Fehrenbach to Retire with Full Rank and Pension (DADT)

[Clio the Leo]

Fehrenbach to Retire with Full Rank and Pension
By Advocate.com Editors

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who fought his discharge from the Air Force under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, will be allowed to retire in October with his full rank and pension.

The South Bend Tribune reported on the news about the Notre Dame graduate and decorated 20-year veteran of combat flight.

"It was a great sense of relief. I didn't expect it," said the 41-year-old Fehrenbach to the newspaper.

According to the Tribune, “With no further explanation, the military in January sent Fehrenbach new orders: Effective Sept. 30, he will be retired from active duty at his current rank and with his pension. He'll serve out the remaining months of his military duty at his current desk job at the base in Idaho.”

<snip>

Fehrenbach is thinking of writing a book about his fight against the policy, according to the Tribune.



http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/16/Fehrenbach_to_Retire_with_Full_Rank_and_Pension/

Background, "Col. Victor Fehrenbach: Obama told me 'we'll get this done' "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8503771

[Scottybeamer70]

1. Good on him

for standing his ground!!

[niyad]

2. k and r for one positive piece of news today.

thank you for your service, and your courage and perseverance.

[Pirate Smile]

3. K & R

[Historic NY]

4. 'we'll get this done' & it was the right and irrevocable way....

there is no going back no rescinding.

[TheWraith]

6. And really, there was no OTHER way to do it.

Despite persistent myths, there was no way to establish an equal military without an act of Congress.

[Historic NY]

7. exactly contrary to some here.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. The President could've probably done something temporarily thourgh stop loss, but...

I think he absolutely did it the right way. I also think that perhaps the threat of trying to do it through executive order got a lot of people at the Pentagon on board.

[Arkana]

10. Executive order would have only lasted as long as Obama

or another sympathetic Dem was in office. Republicans would have IMMEDIATELY rescinded it.

This way it is dead, buried, and it's never coming back.

[Very_Boring_Name]

11. Nobody was ever suggesting stopping at an executive order

An executive order should have been used as a way to temporarily stop the discharges until congress could do a full repeal.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. The repeal likely would not have had all of the Pentagon support that it did...

If Obama had decided to use an executive order to stop the discharges. Clinton lost on this issue big time in 1993 because of the perception of a President who never served forcing a liberal agenda on the military. Admittedly the country has become a lot more tolerant in 17 years but the bill still needed to get 60 votes in the Senate and if Obama had lost that same PR battle Clinton did, he might not have been able to muster 60 votes.

As I said, Obama had more favorable circumstances than Clinton, but he also played this one a lot better. Gates went to the military brass and told them that this was going to happen one way or another and that they could get on board and have a say in the process, or oppose it and have it forced on them by executive order or by the courts.

[Very_Boring_Name]

13. The repeal didn't need pentagon support

Sorry, but it didnt. It had more than enough congressional and popular support even before the pentagon signed on. And don't even try invoking Clinton on this one, the public and congress was so anti gay at the time, there was absolutely zero chance of Clinton ever getting any legislation through congress that would have allowed gays to serve openly.

But I'm sure the thousands of people discharged while Obama was in office because he refused to sign an executive order will find solace in the fact that it helped Obama politically :sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

14. It had to get 60 votes in the Senate

I'm not sure we could've held all of the conservadems let alone get Republican votes if the Pentagon didn't support it.

[msanthrope]

16. Actually, it did need Pentagon support, or repeal would not have happened as a matter of law.

First, I suggest you read my post # 15 explaining why an EO would not have done a thing. You can't override a Congressional statute by an EO.

Second, as a matter of law, DADT contained 'findings' that homosexuality was inimical to the military. These findings were based on direct testimony from military authorities. When you repeal a law, you MUST address the 'findings' or reasons for the law, or, you run the risk of successful court challenge. Thus, you MUST prove your original findings wrong, or influenced by animus...

Thus the surveys, thus the garnering of support from the Pentagon. Elimination of the single greatest legal challenge to repeal was handled masterfully.

[msanthrope]

15. No, not when stop-loss specifically excluded 'homosexuality.'

No Executive Order has ever overridden Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, and not a single poster on this board has ever been able to explain just how an EO would have simultaneously changed the stop-loss exclusions, overridden the DADT statute, and erased the congressional findings of same.

Now, you might be able to quote public policy papers that called for such an action, but there were actual reasons why the organizations that fought tirelessly for DADT repeal didn't call for an EO--they read the US constitution.

[Gregorian]

5. Yeah!

That really feels good. More of this kind of thing.

[jenmito]

9. K&R! Rachel reported on his story a while ago. n/t