Thread 40820155

Where will transgender veterans go now that they are banned in the US military? USDoD civilian work force? Federal contractors?

>>40820155 (OP)
they can start a private defense corporation and call it PinkWater

>>40820190
>they can start a private defense corporation and call it PinkWater
I forgot they could apply as civilian contractors

>>40820155 (OP)
>Where will transgender veterans go now that they are banned in the US military?
Trans enlisted personnel should be able to work as federal contractors or jump over fully into private industry pretty easy.
The problem will be trans officers. The discharge code they are getting is the same one that used to be given to people in the 50s who were discharged for being gay. That code flags them as a potential national security risk, so they are kinda fucked when it comes to getting another government job or even a private sector job that requires a government security clearance.
Honestly the best outcome for them would probably be to try and pick up a defense job outside the US. With Canada or China or a western EU nation.

>>40820214
>The discharge code they are getting
I was under the assumption they choose it because they couldn't put "discharged due to medial condition" as that would be discriminatory.

>That code flags them as a potential national security risk,
I was under the assumption this didn't revoke their security clearance yes?

>fucked when it comes to getting another government job
Do we know this for a fact? Can't they explain this?

>>40820214
This is the only thing I could find about it from a DOD official

>A Defense Department official has clarified that the JDK code alone does not automatically mean a security clearance has been revoked.

>>40820257
>I was under the assumption they choose it because they couldn't put "discharged due to medial condition"
You would assume they could have used another code than. Such as one that just generally marked them as 'unfit for service'.
Using a code that was last used to purge suspected gays from the military and has implications for being able to get a government job post-service seems deliberate.
>I was under the assumption this didn't revoke their security clearance yes?
It does not revoke security clearance. But it would be something that would be flagged and act as a disqualifyer in any future US based job that required a security clearance. So it is a soft revocation.
>Do we know this for a fact?
That is what I have read.

>>40820303
>You would assume they could have used another code than. Such as one that just generally marked them as 'unfit for service'.

I agree, I think if they were going to implement a ban, they should have done unfit to service. is there a way they can have it updated in the future? like DADT? or sue?

is this the same for enlisted officers?

>But it would be something that would be flagged and act as a disqualifyer in any future US based job that required a security clearance.
So if someone like Bree Fram tried to apply they would be rejected even though they got 20 years service and highest ranking trans officer in the us military? although I think she can retire.

>>40820350
>is there a way they can have it updated in the future?
I would assume that it could be updated in the future, but I assume it would require either court cases or some legislation to pass.
It does not seem like something that can be fixed any time soon.
>is this the same for enlisted officers?
Only commissioned officers are getting the life ruining discharge code.
NCOs, enlisted and I assume warrant officers (?) are getting a general discharge code that should not prevent them from working a gov job in the future.
>So if someone like Bree Fram tried to apply they would be rejected even though they got 20 years service and highest ranking trans officer in the us military?
If it were a government job or a private sector job that required a security clearance, yes. That code is something that would be flagged and would disqualify them.

who gives a fuck about zogtroops?

>>40820384
>I would assume that it could be updated in the future, but I assume it would require either court cases or some legislation to pass.
I think they recently did due to lawsuit for those discharged under DADT
>It does not seem like something that can be fixed any time soon.
Yes for the next 3 years it's not, but once a new president gets in 2029 I assume this will change.
>That code is something that would be flagged and would disqualify them.
Isn't that illegal or discriminatory? Can't they sue?

>>40820391
>who gives a fuck about zogtroops?
I care about the veterans, I don't support the wars.

The girl I know who's in the process of being kicked out of the army is gonna move to a blue city and go to school. She still gets full veteran benefits I think, so honestly kind of a sweet deal. She never even got deployed and now she gets all the GI/VA stuff.

>>40820513
are they being voluntary or involuntary separated?

>>40820155 (OP)
trans in the headlines
Israel in the news search
oh look, Israel is bombing civilians again.