A three-member Board of Inquiry of Army officers has recommended that Steve May be dismissed from the Reserves for violation of the anti-gay policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ( DADT ) . The decision came Sept. 17, in Los Alamitos, Calif., after 12 hours of hearings. May plans to appeal the decision.
Steve May is a lieutenant in the Army Reserve and a Republican who represents east Phoenix in the Arizona state legislator. He acknowledged he was gay during past elections and in February 1999 during chamber debate on anti-gay legislation.
The lieutenant was on "inactive" status with the Army at the time. He was called up to "active" status shortly after the debate, when the military situation in Kosovo began heating up. He has been serving as a weekend warrior ever since. May has had an exemplary record throughout his military career.
At the Inquiry, Army prosecutors charged that May had violated DADT. More damningly they said he had lied to his commanding officer and misrepresented why he was called to duty, and therefore should be given a general rather than an honorable discharge. "It was weird," May said in an exclusive interview. "We went in not contesting the facts. And the government spent 12 hours doing two things: one, proving I am gay, and two, conducting a malicious character assassination without evidence or foundation."
"They said I was trying to pursue my own personal political agenda at the expense of the Army." That charge centered on testimony by May's battalion commander that she saw him on Larry King Live saying that he had been called up to go to Kosovo.
But when a tape of the program was played, it clearly supported May's version of the event, that he had said only he had been recalled to active duty during the time of the Kosovo events.
Soldiers under May's command testified that he was a good officer who did not inject talk of being gay into his job in the Reserves.
The Board found that May's inactive military status did leave him subject to DADT and therefore his speech was in violation of those regulations. It ordered him dismissed from the service. However, it found no merit in the Army's claims and therefore ordered an honorable rather than a general discharge.
May's civilian attorney, Christopher Wolf, accused Army prosecutors of "McCarthy-like tactics." He said, "We believe the Board ignored the facts and ignored the law."
This decision will have a "chilling effect" on all reservists if it is allowed to stand, said Wolf. "The military can't proscribe the issues which he as an elected official can debate as a state legislator."
Wolf successfully defended Chief Petty Officer Timothy McVeigh two years ago when the Navy blatantly disregarded the law, seized McVeigh's America Online account, and tried to drum him out of the service.
The Inquiry was closed to the public and the media. "I can't wait until I get the transcripts out there so they can see what bastards the government was," said May. "They were so vindictive. Never before had my conduct, performance, professionalism, loyalty, or my integrity been questioned," he said.
"I cannot believe that my government, my Army would treat me that way," said May. His voice was tired from the stress of the weekend events and another day spent dealing with the media. That included a return appearance on Larry King, this time opposite Oliver North.
The smear campaign has only strengthened his resolve to see this through. The decision will be appealed to his commanding general, who is likely to act in 30-90 days. A subsequent appeal to the Secretary of the Army and the President seems inevitable.
CONGRESSIONAL VOICES
A year ago Reps Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tom Campbell, R-Calif.,, in a letter joined by about 150 other members of Congress, wrote to President Clinton urging that prosecution of May be dropped. As commander in chief, Clinton had both the power and legal rationale to stop the Army's harassment of May. He did nothing.
On Sept. 14, Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg wrote to the Army officer in charge of prosecuting May urging that he "terminate proceedings" against the lieutenant. Shadegg said it "violate [ s ] his Constitutional immunity under the Arizona State Constitution and the Speech & Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution."
He cited a series of legal rulings on the issue, including the 1998 Supreme Court decision in Bogan v. Scott-Harris. The Court began their decision writing: "It is well established that federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activity."
REACTION
Stacey Sobel, legal director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the Board's decision "demonstrates that the policy does not work. This sends the wrong message ... about how the Army values the contributions of its people."
"Steve May is not only a model soldier and a model military officer, but a model leader for all Americans," said Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.
David Leibowitz, a columnist writing in The Arizona Republic, called May "Too good to serve in the nation's Army. Too valuable a human being to be wasted on an institution that continues to kneel before a few haters and homophobes."
The Arizona Daily Star editorialized: "May's case is an indication of how the policy indiscriminately eliminates good people from the military. But it should be just the other way around. It is the policy that should be eliminated."
