Fehrenbach Thread

[Gravedigger]

I feel bad for this guy. He obviously is a capable and accomplished WSO, and wants nothing more than to continue serving, and live peacefully. The AF really screwed the pooch on this one, no pun intended.

[brickhistory]

Just because he was gay doesn't mean he had "mental reservations" about accepting a commission. And the actual oath of office doesn't mention anything about homosexuality.......

IF he accepted his commission and took the oath knowing he was gay and that trait was against UCMJ and published DoD policy, then I would argue that he did have "mental reservations" regarding his oath and commission.

I'm not making my point about his or the DoD's policy on homosexuality.

I'm saying that if he was gay before 1993, then the law and policy were very explicit and he still went ahead and accepted his commission and the responsibilities therein.

If he became gay after 1993, then there is something more to the story I would think.

As to those who would want to 'park him' in another job, why? If he can fly and fight, and you're going to keep him, why not let him do his job as he did for so long and, apparently, so well?

Why does this guy merit special treatment and any other servicemember booted just shy of retirement for the same reason not?

It should be the same standard for everyone.

I'm a cynical dreamer...

[Clayton Bigsby]

Brick - it's possible he got the gay later on than when he joined @ 22. People do change their mind...

[Right Seat Driver]

I could care less if someone is gay or not, just do your job. Sure, there could be more to this story, but to go 18 years without anyone knowing he was gay, especially the guys he flew with had no idea is really surprising.

It sounds like he had a good handle on things, and it didn't adversely impact his job, guys on this board have stated that. I say let him stay his last two years but that is way above my pay grade.

[lloyd christmas]

I find it interesting that in 2 pages of gay talk here on Baseops that there is barely any gay bashing like there has been in threads past. Why is that? Is it because he was a fellow aviator? He is a great poster boy for allowing gays into the military. What a great example. He is a combat proven aviator. He is well spoken. And according to him and a few people here his gayness went undetected for 18 years. I am not stupid enough to fall for this. Do people really think every gay person that is going to serve in the military is going to keep it hidden for 18 years if they do away with don't ask don't tell? Because in reality we are dealing with the military as a whole. When people speak of ruining good order, morale and discipline they are speaking of the average army dude hanging out in the barracks acting gay as gay gets. If you do away with don't ask don't tell you will be dealing with a flaming ###### who WILL ruin good order, morale and discipline. I am glad they found the perfect gay dude to be the poster boy for the liberal media who can put pressure on Obama and make him do right on his campaign promise of getting rid of the policy. Bottom line is gays do not belong in the military.

My last question is this. What behavior did he show to get turned in? If he did not say anything and the Air Force did not ask then how did anyone know?

Edited May 21, 2009 by lloyd christmas

[F-15E WSO]

There's more to the story. I'm willing to bet he wasn't kicked out just for being gay.

[daynightindicator]

he was one of my instructors at p-cola. there is more to the story and i'm sure it will surface soon, but i refuse to speculate because all i've heard is rumors.

regardless, i think this shows again the rediculous nature of DADT, and also destroys the myths that proponents use to validate DADT (namely the myth that it will destroy good order and discipline).

[slacker]

However, you can suck ass and get promoted- go figure.

[M2]

However, you can suck ass and get promoted- go figure.

Also well played!

This has been a fun discussion and all that, but the truth of the matter is that there has to be more to this story than we are hearing through the media.

I don't think anyone on this forum can doubt this guy's record. He is actually a warrior, a term that has become badly overused to describe everything to include blues-wearing finance airmen (nothing against blues-wearing finance airmen, but unless you are armed and facing the enemy on a regular basis, or training to do so in the interim, you are not a warrior by my definition). He has proven himself a contributing member of the team (and no jokes about my terminology, please) and as far as I am concerned, he has the right to continue wearing the uniform.

Whereas I can understand both sides of the DADT argument, I honestly don't see the point in the USAF making such a big (and public) issue about one individual. Had there been some kind of incident which brought all this out to light, then it might be understandable (and that may be the case, we just don't know at this time); but unless something of that magnitude occurred there is no logic of why this is going down like this (again, no jokes about my terminology, please).

All that is why I am suspecting there is more to this. But all anyone can do is speculate and debate. That’s a great way to kill time if you’re bored; but it won’t make any of us any smarter until we have the real facts. As such, to pre-empt the locking of this thread due to the topic becoming schnitzel’d, I respectfully request we end the argument over policy and speculation of the events behind this until we get some real info (if that even ever happens).

And my apologies for the over-use of parentheses!

Cheers! M2

[Hacker]

I honestly don't see the point in the USAF making such a big (and public) issue about one individual.

Did the USAF make such a big deal about it?

Or did Stain make a big deal about it?

[Guest whyme?]

Why is he public? Cuz he wants his retirement for F#@$ sakes. Give it too him and let it die!

[Longhorn15]

For all those who are using this issue to bash DADT, doesn't this case prove the opposite. Those who knew and flew with this guy, had no idea he was gay, and therefore his personal life had no negative impact on his squadron. That was the point of DADT, gays can serve (which is not a right) they just can't serve openly. Until we find out the whole story, which we probably won't, I don't think most of us can intelligently comment on this particular case.

I know it is not the same, but the military asks self-discipline of people. If you can't maintain your weight, you get the boot. If you are gay, then you should understand the policy requires you refrain from homosexual behavior. They are different, but both examples of self-discipline.

It is unfortunate that he served 18yrs and gets nothing, but you roll the dice and you take your chances.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

There has been a number of people that denied to themselves they were gay for much of their lives and came to accept that's how it was for them. Perhaps this guy finally accepted that's who he is at the 10 year mark? Who are we to say when he figured out he was gay?

All I know is this guy didn't have anything bad going for him. I met him while deployed in 2003 and NEVER had any suspicion whatsoever that he was gay...we all drank and served at OTBH without a hiccup. I just think it's retarded to try and push some guy like this out the door. Perhaps there is another underlying reason, but until I see anything negative on his part other than Big Blue found out his little secret, I just don't get it.

[FlyingBull]

Lets put this in perspective for those claiming "he got caught, tough". As another poster pointed out, under the UCMJ oral sex pf ANY kind is just as illegal as gay sex.

How would you like OSI questioning your wife/girlfriend about how many blowjobs she's given you or if you have gone down on her? How would you then like that to be the reason your career is ruined?

Its the same thing. The only difference is that DADT is enforced.

Our of curiosity (sts), if you are a commander, can you decline to investigate someone under you for DADT violation?

[Vertigo]

This just confirms DADT is a asinine rule.

Toro, sorry to hear one of your buds is getting screwed over on this deal. No pun intended. Out of curiosity what was your stance on gays in the military before this incident and (assuming you were anti-gays in uniform) does knowing that someone you knew so well and had served honorably with change your views on this policy?

[flyusaf83]

Not knowing the story behind this WSO, I feel bad for the guy. It's gotta be a tough pill to swallow to be kicked out after 18 years of honorable service with no retirement. Looking at this story alone (or at least the part we have heard), it appears that they should have let the guy keep serving. However, I'm not sure that means we do away with DADT. Here's why. I don't have a problem serving with an openly gay guy who respects boundries and doesn't constantly flaunt his gayness. I've worked with a gay guy at my civilian job for the past year (I EAD end of this month). He's openly gay, but doesn't flaunt it or act gay. He's professional and does his job well. The problem is that if you allow gays to openly serve, you can't really discriminate what kind of gays serve. I can't see a recruiter asking a gay guy how flaming he is. We would have serve with the flamers who constantly flaunt their gayness alongside those who are professional. That would cause division in units. It's a shitty situation without a perfect solution.

[Toro]

Toro, sorry to hear one of your buds is getting screwed over on this deal. No pun intended. Out of curiosity what was your stance on gays in the military before this incident and (assuming you were anti-gays in uniform) does knowing that someone you knew so well and had served honorably with change your views on this policy?

I don't really care. I grew up in California where they go to the extreme end of the spectrum with flaunting their sexual preferences, so having somebody in uniform who is gay - but can be professional and not flaunt his preferences - doesn't bother me a bit. I also had a very good friend from college who came out of the closet - very similar to this situation where none of us had any idea. I can understand the argument that a gay military member could damage morale - but that's due to the moral compass of others. That's like saying we shouldn't allow drinking, smoking, and telling dirty jokes in the squadron bar because there are folks who would dissaprove. I'm sure that's true, but they either don't go to those events, or they go and don't voice their dissaproval.

It always kills me when people try to pull out the foxhole or shower argument. If you really think a homosexual in the Air Force is going to try to butt-hurt you in the gym shower, then you have an unnecessary level of homophobia. The AF doesn't have the slightest bit of tolerance with heterosexal sexual harrasement - why in the world would anybody think they'd put up with homosexual harrasement? It's ignorant.

I don't like it when people act "ghetto" either. But how are you going to regulate that in the military?

You mean like this?

It gets back to having a professional presentation and attitude, in and out of uniform. So yes, you most certainly can regulate it.

[M2]

Well, it made tomorrow's Stars & Stripes...

[busdriver]

Civilian outed him eh? A cranky ex?

[nsplayr]

So, how did he break the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? The government didn't ask, and he didn't tell them. Some civilian went to his boss and said "He might be gay." Either that's a gross simplification for the article's purpose (very likely) or that's some really f-ed up stuff. Why would the AF investigate something like that. If I was a commander I would have told that civilian to go screw himself and let me deal with my troops.

P.S. - Is this guy a pilot or WSO? Why can't the media seem to grasp that not all people that fly in planes are pilots? Too much to ask I guess...

P.P.S. - What prevents a person from mailing a letter to their squadron commander saying "Capt. XXX is gay" just to mess with them? Seriously, this has got to be the biggest shaft of a way to get outed (sts).

But, if we have thrown out thousands of others on the same charge, why is this guy above the rule as it stands now and at his conviction/discharge?

I don't think anyone has argued for him to be reinstated, the rules are what they are unfortunately for this guy; now it's too late for him. I'm at least just saying this is a great example on how to waste effort enforcing a policy that detracts from readiness. Shouldn't OSI be investigating terrorists, hackers, murders, etc.?

Edited May 23, 2009 by nsplayr

[Toro]

P.S. - Is this guy a pilot or WSO? Why can't the media seem to grasp that not all people that fly in planes are pilots? Too much to ask I guess...

He's a WSO

[Fud]

I thought the USAF couldn't investigate someone if the only charge was being gay? If he was outed, and his commander "asked", I'm sure he used his integrity and answered yes (he told). Again, I don't know the specifics of the situation, and I'm sure they'll all be out in time. There was a similar situation with a female nurse not too long ago.

[Guest whyme?]

I thought the USAF couldn't investigate someone if the only charge was being gay? If he was outed, and his commander "asked", I'm sure he used his integrity and answered yes (he told). Again, I don't know the specifics of the situation, and I'm sure they'll all be out in time. There was a similar situation with a female nurse not too long ago.

So did the CC violate the Don't ASK part of DADT? I thought thats what the OSI was for. Sitting outside brothels and catchin in the act. But of course they couldnt do that with Jill.

They better be careful with specifics I'm pretty sure there is going to be a rush of guys that are sick of our "outstanding" leadership and think F$@# the easy road out of the Mil.

[Hacker]

I thought the USAF couldn't investigate someone if the only charge was being gay? If he was outed, and his commander "asked", I'm sure he used his integrity and answered yes (he told). Again, I don't know the specifics of the situation, and I'm sure they'll all be out in time. There was a similar situation with a female nurse not too long ago.

Remember, that homosexual orientation is the topic of the "DA/DT" policy.

Homosexual activity is what is prohibited and prosecutable by the UCMJ.

This should tell you that there is more to the story than simply someone saying they are homosexual.

[Guest Cap-10]

There has to be more to this story...

During the interview, when he was talking about the 6-9 people on the base that knew about his "situation" and he mentioned a couple people in the OSI.

OSI doesn't get involved just for shit's and grins...in fact, I don't even think the SQ/CC has the ability to use OSI if he just wanted to investigate a guy for the possibility of being gay. I'm fairly sure they only get invovled when there are criminal implications.

My guess is that someone (military or civilian) threw out his name for possible involvement in something criminal. OSI gets involved and during their investigation, determine that he's been handing out free passes to his ass. When all is said and done, there is not enough (or circumstantial at best) evidence to proceed with the criminal stuff, but mother AF can't un-learn the fact that they now know he's gay. They serve him his papers, he fights back, and here we are.

My bet is that anything involving any civilian criminal stuff is probably protected by the Privacy Act, or some attorney/client priviledge. I wouldn't be surprised if we never get an official statement about the other half of the story.

Cheers,

Cap-10