the services, any more than a prison warden can expect to eradicate it from his prison. Why, then, is the homosexual rejected, and homosexual activity proscribed?

The Army Regulation quoted above contains also the following passages, which shed some light on the question raised in the paragraph above, and also add some important qualifications to the general policy. The first reads: "Individuals who cannot be regarded as true and confirmed homosexuals, but who have been involved in a single act as a result of immaturity, curiosity, or intoxication, when the psychiatric evaluation concludes that they are not confirmed homosexuals and do not possess strong homosexual tendencies, should normally be retained in service." The second, in a somewhat ambiguous vein, goes on to say, "Individuals who merely profess homosexual tendencies should normally be retained in service. It is essential to distinguish between those who have uncontrollable, perverse tendencies in fact and those who merely claim such for the purpose of avoiding military service. Evidence of existing psychological or other maladjustment resulting from such tendencies will be evaluated carefully in making the decision as to whether the individual is of use to the service."

It becomes plain, then, that an individual with homosexual tendencies could, conceivably, be considered of use to the service, and our question now becomes: "What sort of homosexually-inclined person is NOT of use to the service, and for what reason?"

Excluding the Class I homosexual, whose act involves a minor, or the use of force or fraud, the consensus (including opinions by lawyers who have had close access to the actual views and decisions of military courts and reviewing boards) appears to be that homosexual behavior is acted

against by the Armed Forces to the extent that it threatens military discipline and the chain of command necessary for the efficient functioning of a military unit in time of war. For example, an NCO who is having an affair with a private in his unit, or an officer with one of his orderlies, could not be counted upon to exercise effective discipline over these subordinates in time of emergency. This principle, within the context of the military, makes sense, and is quite accurately paralleled by principles of organization to be found in most civilian activities. Moreover, homosexual activity to be acted against, must be known as fact or at least strongly suspected. This implies, if not actually flagrant behavior, at least gross indiscretion on the part of participants-leading to demoralization of sexually frustrated or insecure persons, and throwing into general disrepute the characters of those directly involved. Thus, if the belle of the outfit disappears regularly into. the bushes with various other members of the command, or if two husky buddies persist in holding hands under the table, these circumstances are bound, sooner or later, to be noted and the appropriate conclusions reached. If such activities cross lines of rank, so much the worse for those concerned, as in these cases the effectiveness of command is considered in especial jeopardy.

If the above observations are valid. then we may begin to form a picture, in obverse, of the homosexual who need have no doubts as to his ability to serve his country well, and even with distinction. He (or she) accepts induction as a national duty, is welladjusted with respect to his or her sexual inclinations, enjoys sociable relations with the opposite sex, has a sense of proportion about sex generally, is capable of strong loyalties and sincere friendships, is without affectations of manner, is willing to

9