ed in Europe tabulates a breakdown, by cause, of 818 typical undesirable discharges, covering Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, among which a total of 59 (or well over 7 percent) were due to homosexual behavior. Since no one of this 7 per cent could have been discharged without some overt act or manifestation, well-supported by evidence, and since it can be presumed that no one of this 7 percent was known to be homosexually inclined at the time of acceptance into service, it follows that the total number of homosexually-inclined persons who are cepted into the services runs substantially higher than the above percentage indicates. It could also be inferred that the total instances of homosexual behavior or manifestation run substantially higher than the overt instances alone-i.e. those instances actually brought to the attention of military authorities empowered to initiate an action.

The above is not intended to imply a criticism of the military, either as to its fallibility or as to its general policies, the reasons for which are well understood. Yet neither does it imply a criticism of the homosexual as necessarily detrimental or unequal to the pursuits and attitudes necessary to national defense. The popular notion which invariably equates homosexuality with weakness, affectation, sexual abandon, and irresponsibility generally, is gradually giving way to a more realistic view of the situation, in which it is recognized that there are as many types of homosexuals as there are types of humanity at large. It is our belief that the military realizes this to an actually greater degree than civilian authorities, due to the comparatively higher incidence of homosexuality within its administrative purview, and a correspondingly greater opportunity for observation and evaluation. Men in service can maintain a digni-

fied homophile love-relationship with almost as much privacy as they could in civilian life, if they are constitutionally so inclined, and are capable of reasonable self-restraint; and it is not at all impossible for a serviceman to pursue a homosexual affair even during the same period that he is writing impassioned love-letters to his fiancee back home. If all the facts could be known on this subject, the public would be inexpressibly surprised, but the military considerably less so.

In a dossier which completely documents the discharge of a serviceman under honorable conditions, after facing charges of homosexual conduct, and after thorough investigation by various examiners and military boards of review, there is every indication that the military is willing to consider isolated instances of homosexual behavior with all respect for commonly accepted rules of evidence, and with all due regard for extenuating circumstances. Among the latter may be the youth or immaturity of the individual, the apparent absence of confirmed or habitual homosexual tendencies, the general repute of the individual among fellow-servicemen, the immediate circumstances surrounding the act for which the charge is made, and others. It is clearly an unpleasant and even harrowing matter to be a target for the legal and administrative machinery which operates on cases of this kind. Yet the policies and the regulations exist, and will be used against the homosexual if he acts injudiciously and without regard for the special proprieties of military life, just as other policies and regulations will be used against the serviceman who comes to his senses after a weekend spree to find himself AWOL. No organization, least of all the military, can persist as such for long without its own special policies and disciplines; and the only sensible position

11