You Don't Want to be a Candidate for Punishment: Disclosure Decision Making of LGB Service Members Post Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Background and Purpose: In 2011 lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) Americans were granted permission to serve openly in the military following repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. This study explores the institutional, interpersonal, and individual characteristics that are associated with the decision to disclose one's LGB identity to fellow military members five years following the DADT-repeal.

Methods: This study used qualitative analysis to examine 30   semi-structured life history calendar interviews conducted in early 2017 with gay male (n = 13), lesbian (n = 9), bisexual (n = 3), and “other” (n = 4; 3 transgender males) active duty service members in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines stationed on American military bases worldwide. Initial transcripts were co-coded by two doctoral level research staff using thematic analysis to identify emerging themes. One primary theme that emerged among LGB service members was disclosure stress and consequences for disclosing their sexual identity to military co-workers despite the DADT-repeal. The disclosure stress theme was reanalyzed and co-coded using an inductive approach by two additional doctoral level research staff; three sub-theme levels emerged: institutional, interpersonal, and individual.

Results: LGB service members find it difficult to trust that the military, at an institutional level, is separate from individual leaders who may overtly or discriminate against them due to their sexual minority status. Fears of negative repercussions range from being discharged, not being recommended for promotion, being physically assaulted without justice being served to the assaulters, being given a failing grade in a military course without cause, and one’s partner being harmed or rejected from the greater military community.

At an interpersonal level, LGB service members treat their identity as sensitive information and gauge other service members for “red flags” and acceptance cues prior to disclosing. Past experiences disclosing or concealing in interpersonal relationships with military co-workers were found to be meaningful in terms of influencing LGB service members’ disclosure decision-making.

At the individual level, some service members felt a responsibility to disclose to their co-workers with the goal of decreasing stigma for younger generations of LGB service members. Other participants noted reluctance to disclose in new military workplaces due to past experiences disclosing and being given the burdensome role of “expert” on LGB topics. LGB service members noted ambivalence with whether one’s sexual orientation is private or public information and its associated “relevance” to be shared with others in the workplace. Amid distrust of the “system,” participants weighed whether disclosing was “worth it” in light of their individual career aspirations.

Conclusions and Implications: Results suggest that, despite repeal of an exclusionary policy, LGB service members question whether the military is an accepting place for them to disclose their sexual minority identity. LGB service members gauge, test, and weigh disclosure decisions before “coming out” to fellow service members. These results may inform military leaders, policymakers, and those interested in social justice of marginalized groups. Possible structural changes to improve acceptance and integration of LGB service members are discussed.