCMJ actions after the repeal of the DADT policy. 12. I felt my supervisors inhibited me from progressing upwards in the service because of my perceived sexual orientation while the DADT policy was in effect. 13. I felt my supervisors inhibited me from progressing upwards in the service because of my perceived sexual orientation after the repeal of the DADT policy. 14. I hid my sexuality while in the military while the DADT policy was in effect. 15. I hide/have hidden my sexuality while in the military after the repeal of the DADT policy. 16. I was comfortable serving in secrecy with regard to my sexual orientation while the DADT policy was in effect. 17. I am comfortable serving in secrecy with regard to my sexual orientation after the repeal of the DADT policy. 18. I experienced stress while in the military due to my sexual orientation and the DADT policy. 19. I experienced less stress while in the military due to my sexual orientation and the repeal of the DADT policy. 20. I considered resigning from the military due to the stress surrounding the DADT policy and my sexual orientation.
77
e
Agre Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Statement Strongly 21. I did resign from the military due to the stress surrounding the DADT policy and my sexual orientation. 22. My military occupation allowed me to express my sexual orientation without discussing it. 23. Because of my military occupation, my sexual orientation was not an issue. 24. I expressed my sexual orientation to my fellow service members while the DADT policy was in effect. 25. I expressed my sexual orientation to my fellow service members after the repeal of the DADT policy. 26. I expressed my sexual orientation to officers while the DADT policy was in effect. 27. I expressed my sexual orientation to officers after the repeal of the DADT policy. 28. I expressed my sexual orientation to enlisted members while the DADT policy was in effect. 29. I expressed my sexual orientation to enlisted members after the repeal of the DADT policy. 30. Expressing my sexual orientation would limit my ability to promote or change branches. 31. I believe there is a large Lesbian subculture in the military. 32. I believe there is a large Gay subculture in the military. 33. I believe there is a large Bisexual subculture in the military. 34. I felt expressing my sexual orientation would make me feel like I was inadequate to serve my country while the DADT policy was in effect. 35. I still feel expressing my sexual orientation would make me feel like I was inadequate to serve my country even though the DADT policy has been repealed.
78
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Statement Strongly 36. I felt people suspected I was Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual even though I hid it. 37. I felt emotionally adequate to serve my country regardless of my sexuality while the DADT policy was in effect. 38. I still feel emotionally adequate to serve my country regardless of my sexuality after the repeal of the DADT policy.
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
A. How has the DADT policy affected you?
1. If you answered Strongly Agree or Agree to question 2, please explain what you think should be changed about the DADT policy?
C. If you answered Strongly Agree or Agree to question 3, why and from whom?
79
D. If you considered resigning from the military due to the stress regarding your sexual orientation, what made you stay?
E. During any time in your career did you ever feel that you could express your sexual orientation to your supervisor without feeling like less of a soldier? Please explain.
F. Hiding my sexual orientation made me a better service member. Yes or No and why?
G. Have you experienced any of the following as it relates to your sexual orientation while serving in the military? (Please check all that apply)
___ happiness ___ anxiety ___ sense of meaning
___ low morale ___ high morale ___ depression
___ life satisfaction ___ positive self image
___ negative self image ___ high self esteem ___ low self esteem
___ anger ___ joy ___ resentment
___ sadness ___ peace ___ serenity
80
H. Would you encourage other Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual people to join the military with the current DADT policy? Explain.
81
2013 Survey Monkey Survey
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
APPENDIX D
Consent Forms
2008 Consent I understand that I have been invited to participate in a research study conducted by Chidera Egu, a Master of Social Work student in the Division of Social Work, California State University, Sacramento. This study will examine the affects of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) Policy on Gay, Lesbian, and Bi-Sexual Veterans’ Emotional Well- Being. Procedures: I understand that I am being asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire should take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. I understand that my participation is anonymous and no names will be recorded. As a participant in the survey, I may decide at any time not to answer any specific question, skip questions or stop taking the survey. Risks I understand that the survey may evoke emotional responses and that if I experience stress or discomfort as a result of your participation in this study, I may contact and receive free mental health services at the following locations: 1. CSUS Psychological Services, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95819, (916) 278- 6461; 2. Counseling Services at the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center located at 1927 L Street, Sacramento, Ca. 95814, (916) 442-0185, or 3. VA Northern California Health Care Systems located at 10535 Hospital Way, Mather, Ca. 95655, (800) 382-8387 or your local VA hospital. Benefits I understand that as a participant I will not receive any kind of monetary compensation. By being a part of the study, I may gain awareness of how my sexual orientation affected my ability to serve in the military. Also, I might gain awareness of the impact the DADT has had on my emotional well-being. When I take my military experiences as a Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual service member into consideration of my whole being I am more able to understand myself. Hence, I will be helping social workers better understand the concept of person in environment and allow them to expand their own awareness of the emotional baselines of diverse clients. Confidentiality: My responses on the survey will be kept confidential. Information I provide on the consent form will be stored separately from the completed questionnaires in a locked cabinet in a secure location at the researcher’s home. The researcher’s thesis advisor will have access to the completed questionnaires for the duration of the thesis. The final
90 research report will not include any identifying information. All of the data will be destroyed approximately one month after the project is filed with Graduate Studies at California State University, Sacramento. Rights to withdraw: If I decide to participate in this study, I understand I may withdraw at any point. During the interview I may elect to not answer any specific question.
If I have any questions, I may contact the researcher: Chidera Egu at [email protected] or (916) 670-8902 or, if I need further information, I may contact the researcher’s thesis advisor: Professor Tania Alameda-Lawson at (916) 278-7068 or by email at: [email protected].
I have read the descriptive information on the Informed Consent Form. I understand that my participation is completely voluntary. My signature or initials indicate that I have received a copy of the Consent Form cover letter and I agree to participate in the study.
Signature of Study Participant: ______Date: ______
91
2013 Paper Consent
92
93
REFERENCES
American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA). (2009, January). Position statement on
gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military. Retrieved from
http://www.apsa.org/About_APsaA/Position_Statements/Gays_Lesbians_and_Bis
exuals_in_the_Military.aspx
American Psychological Association (APA). (2007, February). The psychological needs
of U.S. military service members and their families: A preliminary report.
http://www.ptsd.ne.gov/publications/military-deployment-task-force-report.pdf
Barber, M. E. (2012). Mental health effects of Don’t ask Don’t Tell. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Mental Health, 346-352.
Bell, M. P., Ozbilgin, M., Beauregard, T. A., & Surgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and
diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender employees. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/220374/Voice_silence_and_diversity_in_21st_century_
organizations_strategies_for_inclusion_of_gay_lesbian_bisexual_and_transgende
r_employees
Berrill, K. (1990). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States: An overview.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 274-294.
Borg, L. (1996, November 14). Naval college students talk ethics with brass. Providence
Journal-Bulletin.
94
Brasch, W. (2007, March 17-19). An intolerant minority: the witch hunt against gays in
the military. Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/17/the-witch-
hunt-against-gays-in-the-military/
Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Castro, C. A. (2006). Military life: The psychology of
serving in peace and combat, volume 1: Military performance. Westport, CT:
Praeger Security International.
Burks, D. J. (2011). Lesbian, gay and bisexual victimization in the military: An
unintended consequence of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? American Psychologist, 66,
604-613.
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual Identity Formation. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235
Cianni, V. (2012). Gays in the military: How America thanked me. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Mental Health, 16, 322-333.
Cochran, B. N., Balsam, K., Flentje, A., Malte, C. A., & Simpson, T. (2013). Mental
Health Characteristics of sexual minority veterans. Journal of Homosexuality, 60,
419-435. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.744932
Comstock, G. D. (1989). Victims of anti-gay/lesbian violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 4(1), 101-106.
Department of Defense (DOD). (1981, January). Enlisted administrative separations.
Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133214p.pdf
95
Distributive Justice. (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology. Retrieved from
http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/dmmayer/Conferenc%20Proeedings-
Book%20Chapters/Encyc%20Social%20Psych.pdf
Dohrenwend, B. P. (2000). The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: Some
evidence and its implications in theory and research. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 41(1), 1-19.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1553878/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-
DADT
Festingert, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-
140.
Green, E. R. (2004). LGBTQI terminology. Retrieved from
http://www.lgbt.ucla.edu/documents/LGBTTerminology.pdf
Harry, J. (1982). Derivative deviance the case of extortion, fag-bashing, and shakedown
of gay men. Criminology, 19, 546-565.
Harry, J. (1990). Conceptualizing anti-gay violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5,
350-358.
Herek, G. M. (2012). Lesbians and gay men in the U.S. military: Historical background.
Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html
96
Kaplan, K. (2007, August 18). U.S. military practices genetic discrimination in denying
benefits. LA Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/18/science/sci-genes18
Kidston, M. (2013, March 16). UM study: Sexual minorities in military more prone to
PTSD, depression than peers. Missoulian. Retrieved from
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/um-study-sexual-minorities-in-
military-more-prone-to-ptsd/article_125ad938-8ebe-11e2-babb-
001a4bcf887a.html
Lane, J. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237-253.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 393-421.
Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. S. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group
behavior. In R. K. Merton & P. F. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in social
research: Studies in the scope and method of “The American Soldier” (pp. 40-
105). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Meyer, L. D. (1996). Creating G.I. Jane: Sexuality and Power in the Women’s Army
Corps During World War II. New York: Columbia University Press.
Militaryplainfacts. (2007). Army enlistment requirements. Retrieved from
http://military.plainfacts.net/enlistment/army-enlistment-requirements/
97
Morale. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/morale
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Mummendey, A., Friedrich-Schiller-U, J., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999).
Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions of social identity
theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 229-245.
National Defense Research Institute (NDRI). (1993). Sexual orientation and U.S. military
personnel policy: Options and assessment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Nolan, K. (2012, May 2). This Keith Nolan keynote reveals military prejudices. Retrieved
from http://www.trendhunter.com/keynote/keith-nolan-keynote
Osburn, C. D., Benecke, M. M., & Childress, K. (1997). Conduct unbecoming: Third
annual report on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. Washington, DC:
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A
cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328-345.
Reza, H. G. (1993, January 9). Homosexual sailor beaten to death, Navy confirms:
Crime: Gay-bashing may be motive, activists and family members say. They
charge cover-up by military. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-09/news/mn-1001_1_family-members
98
San Diego Military Counseling Project. (n.d.). Getting out: A guide to military
discharges. Retrieved from http://sdmcp.org/Regs/GettingOut.pdf
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). (2007). The survival guide: A
comprehensive guide to “don’t ask, don’t tell” and related military policies (5th
ed. Rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). (2011). Freedom to serve: The
definitive guide to LGBT military service. Washington, DC: Author.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). (2013). About “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell:” History of the issue. Retrieved from http://www.sldn.org/pages/history-of-
the-issue
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). (n.d.). Conduct unbecoming
continues: The first year under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” Retrieved
from http://www.sldn.org/page/-
/Website/SLDN%20Reports/SLDN%20Reports/SLDN%20Report%201.pdf
Shilts, R. (1993). Conduct unbecoming: Gays & lesbians in the U.S. military. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Sinclair, G. D. (2008). Homosexuality and the U.S. military: A study of homosexual
identity and choice of military service. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 701-718.
Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative
deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 16, 203-232.
99
Smith, J. D. (2011, August 21). My ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ life. Retrieved from
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/21/my-gay-life-in-the-military-
how-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-affects-me.html
Task Force. (2013). Discrimination in the military. Retrieved from
http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/military
The New York Times. (1993, July 20). The Pentagon's new policy guidelines on
homosexuals in the military. The New York Times, A14. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/us/gay-rights-military-pentagon-s-new-
policy-guidelines-homosexuals-military.html
Today’s Military. (2013). Entrance requirements FAQ. Retrieved from
http://www.todaysmilitary.com/frequently-asked-military-questions/entrance-
requirements-faq#2
Trivette, S. A. (2010, April 10). Secret handshakes and decoder rings: The queer space of
Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Sexual Research and Social Policy, 7, 214-228. doi:
10.1007/s13178-010-0020-3
Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. (1997). Social justice in a diverse
society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
100
U.S. Naval Institute [USNI]. (2013). Key dates in U.S. policy on gay men and women in
military service. Retrieved from http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/dont-ask-
dont-tell/timeline
Wells-Petry, M. (1993). Exclusion: Homosexuals and the right to serve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/dont-ask-dont-tell-
timeline/