Connect with us

National

Kicked out and $79,000 in debt

Penalties hound service members expelled under ‘Don’t Ask’

Published

on

For Sara Isaacson, separation from the University of North Carolina’s Army ROTC program because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes with a price tag of $79,265.

Isaacson told the Washington Blade she understands the U.S. military wants to protect its investment in training her, but she hopes to repay her debt by serving in the armed forces as opposed to paying the expenses out of pocket.

“I have always said the goal is still to serve my country and I want to be able to fulfill my commitment by serving in uniform,” she said. “The military right now is not allowing me to do that, so I don’t think it’s fair that they’re asking for the tuition back.”

Isaacson, 22 and a lesbian, said she hasn’t yet graduated from college and doesn’t know how she could pay the money that the U.S. military is seeking.

“I’m a few classes away from graduating and I don’t have $80,000 to repay the military,” she said.

Facing recoupment charges after discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a problem that continues to plague many service members even after President Obama signed legislation allowing for repeal and the Pentagon has moved ahead with lifting the military’s gay ban.

The issue received renewed attention last month when Iraq war veteran and former Army Lt. Dan Choi, who gained notoriety after he handcuffed himself to the White House gates in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” informed media outlets that the Army wants him to repay $2,500 of the unearned portion of his Army contract.

In an open letter to Obama, Choi states that he is refusing to pay the Army the money.

“It would be easy to pay the $2,500 bill and swiftly done with this diseased chapter of my life, where I sinfully deceived and tolerated self-hatred under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” he writes. “But I choose to cease wrestling, to cease the excuses, to cease the philosophical grandstanding and ethical gymnastics of political expediency in the face of moral duty.”

The recoupment issue only comes into play for troops discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in certain situations.

In one situation, like Choi’s, troops can be forced to pay back all or a portion of the bonuses they received upon reenlistment.

In another scenario, service members can be required to pay tuition grants afforded to them if they don’t complete their education in a training program such as ROTC or post-graduate medical or dental school.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization has had more success in mitigating recoupment for troops who were outed by a third party rather than those who outed themselves.

“In many of those cases, we’ve been able to argue on the service member’s behalf that they would have completed their employment contract and agreement but for the intervening factor by a third party,” he said.

Third party outings were restricted early last year when Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued new guidance for the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sarvis said the case of Hensala v. Air Force confirmed the U.S. military can seek recoupment fees if service members out themselves. In 2003, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case and remanded it to district court.

Isaacson is among the service members who are facing discharge because they volunteered their sexual orientation while enrolled in a ROTC program.

In January 2010, about three-and-a-half months before she would have been commissioned as second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, Issacson said she was removed from the program after she made the decision to come out to her commanding officer.

“I voluntarily came out to my commanders because I felt like I wasn’t living up to the Army value of integrity by continuing to lie to my commander, all of my peers, to all of the other people in my battalion about something that was so fundamental to who I am,” Isaacson said.

Even though she was never directly asked about her sexual orientation, Isaacson said she felt pressured to mention it when talking with her colleagues about significant others or dating advice.

Isaacson is awaiting appeal on her separation, but the standing decision from the U.S. Army Cadet Command is that she must repay the entire $79,265 that was afforded to her to pay tuition.

“I would like to see them continue with the certification of the repeal in a speedy manner so that people like myself who want to be able to fulfill this obligation that we have to the military can do that through our service,” she said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said addressing the recoupment has been a priority for his organization since the passage of legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“It’s not that widespread of a problem, but when it does hit someone, it hits them pretty hard,” Nicholson said. “Sometimes the amounts are so massive, and the people who are subjected to recoupment are so young, that the level of devastating lives is rather disproportionate.”

Nicholson said he’s been “hounding” White House officials on the recoupment issue even prior to signing of repeal legislation.

Part of the reason for keeping the practice in place, Nicholson said, was that the Obama administration didn’t want to take action before the Pentagon working group published its report on implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“Obviously, we realized when that report came out that it was not something they addressed, so we obviously started hounding them again on this,” Nicholson said.

Noting that current law gives the Pentagon discretion over whether or not to collect recoupment fees, Nicholson said ending the practice would be a “simple fix” because it would only require an order from President Obama.

“The easiest thing would be for the president to make the decision to direct the secretary of defense to direct the service secretaries to not elect recoupment in cases of gay discharges,” Nicholson said.

Sarvis said because the courts have weighed in on the issue, SLDN seeks to address those who are facing recoupment fees on an individual basis.

“I don’t think that we’re going to get any across the board remedy or any retroactive remedy from the Defense Department,” Sarvis said. “I think we’ll have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis.”

A White House spokesperson deferred comment to the Defense Department on the recoupment issue. The Pentagon didn’t respond by Blade deadline with a statement.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular