Obama administration demands Dan Choi pay $2500 for DADT discharge

[Bluebear]

The Defense Department, after discharging gay soldiers under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, apparently sends them bills requiring them to pay back “unearned portions” of their contracts. High-profile discharged soldier Dan Choi received his bill this week from Defense Department Finance and Debt Services in the amount of $2,500. He sent a strongly worded letter to White House Public Engagement Director Brian Bond explaining why he wasn’t going to pay. “It would be easy to pay the $2500 bill and be swiftly done with this diseased chapter of my life,” he wrote. “…But my obligation is to take a stand… I refuse to pay your claim.”

The U.S. Military spent roughly $200 million on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell since its implementation nearly two decades ago, recruiting, training, investigating and replacing gay service members. If Choi’s bill is any indication, the government has been, in effect, heaping on bureaucratic injury to insult by demanding discharged gay soldiers help foot the bill the whole time.

“By flagrantly and repeatedly violating an immoral law, I have flagrantly and repeatedly saluted the honor of America’s promise,” Choi wrote in his “screw you” letter to the White House. “At West Point, when we recited the Cadet Prayer we reminded ourselves ‘always to choose the harder right over the easier wrong.’”

Now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been repealed, will Choi and all of the other discharged gay soldiers still be forced to pay? Or will the government be made to pay reparations to the gay soldiers it discharged under the policy and whom it apparently billed for the pleasure?

The letter:

Dear Mr. President:

Today I received a $2,500 bill from your Defense Department Finance and Debt Services. Specifically, you claim payment for “the unearned portion” of my Army contract. Six months after my discharge under the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy I have tried to move forward with my life, and I was inspired by your clarion calls for our progress as one nation towards a more just society. I have served my country in combat and I have tried to live my life by the values I learned at West Point in continued service to our nation. To move forward in my own life I have finally sought treatment for Combat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Military Sexual Trauma (MST), Insomnia, and Depressive Disorder from the Veterans Affairs Department. But I still find myself on a domestic battlefield for basic dignity as an American citizen. I know I am not alone in this fight because of the desperate cries for help I get from discharged, unemployed, discriminated, and suicidal veterans. I have felt all of their same pains personally. Today I also witness the disgrace of a country that perpetually discovers methods to punish its own citizens for taking a moral stand.

By flagrantly and repeatedly violating an immoral law, I have flagrantly and repeatedly saluted the honor of America’s promise. At West Point, when we recited the Cadet Prayer we reminded ourselves “always to choose the harder right over the easier wrong.” It would be easy to pay the $2500 bill and be swiftly done with this diseased chapter of my life, where I sinfully deceived and tolerated self-hatred under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Many thousands have wrestled with their responsibilities and expedient solutions when confronted with issues of this magnitude. I understand you also wrestle with issues of our equality. 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. My obligations to take a stand, knowing all the continued consequences of my violations, are clear.

I refuse to pay your claim.

Respectfully,
Dan Choi
Former Army First Lieutenant
West Point Class of 2003

Attached:
DFAS Account Statement 12/20/2010 (2 pages)

http://coloradoindependent.com/73189/shove-it-dan-choi-wont-pay-the-government-for-being-discharged-under-dadt

[Lucky 13]

1. What in the holy fucking hell?

Outrageous horse shit.

[Still a Democrat]

2. Shame on Choi - easier for him to be a perpetual victim, apparently

Grandstanding to try and embarass the administration that has done so much for this cause.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

4. ....

:eyes:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

6. How does standing up for yourself and for the civil rights of millions of Americans

make him a victim?

Can you please explain that?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

15. Again, the consequences of that bigoted policy are still being felt

by the people who were subjected to it and they will be for some time. That's obvious to people who are actually following the issue.

And I have bad news for you, Dan Choi is a natural leader. You better get used to seeing his name because he isn't going anywhere.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

120. Ye gods, how many enlisted men do you think have $2500 just laying around?

That would be an aggravation even on an officer's pay. That's BEFORE we talk about this essentially paying someone to ruin your career.

[11 Bravo]

127. Not that it matters, but Dan Choi is an officer and a graduate of the USMA.

Having said that, I hope he continues to tell the government to shove their demand for reimbursement squarely up its ass.

[NuclearDem]

7. Look, I'm an Obama fan...

But the DoD is adding insult to Choi's injury by charging him for kicking him out because of his sexuality.

It's disgusting.

[Still a Democrat]

11. I'm not crazy about the $2500 either

I just have a problem with Choi trying to show up the President when DADT is ending under his watch.

[NuclearDem]

13. Obama's the Commander in Chief

When it comes to military matters, it all ends with him. Choi's simply addressing his concerns to his CIC about a wrong that's been done to him by the military. I don't see any grandstanding or attempt to embarrass Obama.

[Still a Democrat]

18. You see no grandstanding or attempt to embarrass Obama?

Accused him of "philosophical grandstanding and ethical gymnastics of political expediency" in a very public letter. Please.

[NuclearDem]

20. He's giving Obama a lesson in leadership and making tough choices

Which, despite how much I do love Obama, he is a little lacking in.

[EFerrari]

22. How brittle do you think the president is, anyway?

Good grief.

[Still a Democrat]

42. Not brittle, but I've shown you Choi is grandstanding

against a man that's done a lot for the cause. Wrong target.

[EFerrari]

43. Um, you used a descriptor that I don't agree with.

You haven't "shown" anything.

And the CIC is precisely the right "target" for this letter. The time for shutting up and being quietly screwed by the Pentagon was over, long ago.

[JuniperLea]

27. Unless this was his first action...

And he didn't bother to try to reach out in a less public manner to straighten this out.

[EFerrari]

31. Why should he not write a public letter?

Is there a rule book somewhere he should have consulted?

Do you think all the other people dealing with these bills don't deserve his public support?

[JuniperLea]

80. I'm not sure where you are getting that from...

All I'm saying is there could have easily been a paperwork snafu... it could have been a mistake. If it was a mistake, this letter is way over the top. If it's not a mistake, then it surely is justified.

[EFerrari]

89. I was asking. Dan Choi was writing to an issue

not only about himself or not only to the president.

There are a lot of people in this situation and he's just doing what he does as a leading advocate for those people.

[JuniperLea]

93. Please pay attention... this is frustrating...

It could have been a mistake. Sometimes correspondence is generated automatically. There's a chance this bill was never supposed to go to him. I'm asking if he tried to find that out first before making a public display. It's a reasonable thing to ask.

[EFerrari]

96. Do you think Dan Choi would not have written a letter on this problem

had he personally not gotten such a bill? Not likely.

I am paying attention.

[JuniperLea]

113. No, you aren't paying attention at all....

You just gave the same answer without considering my point at all.

It could have been a paperwork snafu... it could be he was never supposed to get that letter at all. It seems ridiculous that he would get a letter like that. So ridiculous, in fact, that it seems to me any thinking person would question the validity of said receipt.

[EFerrari]

119. It is ridiculous that he would get a letter like that.

It's ridiculous that any gay person would get a letter like that.

But since that isn't immediately clear to the Pentagon, as a leader Dan Choi wrote a public letter, in support of everyone who got a letter like that.

[demmiblue]

8. Wow. I wish I could write what I am thinking.

:puke:

[Bluebear]

12. It's OK. In this new world, the politician is the victim.

All of the suffering constituents are only here to prop them up and adore them.

[Lorien]

137. I forgot to put that one on "ignore"

I'll have to remedy that now.


:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: worthy DLCers!

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

9. Interesting that you try to spin it as if Obama is the victim in this incident..

and in the same sentence you accuse Choi of feigning victimization.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Smashcut]

44. You're right. He just doesn't DESERVE OBAMA

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Dappleganger]

55. OMG

What a disgustingly bigoted post.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ichingcarpenter]

62. Every Slave should have paid to be free from the system.

I think Lincoln said that.. ?


Man those slaves of the system need to pay and not embarrass Lincoln

I guess this will go over your head as some things do.

[Hannah Bell]

63. BULLSHIT

[QC]

101. Dan Choi never really loved Him!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

123. ---

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donheld]

132. The Shame belongs on you.

[Bluebear]

149. +

[MessiahRp]

136. Poor Obama, taking blame for a policy his Admin upheld...

It's so tough being the President whose Administration fought against court decision after court decision to throw the rule out as unconstitutional just so he could reach political appeasement with his Republican buddies. I mean the law passed so he should be off the hook for his actions right? No looking back from this Administration, not at all. Obama and his supporters are probably wishing all these critics would just be nicer to them. It's like they looked at their supporters and projected too much of what they wanted them to be onto them... (subservient and silent lemmings?)

Maybe we should give them something since they want so much out of us. How about... a pony?

Rp

[Donnachaidh]

140. wow -- 120 proof koolaid

Back away from it. :wow:

[TK421]

143. Actually, I was thinking it was crack-cocaine....it is pretty whack, after all n/t

[TK421]

142. Are you trying to say he was looking to be the victim? If so, that is lame

we need more people in this country like this that possess certain innards..I like to call them guts

If you consider speaking the truth grandstanding, you need to do some major soul-searching

or, maybe you would like to rethink your post?

[keepCAblue]

144. OMFG. Beyond reprehensible. Unbelievable. n/t

[SidDithers]

14. I think Obama signed the letter himself...

and personally delivered it to Lt. Choi.

Sid

[Ichingcarpenter]

95. THEN CHARGED HIM FOR THE GOVT. OFFENSE?

I guess we know where BUCKS start and stop.

[TriMera]

17. Kick & Rec. Some of the replies in this thread

are very telling, indeed.

[Forkboy]

23. Got to protect the brand.

It's the only thing they actually stand for.

[Ichingcarpenter]

94. I smoke L&M cigs because its a little higher quality

but not as expensive as the other cancer sticks I enjoy.

Oh.... you meant something else......LOL

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

24. Wow. Can't believe people attacking Choi on this. He's wrong? How, exactly?

[Forkboy]

26. He's not genuflecting properly.

[JuniperLea]

25. Did Choi try to reach out first before...

Writing this public letter?

Not that it would be reason to brush the entire issue off, but it's possible this was triggered automatically and the left hand knowledge hadn't yet caught up with that of the right hand. I can't tell by reading this story.

[SidDithers]

34. Probably the fault of some payroll clerk in the middle of nowhere...

processing paperwork on a stack of discharges. Although, I guess it's possible that the Joint Chiefs met and Obama specifically ordered them to charge Lt. Choi $2500, just for shits and giggles.

Sid

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sufrommich]

41. Hey, stop harshing the buzz. nt

[Still a Democrat]

46. I guess it's possible that the Joint Chiefs met and Obama specifically ordered them to charge Lt. Ch

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

48. It's so funny to bash GLBT advocates.

Really shows off those Democratic Party values, right there!

[Still a Democrat]

66. Advocates I back, but we're in knee jerk territory

This doesn't advance the cause.

[Forkboy]

67. "we're in knee jerk territory"

Yes, you are.

[EFerrari]

68. Adding insulting to bashing?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

76. LOL

Yeah, you'd think so by reading this thread!

[Radical Activist]

112. It was part of Obama's dastardly plan all along!

I can see him in the Oval Offish fiendishly rubbing his hands while telling Rahm, "We'll repeal DADT if we have to but we'll still make them pay! Mwahahaha!"

[demmiblue]

28. Some of these responses are downright embarassing for DU. Shameful. n/t

[FreeState]

45. +1000 n/t

[Starry Messenger]

98. Sadly typical these days. n/t

[SidDithers]

117. The OP was embarassing for DU...nt

Sid

[maxrandb]

29. Could someone with a little bit of knowledge in how this works

make a comment?

If you look at the article, and specifically, if you look at the attachment from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), you will see that this IS NOT A BILL..is it Recoupment of "unearned" portion of your enlistment/reenlistment BONUS!.

Again, this is not a bill, and it happens all the time. In the Navy, for example, a person signs a 6 year contract for the Nuclear Propulsion field. They are paid, in some cases, as much as a $60K bonus, payable 1/2 at time of enlistment/commission, and then an annual installment. If said person only fulfills 2 years of their contract, FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN LINE OF DUTY INJURY, they are required to pay back a portion of their bonus.

Pilots are a similar case. They receive up to $125K when they make O4 as long as they agree to serve 5 more years.

The military in this case is simply asking for a "pro-rated" recoupment of the bonus they gave him. It's a pretty rigid formula. If the military pays you a $60K bonus for a 6 year contract, but you only fulfill 27 months of that contract, they want some of it back.

[Bluebear]

32. "They want some of it back" - gay servicemembers did not choose not to "fulfill that contract"

[maxrandb]

47. Doesn't matter

At the time of the discharge, and even now, this was the "law of the land", and he broke his contract. I've seen guys have to pay-back thousands of dollars because they were 1% over body-fat, or couldn't pass the PT test.

I didn't agree with the law, and I'm happy that it has been repealed, but that doesn't change the fact that LT Choi broke his contract.

What is the military supposed to do, just let folks keep the bonus they gave them, regardless of whether they complete the contract obligation?

Now, what this guy could do, if he were so inclined, would be to request re-instatement to his commission when DADT is finally gone, or do what you need to do to fix the problem. In this case, he could file a Board of Correction to Records, or file a Request for Waiver of Indebtedness.

What is not appropriate is to "grandstand" and accuse the President of "making you pay for your discharge".

He is not being asked to come up with "new" money. This is money he was already paid. Facts are facts, and laws are laws.

[EFerrari]

49. If the contract was illegal in the first place, it does matter. n/t

[hughee99]

110. I don't think the DADT policy has ever been declared "illegal",

it was just a policy (a bad one) that was changed. For the contract to have been illegal, I think the policy must be declared illegal.

[EFerrari]

116. I don't think it has either but discriminating on that basis

is obviously unconstitutional.

The way this went down actually saved the government from reparations, imo, and they shouldn't be pushing it by asking for these people to pay for their abuse. :crazy:

[hughee99]

147. I completely agree.

If the policy is so bad that you change it, you shouldn't continue to enforce punishments from the old policy.

[keepCAblue]

145. Um, it was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. n/t

[hughee99]

146. After which, the USSC issued an order allowing DADT to continue pending appeal.

Rulings have been made, but I don't believe the constitutionality of it has been finally settled yet.

[EFerrari]

35. Except it is a bill and it doesn't take into account the costs

incurred by service members as a result of DADT -- like, loss of pay, of medical benefits, housing, legal expenses, and probably stuff that doesn't come immediately to mind.

[maxrandb]

52. You're allowing your emotions to cloud the facts

Like it, or not...and I didn't like it...DADT was the law of the land, and LT Choi knew that when he accepted his bonus. He also knew, because it is clearly there in black and white with his signature all over the contract and supporting documents, that if he failed to fulfill his full committment, that a protion of that bonus money would be taken back.

I also have no problem with him trying to fix the record and dispute the "recoupment of his bonus". He can file a waiver of indebtedness, and he may have a strong case, but smearing a President who SIGNED THE REPEAL OF DADT INTO LAW is not the correct way to ajudicate his case.

[TriMera]

53. No, actually you are allowing your emotions to cloud

the facts."Smearing a President"? How could he?:cry:

[maxrandb]

65. If you take DADT out of the equation

you can see that he was paid a certain amount of money to perform a job. He did not fulfill that obligation, and he owes part of that money back.

Suppose that he were a Navy Pilot who got $150K in return for signing a 5 year contract. 1 year into his contract, he becomes a "conscientious objector". Do you just say; "no worries mate, keep the whole $150K".

That is all this is. It is not about whether DADT was right, or just, or fair. Those arguments are easy to make, and I myself am looking forward to seeing how the Congress and the military are going to write the rules to implement the repeal. It's possible folks could be re-instated, or indebtedness can be waived, or they may even be brought back in with full back-pay and credited time-in-service.

Again, I understand the emotion, but folks on here were saying; "See...the Obama Administration is making this guy pay for his discharge". That simply is not true.

[TriMera]

74. The thing is that DADT is the sum of the equation. n/t

[QC]

104. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? n/t

[EFerrari]

111. LOL

[NuclearDem]

114. It's not as if he committed a crime or was even let go due to force shaping

He was kicked out for being gay, plain and simple.

It's like saying if you take Jim Crow out of the equation, then white police officers in the South were right to arrest blacks for violating the law.

[EFerrari]

58. I wonder how you know my emotional state?

:)

Choi didn't "smear" anyone. His letter took the high road, very well done, in fact.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bullwinkle428]

39. All well and good if he went "Sarah Palin" on his contract and fucking quit!

He had every intention to complete it, and got fired, for al intents and purposes.

[maxrandb]

56. Again, what his intentions are don't matter

If you sign a contract that pays you a huge bonus, but stipulates "if you do X, then Y happens, and you will pay a portion of the bonus back", that's that.

Hell, we had a guy take $10K as a bonus for BE&E School, only problem is, he could pass the course. He completed about 8 weeks of it, and there is a very specific formula...complete X number of weeks, you've earned X amount of your bonus, and the rest is recouped.

You won't like to hear this, but the facts in this case are that LT Choi was "overpaid".

[EFerrari]

85. Intentions do matter in contracts.n/t

[Kaleva]

30. I was involuntarily discharged back in '90 and had to pay back several thousand...

that I had received earlier from a $20,000.00 reenlistment bonus. Thankfully, I didn't have to pay it all back at once and after about 3 years, if I recall correctly, the dept was paid.

While I didn't like it, I made the payments without complaint.

[Bluebear]

33. Why were you discharged? It's quite pertinent to the discussion of you compare yourself to Choi.

[NuclearDem]

37. Same thing happened with me

I'm still paying back half of the $10K enlistment bonus I got.

But I wasn't discharged under DADT and wasn't paying a penalty for the military discharging me because of my sexuality. Apples and oranges.

[Kaleva]

60. It's apples to apples and I'll explain why.

I was medically misdiagnosed thru no fault of mine. It's a long, complex story which I won't go into here but while Dan Choi can publicly complain about paying back $2500.00, I couldn't. While the both of us wanted to remain in the service, he could openly fight his discharge. I couldn't and just had to accept what happened.

But life goes on and I look back at my time in the Navy as an overall positive experience. From the ship, I saw much of the world. I say "from the ship" as I sometimes didn't go on liberty for weeks and even months at a time because of my condition.

[struggle4progress]

50. The military regularly demands partial repayment of enlistment or reenlistment

bonuses, from persons who are discharged without serving their entire enlistment. Sometimes this is entirely reasonable and sometimes not.

I'm sure many DUers will remember some cases like this from the Bush era:

Wounded soldier billed to repay sign-up bonus
unhappycamper (1000+ posts)
Sun Nov-25-07 07:05 AM
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=259&topic_id=7293&mesg_id=7293

Anyone, who expects subtle reasoning about policy from the military, will be disappointed. Choi deliberately violated an existing policy and so was separated before his enlistment ended: the book therefore says he owes the portion of his bonus for his unfulfilled term, and got the bill, like anyone else who was separated for violating policy. Last I heard, Choi was seeking reinstatement/re-enlistment; it's not clear to me whether he's continuing that effort; but one might really need to know the current situation -- and various other details, such as "Would Choi get a bonus for reenlisting?" -- in order to think clearly about this matter

[EFerrari]

51. My thinking is just fine, thanks. n/t

[struggle4progress]

64. I'm certainly glad to hear that. So maybe you can shed light on some of my questions:

What is the current status of Choi's reinstatement/reenlistment application? If the application is still active, would he get a bonus on rejoining if the application were approved?

[EFerrari]

71. Since you are more interested in the details of Dan's case and not this topic

maybe you should contact him directly.

[maxrandb]

73. He absolutely would

and he would get credit for time in grade for the time he's been out, plus he would probably qualify for some type of back-pay. In fact, if he were in-zone for promotion and missed it because they find he was "wrongly" discharged, they would hold a special promotion board for him and he'd come back at a higher rate.

[TriMera]

78. Speculate much? n/t

[sarcasmo]

54. Our government makes me sick on so many levels.

[MineralMan]

57. I'm betting that President Obama doesn't know anything about

this policy. He's not really a micromanager. I doubt that any President knows about things like this. It seems off to blame the "Obama administration" for everything that seems unjust that the government does. I'm sure he's now aware that this is going on, and that he'll have someone look into the details of it.

Neither President Obama or any other President knows everything that the government does on that kind of minute level.

[SidDithers]

59. +1...nt

Sid

[EFerrari]

61. It's interesting to see some of you take this letter so literally.

Choi wrote both for a lot of people and to the entire establishment in this public letter.

It isn't an attack on Obama at all.

So, no, it isn't "off" in any way.

[MineralMan]

69. You know, I'm not saying that Choi is attacking President Obama.

Not at all. I'm saying that the title of the thread's OP is pushing that meme. You may disagree, but there it is. President Obama had nothing to do with this policy, which has been in place for a very long time. You may remember that he's the one who pushed to get DADT repeal through the lame duck Congress, with the help of a few legislators.

It's off to blame the "Obama administration." That's what I'm saying.

[EFerrari]

75. I think the Obama administration is sturdy enough

to face legitimate criticism for their Pentagon's policies.

[MineralMan]

79. I have no doubt that it is.

See the original headline from the article below.

[Forkboy]

72. I would use the word "predictable" instead of "interesting".

[MineralMan]

77. Here's the original headline from the link:

"Shove it! Dan Choi won’t pay the government for his being discharged under DADT"

The words "Obama Administration" did not occur in the original article. That was added by the OP. The "Obama Administration" didn't bill Choi for that money. The Defense Department did. Now, I realize that's an Executive department, but it is not managed in its millions of details by President Obama or anyone directly connected with him. The title was a comment by the OP. That's what I'm objecting to. Not everything done by the U.S. Government is ordered by or even known to President Obama.

[EFerrari]

81. So, Bluebear cleaned up the headline before posting.

Or, am I missing something? The Obama administration is in charge of the Pentagon right now, right?

Or, are you still claiming this is an unfair attack on the president?

[sufrommich]

82. Is this a new policy created by the Obama administration?

[EFerrari]

83. Is the president only responsible for policy he creates?

If that's true, we're in big, big trouble.

[sufrommich]

86. Of course, that's not what I said. nt

[EFerrari]

88. That is what you implied or am I misreading?

[sufrommich]

90. I'm saying attributing this attempt to collect money owed to the

Defense Department( which they have been doing for decades) to the Obama administration is silly.

[EFerrari]

91. Except for the part where the administration is in charge of the Pentagon.n/t

[phleshdef]

100. No, but the policy that will prevent this from happening in the future was created by the Obama adm.

[Bobbie Jo]

84. "cleaned up?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[EFerrari]

87. Well then, softened? This was the headline:

"Shove it! Dan Choi won’t pay the government for his being discharged under DADT"

[Bluebear]

125. I liked Americablog's headline more than the "Shove it!!" headline....

see:

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/01/obama-administration-demands-dan-choi.html

I can only assume that "ignored" doesn't like the headline, as Obama is evidently made out of cake?

[EFerrari]

126. "Shove it" doesn't sound like a story about Dan, anyway. n/t

[Bluebear]

124. Here you are darling.

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/01/obama-administration-demands-dan-choi.html

[MineralMan]

92. Oh, OK. I've said what I have to say.

See ya later.

[treestar]

105. Right and Choi is taking advantage of his fame and personal contact

with Obama to get better treatment than others in the same boat.

[EFerrari]

107. For others in the same sittuation. That is his role, precisely. n/t

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NuclearDem]

118. How do you know that?

Did it say that anywhere in the letter?

Look, the fact that he got his letter out in the public means that people are talking about it (kinda like how we are now), and it's going to be pretty obvious this isn't an isolated incident just aimed at Choi.

If he had sent the letter in private, I might agree with you.

[treestar]

122. In private, what good would that do?

There is some procedure he could use if this is unfair or some kind of mistake. He should have used it.

And if anyone else in his position has to pay it back, so does he. He's using the high profile here.

There are others in this position who couldn't get attention over a thing like this. Even a few DUers on this thread.

[NuclearDem]

130. Which is why it only helps other people if someone who can DOES speak up

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

102. well, Bluebear, this is certainly an eye opening thread!!

:puke: that is all.

[Solly Mack]

106. k/r

[uppityperson]

128. Good for Dan and what did you end up changing?

I read this earlier today, right before it was shut down for editing. I can't remember what you wrote.

At any rate, good for Dan, he shouldn't have to pay this and I hope they get it straightened out.

[Bluebear]

133. Just took out a paragraph

i was one over :)

[Tx4obama]

129. More regarding the issue on the link below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/dan-choi-repay-army-bonus-dadt-discharge_n_815102.html

[Major Hogwash]

134. Thank you Bluebear.

You proved that you are a fierce advocate and that the new editing system that Skinner, and Elad, and EarlG developed works.
Way cool.
So I recommened it as well as kicked it.

This is a very hot issue, and if I had the $2500 I'm not sure that I'd give it to Dan, because this is not right, and Dan is standing on principle.
The way they have treated him is unreal.
Totally uncalled for, and I think he is being singled out.

[Bluebear]

135. Thank you for your support, MH

It is invaluable, truly.

[Tx4obama]

138. Choi is not being singled out. It's the rule that just hasn't been changed yet. n/t

[JuniperLea]

141. Exactly right...

These things are generated automatically. There's a lot more to this story.

[Catherina]

139. Disgusting. Rec'd. n/t