A question about the end of DADT

[Stinky The Clown]

First off, I am very happy this has **finally** happened. To all made more whole by it, congratulations.

Now to the question: Why are they saying that those discharged as a result of the old law must "reenlist?" Why can these people not be reinstated, instead. I can understand that, in some cases, they may have been out so long there might be some reason to reconsider then on the basis of physical fitness, but even then, why not allow them to get back rank and seniority . . . and maybe even credit for the time out since they were out by no fault of their own?

[uppityperson]

1. k&r up to zero. Good question.

[zipplewrath]

2. Well, that's what the court case was about

There was a court case moving through the courts to declare DADT unconstitutional. That would have forced the military to take them back, and nullify their discharges. Potentially, there would have been back pay and promotion adjustments.

The justice department though objected to the case continuing. I'm not sure of the current status.

As it stands now they have to re-enlist because they were discharged.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Hmmmm . . . .

. . . . an "almost kinda sorta" victory.

Did I hear, just recently, that someone is suing the feds about this?