BREAKING UPDATE:
U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. Air Force Reach Federal Court Agreement with Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach
Highly decorated combat Air Force Aviator filed injunction in Federal Court to block “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharge
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster LLP, representing their client, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, reached an agreement today with the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Air Force, on the pending request for a temporary restraining order. The agreement prevents the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the discriminatory law barring gay and lesbian service members from serving openly and honestly, until the Court can schedule a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Attorneys for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho last Wednesday seeking a court order preventing the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, arguing that the government cannot establish that his continued service on active duty hinders “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.”
Statement by Morrison & Foerster’s M. Andrew Woodmansee:
“This is exactly what we asked the Court to do in our motion on Wednesday, and we are pleased that the Air Force has agreed to preserve the status quo until we can have a full hearing. Of course, we continue to hope that the Air Force will do the right thing and let this war hero continue to serve this country.”
Statement by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director and Army Veteran Aubrey Sarvis:
“The agreement recognizes the immediate harm to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach and insures that he will eventually get to make his case at a full blown hearing without losing his job. This agreement is a victory for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach and our nation. The Air Force can still do the right thing and retain Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under the Pentagon’s own revised regulations on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The Senate needs to act next month to get rid of this antiquated law that dishonors some of our finest and most talented service members.”
To read the agreement as filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho visit: http://bit.ly/doM7Q9
This agreement was reached based on the following circumstances presented by Fehrenbach's counsel:
On March 25, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and JCS Admiral Michael Mullen issued new Instructions with the goal of making the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” more “humane.” The Air Force followed by updating its own instructions, including AFI 36-3208, Administrative Discharge Procedures For Commissioned Officers, on April 2, 2010. An Guidance Memorandum states, “[t]he changes set forth in this Guidance Memorandum are effective immediately and shall apply to all fact-finding inquiries and separation proceedings open on or initiated on or after 25 March 2010.” Because Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s separation proceedings are still open, the new instructions apply to the facts of his case. In revising their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Instructions the Department of Defense and the Air Force raised the bar on so-called third party outings, by strengthening the “credible information from a reliable source” standard of proof necessary to start an investigation. The revised Instructions now define a “reliable person” as “s
omeone who would be expected, under the circumstances, to provide accurate information.” The revised Instructions go on to state that an example of an unreliable person is “[a] person with a prior history of untruthfulness or unreliability.” And they also now say the commanders must examine “the source of the information, and the circumstances under which the information was obtained….” Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s accuser was known to have a prior history of untruthfulness and unreliability. Given the source of the information and the circumstances under which it was obtained, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach should be retained.
The investigation of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was also improper and in violation of Air Force instructions in effect at the time the Air Force launched its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” investigation, because it was never based on credible information from a reliable source. Pursuant to then-current AFI 36-3206, Administrative Discharge Procedures For Commissioned Officers, § A2. 1.1, “[a] commander may initiate a fact-finding inquiry only when he or she has received credible information that there is basis for discharge.” Under § A2.3.4, credible information was defined as when a “reliable person” came forward with evidence that a service member had violated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s accuser was viewed by authorities as “unreliable,” having “a history of false reporting,” and “not a credible witness.” Even under this weaker standard, the false allegation made by an unreliable witness could never be considered “credible,” and the investigation of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach should have been terminated.
· Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008) requires that prior to discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenach under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the government must put forth evidence showing that as-applied to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach: 1) the government advances an important governmental interest, 2) that the intrusion into his private life significantly furthers that interest, and 3) that there are no less intrusive means to substantially achieve the government’s interest. The Witt decision is currently binding case law in the 9th Circuit, home of Mountain Home Air Force Base, where Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is stationed.




10 Comments





victor fehrenbach,this is great news. If the president insists of dragging his feet on repealling DADT we need to take matters in our own hands. Seemingly the president has no balls on this matter or leadership.
victor fehrenbach,i hope there is more lawsuits against the pentagon and DADT in the coming weeks
This situation is another example of the conscious betrayal by Obama, Inc.
Why must the courts force our Fierce Avocado to do the right thing? For years, SLDN has tried to convince the Pentagon to change its implementing regulations to ban information that a servicemember is gay obtained during an investigation by police authorities being used to discharge anyone, in the same way that President Clinton issued an Executive Order banning use of such information obtained during a security clearance investigation.
When President Gates, excuse me, SECDEF Gates first floated the idea of “more humane” regs on July 1, 2009, it was at least transparently motivated by a desire to damp down the fires raging over the ODOJ’s heinous defense of DOMA a few weeks earlier – just as was the White House tea for the gays the day before.
It also seemed motivated by a desire to counter the PR black eye Fehrenbach’s having gone public with his case. But, funny thing, within weeks Gates was claiming they couldn’t find any way to change the regs….yet this past February he suddenly announced they HAD found ways to change them. What changed? Obama, Inc., needed another boost in damage control.
So many expected the new regs to finally be obviously written to create a way to keep Fehrenbach. They were not, most obviously in not including banning information from law officials [the way they did that from clergy and various medical professionals] which given that Fehrenbach admitted having engaged in “homosexual conduct” remains, spin aside, his REAL problem not the disturbed guy who accused him of rape thus requiring the police to question him and he insist it was consensual.
Translation: Obama doesn’t give a flying fuck about gay servicemembers or they would have
1. changed the regs as described above, and
2. agreed to let him stay now rather than simply agreeing to defend discharging him in court at some future date the way they have defended DADT repeatedly for a year and a half, and
3. finally obeyed the now two-year old 9th Circuit Witt ruling as Gates promised they would announce in March but did not. [Last I read, the ODOJ was still going to fight it in court next month.]
Therefore, the question remains:
that’s good — so far –At least now the DoD has had to officially recognize the Witt test, at least in the 9th Circuit states. He still has to litigate a temporary, then a permanent injunction, but this is good. Still, I have to ask –
1. Will this policy take effect in the 9th Circuit states? Or in the rest of the Dept of Defense? Or is this just going to be good for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach and not binding case law WRT the constitutionality of DADT?
2. Are other servicemembers getting discharged in the meantime, with or without the Witt test?
3. Is Lt. Col. Fehrenbach going to be doing something worthwhile in the meantime, e.g., flying missions, conducting (or taking) training, or commanding a unit somewhere? Or are they just going to keep him on ice?
4. And how far is the Obama administration going to contest this in court? 9th Circuit? SCOTUS? Because, believe me, the “deference” doctrine comes into this somewhere, i.e., the Judiciary tends to defer to Congress and the military on nat’l defense issues Because They Know Best.
Still, I’m glad that Lt. Col. Fehrenback has gotten this far. It’s a sign of personal grit and ethical courage as good as the valor he showed in combat.
Fiat justitia ruat coelum.
Where do you get that they have “had to officially recognize the Witt test?
While, as I noted above, Gates led Congress in February to believe he finally would, nothing has changed to date, nor do I see any statement by any of the government parties that they acknowledge ANY of the specific “circumstances presented by Fehrenbach’s counsel.”
At the same time, I’m convinced that is Fehrenbach’s only real argument, AND that someone should have specifically sued to force the ODOJ to observe Witt at least a year ago after his administrative hearing refused to in April of last year.
let’s say “conceded”Functionally, at this point, they’re not implementing his discharge and they’re having to go back on the first prong of that test, in that a third-party tattle by an unreliable source is not an “important government interest.”
However, I believe that, as part of any consent degree or settlement, that DoD concede Witt in writing, if that’s what you’re getting at, and that the three-prong test be implemented in DoD Instructions, if the outcome fails to completely overturn DADT.
I agree that the Obama administration has proven duplicitous on this issue. At this point, do you see any sign they’ve stopped third-party outing and discharge? Or outprocessing based on a tattle prior to this policy modification? I haven’t.
My name is, Michael, and I am cynical.
All I see is they’re saying, “See you in court IF necessary.” And the only reason they agreed to that [versus proceeding with discharging him and, then, fighting to defend it after the fact as occured in the cases of Keith Meinhold, Miriam Ben-Shalom, and Perry Watkins] is what they’ve done again and again by various methods from White House Tea Party forward: when the gay natives become restless, throw a crumb to narcotize some of the outrage, and buy a little more time, which, as we’re roughly two and a half months until midterms, is more crucial than ever.
I think the suspicion that they were about to discharge him was likely a false alarm. All we know for certain is that they’ve agreed not to make a decision to discharge him before August 27th. Doesn’t say they HAVE to decide by then. They can just keep putting it off, leave most LGBTs sleeping in the poppy field, indefinitely, or at least until they can pimp a few more dollars and votes out of us for midterms.
Of course, I don’t care by whatever hook or crook Fehrenbach might be saved. But if push does come to shove, I remain doubtful that any of the other “prongs” can save Fehrenbach when HE was the ultimate “reliable source” confirming his own violation. There’s nothing in the new regs that unequivocally puts that toothpaste back in the tube. We quote again:
Agree…. but must keep plodding along the legal path.
My name is SpartacusThat’s the trouble: Col. Fehrenbach confirmed it. SLDN’s longstanding advice to all servicemembers under suspicion is say nothing, sign nothing, get a lawyer. (Or, if you want to be really nasty, recite your name, rank and SSN).
LOL!
Spartacus, darling, we MUST go to a 24-hour classic Hollywood musicals marathon at the Castro Theatre sometime.