Pentagon Agrees to Full Discharge Pay for Gay Troops

The New York Times ^ | January 7, 2013 | James Dao

[2ndDivisionVet]

Before the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2011, gay and lesbian service members who were forced to leave the military because of their sexual orientation were often honorably discharged. Yet they were given only half of their discharge pay.

That changed on Monday. Under a settlement to a class-action lawsuit, the Pentagon has agreed to pay full separation pay to all service members involuntarily separated from the military after Nov. 10, 2004, because of their sexual orientation.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the action against the Defense Department, the half pay was the result of an internal policy adopted in 1991. Troops are entitled to separation pay if they are involuntarily and honorably discharged after completing at least six years of service. Separation pay is calculated based on years of active service and the service member’s monthly basic pay when at the time he or she was discharged.

The lead plaintiff in the suit was a former Air Force staff sergeant, Richard Collins, who served nine years before two civilian co-workers observed him exchanging a kiss with his civilian boyfriend and reported it to his superiors. The A.C.L.U. said the Pentagon withheld about $2.4 million from at least 180 other honorably discharged veterans...

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

Pentagon Agrees to Full Discharge Pay for Gay Troops

'Discharge'??? Isn't that was got them expelled in the first place?

[CharlesWayneCT]

a previous story claimed they were going to get “back pay”, which would be ludicrous.

This might well make sense. If the penalty for being found in violation of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an honorable discharge, then there shouldn’t be an additional penalty in the form of reduced severance pay.

And it appears the law that codified “don’t ask, don’t tell” did NOT call for a monetary penalty upon discharge. We could argue if it should have, but if it didn’t, it makes sense that a court would find such a policy invalid.