Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "580159119",
    "label": "Gays in the Military [2]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580159119"
}

{
    "id": "580159119",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580159119",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Gays in the Military [2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580159119",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of the Press Secretary (Clinton Administration)",
        "Dee Dee Myers' Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/7432017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/7432017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/7432017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 65,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580159119",
    "naId": 580159119,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 65,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/7432017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017/42-t-7432017-20110587F-007-014-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "578738864ad21361",
    "ocrText": "FOIA Number: 2011-0587-F\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the William J. Clinton\nPresidential Library Staff.\nCollection/Record Group:\nClinton Presidential Records\nSubgroup/Office of Origin:\nPress Secretary\nSeries/Staff Member:\nDee Dee Myers\nSubseries:\nOA/ID Number:\n4485\nFolderID:\nFolder Title:\nGays in the Military [2]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nS\n94\n3\n5\n1\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFor Immediate Release\nJune 15, 1993\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nToday, I am pleased to take an important step in the promotion of\ndemocracy by putting in place my proposal for strengthening one\nof the most effective foreign policy tools we have, our\ninternational broadcasting programs. For the spread of our\nvalues, our ideas and our democratic way of life can help\nstrengthen our security and support others around the world in\ntheir struggle for freedom.\nI am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Director of the\nU.S. Information Agency, Dr. Joseph Duffey, and the Chair of the\nBoard of International Broadcasting, Congressman Dan Mica. These\nprograms have been and will be an essential part of our efforts\nto promote democracy and advance America's interests abroad.\nOur plan proposes a proud rebirth of America's broadcasting\nprograms to reflect this post-Cold War era. Our proposal\npreserves Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which played such\nan important role in bringing freedom to Central and Eastern\nEurope and to the states of the former Soviet Union. It retains\nour other important broadcasting services, such as Voice of\nAmerica, Radio Marti and TV Marti which have played such an\nimportant role in bringing truth and hope abroad. And our plan\nreorganizes our foreign broadcasting services to make them\nstronger, more efficient and more capable of meeting this era's\nnew challenges of fostering democracy and civic reconstruction.\nOur victory in the Cold War was due not only to the strength of\nour forces but also to the power of our ideas. While we acted to\ncontain Soviet expansionism, we also sought to inspire freedom's\nspirit where repression reigned. Voice of America long played an\nimportant role in that effort. And to advance that same cause,\n40 years ago we began a radio service, Radio Liberty, which aimed\nto join freedom's advocates behind the Iron Curtain with freedom-\nloving Americans. The founders of this and the other American\nradio services understood that truth is one of our most potent\nweapons in the fight against communism and totalitarianism.\nThe heroes of the Cold War's end, such as Polish President Lech\nWalesa and Czech President Vaclav Havel, have often noted the\nimportance they attach to Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to\ntheir own historic work on behalf of liberty and democracy.\nRadio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, together with our other\nbroadcasting services, have persistently challenged the ability\nof repressive leaders to deny history, disfigure truth and\n2\nmanipulate minds. From Havana to Ho Chi Minh City, from Pretoria\nto Prague, our foreign broadcast services helped prove a lesson\nthat Americans must never forget: an informed and enlightened\npopulace is the mightiest adversary tyranny can ever face.\nToday, the challenges have changed for the states that were once\nheld captive behind the Iron Curtain. Freedom's work is not\ncompleted. Most of these states are undergoing a difficult\nprocess of consolidating democracy's gains and building\nprosperity's foundations. The resulting economic and political\ntensions in many of these nations have bred demagogues and\nwarlords who threaten to reverse democracy's recent progress.\nThese states and many others still need a source of news that is\nreliably free from the manipulation of their own governments. No\nnation has more credibility to provide such news than the United\nStates. That is why our radio and other international\nbroadcasting services will continue to be vital as we seek to\nhelp strengthen new democracies and bolster the development of\ndemocratic institutions where they do not yet exist.\nThe plan we are announcing today will make those services\nstronger and better suited to this era:\nWe will continue the operation of Radio Free Europe and\nRadio Liberty. Many of our broadcasting services, including\nboth of these radios and Voice of America, will undergo some\nchanges in structure and budget.\nWe will create a new and independent Board of Governors that\nwill oversee not only Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty,\nbut the Voice of America and other foreign broadcasting\nservices as well. Located within the United States\nInformation Agency, it will replace and perform similar\ntasks to the Board of International Broadcasting. The new\nBoard, which the President shall appoint with the advice and\nconsent of the Senate, will ensure independence, coherence,\nquality and journalistic integrity in our surrogate and\nother broadcast services.\nThis new Board will play an important role in determining\nthe best mix of broadcasting functions: telling America's\nstory to the rest of the world; reporting objective\ninternational news; providing accurate in-country news where\na free press is not yet developed; and from time to time\nhelping to transmit our government's official views abroad.\nThis new Board will also take a leadership role in helping\nto create a new Asian Democracy Radio to provide accurate\nlocal and international information for the people of Asia\nwhose governments still suppress the truth.\nIn addition, we will continue the good work of our important\nbroadcasting services aimed at speeding the arrival of\nfreedom in Cuba -- Radio Marti and TV Marti. The current\nstructure of these entities and their boards will remain.\n3\n- -\nWe will encourage the establishment of independent news-\ngathering and broadcast operations in the countries of\nEastern Europe and the new independent states themselves - -\nwhere they can be rewoven into the fabric of democratic\nlife.\nBy bringing our broadcasting resources together under one roof,\nwe can achieve substantial savings, while at the same time\nproviding for greater flexibility to target and shape our\nbroadcasts as may be warranted by changing international\ncircumstances and audience interests. We can also take better\nadvantage of the remarkable technological developments in world-\nwide broadcasting that are imminent.\nThe plan we are announcing today was developed through the hard\nwork and cooperation of many individuals, but I particularly want\nto acknowledge the leadership of Congressman Dan Mica and\nDr. Duffey. I also want to acknowledge the high degree of\nprofessionalism and dedication among those individuals who have\ndone so much to create the excellence of the Voice of America,\nRadio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and our other broadcasting\nservices. They spent years of their lives, and often risked\ntheir own lives, to bring accurate news and the message of\ndemocracy to people who have been denied both, and we will\ncontinue to rely on their excellent service.\nI have said that my foreign policy is premised on promoting\ndemocracy, improving our security and revitalizing our economy.\nThe plan we are announcing today assists us in doing all three.\n###\nUnited States General Accounting Office\nGAYS\nIN\nGAO\nReport to the Honorable\nJohn W. Warner, U.S. Senate\nJune 1993\nHOMOSEXUALS IN\nTHE MILITARY\nPolicies and Practices\nof Foreign Countries\nUNITED\nSTATES\nACCOUNTING OFFICE CENERAL\nPrinted copies of this document will be available shortly.\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215\nGAO\nUnited States\nGeneral Accounting Office\nWashington, D.C. 20548\nNational Security and\nInternational Affairs Division\nB-253590\nJune 25, 1993\nThe Honorable John W. Warner\nUnited States Senate\nDear Senator Warner:\nIn response to your request, we performed a review of the policies\nconcerning homosexuals in the militaries of 25 foreign countries, and a\nmore in-depth review of both the policies and practices in four of these\ncountries. The four countries-Canada, Germany, Israel, and\nSweden-allow homosexuals to serve in the military. For these four\ncountries, we gathered detailed information on their military policies,\nincluding the evolution of these policies; compared the military policies to\ncivilian laws; determined whether the practices of the armed services are\nconsistent with their policies; and discussed the experiences each country\nhas had concerning homosexuals in the military.\nThe Canadian, German, Israeli, and Swedish military policies and practices\nregarding homosexuals developed as the result of circumstances unique to\neach country. Factors such as the rights of homosexuals, societal attitudes\ntowards homosexuals, and the military's role in society appear to have had\nan impact on each nation's experiences. Various officials we interviewed\nsaid that their country's experiences cannot necessarily be reproduced by\nanother country; however, insights can be gained from their experiences.\nTo obtain information on a broad range of foreign countries' laws, policies,\nScope and\nand regulations governing the military service of homosexuals, we initially\nMethodology\nselected a sample of 29 countries which had active duty force levels over\n50,000 in 1991. Four of the 29 countries did not wish to be included in this\nreview or considered the issue too sensitive to address. For the remaining\n25 countries, we obtained an official position on their laws, policies, and\nregulations concerning homosexuals in the armed services either through\nthe U.S. embassies and foreign government officials in the respective\ncountries or from the countries' embassies in Washington, D.C. We also\nheld discussions with some of the countries' embassy officials to clarify\ntheir laws, policies, and regulations.\nFor our detailed review, we selected Canada, Germany, Israel, and Sweden\nbecause these countries allowed homosexuals to serve in the military and\nmet certain criteria regarding their cultural heritage, the size of their\nPage 1\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\narmed forces, and their recent combat or deployment experience. In\naddition, we attempted to include countries which represented a range of\nattitudes concerning homosexuality.\nOur work in the four countries included discussions with mid- and\nsenior-level military and government officials, former active duty military\npersonnel, members of the reserve forces, representatives of veterans and\nhomosexual advocacy groups, and academic experts. These groups\nprovided a broad range of views concerning the treatment of homosexuals\nin the military. We also intended to talk to active duty officers and enlisted\npersonnel at military headquarters and field units. However, of the four\ncountries, only Sweden permitted us to interview active duty unit\npersonnel. Nevertheless, our discussions with numerous other\nknowledgeable civilians and military personnel, representing a wide\nspectrum of opinions, gave us no indication that unit personnel would\nhave provided a different perspective.\nAppendix I discusses our scope and methodology in more detail.\nAppendix II describes the military policies concerning homosexuals for 21\nof the 25 countries in our sample, including related information on the\npractices of some of the countries. Appendixes III through VI discuss the\nresults of our in-depth review for the remaining four countries-Canada,\nGermany, Israel, and Sweden.\nBackground\nCongress is currently debating the President's proposal to lift the ban on\nhomosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. As part of this debate, Congress has\nexpressed an interest in foreign countries' military policies and\nexperiences concerning homosexuals.\nThe 25 countries included in our review represent a wide range of\ncultures, religions, forms of government, and geographic locations. The\nfour countries selected for our more detailed review-Canada, Germany,\nIsrael, and Sweden-generally reflect Western cultural values yet still\nprovide a range of ethnic diversity. Germany and Sweden have ethnically\nhomogeneous populations. Israel's population is diverse, with immigrants\nfrom all over the world. The largest ethnic groups in Canada are people\nwith British or French backgrounds, or some combination of the two.\nHowever, almost one-third of the population has other ethnic\nbackgrounds.\nPage 2\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nEach of the four countries reviewed in detail has active armed forces that\nexceed 50,000 military personnel and has been involved recently in\nregional conflicts, United Nations peacekeeping missions, or both. Of the\ncountries selected, only Canada has an all-volunteer military force.\nGermany's military consists of 57 percent volunteer forces, and the\nremaining 43 percent are conscripted.¹ Israel's and Sweden's forces\nprimarily consist of conscripted military personnel, although they do\nmaintain a small volunteer corps. All four countries allow women to serve\nin some capacity. Canada is the least restrictive in this regard, allowing\nwomen to serve in combat and non-combat roles; Germany is the most\nrestrictive, allowing women to serve in only the medical and music corps.\nPolicies permitting homosexuals to serve in the military in these countries\nhave been in place for a period of time ranging from 8 months in Canada to\n45 years in Israel.\nResults in Brief\nWhile many countries have no specific law or military regulation on\nhomosexuals serving in the military, of the 25 countries in our sample, 11\nhave policies that do not permit homosexuals to serve in the military, and\n11 have policies that do. Three of the countries do not have any laws,\nregulations, or policies that address this issue and did not provide\ninformation regarding homosexuals serving in the military. Other variables\nmay affect the service of homosexuals in the military. For example, most\ncountries set standards of conduct applicable to all military personnel.\nAlso, some countries place restrictions on known homosexuals who serve.\nOf the four countries we reviewed in more detail, Canada, Israel, and\nSweden have policies of not discriminating against homosexuals in the\nmilitary. Germany imposes restrictions on homosexual volunteers. In all\nfour countries, military policies concerning homosexuals developed over\ntime, reflecting changes in civilian law and societal attitudes toward\nhomosexuals. Most military officials and advocacy group representatives\nsaid that the countries' practices toward homosexuals in the armed\nservices were consistent with military policies.\nMilitary officials in all four countries said that the presence of\nhomosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems\nin the functioning of military units. A key factor, they said, was that\nhomosexuals are reluctant to openly admit their sexual orientation for a\nvariety of reasons. For example, (1) sexuality is considered to be a private\nConscription is the requirement for a person to enroll for compulsory service in the armed forces.\nPage 3\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nmatter, (2) homosexuals fear discrimination or negative reactions from\ntheir peers or superiors if they reveal their sexual orientation, and\n(3) homosexuals do not see any advantage to openly identifying their\nhomosexuality. Military officials from Canada, Israel, and Sweden said\nthat, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in the\nmilitary is not a problem and has not adversely affected unit readiness,\neffectiveness, cohesion, or morale. In Germany, military officials told us\nthat problems associated with homosexual military personnel are dealt\nwith on a case-by-case basis and their service is restricted if necessary.\nPolicies Concerning\nTable 1 shows which countries do not permit homosexuals to serve and\nwhich do permit homosexuals to serve. The table also provides\nthe Military Service of\ninformation on whether the country's military force consists of all\nHomosexuals in 25\nvolunteers, mostly conscripts, or some other combination of volunteers\nand conscripts. Volunteer forces generally are the source of career military\nForeign Countries\npersonnel.\nPage 4\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nTable 1: Policies Concerning Military Service of Homosexuals in Foreign Countries\nPolicy allows\nSize of\nPrimary source\nhomosexuals to\nApplicable laws, regulations, policies, and/or\nCountry\nactive force\nof personnel\nserve\nrestrictions\nAustralia\n68,000\nAll-volunteer\nYes\nMilitary policy changed in Nov. 1992.\nBelgium\n85,000\nBothᵇ\nYes\nNo specific law/military reg.\nBrazil\n297,000\nBoth\nNo\nNo specific law/military reg.\nCanada\n78,000\nAll-volunteer\nYes\nProhibition lifted in October 1992.\nChile\n92,000\nBoth\nNo\nCivilian law applies.\nColombia\n134,000\nBoth\nNo\nMilitary code applies.\nFrance\n453,000\nBoth\nYes\nNo specific law/military reg.\nGermany\n476,000\nConscript\nYes\nCivilian laws changed in 1969.\nVolunteer\nNo\nGreece\n159,000\nConscript\nNo\nMilitary reg. applies.\nHungary\n87,000\nBoth\nNo\nNo specific law/military reg. Restrictions apply\nto volunteers.\nIsrael\n141,000\nConscript\nYes\nMilitary regulation on restrictions revoked in May\n1993.\nItaly\n361,000\nConscript\nNo\nCodified into law in 1985.\nJapan\n246,000\nAll-volunteer\nC\nNo specific law/military reg.\nPeru\n105,000\nConscript\nNo\nNo specific law/military reg. on acceptance.\nMilitary code applies regarding discharge.\nPoland\n305,000\nConscript\nd\nNo specific law/military reg.\nPortugal\n62,000\nBoth\nYes\nMilitary laws modified in 1989.\nRepublic of Korea\n600,000\nConscript\nYes\nMilitary law applies.\nRomania\n201,000\nConscript\nNo\nCivilian law applies.\nSouth Africa\n72,000\nBoth\nd\nNo specific law/military reg.\nSpain\n257,000\nBoth\nYes\nCivilian laws revised in 1985.\nSweden\n53,000\nConscript\nYes\nCivilian law/military policy.\nThe Netherlands\n92,000\nBoth\nYes\nNo specific law/military reg. Military policy\nrevised in 1974.\nTurkey\n579,000\nConscript\nNo\nMilitary law applies.\nUnited Kingdom\n300,000\nAll-volunteer\nNo\nMilitary law applies.\nVenezuela\n75,000\nBoth\nNo\nMilitary law applies.\nNote: Appendix II provides additional information concerning these military policies.\nWhen no specific law or regulation applies, the countries' officials informed us of the policy.\nThe Belgium military is currently transitioning to an all-volunteer force.\nᶜJapanese officials indicated the issue is handled on a case-by-case basis.\ndOfficials did not provide detailed information to enable us to make this determination.\nPage 5\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nMilitary Policies\nMilitary policies regarding homosexuals in Canada, Israel, and Sweden\nclosely reflect civilian laws. In these three countries, military policies are\nClosely Reflect\nconsistent with civilian laws and regulations for homosexuals. In\nCivilian Laws in the\nGermany, both civilian laws and military policies do not specifically\nFour Selected\naddress homosexuality. However, the court system has allowed the\nmilitary to place restrictions on homosexuals.\nCountries\nCanada's constitution and laws have been interpreted by the courts to\nprohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. On the basis of a\ncourt case which applied this interpretation to the military, the Canadian\nForces recently revoked its policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving.\nCivilian anti-discrimination laws now apply to the military.\nIsrael's 1992 labor law prohibits discrimination against homosexuals in the\nworkplace. Until May 1993, an Israeli military policy restricted known\nhomosexuals from certain assignments in the military. Israel rescinded\nthis policy and now places no restrictions on the recruitment, assignment,\nor promotion of homosexual soldiers and civilians due to their sexual\ninclination.\nA 1987 Swedish law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation\nand makes it illegal for individuals to make derogatory comments about a\nperson's homosexuality. The country's military policy concerning\nhomosexuals parallels civilian law and prohibits discrimination against\nhomosexuals.\nThe German constitution provides for basic civil rights and equality of all\npeople, but German law does not specifically address sexual orientation.\nGerman military policy states that military personnel may be discharged\nfor \"suitability\" reasons. Although the policy does not refer specifically to\nhomosexuals, the military has interpreted the policy as applying to them.\nGerman courts have upheld this interpretation. As a result, the policy\nessentially gives the military flexibility in dealing with homosexuals by\nallowing the military to discipline or discharge a homosexual service\nmember based on the individual's behavior, time in service, and status\n(conscript or volunteer).\nPage 6\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nMilitary Policies\nIn all four countries, military policies concerning homosexuals have\ndeveloped over time. These policy changes were usually preceded by\nConcerning\nchanges in civilian laws, reflecting the attitudes of the society at large. As\nHomosexuals Have\nsociety showed increased acceptance of homosexuals, the military tended\nto follow.\nEvolved\nCanada has modified its military policy over the past 7 years to remove all\nrestrictions on homosexuals. In 1986, the Canadian Forces began to\nreevaluate its policy of excluding homosexuals from the military. The\nreview was prompted by the adoption of the equal rights provision of the\ncountry's new constitution. During this review, the military instituted an\ninterim policy in 1988 that allowed homosexuals to serve, but with\nrestrictions. In 1992, a court ruled that the military's policy concerning\nhomosexuals was unconstitutional, and the military revoked its policy and\nremoved all restrictions on homosexuals.\nGermany's military policy has been modified over the past 24 years,\nalthough it does not grant homosexuals total equal rights. The German\narmed forces began permitting homosexuals to serve in 1969, when the\npenal code was revised to decriminalize homosexual acts² for males\nages 21 and over. In 1987, Germany's Federal Administrative Court ruled\nthat homosexual orientation alone was not sufficient grounds for revoking\nsecurity clearances, and the military has since changed its policy\naccordingly. In 1990, this same German court found that the German\nmilitary is justified in not allowing homosexuals to serve in leadership or\neducational positions.\nIsrael has no constitution or bill of rights; however, a number of basic\nlaws, together, serve that purpose. The Israeli military has allowed\nhomosexuals to serve since the country was founded in 1948. Under a\n1983 military regulation, however, homosexuals were prohibited from\nserving in intelligence positions requiring top security clearances. The\nregulation also required identified homosexuals to undergo a\npsychological examination to determine their ability to serve. However,\nwe were told that in practice these policies were never formally\nimplemented. Recently, Israeli society has become more accepting of\nhomosexuality and has increasingly recognized homosexual rights.\nHomosexual acts were decriminalized in 1988, and discrimination against\nhomosexuals in the workplace was outlawed in 1992. In May 1993, the\nmilitary adopted a policy that no restrictions will be placed on the\n²Homosexual acts are defined differently depending on the country, but generally refer to sexual acts\nbetween same gender partners.\nPage 7\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nrecruitment, assignment, or promotion of homosexuals due to their sexual\ninclination.\nSweden modified its military policies over a period of 11 years before\narriving at the current policy of not discriminating against homosexuals.\nThe military had automatically exempted homosexuals from military\nservice until 1976. In 1979, when the National Board of Health and Welfare\nremoved homosexuality from its Classification of Illnesses Handbook, the\nmilitary stopped considering homosexuality as an illness. The military,\nhowever, continued to annotate the file records of homosexual\nindividuals. This practice was halted in 1984 when a Parliamentary\ncommission concluded that homosexuality must not disqualify an\nindividual from serving in the armed forces. In 1987, Sweden passed its\nlaw prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals. The law also applies\nto the armed forces.\nNo Apparent\nDiscussions with numerous government officials, private groups, and\nindividuals indicated that military practices in Canada, Germany, Israel,\nInconsistency\nand Sweden were consistent with military policies concerning\nBetween Military\nhomosexuals. In Canada and Sweden, military officials and others said the\nPolicies and Actual\narmed forces comply with their policies. Homosexual rights groups in\nCanada were satisfied with the military's policies and practices. While one\nPractices Toward\nhomosexual rights group in Sweden believed that despite the military's\nHomosexuals\nanti-discrimination policy, homosexual officers may be denied career\nopportunities, the group could provide no supporting evidence. The other\nmajor Swedish homosexual rights group we interviewed did not believe\nhomosexuals were discriminated against in the military.\nGerman military officials said they deal with homosexuals on a\ncase-by-case basis, in accordance with the flexibility provided under their\npolicies. How each case is handled, they said, hinges on such factors as\nwhether the individual is a conscript or volunteer, the individual's rank\nand time in service, and whether the individual exhibits homosexual\norientation or engages in homosexual behavior. Depending on the\ncircumstances, a homosexual soldier may not be punished at all, may be\nrestricted from certain assignments, or may be disciplined in some other\nway. In practice, according to German military officials,\nhomosexuals may serve as conscripts in the military if medical personnel\ndetermine during the induction screening that the individual's sexual\nPage 8\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\norientation does not prevent them from functioning effectively in a\nmilitary environment;\nvolunteers (officers and noncommissioned officers) who declare their\nhomosexuality during induction are not accepted, and those already in\nmilitary service may be removed from assignments involving leadership,\ntraining, and educational tasks; and\nindividuals who engage in homosexual activity while on duty may be\nsubjected to a range of disciplinary actions to include discharge.\nWhile German military officials acknowledge that some of their policies\nand practices constitute discrimination, they believe this is justified in\norder to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.\nAccording to military officials, Israel's practices toward homosexuals were\nless restrictive than its policies at the time of our review (before the\ncurrent policy was instituted on May 18, 1993). For instance, according to\nmilitary officials and others (including reserve officers), the 1983\nregulation prohibiting the assignment of homosexuals to intelligence\npositions requiring security clearances was never formally implemented.\nAccording to officials, homosexuals were found to be capable of doing\ntheir jobs without problems, and therefore it did not make sense to\nenforce this regulation. With the recent revision of this policy, practices\nand policies are more consistent.\nFew Homosexual\nAccording to defense officials, military personnel, and representatives of\nhomosexual advocacy groups, there are some openly homosexual military\nMilitary Personnel\npersonnel in the armed forces of the four countries; however,\nOpenly Identify Their\nhomosexuals tend not to openly admit their sexual orientation. Military\nofficials and others we talked to in all four countries said a central reason\nSexual Orientation\nis that these countries consider a person's sexuality a private matter. Other\nreasons varied from country to country and included: (1) homosexuals\nfear discrimination or negative reactions from their peers or superiors if\nthey reveal their sexual orientation; (2) younger soldiers who feel they\nmay be homosexual may still be struggling with their sexual orientation;\n(3) homosexuals do not see any advantage to openly identifying their\nhomosexuality; and (4) many service members serve in close proximity to\ntheir homes and can maintain their private lives.\nEven though most homosexuals in the military do not openly identify their\nsexual orientation, some defense officials and others we interviewed said\nonce a homosexual member of the armed forces has established a\nPage 9\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nprofessional reputation and gained the respect of coworkers, the person\nmay feel more comfortable in revealing his or her sexual orientation to\nthem. In Israel, for example, we talked to a number of reserve military\npersonnel who said that on active duty they served openly as\nhomosexuals, still received promotions, and were not restricted in their\nassignments.\nForeign Militaries\nMilitary officials in Canada, Germany, Israel, and Sweden said that the\npresence of homosexuals has not created problems in the military because\nReport No Adverse\nhomosexuality is not an issue in the military or in society at large. We were\nEffect Because\ntold that a key reason the presence of homosexuals is not an issue in these\nPresence of\ncountries' militaries is that few homosexual military personnel openly\nidentify their sexual orientation, as discussed earlier. For example, a 1984\nHomosexuals Is Not\nreport on homosexuality by Sweden's Parliament stated that \"the silence\nan Issue\nsurrounding homosexuals and homosexuality is virtually total.\" Swedish\nmilitary personnel at all levels agreed that this silence is pervasive in the\nmilitary.\nMilitary officials from each country said that, on the basis of their\nexperience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not\nadversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale. For\nexample, Israeli officials said that homosexuals have performed as well as\nheterosexuals and have served successfully in all branches of the military\nsince 1948. In Canada, where problems in these areas were predicted,\nmilitary officials said none had materialized since the revocation of the\npolicy banning homosexuals. They attributed the lack of problems to the\nmilitary leadership's support of the new policy and the military's ability to\nkeep a low profile on the issue. German military officials said that their\npolicies prevent problems because they allow for flexibility in dealing with\nhomosexual individuals, and their service is restricted if necessary.\nPage 10\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nB-253590\nWe are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen of the Senate and\nHouse Committees on Armed Services, to the Secretary of Defense, and to\nthe Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to others on\nrequest.\nThis report was prepared under the direction of Mark E. Gebicke,\nDirector, Military Operations and Capabilities Issues, who may be reached\non (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major\ncontributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.\nSincerely yours,\ntrank C Conshan\nFrank C. Conahan\nAssistant Comptroller General\nPage 11\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nContents\nLetter\n1\nAppendix I\n14\nObjectives, Scope,\nand Methodology\nAppendix II\n19\nForeign Countries'\nPolicies on\nHomosexuals in the\nMilitary\nAppendix III\n27\nCanada\nAppendix IV\n33\nGermany\nAppendix V\n38\nIsrael\nAppendix VI\n44\nSweden\nAppendix VII\n51\nMajor Contributors to\nThis Report\nTable\nTable 1: Policies Concerning Military Service of Homosexuals in\n5\nForeign Countries\nFigures\nFigure III.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies in\n27\nCanada\nPage 12\nGAO/NSLAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nContents\nFigure IV.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies in\n33\nGermany\nFigure V.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies in Israel\n38\nFigure VI.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies in\n44\nSweden\nAbbreviations\nDND\nDepartment of National Defence\nHIV\nhuman immunodeficiency virus\nIDF\nIsraeli Defense Force\nPage 13\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix I\nObjectives, Scope, and Methodology\nAt the request of Senator John W. Warner, we performed a review of the\npolicies concerning homosexuals in the militaries of 25 foreign countries,\nand a more in-depth review of the policies and practices in four of these\ncountries to obtain a perspective of their experiences.\nTo obtain information on a broad range of foreign countries' laws, policies,\nand regulations governing the military service of homosexuals, we initially\nselected a sample of 29 countries which had active duty force levels over\n50,000 in 1991. Four of the 29 countries did not wish to be included in this\nreview or considered the issue too sensitive to address. For the remaining\n25 countries, we obtained official information on their laws, policies, and\nregulations concerning homosexuals in the armed forces either through\nthe U.S. embassies in the countries or from the countries' embassies in\nWashington, D.C. We also held discussions with some of the countries'\nembassy officials to clarify their laws, policies, and regulations.\nIn selecting the countries for a more detailed review of policies and\npractices, we attempted to capture a range of attitudes toward\nhomosexuality. Other criteria we used included: (1) predominance of\nWestern cultural values; (2) military forces exceeding 50,000; and\n(3) recent military combat and/or deployment experience (for example,\nparticipation in the Persian Gulf War, regional conflicts, or United Nations\npeacekeeping missions). On the basis of these criteria, we selected\nCanada, Germany, Israel, Sweden, and France. During the initial phases of\nour review, French government officials informed us that they did not\nwish to provide us information on this topic. As a result, we excluded\nFrance from the in-depth phase of this review.\nWe gathered detailed information on the military policies of Canada,\nGermany, Israel, and Sweden, including the evolution of these policies;\ncompared the military policies to civilian laws; and determined whether\nthe practices of the armed services are consistent with their policies.\nHowever, we did not attempt to describe the circumstances surrounding\nthe development of these laws and policies. In addition, we discussed the\nexperiences each country has had concerning homosexuals in the military\nwith military personnel, veterans and homosexual advocacy group\nrepresentatives, academics, and U.S. embassy personnel.\nCanada, Germany, and Israel did not permit us to interview active duty\nunit personnel. They provided the following reasons:\nPage 14\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix I\nObjectives, Scope, and Methodology\nCanadian officials cited the recent change in policy and their intent to\nkeep a low profile on the issue. They believed that the military leadership\nwould have more flexibility in implementing this policy if the issue\nremained low-key.\nGermany's chief of protocol said that \"an official visit to units would serve\nno purpose.\"\nIsraeli officials said our presence could be a disruption and preferred to\nmaintain a low profile on this issue. Israeli officials felt that homosexuals\nwere not an issue in the military and wanted it to remain that way.\nTo obtain a list of credible government and military officials, homosexual\nand veterans advocacy groups, and academic sources to interview in each\nforeign country, we contacted\nthe countries' Auditors General;\nU.S. government agencies, professional societies, and individual experts in\na variety of fields, including the Congressional Research Service; the Army\nResearch Institute; Walter Reed Army Hospital; the American Psychiatric\nAssociation; the American Sociological Society; the American\nPsychological Association; the American Ethnological Association; the\nAmerican Anthropological Association; Lawrence Korb, a military analyst\nat the Brookings Institute; Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at\nNorthwestern University; and Lieutenant General (Ret.) Bernard Trainor,\nDirector of the National Security Program at Harvard University;\npublic opinion polling experts, including World Association for Public\nOpinion Research, the Gallup Organization, and Roper Institute;\nU.S. veterans associations, including the American Legion, Veterans of\nForeign Wars, Association of the United States Army, Noncommissioned\nOfficers Association, Retired Officers Association, the Military Coalition,\nand the Air Force Association; and\nU.S. homosexual advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign\nFund, Campaign for Military Service, Military Freedom Initiative,\nInternational Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, International\nLesbian and Gay Association, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the\nGay and Lesbian Foreign Service Association, and Federal Gay, Lesbian,\nand Bisexual Employees.\nAfter we obtained a list of contacts for each country, we supplied the list\nto the respective U.S. embassy to verify the contacts' credibility within the\ncountry.\nSpecifically, we interviewed the following sources in each country:\nPage 15\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix I\nObjectives, Scope, and Methodology\nCanada\nIn Canada, we interviewed officials from the U.S. embassy; the\nDepartment of National Defence's Personnel Policy Division; the\nDepartment of Justice's Human Rights Law Section; Canadian Human\nRights Commission; the only open homosexual member of Parliament; a\nmember of Parliament who belongs to the Progressive Conservative Party\nand is opposed to the new policy; the Canadian Auditor General; Statistics\nCanada, which tabulates government data; the Conference of Defence\nAssociations, a veterans umbrella group, consisting of 22 organizations;\nPink Triangle Services, a local homosexual advocacy group; and Equality\nfor Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, the only national homosexual\nadvocacy group. We also interviewed a cultural anthropologist from\nCriterion Research Corporation; Michelle Douglas, a former military\nofficer whose court case forced the military to change its policy; a political\nscientist from the University of Toronto who specializes in homosexual\nrights; a political scientist from the University of Toronto who specializes\nin polling data; a representative from Gallup Canada, Inc.; and a military\nsociologist under contract to the U.S. Army Research Institute to analyze\nthe impact of Canada's new policy on homosexuals.\nIn Washington, D.C., we interviewed the former Canadian Chief of the\nDefence Staff, the key military official responsible for implementing the\ncourt's decision to allow homosexuals to serve in the military.\nGermany\nIn Germany, we interviewed representatives from the U.S. embassy; the\nMinistry of Defense's personnel, health, and legal divisions; the\nDepartment of the Navy; the Bundestag (the German Parliament); the\nMinistry of Justice; the Deutscher Bundeswehr Verband e.V., an\nassociation representing the views of active duty and retired members of\nthe armed forces; the Catholic and Protestant churches; and the\nSchwulenverband in Deutschland and the Bundesverband Homosexualität,\ntwo homosexual advocacy groups in Germany. We also interviewed a\nprofessor conducting research for the U.S. Army Research Institute on\nGermany's military policy regarding homosexuals and a University of\nFrankfurt sexologist who is an expert on German sexuality and\nsociological trends.\nIsrael\nIn Israel, we interviewed officials from the U.S. embassy and the Israeli\nDefense Forces, including the Chief of Security, who was responsible for\ndrafting the military's new regulation on homosexuals, and the head of the\nMental Health Department; a member of the Israeli Knesset (equivalent to\nPage 16\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix I\nObjectives, Scope, and Methodology\nthe U.S. Congress) who has held public hearings on homosexuality in\nIsrael; officials from the Society for the Protection of Personal Rights, the\nleading homosexual rights group in Israel; an attorney of the Association\nfor Civil Rights in Israel, the country's primary civil rights group; the\nDirector of the Israeli Institute for Military Studies, who was a former\nChief Psychologist of the Israeli Defense Forces and is a specialist on\ncohesion and battlefield stress; the President of the Israel Psychological\nAssociation, the only body of professional psychologists in Israel; a\npollster frequently used by the U.S. embassy; and a sociologist at the\nJerusalem-based Israel Institute of Applied Social Research. Several\nIsraelis we spoke with were either retired military officers or still in the\nreserves. In addition, we confidentially interviewed 11 homosexual and\nheterosexual reserve corps and retired Israeli Defense Forces military\npersonnel to obtain first-hand information on their experience.\nWe attempted to identify organizations that oppose homosexuals in the\nIsraeli military, but were told by several sources, including U.S. embassy\nofficials, that there were none.\nSweden\nIn Sweden, we interviewed officials from the U.S. embassy and the\nSwedish Defense Personnel Division of the Joint Defense Staff and the\nNational Services Administration Enrollment Office and Medical Board;\nsenior military officers, 15 active duty unit-level officers and 27 conscripts\nat Air Force, Army, and Navy facilities; a member of Parliament from the\nLiberal Party who chairs the Parliamentary Commission on Registered\nPartnerships and is the former Director of the National Board of Health\nand Welfare; a member of Parliament from the Moderate Party who is the\nVice-Chair of the Human Resource Council of the Swedish Defense; a\nmember of Parliament from the Christian Democrat Party who opposes\npassage of legislation permitting registered partnerships; and an official\nfrom the Office of the Ombudsman Against Ethnic Discrimination. We also\ninterviewed the President and other representatives of the Swedish\nFederation for Gay and Lesbian Rights, the most prominent advocacy\ngroup for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals; the President of Gay Moderaterna,\nan independent gay conservative organization that works both\ndomestically and internationally to achieve equal rights for homosexuals; a\nsocial researcher with the Institute for Social Policy and the Department\nof Social Work of the University of Gothenburg; the Director of the\nSwedish Institute for Sexual Research; the Chairman and the Project\nOfficer of the Central Council of Conscripts, whose members are elected\nby their peers to represent the conscripts before the Swedish Defense\nPage 17\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix I\nObjectives, Scope, and Methodology\nForce; and the President of Noah's Ark-Red Cross Foundation, founded to\nwork with the prevention of HIV disease and to support those who are\nHIV-infected.\nOfficials from the homosexual advocacy groups and the U.S. embassy\nwere unable to identify any organizations that were opposed to the\nadmission of homosexuals into the military. In addition, the homosexual\nadvocacy groups were unable to locate retired or active duty homosexual\nmilitary personnel who were willing to meet with us.\nWe conducted our review from March to May 1993 in accordance with\ngenerally accepted government auditing standards. We discussed the\nresults of our review with U.S. officials at the Departments of State and\nDefense.\nPage 18\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\nAustralia\nAlthough the Australian Defence Force did not have an official ban on\nadmittance of homosexuals into the military (upon entry, recruits were not\nquestioned about their sexual orientation), a 1986 military policy provided\nguidance to commanding officers in handling cases where a member of the\narmed forces was identified as homosexual. Under this policy, when a\nsoldier declared his or her homosexuality or was found to be homosexual,\nthe soldier was discreetly asked to resign and usually complied.\nOtherwise, the service would initiate actions to terminate the individual's\nmilitary career.\nIn November 1992, the Australian government ended this policy of\nprohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military. The new military\npolicy on unacceptable sexual behavior applies to all service members\nregardless of sexual orientation. The policy states that the passage of\nhuman rights legislation, in particular the Sex Discrimination Act and the\nHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, necessitated the\ndevelopment of a policy on unacceptable sexual behavior.\nAn embassy official told us that Australia does not have laws prohibiting\nsodomy that would have conflicted with implementing the new policy.\nImplementation of the new policy is the responsibility of individual\ncommanders. We were told that command briefings were held throughout\nthe chain of command to implement the new policy. Implementation is\nmonitored routinely through the chain of command.\nAn Australian official stated that although it is too early to assess the\nresults of the revised policy, no reported changes have occurred in the\nnumber of persons declaring his or her sexual preference or the number of\nrecruits being inducted. Effects on unit cohesiveness have not yet been\nfully determined. However, early indications are that the new policy has\nhad little or no adverse impact.\nBelgium\nBelgium has no laws or regulations regarding the service of homosexuals\ninto the military. Embassy officials stated that in practice homosexuality\ndoes not constitute grounds for exclusion or dismissal from the Belgian\narmed forces unless there is evidence of a psychopathic disorder such as\nsexual perversion. During recruitment, the military does not ask an\nindividual's sexual orientation. If homosexuality is discovered after\nenlistment, however, commanders may restrict the individual's duty\nassignments. For instance, limitations may be placed on the person's\naccess to classified information, or the person may be excluded from\nPage 19\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\ncertain tasks or units. In addition, we were told improper sexual conduct\namong members of the armed forces is not tolerated.\nBrazil\nAlthough Brazilian law does not contain any specific reference to:\nhomosexuality, Brazilian embassy officials informed us that homosexuals\nwho exhibit behavior which degrades the appropriate military decorum\nand military honor are barred from military service. Moreover, the Statute\nof the Military governs a pattern of behavior to be adhered to by all\npersonnel while they are on and off duty. An individual found guilty of\nengaging in libidinous acts, including homosexual acts, while on duty or\non base is considered to be in violation of the penal code and subject to\npunishment, including possible discharge.\nCanada\nDetailed information on Canadian policies and practices regarding\nhomosexuals serving in the military is presented in appendix III.\nChile\nThe Chilean constitution does not specifically refer to sexual conduct or\nactivities contrary to moral principles. However, article 365 of the civilian\npenal code declares sodomy a crime against family order and public\nmorality punishable by imprisonment. Because sodomy is a crime under\nthe civilian penal code, neither the code of military justice nor the internal\nregulations of the various armed services deal with this subject.\nNonetheless, there exists a long-standing military policy that persons\nfound to have \"some kind of abnormal conduct or deviance, such as\nhomosexuality, alcoholism, drug addiction\nare rejected for military\nservice.\nColombia\nKnown homosexuals are excluded from serving in the Colombian military.\nArticle 184 of Colombia's Code of Disciplinary Action for the:Military\nForces describes offenses against military honor, which is understood to\nbe a combination of moral and professional qualities. Among the offenses\nidentified in the disciplinary code is \"to associate oneself with or maintain\nobvious relations with persons that have aprevious criminal record or are\nconsidered criminals of whatever category or are-antisocial like drug\naddicts, homosexuals, prostitutes, or pimps. Engaging in homosexual acts\nis considered to be an offense against military honor.\nin\nPage 20\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\nFrance\nThe French government informed us that there are no specific laws,\nregulations, or written policies which deal specifically with homosexuals\nserving in the French military. Officials did not provide additional\ninformation on homosexuals serving in their military. However, in 1992,\nwe reported that although homosexuals serve in the French armed forces,\ncertain restrictions may apply to an individual's duty assignments.¹\nGermany\nDetailed information on German policies and practices regarding\nhomosexuals serving in the military is presented in appendix IV.\nGreece\nAccording to military regulation, known homosexuals are barred from\nserving in the Greek armed forces. Upon initial screening, potential\nrecruits are asked a series of questions to determine their suitability for\nservice in the military. If an individual is found to have \"psychosexual\ndisorders,\" the term used for homosexuality, the recruit is considered unfit\nfor service. After 2 years, the individual must return to the induction\ncenter for another evaluation. At that time, following a final screening, if\nW\nan individual is still considered to be homosexual, the individual's military\nobligation is complete. Military personnel, including both officers and\nudi\nenlisted personnel, found to be engaging in homosexual acts while on\nactive duty are discharged from the service on grounds of a \"psychological,\ndisorder.\"\nHungary\nAlthough Hungary has no specific laws on the acceptance of homosexuals\ninto the armed forces, the Hungarian Ministry of Defense provided\ninformation that stated military personnel discovered to be homosexual\nmay be discharged from the Hungarian Defense Forces. A conscript who\nclaims to be a homosexual during the induction screening process is\nreferred for a psychiatric evaluation. If the medical personnel declare an\nindividual to be homosexual, that person is not considered qualified and not\nreceives an exemption.\nIf conscripts, who serve only 1 year, do not acknowledge their\nhomosexuality during the induction screening process but are later screenine\ndiscovered to be a homosexual, no effort is made to remove no them from m the\nmilitary unless some other law is violated. In contrast have officers who are (\ndiscovered to be homosexual are subject to dismissal. At least one officer\nwas dismissed under this policy.\nDefense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality (GAO/NSIAD-92-98, June 12, 1992).\n&\nPage 21\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\nIsrael\nDetailed information on Israeli policies and practices regarding\nhomosexuals serving in the military is presented in appendix V.\nItaly\nCurrent law prohibits homosexuals from serving in the Italian armed\nservices. Individuals who declare their homosexuality during the draft\nenrollment process, or whose pre-induction psychological interview\nindicates homosexuality, whether acknowledged by the conscript or not,\nare barred from entering military service. If a soldier's homosexuality is\ndiscovered after enrollment, the soldier is administratively declared unfit\nfor service and discharged.\nJapan\nNo written regulations or policies exist regarding service of homosexuals\nin the Japanese Defense Force. However, Japanese embassy officials said\nthe lack of any written regulations or policies does not necessarily\nconstitute acceptance of homosexuality in the military. On the contrary,\nwithin the overall Japanese society, homosexuality is a subject which is\nnot openly discussed. Known homosexuals might not be selected to enter\nthe military, according to Japanese government officials, and persons\nfound engaging in homosexual activities while in the military could be\nreassigned.\nPeru\nAlthough Peru's military code does not specifically prohibit homosexuals\nfrom joining the armed services, military recruiters routinely reject those\nthey suspect of being homosexual. In addition, under article 269 of the\nMilitary Code of Justice, officers found to have committed homosexual\nacts are to be discharged, while enlisted personnel are subject to\ndischarge and a prison term. If the officer's offense includes violence,\nthreats, or abuse of authority, or involves any other type of coercion, then\nthe officer is also subject to a prison term.\nPoland\nPoland does not have any special laws, regulations, or policies regarding\nhomosexuals in the armed services.\nPortugal\nFollowing the revision of military service laws in 1989, there no longer\nexists any regulation that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the\nPortuguese armed services. As a result, homosexuals are theoretically\npermitted to serve without any career restrictions or discrimination.\nPage 22\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\nHowever, homosexuals who show signs of mental illness during the\ninduction screening process may be excluded, according to Portuguese\nmilitary officials.\nRepublic of Korea\nAlthough Korea does not have specific laws on homosexuality, there are\nmilitary and civilian laws governing sodomy and other sexual activities.\nArticle 92 of the Korean Military Criminal Law prohibits certain sexual\nactivity between soldiers, regardless of consent and regardless of whether\nthe sexual activity is between two men, two women, or a man and a\nwoman. If found in violation, persons are expelled from military service\nand are subject to a prison term. In contrast, civilian laws (articles 298,\n299, and 245) which govern indecent sexual acts by force, sexual\nexploitation, and sexual acts in public apply only if no consensual\nagreement exists between the two people involved.\nRecruits are not asked about their sexual orientation upon entry into\nservice. An embassy official said it is a constitutional obligation for all\nhealthy, able-bodied men to serve their country for a period of 2-1/2 years.\nConscripts who declare their homosexuality are still required to serve.\nHowever, a commanding officer who knows of a conscript's sexual\norientation may limit the soldier's duty assignments.\nRomania\nUnder Romania's civil penal code, the practice of homosexuality is illegal.\nHomosexual acts in the military are punishable with a 1-to 5-year prison\nterm. Further, if a member of the armed services declares that he is a\npracticing homosexual or is accused of engaging in homosexual acts, a\ntrial is held to determine whether the civilian penal code had been\nviolated. U.S. Department of State officials stated that because of the legal\nhurdles and complications, homosexuality is considered a non-issue in\nRomania's military.\nSouth Africa\nAccording to the South African Defence Force, there are no written laws,\nregulations, or policies regarding the service of homosexuals in the\nmilitary.\nPrior to the 1985 revision of civilian law to decriminalize homosexual\nSpain\nactivities, persons who committed improper sexual behavior would have\nbeen subject to a maximum penalty of a 6-year prison term. The Spanish\nPage 23\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\ngovernment no longer considers being homosexual a crime, but certain\nsexual behaviors are still subject to prosecution, according to current\ncivilian laws. Sexual behavior which is subject to prosecution includes\nindecent exposure, engaging in sexual activities with minors or with\nmentally incapacitated persons, or any type of non-consensual sexual\nactivities. Civilian laws apply to the behavior of both homosexuals and\nheterosexuals.\nSweden\nDetailed information on Swedish policies and practices regarding\nhomosexuals serving in the military is presented in appendix VI.\nThe Netherlands\nArticle 1 of the Constitution of the Netherlands prohibits discrimination on\nthe basis of religion, convictions about life, political affiliation, race, sex,\nor on any other grounds. According to embassy officials, this includes\nsexual orientation. Other Dutch legislation elaborates on this principle. As\na result, government policy, including military policy, explicitly prohibits\nunequal treatment based on the knowledge of an individual's sexual\norientation. Individuals are to be judged on the basis of performance and\nconduct. Only when improper sexual behavior, heterosexual or\nhomosexual, interferes with the proper performance of duties and\ndiscipline is action to be taken on the basis of Dutch military criminal and\ndisciplinary law.\nUpon entering military service, an individual is not asked questions\nrelating to sexual orientation. If the individual discloses a homosexual\norientation, this information is not recorded in the individual's files. Dutch\nofficials told us that they do not consider it relevant to a soldier's ability to\ncarry out his or her duties. For this reason, the number of homosexuals in\nthe Dutch armed forces is not recorded. However, a September 1992 study\nby the Netherlands Institute for Social and Sexological Research showed\nthat 0.9 percent of male military personnel and 3.5 percent of female\nmilitary personnel regard themselves as homosexual.\nA goal of the Dutch Ministry of Defence's policy is to actively create such\nconditions within the armed forces that every employee is able to function\noptimally. With regard to homosexuals, this involves enhancing their\nacceptance and integration in the armed forces. In 1991, the Ministry of\nDefence (1) initiated a policy that made awareness of homosexuality a\nsubject of initial training and education programs for new recruits,\n(2) expanded the expertise of social workers in dealing with\nPage 24\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\nhomosexuality-related problems, and (3) expanded general information\nprograms within the armed forces on the subject of the nondiscrimination\npolicy of the Ministry of Defence. Furthermore, the Advisory and\nCoordination Committee on Homosexuals in the Armed Forces advises the\nMinister of Defence on subjects pertaining to homosexuality. Participating\non this committee are representatives of the armed forces and the\nDirectorate-General of Personnel.\nDespite these efforts, the Ministry of Defence acknowledges that the goal\nof full integration has not been reached. While explicit discrimination has\nbecome rare, heterosexuals still tend to keep homosexual colleagues at a\ndistance, thereby excluding them from the atmosphere of comradeship\nthat is of importance for cohesion within military units. Homosexuals\ncontinue to keep their sexual orientation private to avoid adverse\nreactions from colleagues.\nDutch military officials have emphasized that acceptance of homosexuals\nwithin the military, while not complete, has reached a point that their\npresence rarely becomes an issue. Naval commanders have noted that\nhomosexuals and heterosexuals on board ship are subject to the same\nstandard of conduct, namely, that sexual contact of any kind is not\npermitted. Where this standard is not upheld, disciplinary action, usually a\ntransfer of one or both individuals, is taken.\nTurkey\nThe Turkish armed forces prohibits known homosexuals from serving.\nHomosexuality is regarded as immoral behavior, and military personnel\ndiscovered to be homosexuals are discharged from duty on charges of\nindecency, according to an article of the military penal code. The\nindividual does not face further prosecution once this has occurred.\nTraditional moral values governing Turkish social life do not tolerate\nhomosexuality. The armed services view homosexuality as indecent\nbehavior that degrades the honor, dignity, and credibility of the military.\nUnder section 1 of the Sexual Offenses Act of 1967, an act of buggery or\nUnited Kingdom\ngross indecency between two, but no more, consenting males over age 21\nin private ceased to be a criminal offense in the civil sector. However, such\nan act remains an offense under the service discipline acts-the Naval\nDiscipline Act 1957, the Army Act 1955, and the Air Force Act 1955.\nHomosexuals committing such offenses are therefore excluded from\nPage 25\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix II\nForeign Countries' Policies on Homosexuals\nin the Military\nservice in the United Kingdom's armed forces. (Lesbians are similarly\nexcluded, although lesbianism is not, and never has been, a criminal\noffense in the United Kingdom.)\nThe service discipline acts are reviewed every 5 years. During the last\nreview in 1991, the House of Commons Select Committee on the Armed\nForces Bill recommended, and the Ministry of Defence accepted, that\nhomosexual acts which are legal in civilian law should not constitute an\noffense under military law. Therefore, a member of the armed forces\nfound to engage in a legal homosexual act will not be prosecuted under\nmilitary law, but will be administratively discharged. However, a service\nmember could still be prosecuted under military law if it is found that the\nact disgraced or discredited military decorum.\nUpon entry into the British armed forces, the individual is provided a\npamphlet entitled \"The Armed Forces, Your Rights and Responsibilities.\"\nThe pamphlet clearly states that homosexuality and homosexual behavior\nare not compatible with service life. Further, it states that if a person\nengages in homosexual acts, he or she may not be prosecuted under\nservice law, depending upon the circumstances, but the person will be\ndismissed.\nFrom approximately 1986 to 1991, 9 servicemen were dismissed from the\nNavy, 22 from the Army, and 8 from the Royal Air Force following\nconviction for an offense involving homosexual activity. Another\n296 servicemen were discharged as a result of administrative action-no\nformal disciplinary charges were brought against them.\nVenezuela\nRegarding service of homosexuals in the military, Venezuelan officials\nresponded, \"The Military Legislation of the Venezuelan Armed Forces is\nclear and it does not admit homosexuals in the military.\"\nPage 26\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix III\nCanada\nCanada has only recently revoked its policy prohibiting homosexuals from\nserving in the military. While it is too early to predict the long-term\nconsequences of lifting the ban, the military did not experience any\nproblems in the first 6 months since the new policy took effect in\nOctober 1992, according to Canadian officials and others we interviewed.\nDepartment of National Defence (DND) officials believe the Canadian\nForces has made a smooth transition in implementing the new policy\nbecause of the military leadership's active support and enforcement of the\npolicy and because of steps taken to keep it a low-profile issue. In\naddition, the Canadian people had already acknowledged the rights of\nhomosexuals in civilian law and perceived the change as bringing military\npolicy in line with civilian laws. Figure III.1 summarizes the development\nof civilian and military policies concerning homosexuals.\nFigure III.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies In Canada\nCanadian Human\nCourts determined that\nsexual orientation is\nRights Act passed\nSodomy\nprotecting individual\nCharter of Rights and\ncovered by Charter of\ndecriminalized\nrights\nFreedoms adopted\nRights and Freedoms\n1969\n7\n/\n1977\n1982\n1985\n1990\n1992\n1993\nSexual orientation\nSection 15 of the\nCourt determined\nthat sexual\nadded to Quebec's\nCharter of Rights and\nCharter of Human\nFreedoms enacted\norientation is\nRights\nguaranteeing equality\ncovered by\nrights\nCanadian Human\nRights Act\nDevelopment of Military Policies:\nCourt ruled that\npolicy excluding\nDND began\nhomosexuals is\nreview of military\ncontrary to Charter\npolicy excluding\nof Rights and\nhomosexuals\nFreedoms\n/\n1986\n1988\n1992\n1993\n1969\nRequirement to\nDND created\nDND implemented\nreport suspected\ninterim policy\nnew policy allowing\nhomosexuals\nhomosexuals to\nto superiors\nserve in military\ndiscontinued\nPage 27\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix III\nCanada\nBackground\nAccording to the 1991 census, Canada has a population of approximately\n27 million. The largest ethnic groups are people with British or French\nbackgrounds, or some combination of the two. However, almost one-third\nof the population has other ethnic backgrounds. The majority of\nCanadians are either Roman Catholic or Protestant. While most Canadians\nreport a religious affiliation, a much smaller proportion regularly attends\nchurch.\nThe Canadian Forces, an all-volunteer military force, consists of\napproximately 77,800 active forces and 33,700 reserves. Men constitute\n86 percent of the force and women 14 percent. Women are permitted to\nserve in combat and noncombat positions. Military personnel can be\nassigned to one of the many military bases throughout the country and\ntherefore do not necessarily serve close to their homes.\nAccording to a Department of National Defence document, Canadian\nForces are committed to 16 peacekeeping operations and 4 related\noperations. These operations involve the deployment of Canadian Forces\npersonnel to a wide variety of countries, such as Cambodia, Cyprus, El\nSalvador, India, Jordan, Korea, Lebanon, Somali, and the former\nYugoslavia.\nCanadian Law\nCanadians believe that equality is one of their basic values, and this belief\nis reflected in their constitution and legislation. Canada's laws provide\nProhibits\nprotection of equality rights and prohibit discrimination on the basis of\nDiscrimination on the\nsexual orientation. Homosexual rights have developed over time, marked\nby the following key events:\nBasis of Sexual\nOrientation\nIn August 1969, the Canadian government revised the criminal code to\ndecriminalize sodomy.\nIn August 1977, Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, which\nstates that \"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex,\nmarital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon\nhas been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination.\" The act does\nnot specifically address sexual orientation.\nIn December 1977, Quebec's provincial legislature added sexual\norientation to its list of illegal grounds for discrimination in its Charter of\nHuman Rights. Quebec thus became the first Canadian\njurisdiction-federal, provincial, or municipal-to explicitly prohibit\ndiscrimination based on sexual orientation.\nPage 28\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix III\nCanada\nIn April 1982, Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part\nof the country's constitution. Section 15, the equality rights provision of\nthe Charter, went into effect in 1985. 1 The provision states: \"Every\nindividual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal\nprotection and benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular,\nwithout discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,\nreligion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.\" Like the Canadian\nHuman Rights Act, section 15 does not specifically address sexual\norientation.\nIn February 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that section 15 was\nto be interpreted broadly, and that analogous grounds or other\ncharacteristics that form the basis for discriminating against a group or\nindividual will be entitled to protection under the provision. In the few\ncases that have dealt with the issue, most courts have ruled that sexual\norientation is an illegal basis for discrimination.\nIn May 1990, the Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged in a court case\nthat \"it is the position of the Attorney General of Canada that sexual\norientation is a ground covered by section 15 of the Charter [of Rights and\nFreedoms].\"\nIn August 1992, the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the\nCanadian Human Rights Act should be interpreted to include sexual\norientation as an illegal basis of discrimination. As of May 1993, the\nDepartment of Justice was sponsoring a bill that would amend the act to\ninclude sexual orientation as an illegal basis of discrimination.\nAlthough sexual orientation is an illegal basis for discrimination, Canada\ndoes not officially recognize homosexual marriages and adoptions, and\ndoes not recognize partner benefits for homosexual couples. However, as\na result of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Department of Justice\nofficials said that new court cases have been brought forward which\nchallenge the government's stance on partner benefits.\nHomosexuals\nUntil recently, the Canadian Forces prohibited homosexuals from serving\nin the military. Its former policy stated: \"Service policy does not allow\nRecently Allowed to\nhomosexual members or members with a sexual abnormality to be\nServe in the Military\nretained in the Canadian Forces.\" The policy also required military\npersonnel to report to their superiors other soldiers whom they suspected\nor discovered were homosexual. DND began to reevaluate its policy in 1986,\nand the policy was amended in 1988. In 1992, the Federal Court of Canada\nParliament authorized the 3-year delay to allow governments time to bring their laws in line with the\nCharter.\nPage 29\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix III\nCanada\ndeclared that the Canadian Forces' policies restricting the service of\nhomosexuals were contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a\nresult, the Canadian Forces revoked its policies and removed all\nrestrictions on homosexuals. Civilian anti-discrimination laws now apply\nto the military. DND officials said they are also revising related policies,\nincluding those concerning inappropriate sexual conduct, personal\nrelationships, and harassment. According to these officials, the standards\nof conduct for homosexual members will be identical to those for\nheterosexual members.\nAccording to DND officials, the Canadian Forces does not recognize\nhomosexual marriages or extend partner benefits to homosexual couples.\nDND officials plan to make no changes to this policy until the civilian\ngovernment resolves these issues.\nSeries of Events Led to the\nSoon after section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms went into\nLifting of the Ban on\neffect, a DND official said that a number of service members filed\nHomosexuals\ndiscrimination lawsuits against the Canadian Forces. In 1986, DND began to\nreexamine its exclusionary policy on homosexuals, initiating a series of\nsteps that led to the revocation of the policy.\nIn February 1986, the Canadian Forces removed the requirement that\nmilitary personnel report a suspected or known homosexual member of\nthe Canadian Forces to their commanding officer. In January 1988, as DND\ncontinued to review its ban on homosexuals, it created an interim policy.\nThe interim policy stated that\nadministrative action might be taken to release a member of the Canadian Forces who\nacknowledges that he or she is a homosexual and the member concerned does not object\nto being released. If the member did not agree to be released he or she would be retained\nwith career restrictions which, would have meant [he or] she was ineligible for\npromotion, for conversion of [his or] her existing terms of service, for posting outside the\ngeographic area, for transfer to the reserve force or for any further qualification courses or\ntraining except that required to carry out restricted employment.\nIn their policy review, DND officials confronted a number of concerns that\nhad been raised about homosexuals serving in the military. These\nconcerns fell into the following areas: security, health, unit cohesion and\nmorale, privacy, recruitment, and discipline. The officials said that they\nwere unable to justify continuing the ban on the basis of any of these\nconcerns. For example:\nPage 30\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix III\nCanada\nConcerns had been raised that homosexuals presented a security risk\nbecause they could be blackmailed on the basis of their sexual orientation.\nDND determined that homosexuals are not considered to be a greater\nsecurity risk than heterosexuals. A DND official said that security\nclassifications are now made on a case-by-case basis and that no\nassumptions are made about an individual's security risk based on sexual\norientation.\nAnother argument for the ban was that the presence of homosexuals\nwould disrupt unit cohesion and morale. DND officials said that they could\nnot find compelling statistical evidence or research data to support this\nview, which they felt was needed because the courts do not defer to\nmilitary expertise or opinion.\nOn the basis of the policy review, the military's senior leadership\nconcluded that the policy excluding homosexuals should change. In 1991,\nDND attempted to administratively revoke the policy, but a group from the\nProgressive Conservative Party of Parliament blocked the proposal.\nOn October 27, 1992, a Canadian court ruled in favor of a former military\nofficer, a homosexual, who had claimed in a lawsuit that the Canadian\nForces discriminated in discharging her on the basis of her sexual\norientation. The court stated that the \"[Canadian Forces'] policy and any\ninterim policies that have evolved regarding service of homosexuals in the\nCanadian Armed Forces are contrary to the Charter [of Rights and\nFreedoms].\" That same day, the Canadian Forces' Chief of the Defence\nStaff issued a statement supporting the court's decision.\nOfficials Said\nIn accordance with the new policy, the Canadian Forces does not take any\naction when a soldier declares his or her sexual orientation, DND officials\nPractices Comply\nsaid. They also said no restrictions, such as limitations in assignments and\nWith New Policy\npromotion opportunities, are placed on the individual.\nNo Near-Term\nWe discussed the new policy with the only open homosexual member of\nParliament; a member of the Progressive Conservative Party who\nProblems Reported\ndisagrees with the new policy; two homosexual advocacy groups, one of\nwhich is the only national organization for homosexuals; a veteran's\numbrella group consisting of 22 individual veterans organizations; the\nCanadian Human Rights Commission; the Department of Justice; as well\nas DND. All but the Progressive Conservative Party member favor the new\npolicy, and all said they had received no reports of problems associated\nwith it. Mass resignations, lower recruitment, morale and cohesiveness\nPage 31\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix III\nCanada\nproblems, gay bashing incidents, and more open displays of homosexual\nbehavior-the major problems that had been predicted-have not\nmaterialized, DND officials said. In addition, DND and the Canadian Human\nRights Commission stated that no active duty members have brought the\nCanadian Forces to court for discrimination based on sexual orientation\nsince the policy changed.\nDND officials told us that they considered implementing the new policy in\nthree phases. First, DND is obtaining compliance with the new policy, and\nsecond, DND is promoting acceptance of the policy. DND has not yet\nattempted the third phase, which is to change the attitudes of military\npersonnel toward homosexuals. Homosexual advocacy groups stated that\ntraining was needed to change attitudes.\nDND officials and representatives of homosexual advocacy groups said the\ngreatest advantage to the new policy is that homosexuals no longer have\nto fear being discovered and forced out of the military. They also believe,\nhowever, that many homosexuals will not openly express their sexual\norientation because they will see no advantage gained in doing so. A\nrepresentative of a homosexual advocacy group said that because the\nmilitary is a conservative organization, it attracts conservative\nhomosexuals who would be less likely to be open about their sexual\norientation. DND officials said that the new policy has not caused\nhomosexual military personnel to \"come out of the closet\" in mass\nnumbers.\nSignificant Factors in\nDND officials said the military leadership's public support for the new\npolicy and its unified front were significant factors in making a smooth\nthe Canadian\ntransition to the new policy. DND also has been able to keep a low profile\nExperience\non the issue. The press corps, for example, has been required to submit all\nquestions relating to the policy to DND'S public affairs office.\nThe cultural and legal aspects of the issue also played a pivotal role in\nCanada. Canadians' believe that equality is one of their basic values, and it\nis reflected in their laws. Legislation and court rulings concerning\ndiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation provided a legal impetus\nfor lifting the ban.\nPage 32\nGAO/NSLAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix IV\nGermany\nGermany's policy has permitted homosexuals to serve in the military as\nconscripts since 1969; however, homosexual volunteers are subject to\nrestrictions during their military careers. While these policies are opposed\nby homosexual rights groups as discriminatory, they have been upheld by\nGerman courts. Military officials acknowledged that homosexual soldiers\nare discriminated against, but said the policies are effective because they\nallow for flexibility and deal with homosexual individuals on a\ncase-by-case basis. The officials also said there have been few problems\ninvolving homosexual soldiers and characterized the issue of homosexuals\nin the military as a \"non-issue.\" Figure IV.1 summarizes the development of\ncivilian and military policies concerning homosexuals.\nFigure IV.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies In Germany\nGerman penal\ncode amended to\nGerman penal code\ndecriminalize\nproposal which\nwould eliminate\nhomosexual acts\nreference to sexual\nfor consenting males\norientation\nage 21 and over\n1969\n/\n1973\n1993\nGerman penal code\namended to decriminalize\nhomosexual acts for\nconsenting males age 18\nand over\nDevelopment of Military Policies:\nCourts ruled that\nCourts ruled that\nhomosexual orientation\nmilitary is justified in not\nMilitary began accepting\nis not sufficient grounds\nallowing homosexuals\nhomosexual males age\nfor security clearance\nto serve in leadership\n21 and over\nrevocation\nor educational positions\n1969\n/\n1987\n1990\n1993\nPage 33\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix IV\nGermany\nBackground\nGermany has a population of approximately 80 million, with ethnic\nGermans constituting 93 percent. Most Germans are either Catholic or\nProtestant, and the Churches play an important role in German society.\nThe German armed forces have about 476,300 service members on active\nduty and 1 million in the reserves. Women are allowed to serve only in the\nmedical and music corps. Fifty-seven percent of the forces are volunteer,\nand the remaining 43 percent are conscripts. Conscripts are called up at\nage 19 and are required to serve 12 months. An individual's military service\nobligation may be deferred for educational reasons. In addition,\nconscientious objectors may fulfill their obligation in alternative civilian\nservice. Military officials said they try to accommodate conscripts by\nhousing them in areas close to their homes.\nThe German military is a home-based defense force with no recent combat\nexperience. Military deployment overseas is limited because operations\noutside of North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are restricted by\nthe constitution; however, certain noncombat activities are allowed. As of\nMarch 1993, Germany has supported five noncombat missions outside\nGermany, including a recent peacekeeping mission to Bosnia.\nCivilian Law Provides\nThe German constitution provides for basic civil rights and equality of all\npeople, and Germany has relaxed its restrictions on homosexuals over the\nNo Specific Rights or\nlast 24 years. However, homosexuals have no expressed rights or\nProtection to\nprotection under German law. In 1969, the civilian penal code was\nHomosexuals\namended to no longer consider homosexual relations among males over\nage 20 as criminal behavior. In 1973, the law was modified to reduce the\nage of consent to 18. The law is expected to be changed in 1993 to\neliminate specific references to homosexuality.\nThe changes in the penal code appear to reflect a slow change in German\nattitudes toward homosexuals. Studies have shown that Germans have\nbecome gradually more accepting of homosexuality, although a portion of\nthe population still does not accept homosexuals. Older and more\nreligious Germans living in rural areas tend to be less tolerant of\nhomosexuals than younger, less religious Germans living in urban areas,\naccording to these studies.\nPage 34\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix IV\nGermany\nMilitary Policies\nGermany began to permit homosexuals to serve in the military after\nhomosexual behavior was decriminalized in 1969. Military policy,\nToward Homosexuals\nhowever, makes a distinction between service as a volunteer and service\nAre Restrictive\nas a conscript. If a volunteer is discovered to be homosexual during the\ninduction process, he will not be inducted into the military. Military\nofficials said homosexuals are not accepted as volunteers because it is\nassumed volunteers will eventually rise to leadership positions. According\nto these officials, homosexuals in leadership positions would undermine\nmilitary order and discipline.\nSimilarly, if volunteers are identified as homosexual during their military\nservice, they are usually removed from assignments involving leadership,\ntraining, and educational tasks, according to military officials. If a\nvolunteer has served for only a short period of time (within the first\n4 years of service), he may be discharged from service. Additional\ndisciplinary actions may include demotion, ban from promotions, and a\nreduction in salary. These measures are taken, an official said, to prevent\nnegative acts against the homosexual soldier, such as rejection,\nprovocation, or ridicule, and to prevent breakdowns in discipline.\nHomosexuals may serve as conscripts as long as their sexual orientation\ndoes not prevent them from living and working in the military\nenvironment. During the medical induction examination, examining\nphysicians do not routinely ask conscripts about their sexual orientation,\nbut they may do so if they suspect the conscript is homosexual on the\nbasis of his dress, mannerisms, or statements he makes about his social\nand sexual activity. Once a conscript is identified as homosexual, he may\nbe required to undergo a separate psychological evaluation. The\nphysicians make this decision on a case-by-case basis, and the decision\nusually turns on the frequency of homosexual conduct.\nIf the psychological evaluation indicates that the homosexual would have\nproblems integrating himself into a military environment, the individual\nwill be released from his military obligation. The results of the exam and\nthe reasons for dismissal are kept confidential.\nGerman military policies tend to treat homosexual behavior more harshly\nthan homosexual orientation. Under the military code of conduct, soldiers\nmay be discharged for engaging in homosexual activity, such as acts\nconducted while on duty and acts involving superiors and their\nPage 35\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix IV\nGermany\nsubordinates.¹ The code of conduct states that a discharge for such acts is\njustified when they indicate the individual lacks suitability for service in\nthe military or his presence would imperil military order or harm the\nreputation of the armed services.\nA senior military official said that until 1987, the armed forces had a policy\nof withdrawing security clearances from individuals found to have a\nhomosexual orientation because these individuals were believed to be\nvulnerable to compromise by foreign intelligence agents. However,\nGermany's Federal Administrative Court ruled in 1987 that a homosexual\norientation alone was not a sufficient reason to remove an individual's\nsecurity clearance. The armed forces changed its policy to reflect this\ndecision. In November 1990, the Federal Administrative Court found that\nthe German military is justified in not allowing homosexuals to serve in\nleadership or educational positions.\nOfficials Said\nMilitary officials said their practices concerning homosexuals generally\nare consistent with existing policies and that actions taken against\nPractices Are Flexible\nhomosexual soldiers vary depending on the individual involved and the\ncircumstances surrounding each case. Military officials also said that\ndisciplinary actions are also influenced by the rank of the soldier and his\ntime in service. Since German military policies allow flexibility with regard\nto homosexuals, their cases tend to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis,\naccording to officials.\nGerman homosexual advocacy groups believe the military's policies and\npractices are discriminatory because they sanction disciplinary actions\nagainst a homosexual soldier regardless of the soldier's qualifications or\nskills. As a result of these policies, homosexual rights advocates state that\nthe percentage of homosexuals in the military is lower than that in the\ngeneral population. The military does not maintain its own statistics. In\naddition, these homosexual rights advocates said that professional\nsoldiers are reluctant to acknowledge their homosexuality because doing\nso would effectively end their career.\nGermany's Federal Administrative Court has upheld the military's policies\nregarding homosexuals. Nevertheless, if the current policy is not changed\nby the military or the German parliament in 1993, homosexual advocacy\ngroups plan to present their case before the German Supreme Court.\nHeterosexual military personnel engaging in sexual acts while on duty will be subject to disciplinary\nproceedings.\nPage 36\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix IV\nGermany\nOfficials Reported\nMilitary officials, characterizing the issue of homosexuals in the armed\nforces as a \"non-issue,\" said there have been few incidents involving\nFew Problems\nhomosexuals. Official documents indicate that 63 disciplinary court\nInvolving\nproceedings charging soldiers with homosexual behavior were convened\nbetween 1981 and 1992.\nHomosexuals\nSignificant Factors in\nGerman military officials acknowledge that homosexual soldiers are\ndiscriminated against, but believe that their policies and practices toward\nthe German\nhomosexuals have been effective for several reasons.\nExperience\nFirst, the policies allow for flexibility, and incidents involving\nhomosexuals are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. A variety of\ndisciplinary actions may be taken, ranging from no response to immediate\nremoval from service.\nSecond, the German military focuses on behavior, not orientation.\nIndividuals who are disruptive are separated from the military.\nFinally, the regulations controlling the conduct of German soldiers are\nstrict and clear.\nPage 37\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix V\nIsrael\nHomosexuals have been permitted to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces\nsince the state was founded in 1948. There are no restrictions or\nlimitations concerning the promotion potential of homosexuals, and no\nspecial effort is made to identify homosexuals while in the service.\nGovernment officials and others we interviewed said homosexuals have\nserved without problems, and their presence has never been an issue.\nGenerally, homosexual soldiers tend to keep their sexual orientation to\nthemselves until they are well established in their units. Figure V.1\nsummarizes the development of civilian and military policies concerning\nhomosexuals.\nFigure V.1: Development of Civillan and Military Policies in Israel\nKnesset hearings\nheld to review\nState of Israel\nSodomy\nhomosexual\nestablished\ndecriminalized\nrights in Israel\n1948\n/\n1988\n1992\n1993\nLabor law amended to\nprohibit discrimination\nagainst homosexuals\nDevelopment of Military Policies:\nKnesset hearings\nprompted IDF to\nHomosexuals\nreview homosexual\nallowed to serve\npolicy (February)\nin military\n1993\n1948\n7\n1983\nIDF lifted 1983\nHomosexuals restricted from\nrestrictions on\nserving in intelligence\nhomosexuals\npositions\n(May)\nIsrael has a population of approximately 5.2 million.¹ Although 82 percent\nBackground\nare Jewish, the society is diverse, with immigrants coming from all over\nthe world. Israelis vary widely in their cultural, economic, and educational\nThis figure includes Jews living in the occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza\nStrip, and the Golan Heights. The estimated 2.1 million Arabs and other ethnic groups living in these\nareas are not included in this figure because they are not considered Israeli citizens.\nPage 38\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix V\nIsrael\nbackgrounds, as well as their views toward religion and sexuality, but\nmost remain bonded by their mutual religion (Judaism), their pride in the\nstate, and the perception that the state provides the only means of\nensuring their safety.\nThe Israeli Defense Forces has an estimated 141,000 people on active duty\nand 504,000 in the reserves. Service is based on universal conscription of\nmen and women, who become eligible for service at\nage 18. Arabs and Bedouins are not required to serve but may volunteer.\nAlso exempted from mandatory service are married and pregnant women\nand people with severe physical or psychological handicaps.\nUltra-Orthodox Jews generally do not serve. Males are required to serve on\nactive duty for 3 years, with reserve obligations of 30 to 60 days a year\nuntil they reach their mid-50s. Women must serve on active duty for 2\nyears, with reserve obligations until age 24. Generally, Israeli soldiers\nspend a minimal amount of time away from their homes.\nWe were told by various sources that the military is a very important part\nof Israeli society. Military service is often considered to be a precondition\nto a successful career because military service influences the networks\nand associations used later in life. Since nearly everyone is required to\nserve in the armed forces, establishing a military record is important.\nPeople with medical or psychological problems often try to hide their\nproblems in order to serve.\nThe Israeli Defense Forces have been involved in perpetual regional\nconflicts involving the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulting from the 1987\nPalestinian uprising. According to Defense officials, Israel is in a constant\nstate of alert due to its close proximity to Arab countries.\nIsraeli Law Is\nAccording to various sources, Israel in recent years has become more\naccepting of homosexuality, and this is reflected in recent changes in law.\nSupportive of\nIsraelis have traditionally held negative views toward homosexuals\nHomosexual Rights\nbecause Judaism condemns homosexuality. But due to Western\ninfluences, more homosexuals are revealing their sexual orientation.\nAccording to recent studies by Israeli and U.S. sociologists, Jews in Israel\nview homosexual rights more favorably than Americans. We were told by\nU.S. embassy officials that an active homosexual community now exists in\nTel Aviv. Nevertheless, most homosexuals still do not reveal their sexual\norientation until later in life due to fears of negative parental and societal\nreactions.\nPage 39\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix V\nIsrael\nWhile Israel has no constitution or provisions similar to the U.S. Bill of\nRights, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel includes\nlanguage that guarantees freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex,\nrace, or religion. Israel's laws regarding citizen rights, including\nhomosexual rights, are still evolving and are gradually becoming more\nspecific. In the absence of a Bill of Rights or similar legal provisions, Israel\nhas relied on the courts to safeguard civil rights and liberties.\nIsrael has increasingly recognized homosexual rights. For example, Israel\ndecriminalized sodomy in 1988. Further, in 1992, Israel amended its labor\nlaw to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace.\nAccording to the amendment, employers cannot discriminate against\nemployees and job seekers due to a person's \"sexual inclination.\" The\namendment covers all conditions of employment, including hiring,\nworking conditions, promotion, training, and dismissal.\nIn February 1993, the Knesset's subcommittee dealing with homosexual\nrights hosted a conference to draw attention to homosexual equality\nbefore the law.2 According to the subcommittee's chairperson, the\nsubcommittee is working to obtain full equal rights for homosexuals, and\nis developing legislation to establish partnership rights for homosexual\ncouples. Currently, homosexual marriages are not recognized, and\nhomosexual partners do not have spousal rights.\nHomosexuals\nUnder Israeli military policy, homosexuality is not a reason for deferment\nor discharge. Until recently, the military policy restricted homosexuals\nPermitted to Serve in\nfrom serving in intelligence positions; however, this policy was not\nthe Military Without\nfollowed in practice. Currently, no special effort is made to identify\nhomosexuals, and the military places no restrictions concerning the\nLimitations\npromotion potential of homosexuals. Further, military regulations on\nsexual behavior state that sexual activity is not to take place in the\nbarracks (males and females live in the same barracks); the regulations\nmake no distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Any\nproblems related to homosexuals are to be handled through normal\nchannels, such as the unit psychologist.\nDuring our in-country review, Israel officially had a military policy that\nplaced certain limitations on the assignment of homosexuals. The\nregulation, established in 1983, stated that the assignments of\nhomosexuals would be limited because their sexual orientation could\nThe Knesset is the Israeli equivalent of the U.S. Congress.\nPage 40\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix V\nIsrael\nprove to be a security hazard. According to the regulation, under no\ncircumstances shall a homosexual soldier serve in a position requiring a\ntop secret security clearance in the intelligence community.\nMilitary officials said that conscripts are not asked about their sexual\norientation during induction. However, those who identified themselves as\nhomosexual were required under the 1983 regulation to undergo additional\npsychological testing. The tests were intended to determine whether\n(1) the individual's inclination could prove to be a security hazard or\n(2) the individual had the mental fortitude and maturity to withstand the\npressure of serving in the defense forces.\nOn May 18, 1993, Israel adopted a new military policy concerning\nhomosexuals. This policy states that no restrictions shall be placed on the\nrecruitment, assignment, or promotion of homosexual soldiers and\ncivilians due to their sexual inclination. This policy was implemented after\nwe had conducted our in-country review.\nPractices Agree With\nEven though Israel's military policy toward homosexuals is new, our\nreview shows that its practices are more consistent with the new policy\nNew Policy\nthan with the 1983 regulation. According to active and reserve military\nofficials, the 1983 regulation prohibiting the assignment of homosexuals to\nintelligence positions requiring top secret clearance was never formally\nimplemented. According to these officials, homosexuals were found to be\ncapable of doing their jobs without problems, and therefore it did not\nmake sense to enforce this regulation. Homosexual soldiers, we were told,\nhave served and are currently serving in intelligence positions. For\nexample, we spoke with a number of reservists and retired military\npersonnel who stated that while on active duty they served openly as\nhomosexuals, still received promotions, and were not restricted in their\nassignments. However, a former colonel in Israeli intelligence testified at\nthe February 1993 conference hosted by the Knesset subcommittee\ndealing with homosexual issues that he was summarily dismissed from his\nunit when his homosexual orientation became known in 1983.\nAccording to military officials, the Knesset's conference prompted the\nIsraeli Defense Forces to reevaluate its written policy toward\nhomosexuals. As a result of this conference, the Israeli Defense Forces\ndrafted and adopted its new policy.\nPage 41\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix V\nIsrael\nRepresentatives of the leading homosexual and civil rights organizations in\nIsrael said they are satisfied with the military's practices toward\nhomosexuals. They told us that being homosexual has no bearing on an\nindividual's military career and that homosexual soldiers are judged on\ntheir merits like any other soldier. Other than the case involving the\nformer colonel stated above, neither organization was aware of any cases\nin which a homosexual's career had been harmed because of the\nindividual's sexual orientation.\nIsrael Has\nMilitary officials believe the Israeli Defense Forces has been very effective\nin including homosexuals in military service, and they knew of few\nExperienced Few\nproblems associated with their presence. This was confirmed by\nProblems Related to\nrepresentatives of Israeli homosexual and civil rights groups, openly\nthe Presence of\nhomosexual reservists, and retired soldiers who told us they were openly\nhomosexual during their active duty and reserve service.\nHomosexuals in the\nMilitary\nAny problems concerning homosexuals that have arisen, officials said,\ngenerally involve a homosexual's inability to cope in the military\nenvironment. Some military officials believe that homosexuals tend to\nhave more adjustment problems than heterosexuals and that this was one\njustification for the former policy requiring additional psychological\ntesting of homosexuals.\nHowever, military officials responsible for security and mental health said\nhomosexuals adjusted to military life as well as heterosexuals. These\nofficials noted that most heterosexual soldiers can control their sexual\nurges when they are living in mixed-sex quarters, and the same is true of\nhomosexual soldiers. Security officials said homosexuals can hold security\nclearances without posing an unnecessary security risk.\nMilitary officials said most conscripts do not declare their sexual\norientation during mandatory service. We were told that most homosexual\nsoldiers are not certain of their sexual orientation at the time of their\nconscription (usually age 18). Furthermore, those who are certain they are\nhomosexual prefer not to reveal their sexual orientation while on active\nduty. According to homosexual advocacy groups, homosexual soldiers\nwho openly declare their sexual orientation generally wait until their\nmid-20s or later when they are established in their units and are judged on\ntheir individual merits.\nPage 42\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix V\nIsrael\nThe military has not studied how the inclusion of homosexuals in the\nmilitary affects unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale, but\nofficials told us that, based on their experience, the inclusion of\nhomosexuals has not had an adverse impact on these areas. They also said\nhomosexual soldiers performed as well as heterosexuals.\nThe Israeli Defense Forces does not provide any educational or training\ncourses dealing with homosexuals to unit personnel. Military officials see\nno need for training because there are few problems related to the\npresence of homosexuals.\nSignificant Factors in\nIsraeli officials cited several factors that may account for Israel's lack of\nproblems in integrating homosexuals in the military.\nthe Israeli Experience\nFirst, the Israeli military has allowed homosexuals to serve for 45 years,\never since the country was created. Hence, most people do not have strong\nfeelings about homosexuals' presence in the military. Moreover,\nhomosexuals and homosexual rights in general are not issues which are at\nthe forefront of public debate.\nSecond, military service is highly regarded in Israel, and deferments are\nnot viewed favorably.\nThird, homosexuals have served creditably in the defense forces and have\nnot hurt their units' morale, cohesion, readiness, or capability, based on\nthe experiences of military officials.\nFourth, universal conscription in Israel results in a military force that\nreflects the diversity of Jewish society. Military personnel accept this\ndiversity, and homosexuals are viewed as just another subgroup.\nFinally, in peacetime, Israeli soldiers spend a minimal amount of time\naway from their homes and thus are not isolated from their private lives.\nPage 43\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VI\nSweden\nSweden's military has experienced few problems since it began formally\nallowing homosexuals to serve in the military in 1976. Military officials\nbelieve they have been effective in integrating homosexuals, and military\nofficials as well as unit-level officers and conscripted personnel agree with\nthe current policy allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. However,\nmost homosexuals keep their sexual orientation to themselves, and there\nwas a perception among those we interviewed that openly homosexual\nmembers of the military might face subtle discrimination, harassment, or\nother negative treatment from their peers. Figure VI.1 summarizes the\ndevelopment of civilian and military policies concerning homosexuals.\nFigure VI.1: Development of Civilian and Military Policies in Sweden\nParliamentary\ncommission concluded\nAnti-discrimination\nhomosexuals should\nlaw enacted\nParliament established\ncommission to study\nnot be discriminated\nconcerning treatment\nHomosexuality\nagainst\nof homosexuals\ndecriminalized\nhomosexuality\n1987\n1993\n1978\n1979\n1984\n1944\nCohabitation law\nAge of consent for\nNational Board of\nhomosexuals\nHealth and Welfare no\nprovides certain\nchanged to 15, the\nlonger classified\npartner rights\nage of consent for\nhomosexuality as an\nheterosexuals\nillness\nDevelopment of Military Policies:\nParliamentary\ncommission stated that\nHomosexuals no\nhomosexuality must not\nlonger automatically\ndisqualify an individual\nAnti-discrimination\nexempted from\nfrom serving in the\nlaw also applies to\nserving in armed\narmed forces\nmilitary\nforces\n1984\n1987\n1993\n1976\n1979\n1944\nMilitary no longer\nSupreme Commander\ndiagnosed homosexuality\nissues policy statement,\nas an illness\nmilitary no longer asks\nconscripts if they are\nhomosexual or maintains\nrecords of homosexuals\nSweden has a population of about 8.6 million, with the vast majority being\nBackground\nethnic Swedes. Approximately 95 percent of the population belong to the\nChurch of Sweden (Lutheran); however, only a small percentage are active\nin the church.\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nPage 44\nAppendix VI\nSweden\nThe Swedish military forces have approximately 53,000 active duty\npersonnel. In the event of war, Sweden can call up a total of\n850,000 troops. Women may serve in the military, but only as officers.\nAbout 225 women are currently in the armed forces.\nSweden has universal conscription of men between the ages of 18 and 47.\nMost young men enroll for military service at age 18 or 19 and start their\nservice within 3 years of enrollment. After completing active duty, the men\nperiodically receive refresher training to maintain their military skills and\nserve in the reserves until age 47. Swedish conscripts serve only a short\ntime-5 to 17 months-and are permitted frequent visits home.\nMilitary officials and others said most young men consider military service\nan obligation and want to fulfill their military duty. However, it has\nbecome easier to obtain an exemption from military service, and there is\nless stigma attached to not completing military service than in previous\ngenerations. In addition, for the first time, Sweden's current defense\nbudget is not sufficient to conscript all available young men. As a result,\nabout 6,000 of the eligible conscripts will not be required to serve this\nyear.\nCurrently, Swedish soldiers are serving with United Nations peacekeeping\nforces in Lebanon, Korea, Cyprus, Angola, Kuwait, Central America,\nKashmir, Cambodia, Croatia, and the Middle East.\nSwedish Law\nSweden has historically been a strong advocate of human rights, as\ndemonstrated by its role as a \"safe haven\" for individuals denied human\nProhibits\nrights in their home countries. The basic rights and freedoms of Swedish\nDiscrimination\ncitizens are guaranteed by the Instrument of Government, Sweden's\nconstitution. Some rights are absolute, while others can be restricted by\nAgainst Homosexuals\nParliament. Homosexuality is not a specifically protected right, but\ndiscrimination against homosexuals is prohibited by a 1987 law and is a\ncriminal offense under the Swedish penal code. Sweden has no laws that\nrestrict sexual behavior or prohibit sexual acts between consenting adults.\nWhile homosexual rights are protected, the issue generally is not\ndiscussed in Swedish society because sexuality is considered a private\nmatter. In 1984, a parliamentary commission on homosexuality found that\n\"the silence surrounding homosexuals and homosexuality is virtually\ntotal.\" On the basis of our discussions with numerous individuals, we\nfound that this silence is still pervasive in Swedish society. The\nPage 45\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VI\nSweden\noverwhelming sentiment is that homosexuals should have equal rights, but\nthat their sexual preferences should be kept to themselves.\nSweden began to ease restrictions on homosexuals in 1944, when it\ndecriminalized homosexuality under the penal code, but most changes in\nhomosexual rights have occurred within the last 15 years. In 1978, the age\nof consent for homosexuals was changed to 15 to coincide with the age of\nconsent for heterosexuals. In 1979, the National Board of Health and\nWelfare removed homosexuality from the Classification of Illnesses\nHandbook.\nIn 1978, Parliament established a commission to study homosexuality in\nSwedish society. In its 1984 report, the commission concluded, \"The only\ncertain difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that\nhomosexuals are emotionally attracted to persons of the same sex. In light\nof this background, it is obvious that homosexuals should not be\ndiscriminated against.\" This report, Swedish officials said, led to passage\nof the 1987 anti-discrimination and cohabitation laws providing rights and\nprotection to homosexuals. The anti-discrimination law makes it a\ncriminal offense for commercial establishments to refuse services to\nhomosexuals or for individuals to make derogatory remarks based on a\nperson's homosexuality. The cohabitation law provides each cohabiting\nindividual the right to half of the jointly-owned home and household goods\nwhen cohabitation ceases.\nAt the time of our review in April 1993, two other issues concerning\nhomosexuals were under review in Parliament. The first was a proposal to\nestablish registered partnerships, which would provide homosexual\ncouples basically the same rights as heterosexual couples, but would not\ninclude the right to adopt children. If one partner were to die, for instance,\nthe surviving partner would be able to receive insurance, pension, and\ninheritance benefits. The second issue was a proposal to include\nhomosexuals as a protected category under the Act to Counteract Ethnic\nDiscrimination. Officials we interviewed anticipate parliamentary approval\nof the registered partnership legislation and inclusion of homosexuals\nunder the act by the spring of 1994.\nPage 46\nGAO/NSLAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VI\nSweden\nHomosexuals\nUnder Swedish military policy, homosexuals are permitted to serve in the\nSwedish armed forces. The current policy, established in 1984, states that\nPermitted to Serve in\nsince homosexuality is increasingly accepted by society, it is not a reason,\nthe Military With No\nby itself, for treating an individual differently in the military.\nRestrictions\nPrior to 1976, a medical diagnosis of homosexuality during the enrollment\nprocess was supposed to result in an automatic exemption from military\nservice. According to Swedish Defense officials, however, this exemption\nwas not strictly imposed, as most enrollment officers treated\nhomosexuality on a case-by-case basis. In 1976, the Manual for Medical\nPersonnel in the Armed Forces was revised to eliminate the automatic\nexemption for homosexuals. And in 1979, when the National Board of\nHealth and Welfare removed homosexuality from the Classification of\nIllnesses Handbook, the military no longer diagnosed homosexuality as an\nillness. However, the military continued to maintain records of those\nindividuals identified as homosexuals. This practice was halted in 1984,\nthe same year that the commission on homosexuality issued its report\nstating that homosexuality must not disqualify an individual from serving\nin the armed forces.\nAlso in 1984, the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Defense issued a\npolicy statement on homosexuals in the military. This policy, which is\ncurrently in effect, states that what is essential is the individual's ability to\ncope with his or her sexuality. If an individual has reached the level of\nmaturity where homosexuality is an accepted or controlled part of his or\nher personality, there is no basis for treating this individual differently\nthan others in the armed forces.\nUnder the current policy, as part of the routine psychological interview\nduring enrollment, conscripts are asked if they have any problems that\nwould interfere with their ability to fulfill military service, but they are not\nspecifically asked if they are homosexual. They have the liberty and\nopportunity to disclose their homosexuality but are not pressured to do\nso. Individuals who believe they will have problems due to their\nhomosexuality may be excused from their military obligation. If they\nchoose to complete their military service, no record is kept of their\nhomosexuality. There are no additional steps or follow-up tests required if\nconscripts declare their homosexuality.\nSweden's 1987 anti-discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination\nagainst homosexuals, also applies to the military. No separate military\npolicies address assignments or promotions for homosexuals.\nPage 47\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VI\nSweden\nPractices Appear to\nOur discussions with military personnel indicated that military practices\nare consistent with the policy on homosexuals. Senior officials and unit\nBe Consistent With\npersonnel told us that the armed forces do not make an effort to identify\nPolicy\nhomosexuals, do not discriminate against homosexuals in the enrollment\nprocess, and do not formally place restrictions on the assignment and\npromotion of homosexuals.\nRepresentatives of two homosexual advocacy groups said they are\nsatisfied with the current policy of accepting homosexuals into the\nmilitary, but the groups had differing opinions about discrimination in the\nmilitary's promotion and assignment processes. Representatives of the\nSwedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights believe that, despite the\nmilitary's policy, homosexual officers may be denied career opportunities\nor promotions. However, they could provide no supporting evidence. The\nPresident of the Gay Conservatives of Sweden did not believe\nhomosexuals were discriminated against in the military.\nFew Problems\nSweden has not studied the impact of admitting homosexuals into the\narmed forces, but military officials said few problems concerning\nConcerning\nhomosexuals have occurred. For instance, the officials said that the\nHomosexuals Have\ninclusion of homosexuals had not adversely affected unit readiness,\neffectiveness, cohesion, or morale. Most of the unit personnel we\nOccurred\ninterviewed agreed with the Swedish policy of admitting homosexuals,\nand few of these personnel knew of any problems concerning\nhomosexuals. We frequently heard the comment that the important issue\nwas whether the person could do the job.\nRepresentatives of Parliament's Human Resource Council of the Swedish\nDefense and the Central Council of Conscripts¹ told us that homosexuality\nis not an issue in the military. The Human Resource Council makes several\nvisits a year to various military installations to discuss personnel issues\nwith military officials, unit-level officers, and conscripts. The Vice-Chair\ntold us that in her 12 years on the council, homosexuality has never been\nraised as an issue. Likewise, the Chairman of the Central Council of\nConscripts said issues related to homosexuality have never been raised to\nthe organization.\nMilitary personnel and others know of few open homosexuals in the\nmilitary. For example, of the 42 unit personnel we interviewed, only 3\nThe Central Council of Conscripts of Sweden is a group of conscripts elected by their peers to\nrepresent their interests in dealings with the Swedish Defense Force.\nPage 48\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VI\nSweden\nknew for sure that they had served in the military with a homosexual. Ten\nother unit personnel \"suspected\" that certain unit personnel may have\nbeen homosexual. Further, the four commanders at Air Force, Army, and\nNavy facilities we visited did not know of any homosexuals among the\napproximately 2,400 conscripts they commanded. A psychologist said that,\nat most, 10 conscripts a year disclose that they are homosexual during\nenrollment, out of approximately 12,000 conscripts that are processed\nthrough that enrollment office.²\nMany military officials believe that openly homosexual individuals could\nexperience some adverse impact on their careers. For example, the\nofficials discussed two cases where homosexual officers had been\nreassigned. In one case, they said, the officer's homosexuality was\nbelieved to present a security risk. In the other case, the officer \"was\nexerting his homosexuality in a bad way.\" Further, military officials and\nunit personnel said openly homosexual individuals could face harassment\nand other negative treatment from their peers, and possibly subtle\ndiscrimination in the assignment and promotion process. Some military\npersonnel and others said that when individuals choose to be open about\ntheir homosexuality, they tend to reveal their sexual orientation to those\nin their immediate unit that they know well and trust.\nSignificant Factors in\nA significant factor in Sweden's ability to integrate homosexuals may be\nthe private nature of sexuality in Sweden and the virtual silence\nthe Swedish\nsurrounding homosexuality. We were told that few homosexuals in the\nExperience\narmed forces are open about their sexual orientation, but that those who\nare could face harassment from peers and subtle discrimination.\nThree other factors may contribute to Sweden's success in integrating\nhomosexuals into the military.\nFirst, Swedish conscripts serve only a short time-5 to 17 months-and\nare permitted frequent visits home. Thus, they are not isolated from their\nprivate lives for long periods.\nSecond, Sweden's strong commitment to human rights is reflected in\ncivilian as well as military policies regarding homosexuals.\nThis is one of six enrollment offices in Sweden.\nPage 49\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VI\nSweden\nFinally, many homosexual conscripts at the age of 18 or 19 may not yet be\nfully aware of their sexuality or homosexual tendencies and therefore tend\nnot to make their sexual orientation publicly known.\nPage 50\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nAppendix VII\nMajor Contributors to This Report\nNational Security and\nNorman J. Rabkin, Associate Director\nFoy Wicker, Assistant Director\nInternational Affairs\nBrenda S. Farrell, Evaluator-in-Charge\nDivision, Washington,\nM. Elizabeth Guran, Evaluator-in-Charge\nD.C.\nKeith N. Burnham, Evaluator\nJanine M. Cantin, Evaluator\nMichael T. Nolan, Evaluator\nThomas W. Gosling, Editor\nEuropean Office\nThomas J. Howard, Assistant Director\nPatrick A. Dickriede, Site Senior\nPaul M. Aussendorf, Senior Evaluator\nStephen M. Lord, Senior Evaluator\nDanny C. Schreck, Senior Evaluator\nDavid M. Bruno, Evaluator\nPeter J. Bylsma, Evaluator\nKevin B. Perkins, Evaluator\nPamela J. Timmerman, Evaluator\n(703008)\nPage 51\nGAO/NSIAD-93-215 Homosexuals in the Military\nOrdering Information\nThe first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.\nAdditional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the\nfollowing address, accompanied by a check or money order\nmade out to the Superintendent of Documents, when\nnecessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a\nsingle address are discounted 25 percent.\nOrders by mail:\nU.S. General Accounting Office\nP.O. Box 6015\nGaithersburg, MD 20884-6015\nor visit:\nRoom 1000\n700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)\nU.S. General Accounting Office\nWashington, DC\nOrders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000\nor by using fax number (301) 258-4066.\n-United States\nFirst-Class Mail\nGeneral Accounting Office\n\"Washington, D.C. 20548\nPostage & Fees Paid\nGAO\nPermit No. G100\nOfficial Business\nPenalty for Private Use $300\n03-18-93 01:28PM FROM SENATOR SAM NUNN\nTO 94566423\nP002/003\nFile Day in mulitary\nSam Nunn\nUnited States\nUNITED STATES SENATE\nof America\nWASHINGTON. D.C.\n(202) 224-3521\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nCONTACT: Scott Williams\nThursday, March 18, 1993\n(202) 224-0075, 3521\nSENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF\nDEFENSE POLICY EXCLUDING GAYS AND LESBIANS FROM SERVICE IN THE\nARMED FORCES\nSenator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Chairman of the Senate Armed\nServices Committee, released the following statement today\nconcerning the Committee's upcoming hearings on the issue of gays\nand lesbians in the armed forces:\n\"Last month the Senate adopted legislation directing the\nArmed Services Committee to \"conduct comprehensive hearings on\nthe current military policy with respect to the service of\nhomosexuals in the military services.\" I also made a commitment\nto our colleague, Senator Metzenbaum, last year during the\nSenate's consideration of the National Defense Authorization Bill\nfor Fiscal Year 1993 that the Armed Services Committee would hold\ncomprehensive hearings on this subject this year.\nI want to announce today that the Armed Services Committee\nwill begin our hearings on the Department of Defense policy\nexcluding gays and lesbians from service in the armed forces\nduring the week of March 29.\nI said during the Senate's consideration of this matter\nearlier this year that the Committee would begin our hearings in\nMarch. With the press of business facing the Committee later in\nthe spring, it is essential that we begin our hearings on this\nimportant matter this month.\nDuring the past several months, the Members and staff of the\nArmed Services Committee have met with a large number of\nindividuals and groups on this issue. The Committee has received\na large number of requests to testify -- and suggestions for\nwitnesses -- from Members of Congress, advocacy groups, current\nand former members of the military, and the general public.\n- more -\nFROM THE OFFICE OF SAM NUNN\nU.S. SENATOR\nGEORGIA\n13-18-93 01:28PM FROM SENATOR SAM NUNN\nTO 94566423\nP003/003\nPage 2\nMy own position on this issue is a matter of public record.\nI support the current policy that excludes homosexuals from\nserving in the armed forces. However, I fully intend for these\nhearings to be fair, thorough and objective. I intend to listen\ncarefully to all of the witnesses who testify. As I said in my\nremarks to the Senate back in January, my final judgement on this\nissue will be affected by the testimony we receive from a wide\nrange of witnesses. Although the Committee will not be able to\nhear from every individual and group who has asked to testify in\nperson, the Committee will hear testimony from representatives of\nall sides of this issue.\nOur opening hearings will set the context for the\nCommittee's review. We will examine the historical and legal\nbackground of the current Defense Department policy, including\nthe role of unit cohesion in the development of combat\ncapability. This first phase of our hearings will also closely\nexamine the experience of foreign countries with respect to the\nservice of gays and lesbians in their armed forces, although this\nhearing will probably take place sometime next month.\nLater in our hearing process, the Committee will hear from\nadvocacy groups, both those who favor the current policy and\nthose who want to see the current policy changed. I also intend\nfor the Committee to conduct a series of field visits to military\ninstallations to hear the views of a broad cross section of\nmilitary members on the issues raised by the proposal to change\nthe current policy.\nFinally, the Committee will hear from the senior civilian\nand military leadership of the Defense Department on this issue\nafter the Defense Department has completed the review that has\nbeen ordered by the President.\nThis is an important and emotional issue. The Armed\nServices Committee will conduct the comprehensive hearings on\nthis issue directed by the Senate in a fair and impartial\nmanner.\n\"\n- 30 -\nExtended Page\n1.1\nMILITARY DISCHARGE OF HOMOSEXUALS\nThe following lawsuits are being handled by Civil Division\nand involve service members challenging the military's homosexual\npolicy:\nIn Steffan V. Secretary of Defense, No. 91-5409 (D.C. Cir.), a\nformer midshipman at the Naval Academy challenges the military's\nhomosexual policy on equal protection grounds. Steffan, who was\nwithin two months of graduation, seeks, inter alia, a diploma\nfrom the Naval Academy and a commission. The district court\ngranted the Government's motion for judgment on the pleadings or,\nin the alternative, for summary judgment. The D.C. Circuit\nstayed proceedings pending disposition by the Supreme Court of a\nrelated case, Pruitt V. Secretary of Defense. On December 7,\n1992, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Pruitt, and by\nmotion dated January 6, 1992, Steffan requested a further stay\n\"in light of the apparently imminent change in the military\npolicy challenged in this appeal.\"\nIn Meinhold v. Secretary of the Navy, No. CV-92-6044-TJH (JRx)\n(C.D. Cal.), a former enlisted man challenges the Navy's policy\non homosexuality as violative of equal protection and the\nprohibition against bills of attainder. He also claims that his\nadministrative discharge was infected with fatal procedural\nerrors, and that the Navy is estopped from discharging him in any\nevent. The district court entered a PI ordering Meinhold's\nrestoration to duty. The Navy reinstated Meinhold as ordered,\nbut appealed the PI. See No. 92-56439 (9th Cir.) (motion to\ndismiss appeal of PI pending) ; No. 93-1077 (Fed. Cir.) (motion\nfor summary reversal of PI stayed pending 9th Circuit's\ndisposition of dismissal motion). In the meantime in district\ncourt, cross motions for summary judgment are pending. Oral\nargument had been scheduled for January 25, 1993, but the court\n(without explanation) canceled the argument on January 21, 1993.\nIn Jackson V. U.S., No. 92-15219 (9th Cir.), Lt. Col. Jackson,\nwho was discharged from the Air Force for homosexuality and\nhomosexual acts, brings a Bivens suit against two service members\nand an FTCA action against the Government. He claims that the\nservice members unlawfully searched his off-base home and seized\nhis personal property. This property, and Lt. Col. Jackson's\nadmissions at the time of the search, were used as evidence at\nhis discharge proceeding. In district court, we moved for\ndismissal on Feres grounds, arguing that Jackson's alleged\ninjuries were incident to his military service insofar as they\noccurred while the defendants were performing law enforcement\nfunctions pursuant to their duties as special agents in the Air\nForce Office of Special Investigations. The court denied our\nmotion, holding that the Air Force must justify its policy\nconsistent with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Pruitt. We have\nappealed the district court's denial of our motion to dismiss.\nThe case is fully briefed, and we are awaiting the scheduling of\noral argument.\n002\n01/27/93\n13:34\n202 633 5331\nPUBLIC AFFAIRS\nIn Pruitt V. Cheney, 963 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,\n113 S. Ct. 655 (Dec. 7, 1992), a reserve Army officer admitted to\nsuperior officers and to the media that she was gay. She was\nhonorably discharged and she challenged the discharge on first\namendment grounds. The district court dismissed her complaint\nfor failure to state a claim, and she appealed that decision and\nargued, as well, that her discharge violated equal protection.\nThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her first amendment\nclaim, but remanded her equal protection claim for further\nproceedings. The district court, No. CV83-2035-WJR (C.D. Cal.),\nhas set the matter for status hearing on February 8, 1993.\nIn Dahl V. Secretary of the Navy, No. 89-0351-MLS-JFM (E.D.\nCal.), a former enlisted member was discharged after admitting to\nsuperior officers and the media that he was gay. Dahl claims\nthat his discharge violated, inter alia, his right to privacy and\nequal protection, as well as freedom of speech, association, and\nreligion. The district court dismissed Dahl's complaint for\nfailure to state a claim, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and\nremanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision in\na related case, Pruitt V. Secretary of Defense. On remand, we\nare opposing Dahl's efforts to depose Secretary Cheney, Pete\nWilliams, and General Powell. Summary judgment motions are due\nfor filing by March 19, 1993, and oral argument is scheduled for\nApril 16, 1993.\nIn Cammermeyer V. Department of the Army, No. C92-942Z (W.D.\nWash. ), a former colonel seeking reinstatement in the Washington\nArmy National Guard challenges the military's homosexual policy\non a variety of grounds, including right to privacy, freedom of\nspeech, due process, and equal protection. The Government's\nanswer is due January 31, 1993, and its response to Cammermeyer's\ninterrogatories and requests for production is due February 16,\n1993. Codefendant, the Governor of Washington, has moved to\ndismiss, arguing that the Eleventh Amendment and the Mindes\ndoctrine bars the lawsuit. Our response to the Governor's\nmotion, if any, is due February 16, 1993.\nIn Secora V. Department of the Air Force, No. C-83-799 (S.D.\nOhio), a Air Force non-commissioned officer admitted to\nhomosexual conduct during a three-month period. Secora argued\nthat the \"unusual circumstances\" exception to the policy\nmandating discharge of service members who commit homosexual acts\nshould be applied because the prohibited conduct occurred during\nan alleged period of depression and alcohol abuse. The Air Force\ngranted Secora an honorable discharge and determined that the\nexception to the discharge policy did not apply. The parties\ncross-moved for summary judgment. The district court referred\nthe case to a magistrate judge who recommended that the\nGovernment's motion be granted. Secora then filed an objection\n2\n01/27/93\n13:35\n202 633 5331\nPUBLIC AFFAIRS\n003\nto this decision with the district court, and the court remanded\nto the magistrate judge for another recommended decision.\nIn Paniccia V. Dep't of Defense, No. CIV 92-2127-PHX-EHC (D.\nAriz.), an Air Force member who was separated on October 7, 1992\nfor homosexuality challenges the policy on equal protection\ngrounds. Before he announced his homosexuality, he had requested\nand received an early separation date of December 31, 1992, at\nwhich time he would leave the Air Force and receive over $29,000\nin benefits. However, in light of his separation for\nhomosexuality, he did not receive these benefits. The district\ncourt denied Paniccia's request for a PI (without prejudice)\nbecause he failed to make an adequate showing of irreparable\nharm. Thereafter, he was unsuccessful in asking the Air Force to\nrevoke his early separation request. It appears that he has\nwaived money damages for jurisdictional reasons. Thus, the only\nrelief that may be at issue is the correction of his military\nrecords to reflect that he was not discharged for homosexuality.\nIn Lopez V. Rice, No. 3:92-CV-2692-D (N.D. Tex.), Lt. Lopez seeks\ndeclaratory and injunctive relief preventing the Air Force from\nseparating her based on her acknowledged homosexual activities\nwith a female airman. Lopez claims that the policy violates the\nFifth and Ninth Amendments, and constitutes an unlawful bill of\nattainder by singling out a specific group of individuals for\npunishment. Her brief in support of her motion for a PI is due\nJanuary 28, 1993, and our reply is due February 12, 1993. The\ncourt has indicated that it will rule on Lopez's motion prior to\nher scheduled administrative discharge board on March 4, 1993.\nThe Air Force states that it will proceed with the discharge\nboard because Lopez not only admitted to homosexual conduct, her\nconduct involved a military subordinate in violation of the\nmilitary's fraternization policy.\nIn Walmer V. Dept of Defense, No. 93-2015-EEO (D. Kan.), an Army\nofficer with 13 years of service seeks injunctive relief barring\nher discharge and requiring the Army to permit her to graduate\nfrom the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Because\nshe allegedly engaged in homosexual acts, the Army had scheduled\nher for discharge on January 14, 1993. She obtained a TRO,\nhowever, prohibiting such a discharge until January 29, 1993.\nShe raises numerous constitutional and statutory challenges to\nthe military's homosexual policy.\n3"
}