Air Force Boots Their 25 Million Dollar Aviator (He's Gay) VIDEO

***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO OF FEHRENBACK ON "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW"***

New President. New Congress. No Change. Here is the latest evidence of what our country is losing under the law that prevents gay men and women from serving openly in the armed forces of the United States.

Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach, a fighter weapons systems officer, has been flying the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1998. He has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, including the longest combat mission in his squadron's history. On that infamous September 11, 2001, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was handpicked to fly sorties above the nation's capital. Later he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, one of them for heroism, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is now a flight instructor in Idaho, where he has passed on his skills to more than 300 future Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force weapons systems officers.

Since 1987, when Fehrenbach entered Notre Dame on a full Air Force ROTC scholarship, the government has invested twenty-five million dollars in training and equipping him to serve his country, which he has done with what anyone would agree was great distinction. He comes from a military family. His father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, his mother an Air Force nurse and captain. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has honored that tradition.

And the Air Force is about to discharge this guy, a virtual poster boy for Air Force recruiting, because he is gay? Someone has to be kidding. This is sheer madness.

But Lt. Col. Fehrenbach does not have to be discharged. There is something the Pentagon can and should do now. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach's commanders and senior commanders can retain him in the service. Individual commanders are allowing many gays and lesbians to continue to serve openly in the armed forces. They are doing so because these are good service members who are doing their jobs. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is no danger to unit cohesion, or to morale, or to good order and discipline. He goes to work every day, does a fantastic job for his country, has all the medals and job performance evaluations to prove it, and he should be allowed to serve.

Is the discharge of an officer with such critical and valuable skills, whom the government has spent millions training, is that really what Congress intended when it gave us "don't ask, don't tell"? Only last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told members of Congress, "If we don't get the people part of this business right, none of our other decisions will matter." Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, "This is how we take care of our people."

He should have said, "This is how we take care of some of our people," because neither Secretary Gates nor Admiral Mullen could have been thinking of the 65,000 gays and lesbians in uniform today. Certainly they were not thinking of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach when they talked about "getting the people part right" because they got the "people part" wrong.

Watching Gates and Mullen on the Hill last week, you could see what President Obama is up against. They know how to deliver great performances. They know very well that their new Commander in Chief wants to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell." They know the President needs their help to accomplish it. So far, to put it gently, they have not been particularly helpful. "Dragging their feet" best describes what they've been doing, and the President, waiting on his military, finds himself in a box.

In an Associated Press story this afternoon, reporter Lara Jakes quoted Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell as saying that both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are "aware of where the President wants to go on this issue, but I don't think that there is any sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal don't ask-don't tell." Does this mean they know where the President wants to go but they're not going there? It doesn't sound as if the President has made a lot of progress in getting the Pentagon players on his team.

The impending discharge of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, an 18-year combat aviator, and the likely discharge of First Lieutenant Dan Choi , an Arabic speaking Army platoon leader, put real faces on this sad unfolding drama. These two service members and scores of others are paying an enormous price while grown men and women in Washington do their political dance. And make no mistake, Congress is in on this dance, too. It is their "don't ask, don't tell" law. They passed it; they own it. Only they can repeal it. Let's be fair and accurate here. This is far more complicated than a simple stroke of the presidential pen. If an Executive Order to temporarily suspend DADT discharges would work on all fronts, for all service members, I would be all for it. But we need a real, lasting fix.

A law is a law, even a bad law. Our country and service members are suffering the consequences as we watch this theater of the absurd play out. We need this new 111th Congress and this new President to engage each other immediately and with a sense of urgency to stop this obvious madness.

What is happening in the United States military today is not the 17th century witch trials in Salem - nobody has been hanged on Gallows Hill - but it's not what most Americans think of as just or fair in a country that prides itself as having the best justice system in the world.

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has just made his case before the American people on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show tonight. Let the 25 Million Dollar Aviator serve! Watch his interview with Maddow below.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[rankola]

I've got to say Fehrenbach shore is purty

[LCLA]

DADT is a bad law which does not serve the best interests of the people. It needs to be repealed TODAY. Not next year. DADT was a poor compromise brokered when Clinton wanted to repeal discrimination based on sexual preference. Maybe it was the best which could be accomplished back in the 1990s, but our country is ready for the full repeal now. I hope enough people with the courage to do the right thing can be found to repeal DADT this session.

[GQTaste]

If some of you thought once the big O came into the job this sort of thing would be over then I got some land for you in Florida. I'm not against gay rights but you're being naive if you think Obama can save every little issue in the first four months on the job.

Maddow spoke the guy up for two minutes and forty-five seconds before bringing him out, pardon the pun. I don't think the guy showed get canned but from the pub. he will make a lot more money now w/ this outcome.

[seektruth69]

" Woman are being raped at an unprecedented level and NOTHING is being done. This is being done by heterosexual men. They are predators and should be tossed out not a guy who did NOTHING to anyone. He served honorably. He was brave and good and is a victim of a vicious law."

- Please show where you got the data that women are suddenly being raped more than in the past (as opposed to maybe it being reported better now) or when we hit the "unprecedented rate"?

- You don't know he did "NOTHING to anyone" just that Rachel Maddow used him (and Lt Choi) for a sensationalistic piece that doesn't conatin all the facts. What we do know is that he was investigated for something. When we know what that is, then we can have an intelligent, not emotonal discussion about this. You don't even know that he served honorably--again, just what you saw on this video.

"Bush subverted the Constitution every chance he got, including spying of American citizens w/ no court orders, and he signed off on torturing prisoners w/ no legislative nor court orders, and he tried to subvert all gay citizens' basic human rights."

- Someone please refer back to facts. Like when Bush enacted LEGAL presidential powers,, when congress granted permissions to do things he did, etc. Quit bashing people or jumping on the bandwagon with emotional non-fact based arguements.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

One poster says: "I served on a Navy ballistic missile submarine in the early nineties. We had an individual reach his hand into another sailor's bunk and try to fondle him. . . . . It is unfair to ask heterosexual personnel to serve with gays due to the unique working environment that the military often requires of their personnel. Once again we ask the military to partake in a social experiment."

We ask the military to represent the people of the United States. I don't think that is a social experiment. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and all other people of color have and can serve this country honorable. Women can and have also served. Since when is equality a social experiment?

Further, your statement is not about homosexuality. This is about assault, a person trying to take advantage of someone who is vulnerable. In your situation someone who is asleep. Women face sexual assault by hetero men in the military and it has gone under reported, under penalized, and under investigated.

Gay (and I assume you mean men) may not look at heteros as sexually available or attractive. They just want an opportunity to do their jobs and to serve this country while living their lives.

But it is as if hetero males fear that gay men will sexually prey upon then as hetero men continue to prey upon women. If that is the case, outlaw sexual assault of all kinds in the military, investigate it, penalize it and imprison

[OswegoKayaker]

GREAT POST! On all levels. If a man is so afraid of another man preying on him sexually -- there must be a problem in the military with reporting sexual aggression. Woman are being raped at an unprecedented level and NOTHING is being done. This is being done by heterosexual men. They are predators and should be tossed out not a guy who did NOTHING to anyone. He served honorably. He was brave and good and is a victim of a vicious law.

President Obama PROMISED he would end DADT. Do it already! We are losing the brightest and the best while everyone acts like a coward -- including the guys who are so afraid of an uninvited sexual encounter. Aren't these men adults? They obviously grew up with gays all around them -- just didn't know it. So if the military got tough on sexual predators of all stripes there wouldn't be a problem. I am not getting why the military lets rapists run wild and the brave woman who just want to serve their country have an ever greater risk of being molested (at least). But, oh gee, a guy maybe getting molested and so a whole class of people are being fired just for BEING who they are, they don't even have to do anything WRONG. But a woman gets raped and all the guys in charge just let it go. They know they have a problem with hetero men and they really don't care.

[josephRoehl]

The question today is 'how can justice be delayed?'

This is clearly a case of longterm learned, indoctrinated prejudices, just like those existing against people due to differences of race and nationality and class and religion and every other dumb reason to automatically mistreat another person. Hate is wrong. Continuing Injustice sorely harms our servicemen and servicewomen and this delays the inevitable day when all children will learn that we are one human family sharing one small earth and that we must help ourselves and we should also help others to live their own lives in freedom and dignity as well.

It's a win/win strategy we need.... Right now we all need to voice our support for these fine young men and women who are gay and are serving the cause of defending the freer world and the US Constitution and we need a President who will lead from the front and keep Lt Col Fehrenbach and Choi without further delay..Exec. Order NOW....please sir.

END DADT TODAY !!

[We-Are-The-Ones]

DADT cannot be ended on Executive order, it is sad to say.

DADT is duly passed legislation. It is the LAW. Moreover, within DADT, there is a requirement that it be implemented and applied if regulations are promulgated. There are regulations. The President cannot ignore the law nor should he. That is how we are in torture gate . . . Bush ignored our laws and treaties.

Men and women in the military should not be encouraged to ignore or rewarded for ignoring the law. DADT is the law. Choi, at least, violated the law and now seeks the President to also ignore the law. I say nay. Follow the law as long as it is law.

The president has committed to repeal DADT.

Repeal DADT. Lobby Congres. Better still, repeal DADT while also lobbying for full equal rights for gay men and women who serve so that their partners and loved ones have full benefits.

[josephRoehl]

I beg to differ.
DADT can and should be overturned by Executive Order Today, and yes President Truman ended segregation by race in the military by Executive Order, and yes there were laws on the books forbidding this practice.

Bush subverted the Constitution every chance he got, including spying of American citizens w/ no court orders, and he signed off on torturing prisoners w/ no legislative nor court orders, and he tried to subvert all gay citizens' basic human rights.

So yes, if W can and did do it, and got away with it, and if President Truman had the courage to end segregation by E.O. so can our current President. That he has no inclination to do it only proves he's under the thumbs of the military and the spin doctors of religious totalitarians. Gays are human beings, entitled to the SAME EXACT RIGHTS as heteros.

I will not vote for O next time, bet your boots on that one. He allows our rights to be trodden down today. He lied in his pledges. We're just his patsies and pawns, just like always.

Prove he believes what he said "“And it lives on in those Americans -- young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American, gay and straight -- who are tired of a politics that divides us and want to recapture the sense of common purpose that we had when John Kennedy was president of the United States of America.”

[boredwell]

The DaDT policy is cut off your nose to spite your face counterproductive. In the cases of Lt. Choi and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, it is also vindictive and patently unfair. How can we believe in opportunity and justice for ALL yet seek to limit these inalienable rights? Based on the dominant culture's arbitrary prejudices, democracy becomes random and mercurial. And fradulent.

[roncar]

There could be a bright side to this. We could change fleet week in San Fransisco to coincide with the Folsom St. Parade.

[zest]

The United States of America is the dumbest country on earth.

[roncar]

I served on a Navy ballistic missile submarine in the early nineties. We had an individual reach his hand into another sailor's bunk and try to fondle him. After it was all said and done he admitted to being gay and received a honorable discharge. It is unfair to ask heterosexual personnel to serve with gays due to the unique working environment that the military often requires of their personnel. Once again we ask the military to partake in a social experiment.

[LJRettie]

Fondling someone in their sleep is not a trait of a person who is gay. It is a trait of a person who cannot keep their impulses under control, no matter what sexual orientation they are. If there was a study done, I'm certain the rate of lasciviousness would be much higher in heterosexual men. How do I know this? I'm a woman. Take a little time to focus your thoughts on your fellow sailors who were not gay and I would bet you could come up with at least 10 times more incidents of grab-hands, sexual agression and/or homoerotic pranks/hazing.

Social experiment? Tell the fondling fellow to get lost or press charges. One guy does not represent the entire population of gay men.

[Anonani]

It is the trait of an predator and opportunist irrespective of sexual orientation. And, they come in all sexual orientation, don't kid yourself.

[JRsNana]

So almost 20 years ago one guy fondled another guy and that's your proof that gays in the military is a bad idea? Jeebus Christmas, no wonder the military seems so homophobic. IT IS!

[roncar]

Of course you would have had to have been there for the remaining two weeks at sea to know first hand how it interrupted the ships operations.

[JohnJames]

Actually lots of American men who served in the past and serve now say they know that certain men in their units are gay and don't care. In fact it's common for them to report that many in their units came to like the gay guy especially because he wasn't interested in playing the "who can outmacho who game" and worked especially hard at being competent and professional.

[wkt20]

I wonder how many women can make the claim they've been fondled (or worse) by a heterosexual man while in the military. Indeed, we already know sexual harrassment runs rampant in the military. HMMMM...... maybe all straight men should be ejected from the armed forces.

Dude, can you say H omop hobe?

[JohnJames]

Plus, it's the closet case homosexual who's more likely to do that. Gay men who are out and known to be gay rarely make a move on a straight guy. As it is, our military expels exactly those honest gays who are most unlikely to ever cause any problem.

[OswegoKayaker]

He wasn't gay -- he was a sexual predator. Men in prison rape each other all the time and no one calls them gay. And I don't even believe the story -- I find it hard to believe that someone sexually abused someone, admitted he was "gay" and got an honorable discharge. If this happened it is the whole reason the military should be ashamed of itself. They let rapists and predators run around and do nothing -- but fire the best and the brightest, not for being criminals but just for being who they are. Too bad you consider legalized bigotry a "social experiment," but don't demand that the military have a code of honor which does not allow rape or sexual predators at all.

[thenorthshore]

those 'gal dang rules

they get in the way too many times

you disagree will rules for speeding...
change the rule OR DON'T speed

you disagree will rules for breaking and entering...
change the rule OR DON'T B&E

you disagree will rules for mugging...
change the rule OR DON'T mug

[Anonani]

A not so quick perusal of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice will no doubt shock and awe a lot of Americans. It legislates and punishes all manner of conduct that is considered socially acceptable and not illegal for non-uniformed members. Do you want to tinker with that too? Let's take bad debt, fraterniza­tion,being over weight, failing to run fast enough, do enough pushups or situps...all grounds for dismissal! Please don't tinker with something you don't comprehend! It is a completely different society with its own standards and rules of conduct...­.regardles­s of the opinions of those in this community of voices. But, you know what is good for people in the military so lets toss all of its mores out while you are at it ... military people work for civilians and they have no rights whatsoever­.....excep­t what you tell them to do!

[JWKessler]

The reason for the rules regarding bad debt are to allow the troops to concentrate on their mission, not on personal problems at home. Fraternization would apply to heterosexual and homosexual relationships and is intended to prevent personal relationships from interfering with the mission. Physical fitness is a requirement for performing the mission. Promoting bigotry by forcing otherwise well qualified people to lie or firing them for being honest does not help the mission and in fact can harm the mission.

[roncar]

Actually indebtedness can be a catalyst for security violations ie. selling info to solve your debt problems. Taking care of your finances also shows responsibility and shows you can be trusted with classified information. Nobody's telling anybody to lie under the current rules. They're just telling them to keep there mouths shut about their orientation.

[Cynthia Savage]

Women servicemembers used to be involuntarily separated if they got pregnant while AD, too. They changed that rule and the world did not end. Please research your position a bit before you get on your soapbox.
As for failing a physical fitness test-you get more than 1 try.
As for being overweight, you get enrolled in the "fat boy program" to lose weight in a supervised fashion.
Fraternization results in an Article 15, at least, and maybe a courtmartial, but not necessarily discharge. I knew plenty of people that voluntarily were discharged to be able to maintain their relationship.
I started out thinking that you were familiar with the UCMJ, but, obviously, your version, not the actual document

[Anonani]

Don't be so quick to ASSUME that you know what it is that I know. You know what ASS U Me means, don't you? The truth of the matter is that there are all manner of people in this community of voices. I am VERY familiar with the UCMJ and the only thing obvious is your willingness to make an unfounded judgment based solely on speculations whose source is completely a fabrication of your imagination and ASS U ME facts not yet introduced.

If you believe that the lesser outcomes that you list are factually accurate and Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airman are not being discharged for all of the above infractions, it is you who is not familiar with the military. Chapter separations are definitely being done daily for each and everyone of them. A trial, Courts Martial, is not necessary to separate someone from the military as you, hopefully, are well aware of CS.

[sdguppy]

Right, and the policy against black men serving with their white counterparts sounded logical as well! I am a member of the military and find the discriminatory policy against homosexuals inconsistent with good order and discipline. The majority of people in the military agree with me, have no problem with people in their unit they suspect are homosexual. This LT COL obviously never had a unit problem. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[Anonani]

IF he was having sex with an enlisted person, or someone of a lesser rank period in his chain of command, he violated the fraternization policy (a UCMF offense) and they rightfully cleaned his clock. I suspect that we do not know the whole story.

[Anonani]

That is UCMJ...typo.

[seektruth69]

Correct! This whole issue is based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) not everyone's opinion or common civilian law. Often times the media's description (typically characterized by the defendant's legal team) of the "travesty" occuring to the poor defendent is not based on all the circumstances of the case.
A great example is the Kelly Flinn scandal in 1997. The media made it look like she was being kicked out for falling in love. In fact she had committed adultery and then lied about it. Both of those would land her a court martial and jail time. She still would not have been discharged, but then she recieved an order to stay away from the guy (again, lawful under UCMJ), which she disobeyed--she deserved to go to jail but instead got off easy because of the media.
In this case the only fact is that we don't know all the details of his case and he isn't telling. Again--OSI would not get involved unless there were a criminal act involved. Steve and Bo, you are both right, but I will say that an investigation "because someone accuses someone as gay" would not inolve OSI. Possible criminal acts: drugs, sexual assault, theft, etc. . . .
Like Bo says, finding out he was gay would not cause the criminal investigation or generate a discharge. Can't say at all unless we find out the facts. I suspect they will come out eventually since this is now in the media.

[JohnJames]

Unlike those other limitations on service you mention there's nothing inherent in being gay that prevents a man or woman from carrying out their military duties. Gay service members can simply be held to all the standards of their straight comrades and of course they would be should DADT ever be repealed. How is it every other NATO country, Israel, South Africa and numerous other countries expressly allow their gay citizens to serve without lying or dissembling and they report, literally across the board, it causes no problems?

[Shawn Drewry]

Hopefully, this is all just small talk just for content, and he will not get discharged !

http://www.ShawnDrewry.com

[BOin08]

Everyone in the F-15E Strike Eagle community knew Vic was gay. He didn't flaunt it and was accepted by his peers- a tough task in the alpha-male fighter business. To USAF's credit, he enjoyed a successful career due to DADT. Openly gay fighter pilots/WSOs may not do as well without the policy protection.

[BOin08]

A little speculation here, but I suspect the USAF is more likely prosecuting Lt Col Fehrenbach for fraternization with a junior ranking enlisted member rather than solely for his sexual orientation. If you can't ask and you can't tell, the only time he would be investigated is if there was a substantiated inappropriate relationship with a junior member. Fraternization is punishable discharge, loss of retirement, fines and/or jail time. I hope the Lt Col isn't playing the gay card to avoid what every other straight officer would faced under similar circumstances, but it looks that way....

[Steven Harrell]

That's a little too much speculation. The military often investigates servicemembers after receiving letters/complaints about their sexuality. Often these complaints are anonymous. After serving 18 years in the military, I doubt it was easy for the Lt. Col. to keep people entirely in the dark about his social life; rumors begin to build. All it would take for an investigation to begin is a letter from one overly-curious fellow servicemember who's heard one too many rumors.
Which is, of course, one of the primary problems with DADT: the meaning of "Don't Tell" is exceptionally broad, and that of "Don't Ask" exceptionally narrow.

[LostRiverLedger]

Nothing new.......Grave of Leonard Matlovich.....

“When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” Matlovich's tombstone at Congressional Cemetery is located on the same row as that of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.

Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich (1943–1988) was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
Matlovich was perhaps the best-known openly gay man in America in the 1970s. His fight to stay in the United States Air Force after coming out of the closet became a cause célèbre around which the gay community rallied.

[JWKessler]

I served in the USAF from 1965 to 1969 - Vietnam and draft era. I told when I went for my induction physical. As a result they bumped up my draft status. I enlisted in the Air Force and my recruiter advised me to lie when I took the next physical.

At that time they needed bodies and really didn't care about your sexuality, despite the regulations.

[randyjet]

While I am opposed to gays being in the military being open about their sexuality, there was the case of a gay Army Sgt during Vietnam who told his medical board he was gay. They drafted him anyway. He found he liked the Army, and made it his career. All the time his superiors and the Army knew he was gay. When it came near his retirement, they suddenly "found out" he was gay. He was kicked out. This was before DADT was in force. THAT was wrong in my view.

In such a limited case, it caused no problems since there were so few open gays, and he kept his sexuality to himself without flaunting it. That would change with an official policy of allowing gays to serve openly. We already have enough problems with heterosexual harrassment in the military. I know that gays are NO better than the rest of us when it comes to such matters as well. It will get even worse, if the policy is changed.