Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 19:28:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Beer Copyright 1994 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony May 4, 1994, Wednesday SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY LENGTH: 9107 words HEADLINE: TESTIMONY MAY 4, 1994 NANCY A. RUSSELL NATIONAL PRESIDENT GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL VETERANS OF AMERICA HOUSE VETERANS AFFAIRS/OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS VETERANS ISSUES BODY: Statement of Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Veterans of America before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives May 4, 1994 The following written statement is submitted by Nancy A. Russell, National President of Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Veterans of America, on behalf of the Board of Directors and members, in addition to oral testimony presented this date. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Veterans of America (GLBVA) wishes to reiterate the points of concern raised in previous testimony before this Subcommittee, by the late LTC David Eckert, USAF (rct.), Beth Harrison and Alan George Stephens in 1992 1 , and by Aldo O. Rodriguez in 1993 2 , all of whom are (or were) members of local organizations affiliated with GLBVA. We deeply regret that many, if not all of the concerns our colleagues brought to the attention of the Subcommittee, remain matters of equal or greater concern today. First and ever foremost among those concerns, is the continued ban on service in the United States Armed Forces, by generous and decent American citizens who are lesbian, bisexual or gay. 3 Without mincing words, this on-going program of government-sanctioned, unwarranted discrimination and abuse will surely be viewed in later years as a national disgrace. Taken individually or collectively, the implications and consequences of this ban do now and always will constitute a black mark on the national history, and a betrayal of those tenets which are the very basis of the American Republic. It is in the best interests of furthering the American ideals of freedom and fairness that this program of discrimination be ended immediately. Negative presumptions about a person's capacity to serve in any respect are made on the bases of ascribing motives and patterns of conduct that are generally without basis in fact, and of ignoring immutable traits of personality and character, traits which are of no real consequence in assessing an individual's proven ability or willingness to provide skills, dedicated leadership and years of service when viewed in the absence of misunderstanding, willful disinformation and bigotry. That such assumptions are made at all, is deplorable. That such assumptions are encouraged as a programmed, directed and intended basis for determining any aspect of national policy is despicable. In view of the tenor of the recent debate on the military ban, that anyone entrusted with leadership for the nation should continue to beat such a dead horse as a means of accruing political power, and that our political leaders welcome the support of special interest groups with agendas that are antithetical to the American political legacy of tolerance, diversity of thought, and respect for the individual based on the merits of that individual, is frightening beyond our ability to describe. We who served the nation, who answered the call to its defense asking no more than an equal share of its freedoms, and who lovingly bore the consequences, do not rest in comfort on blithe assurances that the nation and its heritage of liberty will always survive and that the nation will always increase in its blessings of social, material, political and spiritual benefit unless those who cleave to the American ideal continue making those difficult and sometimes ultimate sacrifices on its behalf. That willingness to sacrifice can only be sustained by an equal willingness on the part of others to acknowledge it, and by offering in return an equal share in the national bounty. We view the ban, the consequences of the ban,, and the evident political and social agenda underlying the ban and its advocates as a grave threat to the American ideal. In the absence of destructive action by one group of people, no other group or individual has any night whatsoever to proscribe the participation of others in the labors, the harvests and in the defense of American to life and liberty. The tacit acceptance of suggestions by military or political public servants that contributing to the national defense is a privilege and not a basic obligation of all beneficiaries is rubbish. When America truly believes that it can dismiss the proffering of service and sacrifice of a full 10% of its citizens in contributing to the national defense for reasons based only on untruths, transient political advantage, and purported science that is perverted by selectivity, distortion and misrepresentation of fact, then truly America faces a much graver threat to its well-being from within, than any posed from without our borders. When the leaders of a society can, on one hand, make specific and concise statements that an individual's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her capacity to participate and contribute, and on the other hand initiate, support and characterize discrimination based on sexual orientation as an 'honorable compromise,' and when leaders, thinkers and advocates acquiesce in the emplacement of a re- packaged version of the same old bigotry as before and call it progress, then the nation stands in grave, immediate need of emergency attention to its political, social and spiritual health. Members of Congress, we did not serve once in America's defense with the intent to give up on her after our uniforms grew old in storage. The issue of the military ban has now moved from the legislative venue to the judicial. The same President who credited the American gay community with a large measure of success in his election. now orders his Justice Department to pursue those citizens, if they continue to serve the nation in uniform, with a vigor that has astonished even the military legal authorities. The present Administration is credited by some for employing a handful of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men. The same Administration has contrived,, and now compounds its shame by defending in the courts a policy leading to the dis-employment and life-long branding as unfit, of thousands of other citizens. We do not know when, but we know we will win on this issue; this is because we will not allow the battle to close until we have made a lasting victory. The victory we seek is not for our community's gain alone. When the sanctity of the liberty of one individual is threatened, history has proven that the sanctity of freedom everywhere is at risk Although we are informed we have but ten printed pages to make our case, we take this opportunity to record the names of some of our many heroes who have fought, and some who continue to fight (in uniform and out) on behalf of liberty for all Americans, without asking what kind o Americans they might be. We name the names of Cliff Arnesen, Raelani Azada-Madsen, Barbara Baum, Miriam Ben-Shalom, Michele Benecke, Vernon Berg, Rick Buchanan, Mike Bustamante, Greta Cammermeyer, Christopher Camp, Rabbi John Cutler, Dennis Delia, Tanya Domi, Jim Dronenburg, Zoe I)unning, David Eckert, Justin Elzie, Tere Frederickson, Michael Gary, Beth Harrison, Jim Holobaugh, Kitt Kling, German Lopez, Leonard Matlovich, Thomas Paniccea, Johnnie Phelps, the Rev. Dusty Pruitt, Bud Robbins, Chuck Schoen, Dirk Selland, Joseph Steffan, Karen Stupski, Tracy Thorne, Perry Watkins, Dr. Fran Watson, Ed Westrick, Archie Wilson. Jim Woodward. Thousands more unnamed American heroes have served to ensure the simple freedoms they, themselves do not yet have the full measure of. Their names and sacrifices must rest heavily on the American conscience as they whisper of freedoms lovingly bled for, dreamed about, cherished, awaited. In the best interests of all concerned, we suggest to the nation and its leaders that the inevitability of progress on this issue demands we address ourselves to its accomplishment in the most expeditious manner. In direct contravention of statements by those who oppose progress on this issue, we further suggest that the Armed Forces may actually represent the most appropriate place for this progress to begin. There is no other venue within the American society in which a policy can be implemented and appropriate education and training be carried out as a matter of course. We believe, too, that our military leaders must agree that when competent leadership on any given issue is even so much as offered, our service members have a demonstrated capacity to respond positively, anticipate needs and provide for their accomplishment. Revisionist historians. attempting to frame the recent debate on gays in the military in a historical context, have utterly failed to provide accurate and complete exposition of how President Truman's Executive Order 4 to racially integrate the Armed Forces laid a necessary foundation for equally necessary progress, albeit difficult and inconsistent, on racial integration throughout the American society. This process was begun in the military community as a consequence of Truman's directive, and remains a point of pride, despite that much remains to be done on this and other such issues. Inferences that this possibility for progress is impossible to repeat are an insult and a discredit to the intelligence, the competence and good intentions of our colleagues in uniform, to which we will not subscribe. This is no so-called 'social experimentation,' or making inappropriate use of the national defense as a proving ground. Those who suggest that is the case are dissembling. We are Americans, and it is right to look for the best of each other. Since we have historically expected our military services to meet a higher standard of leadership and performance, it would be inconsistent to say they should not be expected to lead on this issue. Those gay Americans who have served, and whose ranks grace our organization with their honor, courage and pride, know something about the issue of national defense. Nothing so motivates a dedicated and educated soldier, airman, marine or sailor than the knowledge and understanding of the contribution they make to full freedom. Perhaps we listened too closely when, in basic training and afterward, we were taught about leadership. The Administration, the Congress and the military establishment have suffered us all an utter and costly failure of leadership thus far, on this issue. The existence of this ban has a demonstrable and directly attributable cost in human lives and suffering as well as a financial cost, all of which are unnecessary, unjustified by anything said thus far and, therefore, shameful. We lay these costs, particularly, the human ones, flatly at the feet of our national leaders who,, with few exceptions, have refused to move the nation forward. In simple point of fact, for those who wish this issue to go away, and desire those of us who advocate on it to shut up, it would make as much sense to wish that America had no more children as it does to wish that we will abandon any single one of them. We have sadly concluded that the damaging effects of this discrimination will take a long time to eradicate; therefore the simple sense of incurring no further damage to our society and its people is, to us, plainly clear. This, then, and until all the troops are welcomed home in a true spirit of freedom and respect, remains the underlying basis of our programs, whatever they may be, and however long they shall last, until such time as the ban on military service by our sisters and brothers is lifted and all traces of it and its causes are removed. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO VETERANS RIGHTS, BENEFITS, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES WITH OCCASIONAL REFERENCE TO IMPLICATIONS CONSEQUENT TO THE MILITARY BAN What follows is our discussion and recommendations on a range of issues relating to veterans concerns, with a view towards sustaining and contributing to our members' status as military veterans, and for the benefit of all veterans irrespective of membership in this organization, their personal circumstances or orientation. Reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in present form, is outmoded, and provides for abuses of basic concepts of American law beyond any necessity for a modem military. When Stephen Decatur strode the deck of USS Constitution in the 19th Century, it was likely necessary to convey such now-inordinate amounts of power over the lives of service members, their commanding officer. However, in the last decade of the 20th Century, with the availability of modern communication and transportation a matter of pride within the Armed Forces, the service member in peacetime should not, under any circumstances,, be subjected to the prospect of punishment without immediate recourse to common rules of evidence and the aid of qualified legal counsel who do not depend on the approval of the prosecuting agency for their livelihood. Short of combat situations or other national peril, those whose service provides the very basis for guaranteeing- American justice and fairness are no less, and may even be thought to be especially deserving of fairness in manner and procedure of hearings, when they face charges. It is time to take a look at Article 134 of the Code, the so- called 'General Article.' Any average soldier or sailor can tell you that regardless of the legalese in which the Article is written, its true meaning, and too often its actual usage is nothing other than "whatever we don't have a specific Article to get you with, we hereby get you with this one.' Attached as Exhibit A is the second page of a Plan of the Day from the Naval Nuclear Power School. Naval Training Center, Orlando,, FL. We respectfully draw the Subcommittee members' attention to Item 3. CO'S NJP. (Commanding Officer's Non-judicial Punishment), the findings and sentence for an offense prosecuted under Article 134. The offense in question is "Bringing discredit to the armed forces by urinating through the springs of a bed." The guilty sailor forfeited $50.00 in pay for two months for such an offense. If any Member of Congress should be motivated to offer us an explanation of the basis, clarity and defensibility of such a bizarre charge, we are eager to hear it. We specifically request an account of the number of cases in which the UCMJ's so-called sodomy article' (Article 125, UCMJ) has been applied where heterosexual conduct is in question, as compared to the number of instances where homosexual conduct is alleged. There is no language in the article limiting its application to instances of alleged homosexual conduct. However, we strongly suspect that a comparison of statistics regarding its application for punitive purposes will demonstrate that it is almost exclusively used as a weapon against gay service members. We specifically request the Congress to direct the Department of Defense to provide figures for so-called homosexual discharges for the years since 1990 (the last year covered in the GAO report), to include every discharge where reference to a service member's actual or alleged homosexuality or homosexual conduct is made, and that the statistics be broken down to reflect character of discharge -given. Veterans advocates have alleged, and we believe it is probable that recent publicity and debate regarding the military ban may have resulted in an increase in Department of Defense efforts to identify and take punitive action against service members on the basis of actual or perceived homosexual or bisexual orientation. We urge the Congress to immediately amend Article 125, the 'sodomy' article, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The private consensual activities of adults are no business of the government at any level, or the military as a government agency. However,, we recommend with equal urgency that an amended Article 125 proscribe all acts of sodomy in cases involving violence or coercion,, and that it be specifically and inclusively worded to address such instances in homosexual and heterosexual situations. We believe that the aggregate statistical information regarding acts of rape, assault, sexual harassment and other such offensive acts demonstrate the need for strong statements and means of addressing this problem which appears more among heterosexual members of the Armed Forces than elsewhere. Further, we request that a program be created and fully funded to immediately strike all disciplinary actions from all service records, taken on the basis of Article 125, where violence or coercion was not present, and to review and up-grade all discharges given on the basis of such disciplinary action. We are particularly concerned about use and misuse of the UCMJ, and its effects on active duty personnel because this has a direct effect on the character of the service member's discharge and consequently, entitlement to veterans benefits. When the Code is used as a means of building a non-adjudicated record of alleged offenses to construct a case for discharging a member the commanding officer dislikes, which we believe constitutes abuse of the military disciplinary system, the service member invariably suffers long and short-term consequences that are supported by factual findings. Modification of Separation Documents. Considering, the above, we recommend changes to separation regulations and forms, specifically DD Form 214 (Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge). The discharged service member receives parts 1 and 2 of the multi-part form. The remaining parts are forwarded to various military activities to record the separation and other information pertaining to the close of the member's military service and records. Page I of the form is a shortened page, not containing the blocks describing character of discharge, separation and re-enlistment eligibility codes, and narrative statements about the reason for discharge. Page 2, the page a veteran is typically asked to produce as evidence of service when seeking civilian employment with veteran preference, or in seeking veterans benefits through various government agencies, does contain the above-referenced information. Especially in cases of discharge where homosexuality, even in the absence of alleged disciplinary infractions, is recorded as the reason for separation, the veteran is publicly. unnecessarily and unreasonably branded in a pejorative manner. We have made our position regarding the ban clear. It is logical to draw conclusions from our positions that we regard homosexuality or bisexuality as immutable and therefore I value-neutral' traits. There exists a body of scientific research that supports this statement, to the extent that for decades all reputable scientific authorities have accepted this as a demonstrable fact. We also acknowledge that this fact must still be addressed within existing realities in our society, of misunderstanding, intentional misrepresentation and plain bigotry. Therefore, the service member whose acknowledged or alleged homosexuality or bisexuality is stated on DD Form 214, faces a likely prospect of discriminatory response wherever it is necessary for that veteran to present the form to others. When one reviews the heretofore suppressed Department of Defense research on the subject of homosexuality in the military', the entire body of research (prepared by an agency typically hostile to gays) supports our claim that public reference to a service member's purported homosexuality on the DD Form 214 is made with the intent to foster discriminatory retaliation after the close of the service member's military career. The Defense Department has the means to retain all the statistical information it could possibly need without recording such information on the service member's copy of the DD Form 214. Although, as the above-cited reports and other materials document, the overwhelming majority of discharges for alleged homosexuality are under honorable conditions, this insistence on publicly and perpetually branding the veteran with pejorative statements continues as a routine procedure. Since the military's own research, statements and representatives are on record as saying the ban should not be viewed as suggesting any inherent unworthiness of the service members who suffer under it, we wonder why personnel policies, procedural manuals and related forms have remained in effect, perpetuating this 'scarlet letter' processing for separation. Is it any wonder, then, that gay veterans have deep apprehensions which inhibit seeking the benefits they have earned, when seeking such benefits has the effect of "outing" them within their communities in ways which may cost them their personal comfort and security, housing, employment. credit. and other ordinary functions of life heterosexuals are -given based on criteria not including, their sexual orientation. Less than a dozen states have prohibitions on discrimination in such areas as are mentioned above. When disclosure of sexual orientation is intentionally or even inadvertently made by presentation of a DD Form 214 with such references, a full 10% of the American veteran community, perhaps minus those who live in states where anti-gay discrimination is now proscribed, are at immediate and direct risk for deprivation of veterans benefits. Since state laws do not apply in the federal venue, those who live in states where antidiscrimination statues are in effect may face a lesser but still very real and immediate probability of the same problems in securing the benefits their service entitles them to, since discrimination by care providers in the federal venue is not yet illegal. For the above reasons, we urgently recommend modification of separation policies, procedures and forms, specifically including the DD Form 214, to alleviate this on-going problem. Orientation for Department of Veterans Affairs Employees and Volunteers. With direct reference to the problems stated above, we urge an immediate, comprehensive and mandatory program of orientation for all employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and volunteers who work at DVA facilities who have direct or indirect responsibilities for providing service to individual veterans. Such orientation should address issues of human sexuality and the care giver's obligations to provide care and services in a value-neutral, non-discriminatory, nonjudgmental manner. Where the opportunity exists, individual or groups of veterans who are identifiable as advocates on behalf of bisexual, gay and lesbian veterans should be directly involved in creating and effecting such orientation programs. Such an orientation will mitigate the problems mentioned above, but only in part until the federal government changes its entire range of policies to prohibit anti-gay discrimination. However, to wait until such a change takes place will continue to put many veterans at significant risk for denial of benefits based on prejudice by the individual service provider, or provision of benefits inappropriate to the real needs of the veteran because the veteran is so apprehensive about disclosing aspects of her/his personal history that may have a direct bearing on the need for care. Funding Sources for Veterans Health Care. In these days of critical funding shortages government-wide, the excesses of waste documented in the 1992 GAO Report, "Defense Force Management"' exacerbate our national fiscal problems without need or logical basis. Recent analyses of statistics available through 1990 in the GAO report suggest that personnel replacement costs for each officer ($120,772 per individual in 1990) and enlisted person ($28,226) result in an average waste of some $25 million annually (conservatively calculated) in federal funds. However, making strict use of GAO figures, the actual dollar amount for 1990 is a somewhat greater amount, $27.,417,184. We point out that the GAO report includes no statistics for so-called homosexual discharges for the Coast Guard, any Reserve component or National Guard units. We further add that the report acknowledges the actual number of officer separations for homosexuality to be under-reported since in many such instances, officers are allowed to resign their commission "for the good of the service" without annotations reflecting homosexuality as the basis for such action. These 'hidden' gay discharges are unavailable for statistical study, skewing the overall figures further. We insist that the on-going waste of funds for such reasons cease immediately, and that any such funds be made immediately available for veterans' health care and benefit programs. It is critical to not that the GAO study developed statistics for recruiting replacement personnel only through basic training . This means that for each veteran of, for instance, six years of military service. professional skills development, leadership ability and training, figures specified in the report provide for replacement of such an individual only with a raw recruit. The report analysis (page 4) also acknowledges the necessity to factor in then-unavailable out- processing and court-related costs. Considering the above, GAO personnel acknowledged in 1992 that they concur with our conclusion the report may be off by so much as a factor of ten in its cost estimates. This ups the ante, using the conservative calculations referred to above, to $250 million a quarter billion , dollars - thrown away each year, funds that could be put to use with the prospect of significant return by such worthy programs as the Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation Program for veterans with service-connected disability who face employment difficulty upon return to the civilian work force. Considering the fact that the most recent statistics cited in the GAO report are for 1990, and factoring in the significant costs incurred for litigation related to the ban (with the certainty of litigation continuing until the ban is lifted, please be assured that we will see this is the case) the waste of federal, or better, taxpayer money, becomes ridiculous in proportion to any alleged benefit to be had in spending the money as it is presently being spent. Sexual Harassment and Racial Discrimination in the Military. GLBVA joins with those who have increasing concerns about sexual harassment in the military. In light of the recent Tailhook scandal in particular, we have no faith in Department of Defense statements that sexual harassment is being adequately addressed by the Armed Services. We believe that the recent statements of General Karl Mundy, Commandant of Marines, demonstrate, too, that prejudice based on race, and discrimination based on such prejudice. remain an institutionally sanctioned problem within certain areas of Department of Defense activity. We urge the creation and full funding of an independent investigative unit with authority to require the cooperation of military officials at all ranks, in addressing allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Further, we request that existing definitions of sexual harassment, and all policies and training devolving from prohibition of sexual harassment in the military, be expanded to include prohibition of harassment by service members of any individual or groups of individuals on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Outreach to Veterans. As if the long-time existence of military discrimination against gay military members weren't enough to foster a sense of alienation among gay veterans, the vicious and intentional misrepresentations of our conduct, motives and character of service by public and private individuals during the recent debate on the military ban exacerbated an already serious sense of apprehension among vets who may be bisexual, lesbian or gay to come forward to claim their rights as veterans. The American people have, as a nation, often remarked about how the nation owes its veterans a debt of gratitude that cannot be repaid. We believe the nation can and should begin to repay a pan of that debt by rectifying the serious problems of alienation existing within the community of veterans represented by GLBVA. Discrimination based on sexual orientation pervades the American society. The effects of that discrimination render the gay veteran who may be disabled, unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged particularly vulnerable. Statistics have demonstrated that a shocking proportion of the homeless in America are military veterans. Other studies have also demonstrated that HIV infection and AIDS are problems of immense proportions for homeless Americans. These facts suggest that advocacy and community-based action programs on behalf of such individuals or - groups are insufficient so far, to alleviate the problems. Looking at these two facts concurrently, this suggests that there is a high probability of overlap, and that it is likely that HIV and AIDS are matters of particular concern for the homeless veteran, since she constitutes such a large fraction of a population already known to face this problem to an unusually large degree. We urge the Congress to facilitate, and provide funding opportunities for, further expansion and/or creation of veterans outreach and advocacy programs, focusing on groups of veterans at particular disadvantage including lesbian, bisexual and gay veterans. Summary of Recommendations for Action In summary, we respectfully recommend to the Congress that the following steps will best provide for the needs of active. reserve and veteran members of the United States Armed Forces: 1. Lift the ban on military service by lesbian, bisexual and gay. American citizens immediately. 2. Reform the Uniform Code of Military Justice to provide ironclad guarantees of full due process, and representation by legal counsel not subject to inappropriate influence for all service members, in the absence of combat or other national peril. 3. Rewrite or remove the "General Article" (Article 134) to prevent its misuse as an undefined 'catch-all' Article under which the service member can be subjected to vindictive command action. 4. Initiate and fully fund a study to develop statistical information relating to the application of the UCNIJ 'sodomy' article, to determine actual raw numbers of its application in disciplinary proceedings, and a ratio between its application in instances of alleged heterosexual misconduct and instances where homosexual conduct is alleged. 5. Direct the Department of Defense to provide annual statistics for the years 1991-1993 regarding homosexual discharges, broken down by character of discharge. 6. Rewrite Article 125 of the UCMJ to remove any reference or applicability to private, consensual adult activities, and also to proscribe and provide punishment for acts of sodomy, with specific language mandating equal applicability in heterosexual or homosexual situations, when committed through violent or other coercive actions. 7. Review and upgrade all discharges on the basis of prosecution citing Article 125 of the UCMJ, where violence or coercion was not demonstrated. Remove all service record references to disciplinary actions taken on the basis of Article 125, absent violent or coercive behavior. 8. Immediately direct the modification of military separation policies, procedures and related forms to remove reference to homosexuality on, at a minimum, the separating service member's copies of DD Form 214, providing full funding for full accomplishment at the earliest possible opportunity. 9. Direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to immediate create and implement an orientation program, with full funding provided, regarding human sexuality and the responsibilities of care providers to function in a value-neutral, non-judgmental manner, requiring participation by all DVA staff and volunteers with responsibilities for providing veterans care; require the participation of lesbian, gay and bisexual veteran advocates in program development and implementation. 10. Prohibit any further use of federal funds for investigative, disciplinary or separation action in any instance where the sole basis for such action is the service member's sexual orientation except where it pertains to documented, adjudicated conduct involving violent or coercive behavior. 1 1. Transfer funding equal to those amounts now being spent on investigation, disciplinary and/or separation action on the basis of sexual orientation from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 12. Create and fully fund an independent investigative unit with authority to require the cooperation of military officials at all ranks, in addressing allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. 13. Expand existing definitions of sexual harassment, and all policies and training devolving from prohibition of sexual harassment in the military, to include prohibition of harassment by service members of any individual or groups of individuals on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. 14. Facilitate and provide funding opportunities for further expansion and/or creation of veterans outreach and advocacy programs, focusing on groups of veterans at particular disadvantage including lesbian, bisexual and gay veterans. ENDNOTES 1. United States House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress. Community-Based Veteran Service Organizations. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, May 6, 1992. Serial No. 102-38. Washington, DC: LT.S. Government Printing Office, 1992. 2. United States House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress. Health Care, Economic Opportunities and Social Services for Veterans and their Dependents - A Community Perspective. Hearing- Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, May 5, 1993, Serial No. 103-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. 3. In the interests of brevity and inclusiveness, throughout this text any reference to persons within the single categories of lesbian, gay or bisexual is intended to refer to all such categories inclusively, unless specifically noted otherwise. 4. Presidential Executive Order 9981, July 26, 1948. 5. Department of the Navy. Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secret of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing with Homosexuals (the so-called 'Crittenden Report'). Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, 1957. McDaniel, Michael A. Preservice Adjustment of Homosexual and Heterosexual Military Acceisions: Implications for Security Clearance Suitability. Monterey, CA: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center, 1989. Sarbin, Theodore R., Ph.D. and Kenneth E. Karols, M.D., Ph.D. Nonconforming- Sexual Orientations (PERS-TR-89-002). Monterey, CA: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center, 1988. The above are cited with inclusion of all relevant memoranda, and including the 1993 RAND Report commissioned by the Department of Defense (bibliographic citation information unavailable). 6. United States General Accounting Office. Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality. United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-92-98). Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, 1992. United States General Accounting Office. Defense Force Management: Statistics related to DOD's Policy on Homosexuality. United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-92-98S). Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, 1992. NOTES: 3. CO'S NJP. Commanding Officer's Non-judicial Punishment was held on Friday, 3 June 1977 and awarded the following punishment. Viol. UCMJ, Art. 86- UA for 18 hours. Awarded: Reduced to pay grade E-3. Viol. UCMJ, Art 92 Violating a lawful written regulation by not completing the required A-hours assigned him. Reduced to pay grade E- 3 Awarded: Viol. UCMJ, Art. 92 Violation of a lawful written regulation by going through an Emergency Fire Door. Viol. UCMJ, Art. 134 Bringing discredit to the armed forces by urinating through the sprints of a bed. Awarded: 4. SPEED LIMITS. In accordance with NTCORLINST 5560.1c, all vehicle operators must comply with posted speed limits while operating on board NTC, McCoy Annex and Hospital Area. NTC (Including Hospital) 10 MPH in Parking Lots 25 MPH unless otherwise posted 5 MPH passing Marching Troops McCoy Annex: 15 MPH in Parking Lots 30 MPH unless otherwise posted Pedestrians always have the right of way and all traffic must yield to them at crosswalks. Violations are recorded and accumulated points will result in loss of base driving privileges. 5. SAVING BOND FACTS: TAX ADVANTAGES- Interest on Savings Bonds is exempt from all state or local income or personal property taxes. Interest from Savings Bonds is subject to Federal Income taxes, but interest need not be reported for tax purposes until Bonds are cashed. Additional tax advantages are available for children's education and retirement. J.E. BROOKS CWO2, USN ADMIN OFFICER