iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

DADT Cost Almost $200 Million In Five Years: GAO Report


First Posted: 01/20/11 03:21 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is set to be rolled back in the coming months, expelled 3,664 service members between 2004 and 2009, costing U.S. taxpayers roughly $193.3 million, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

Of that money, $185.6 million was in replacement costs -- money spent to recruit and train replacements for the gay and lesbian service members fired under DADT -- and $7.7 million in administrative costs.

That means the average expulsion under DADT cost taxpayers $52,800, partly because a significant number of those discharged held a "critical occupation or important language skill," the GAO reported.

At least "1,442 (39 percent) of the servicemembers separated under the policy held critical occupations, such as infantryman and security forces, while 23 (less than 1 percent) of the servicemembers held skills in an important foreign language, such as Arabic or Spanish," the report reads. "Seven separated servicemembers held both a critical occupation and an important foreign language skill."

As Igor Volsky noted at The Wonk Room, these costs are just the tip of the iceberg, since DADT has been U.S. law since 1994.

Although President Barack Obama signed a repeal of DADT into law on Dec. 22, gay men and women are not yet encouraged to come out or to enlist; the policy remains on the books.

Obama, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, must issue a certification stating that the Pentagon is prepared to implement the repeal in a manner that won't hurt readiness, effectiveness, cohesion or recruiting. DADT will still be law until 60 days after that certification is rendered. Until then, service members are still at risk of expulsion.

The president has said that the nation's military service chiefs are all committed to moving forward quickly with implementing repeal -- even though several of them opposed the policy change -- but Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has introduced legislation that would require the chiefs to give more public input before moving ahead.

"Given that the service chiefs carry most of the day-to-day responsibilities for each service branch, their independent certification is just as important and equally necessary," Hunter said in a statement. "The implementation process needs to be efficient, and take into account the direct challenges involving our combat personnel. The best way to do this is to ensure the service chiefs are prominently positioned at the forefront of this discussion."

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) responded to Hunter's proposal by saying that "the elimination of 'don't ask, don't tell' increases the efficiency and readiness of our armed forces."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is set to be rolled back in the coming months, expelled 3,664 service members between 2004 and 2009, costing U.S. taxpa...
WASHINGTON -- The military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is set to be rolled back in the coming months, expelled 3,664 service members between 2004 and 2009, costing U.S. taxpa...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,540
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Renlim
03:26 PM on 03/01/2011
The GOP and it's media subidiaries are politically smart to quickly divert any attention from thier selves and there lobbying special interest groups; such as contractors and the others to the Democrats on the GAO Report. After a general review of the Report it appears to be acroos the gamut of both political parties agenda.

Only a specific deciphering accounting break down the accountability of internal departments and agencies as well external contractors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christopher D Lines
07:00 AM on 01/22/2011
"won't hurt readiness, effectiveness, cohesion or recruiting. DADT will still be law until 60 days after that certification is rendered. Until then, service members are still at risk of expulsion." THIS WILL GIVE THE PENTAGON THE HUBRIS TO MOVE SLOWLY AND NOT ENFORCE THE REPEAL THEREBY TAKING THEIR OWN 'SWEET' TIME.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
06:00 PM on 01/21/2011
Here is one you can "what if" about for awhile.

You are Gates, in charge of the DOD. You know your military is worn out. The equipment, the people, the weapons systems, the infrastructure, all of it. Its going to cost trillions to replace.

The reserves and National Guard have been misused and abused to the point you don't have a "reserve" anymore.

Every available penny you had went something other than fixing and replacing the lost, damaged or worn out personnel and equipment. You have created a HUGE VA health burden.

So how do fix that?

The draft.

Its quick, cheap, and you get as many as you want with no incentives.
But you just KNOW the public and most government officials don't want a piece of that shlt sandwich. So, How do you convince them you HAVE to have a draft and make it so its not your fault?

Do away with DADT. And when the numbers get so bad from the people walking OUT THE DOOR. Then you can say. Hey... not my fault... I tried to let the gays serve, but the military said no fuxking way and got out. Now we don't have enough people in the military. We HAVE to have a draft.

Personally, I don't think the draft can happen soon enough. But take this one to the bank... It will.

Watch the numbers of GLBT first term discharges for being homosexual skyrocket then LOL
06:18 PM on 01/21/2011
Myth: Allowing openly gay service will reduce recruitment and retention rates.

Fact: Openly gay service has never been shown to reduce recruitment or retention significantly. After the United Kingdom lifted its ban in 2000, Palm Center researchers found later the same year that “no one has heard of any difficulties related to recruitment or training completion rates; recruitment levels are characterized as ‘quite buoyant.’” The RAND Corporation’s 1993 study found that the Canadian Forces had suffered “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), no problems with recruitment.”

Myth: The experiences of foreign militaries are not good models for decisions by the U.S. military.

Fact: There is much to learn from the experiences of our allies, especially the United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel. Like U.S. forces, these militaries deploy frequently, require their service members to share close living quarters such as on submarines, engage in combat regularly, and perform effectively under fire.

Moreover, these countries and the service members who constitute their armed forces all share common social values with the United States. Canada and Israel began to permit unrestricted open service around the same time that the United States instituted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the United Kingdom repealed its ban 10 years ago.

None of the nightmare scenarios predicted by some opponents of open service occurred in these countries.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/dadt_myth_fact.html
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
07:53 PM on 01/21/2011
Brilliant!

Fanned and Faved!
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
07:57 PM on 01/21/2011
Some 36 countries have allowed gays to serve openly in their militaries.

If there were a problem with recruitment, they would have repealed their laws permitting gays to serve openly. Hasn't happened.

In fact, Israel -- which allowed gays to serve openly beginning in the same year when this country enacted DADT -- wishes it had allowed gays to serve openly sooner. There has been no problem with recruitment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
04:40 PM on 01/21/2011
According to the report. 100% are first terms OOPS. What the he77 did I get myself into? Ok I'm gay send me home now
04:08 PM on 01/21/2011
I have read several negative posts about gays in the military supposedly from those with military experience.. The general assumption is that "conservative Christians" will leave the military in droves. I also noticed that most of these negative military types post an "R" after their branch of service.

As a former career guy, I know that the "R" people have very little active duty experience to make such statements concerning gays in the military. Over the years, I have encountered many gays and never once saw any unacceptable behavior. When on duty they performed their duties in a professional military manner. What they did on their own time was the same as it was for everybody, it was their business. I seriously doubt there will be any type of exodus from the military for even the so called conservative Christians.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
04:34 PM on 01/21/2011
The "r" stands for "retired".

You never read in any of my posts "conservative Chrisitans" or the term "droves".

The number I used was only 10%. There a many people who think it will be more than that.

And I agree with you. For the most part GLBTs have served without incident for years in the military. DADT has worked. If you were actually a career guy then you would know people who have enlisted inthe service have been trying to get out of the service since the spartans. They will plead to, admit to or plea bargain to just about anything that will get them out.

Most discharges for "cause" are a result of OTHER violations of the UCMJ of which the issue of homosexuality was a minor issue. For example. AWOL with a gay "friend". And for those that the discharge WAS the ONLY ISSUE. Those were most likely the "klingers" trying to get out.

My point is... Whether it be the "christians" or "cow herders" or "gang bangers" or who ever else comprises the military today. I think its safe to say that by virtue of the job description the military has a higher than normal percentage of "anti-gay" people. And those are the people who are very likely NOT to re-enlist. And using the GAO numbers reported in this post. 10% a year for 5 years due to nothing other than the gay issue = 72 trillion. I'll be taking your apology now.
05:02 PM on 01/21/2011
When did you retire?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
04:36 PM on 01/21/2011
The "r" stands for "retired".

You never read in any of my posts "conservat­ive Chrisitans­" or the term "droves".

The number I used was only 10%. There a many people who think it will be more than that.

And I agree with you. For the most part GLBTs have served without incident for years in the military. DADT has worked. If you were actually a career guy then you would know people who have enlisted inthe service have been trying to get out of the service since the spartans. They will plead to, admit to or plea bargain to just about anything that will get them out.

Most discharges for "cause" are a result of OTHER violations of the UCMJ of which the issue of homosexual­ity was a minor issue. For example. AWOL with a gay "friend". And for those that the discharge WAS the ONLY ISSUE. Those were most likely the "klingers" trying to get out.

My point is... Whether it be the "christian­s" or "cow herders" or "gang bangers" or who ever else comprises the military today. I think its safe to say that by virtue of the job descriptio­n the military has a higher than normal percentage of "anti-gay" people. And those are the people who are very likely NOT to re-enlist. And using the GAO numbers reported in this post. 10% a year for 5 years due to nothing other than the gay issue = 72 trillion. I'll be taking your apology now.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
04:02 PM on 01/21/2011
Do the bigots who want to see it reinstated care????
 
Not likely.
03:45 PM on 01/21/2011
Put this cost on the religious right and conservative ideologues. This is 2011, not 1950. The populace is more educated and understand that people of a different sexual orientation are not evil, and that homosexuality is a genetic occurrence that cannot be "cured".

Most homosexuals are very bright people. They have a lot to offer to the military and the country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
04:11 PM on 01/21/2011
@ablaze

Its 2011 and half the population still believes that saddam had something to do with 911. An even larger number believe there is an Al Queda even though they have NEVER seen a picture or any other concrete evidence they exist.

Less than half of the population even bothers to vote. The United States has been on a steady downward spiral compared to other countries in Math and Science for years.

Every year our media pushs the envelope of common decency with a little more skin, a new curse word, and whatever the latest controversial "issue" is at the time.

So much for your "more educated" people theory.
In 1950 one person could support an entire family of 4+ people, buy a new car and a home, knew they couldn't trust the government and knew that homosexuals weren't normal. I'm not so sure we are making progress.

If you look back over the last 60 years at medicine, psychology and mental health in general. You can't even begin to list the numbers of illness's, that medicine or psychology have been wrong about. Every year medical and psychological opinion change with the whims of society, so quoting medicine or science as a burning bush doesn't help your argument. Looking from where we are today back at the path of destruction we like to call "progress" is however a very good argument for not being so bold as to believe that everything we think is always a good idea.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason N
Proud Firebagger Lefty
04:21 PM on 01/21/2011
"In 1950 one person could support an entire family of 4+ people, buy a new car and a home, knew they couldn't trust the government and knew that homosexual­s weren't normal."

Guess what else they "knew" in 1950. That a woman's place is the kitchen, that blacks are sub human and unequal to whites, and that race mixing would produce malformed offspring. At least you've FINALLY admitted this is what you long for, a return to the days of the "proud white Christian male" being the sole arbiter off all things.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jaredbrain
06:26 PM on 01/21/2011
in the 1950s homosexuals weren't normal because they had to hide everywhere they went from people like you. You betray the best virtues of America by being intolerant, regressive, and hateful.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Clayton139
GOP-R's Are 4Rich, Corporations NOT People!
03:35 PM on 01/21/2011
These people want to be treated the same as you would want to !
The GOP-TEA wants to cost us more money !
It is all an act to keep power !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Hood
United we win divided we lose
03:09 PM on 01/21/2011
win win....hire them all back with their skills and reduce unemployment at the same time
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Hood
United we win divided we lose
03:07 PM on 01/21/2011
it was money to protect the g o d people and they if in control would spend more of our money to propagate their myth
02:26 PM on 01/21/2011
So repealing DADT will result in saving roughly $400 million dollars over 10 years. That money, or at least a portion of the savings, can be used to retain or save some of the critical programs that are on the chopping block can't it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
03:06 PM on 01/21/2011
@ aishak
It won't save ANYTHING. It will COST 72 trillion dollars to replace just 10% the anti-gay straight service members who walk out the door because they don't want to serve with whateverinthehell "openly gay" turns out to be.

It won't SAVE anything. That 72 trillion is based upon the same numbers of this story alledges to cost for just 3664 GLBT discharges. MOST OF WHICH were not discharged because they were GLBT in the first place but because the PEOPLE were TRYING to get discharged, or because they made a plea bargin to cop to a lessor charge to get an other than honorable instead of a dishonorable for something that had little to do with JUST sexual orientation in the first place.

Just like in the real world
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason N
Proud Firebagger Lefty
03:10 PM on 01/21/2011
"It won't save ANYTHING. It will COST 72 trillion dollars to replace just 10% the anti-gay straight service members who walk out the door because they don't want to serve with whateverin­thehell "openly gay" turns out to be."

That's an ASSUMED cost. And as we all saw with racial integration, most will not leave.

"MOST OF WHICH were not discharged because they were GLBT in the first place but because the PEOPLE were TRYING to get discharged"

Riiiighhtttt....

"for something that had little to do with JUST sexual orientatio­n in the first place."

Oh, please do elaborate. Should be great! LMAO!
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
08:05 PM on 01/21/2011
Oh, please -- many of the bigoted straight soldiers who may leave the service because gays will be allowed to serve openly will be replaced by gays who want to serve, and who will put country first and ahead of their discrimination needs. More gays will now enlist in the service.

And guess what? When those straight soldiers come home and go to work, they'll most likely be working right next to openly gay fellow employees!

You see, the majority of companies are now gay friendly and have policies that allow their gay employees to be open about who they are.
01:34 PM on 01/21/2011
The gays that went in new there was a chance they would be found out; they should be chargede with the loss of money until it was legal. and it is not like the race issue, minorities didn't join until it was legal. Now it is legal; so join away!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USMCR
Re-elect NO ONE ! !
01:46 PM on 01/21/2011
And as long as we are concerned about being fair and equitable. Maybe we should let all of the servicemembers who are opposed to the repeal of DADT pack their shiet and go home.

That will only cost 72 trillion to replace them. But hey... the GLBT can now serve... ah... well they can already serve, but now they can serve... ah... openly? But it will be worth every trillion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason N
Proud Firebagger Lefty
02:14 PM on 01/21/2011
"Maybe we should let all of the servicemem­bers who are opposed to the repeal of DADT pack their shiet and go home. "

They can have a dishonorable charge and be gone. Not many will take that offer up.
01:47 AM on 01/22/2011
Good point! And to add to yours, how about all the people who would have joined but won't because of the repeal of DADT! Betcha the draft will be in play by some Dem soon.
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
08:09 PM on 01/21/2011
Wrong.

Many gays who chose to serve their country, even though this country was treating them like second-class citizens, worked hard to be discreet and to avoid being found out.

However, they were outed by prying officers or other soldiers who had a grudge.

One gay soldier was discharged simply because he had a picture of his same-sex partner on his personal cell phone, which was confiscated by his superior officer who rummaged through the personal material on the phone and found the picture.

Another gay soldier was discharged because he refused the sexual advances of another soldier. The rejected soldier retaliated by turning him in.

That's the kind of military we had -- the kind of military that makes you oh-so-proud.

In reality, that kind of military made a mockery of our Constitution and our claims about human rights around the world.
02:11 AM on 01/22/2011
Too bad, there is more problems for hetrosexuals; they would not want to be in a shower with one or have blood given to them.

From the CDC:

"In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM had high levels of HIV infection, and many of those infected with HIV did not know it.

• Overall, one in five MSM participat­ing in the study was infected (19 percent)."


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

.
01:28 PM on 01/21/2011
There's a lot I find offensive of DADT. I don't how these republicans can rationalize spending all this money on soldiers and throw them out of the military. Like I've said before there HYPOCRITES!! It is staggering! It boggles the mind how STUPID THIS LAW WAS!!!
Supposedly this is a free country, were its citizens can become anything they want to. Unless your a Christian, white, heterosexual male baby begin the fight up the ladder!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fb0252
01:12 PM on 01/21/2011
open gay in military now!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
k6007
bull--it proof.
11:03 AM on 01/21/2011
You can't put a price on liberty. Just, "git 'er dun!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Calvin Ravenwood
Youth? How about a fountian of smart?
12:52 PM on 01/21/2011
Can't put a limit on liberty either...either we are all equal with the same freedoms or we're no better than we were before the civil rights movement started. (by all I am including race, gender, ethnicity, etc...)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
k6007
bull--it proof.
12:57 PM on 01/21/2011
Hear, hear.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
k6007
bull--it proof.
12:57 PM on 01/21/2011
Hear, hear.