Pentagon grants honorable discharges to more than 800 veterans kicked out under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
The Pentagon on Tuesday granted honorable discharges to more than 800 veterans who were separated from the U.S. military because of their sexual orientation during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which was in effect from February 1994 to September 2011.
More than 13,000 service members were kicked out under the policy, close to 2,000 of whom received less than fully honorable discharges, according to Christa Specht, head of legal policy at the DOD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. After 2011, most of those who filed appeals were upgraded, but others might not have been aware this was an option.
Last year, the Defense Department began a proactive review of the remaining cases. The Pentagon announced Tuesday that its review has led to an upgrade for more than 800 veterans, without them having to appeal. This could affect the benefits they have access to.
“After a year of exceptional work, the Military Department Review Boards directed relief in 96.8% of the 851 cases that they proactively reviewed. What this means is that of the nearly 13,500 individuals who were administratively separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, and served long enough to receive a merit-based characterization of service, 96% now have an honorable discharge,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement.
The vast majority of those separated under the policy now have honorable discharges, according to Austin.
DADT was signed into law in 1993 under the administration of then-President Bill Clinton. In December 2010, then-President Barack Obama signed into law a repeal of the policy. It took effect in 2011.
(NEW YORK) — The Christmas and New Year’s holiday period is expected to be the busiest on record for both air and road travel, according to AAA — continuing this year’s trend where every major travel period has set new records.
Here’s what you need to know before you head to the airport or hit the highway:
Air travel
The Transportation Security Administration said it expects to screen nearly 40 million travelers from Dec. 19 to Jan. 2 — a 6.2% increase from 2023.
The Federal Aviation Administration predicts Thursday, Dec. 19, will be the most crowded day to fly, followed by Friday, Dec. 27, and Friday, Dec. 20.
United is planning for its busiest holiday travel period ever, with 9.9 million passengers expected between Dec. 19 and Jan. 6. The airline said it’s adding almost 500 more flights per day during its holiday travel period.
United said it anticipates its busiest days to be: Friday, Dec. 20; Friday, Dec. 27; and Saturday, Dec. 28.
American Airlines said Friday, Dec. 27, and Friday, Dec. 20, are expected to be its busiest and second-busiest days respectively during its holiday period, which runs from Dec. 18 to Jan. 6.
American said it’ll serve more than 6.6 million bags of pretzels during its holiday travel period.
The cheapest days to fly are Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, according to Expedia. The busiest and most expensive days will be from Friday, Dec. 20, through Sunday, Dec. 22.
The most popular Christmas destinations in the U.S. are Las Vegas, New York City and Orlando, Florida, according to Hopper.
Airports in major cities are expected to be the most crowded in the mornings, between 8 a.m. and noon, according to Hopper.
Road travel
About 107 million people are forecast to drive to their holiday destinations between Dec. 21 and Jan. 1 — approximately 2.5 million more people than last year, according to AAA.
The busiest days to pick up a rental car will be Friday, Dec. 20, and Saturday, Dec. 21, according to AAA.
If you’re heading out the door on Dec. 20, the worst travel time is between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. and the best time is before 11 a.m., according to analytics company INRIX. On Dec. 21, the worst time to be on the road is between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m.; the best time is before 2 p.m.
Traffic will be minimal on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, INRIX said.
Photography by Keith Getter (all rights reserved)/Getty Images
Meteorology may have come a long way since its inception, but it is not possible for anyone — whether it be the government, scientists or billionaires — to control the weather, according to experts.
The desert region of Dubai received a record-breaking amount of rain — two year’s worth in 24 hours — in April. Ever since, every time a flash flooding event occurs, ABC New Chief Meteorologist and Managing Editor of the ABC News Climate Unit Ginger Zee has been receiving messages on social media from people who claim the sharp increase in precipitation is not the result of nature.
“They are making it rain” is the overall theme of the conspiracy theories Zee keeps hearing about.
The commenters are often referring to cloud seeding, a weather modification technique currently used in the United Arab Emirates and several places in the U.S., mostly in the Western U.S., a region notorious for its pervasive droughts. The geoengineering technology involves injecting microscopic particles — sometimes silver iodide — into the atmosphere to encourage rain and snowfall.
The particles then act like magnets for water droplets and bind together until they are heavy enough to fall as rain or snow, amplifying the amount of precipitation. But the water droplets can’t be made out of nothing — it has to be already raining or snowing for cloud seeding to take effect.
For the last several decades, there have been investments in small-scale cloud seeding operations in pockets in the West, both ground-based and in the air, Brad Udall, senior water and climate research scientist at Colorado State University, told ABC News.
Despite feats in geoengineering, humans have no capability whatsoever to control the weather, Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies, told ABC News.
“Until recently, we weren’t even sure it worked,” Udall said. “But there’s some new science that suggests, yes, you can slightly increase the precipitation out of storms due to these, usually ground-based, but sometimes air-based efforts.”
A 10-year cloud seeding experiment in the Snowy Range and Sierra Madre Range in Wyoming resulted in 5% to 15% increases in snow pack from winter storms, according to a 2015 report from the Wyoming Water Development Office. In the region around Reno, Nevada, cloud seeding is estimated to add enough water to supply about 400,000 households annually, according to the DRI.
While humans can enhance existing weather, it is not possible to control it, Dessler said.
“We humans are not powerless,” Udall said. “But, unfortunately, in the weather realm, our ability to affect things is pretty minor.”
Cloud seeding can’t make it rain. It can’t even make a cloud, according to Zee. And it certainly is not being used to create storms with enough precipitation to cause flash flooding.
If humans could control the weather, then the megadrought in the West would probably never had persisted at the level that it did for decades, Udall said.
In late September and early October, Google searches for cloud seeding ramped up again as Hurricanes Helene and Milton caused severe destruction far beyond the storm’s direct impact, including flash flooding in the mountain region near Asheville, North Carolina, previously considered a climate haven.
While there is some evidence that cloud seeding can enhance precipitation, it’s impossible for humans to create or steer a hurricane, Dessler said.
“It’s amazing we’re even having this discussion because, of course, humans can’t control the weather in ways to create a hurricane,” Udall said.
However, there has been a larger-scale climate modification that has been ongoing for the past two centuries, Zee said.
“We’re doing that right now with green with enormous greenhouse gas emissions on a scale that humanity has never, ever done before,” Udall said.
Since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1800s, the greenhouse gases emitted from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels have been causing global temperatures to rise at unprecedented rates, according to climate scientists.
The amplification of Earth’s natural warming has actually increased hourly rainfall rates — a key factor in flash flooding — across much of the U.S. by 10% to 40%, according to Climate Central.
“We have all contributed to making it rain more and heavier as we warm the planet,” Zee said.
Dessler likened global warming to “steroids” for extreme weather events.
“Steroids don’t hit a home run, but if you give steroids to a baseball player, he’s gonna hit more home runs,” Dessler said. “And that’s essentially, you know, the way to think about humans and the weather.”
The experts urged people to not believe rumors on the possibility that the weather can be controlled, chalking up the conspiracy theories as machinations of intrigue but nothing more.
“It’s yet one more example, right, of unbridled social media doing irreparable social harm,” Udall said.
ABC News’ Daniel Manzo contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Americans are going to the polls Tuesday to cast their ballots in the historic election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
Surveys ahead of Election Day found the two candidates in a virtual dead heat nationally and in several key swing states.
Broad economic discontent, sharp divisions about the nation’s future and polarized views of the major-party candidates mark voter attitudes nationally in ABC News’ preliminary exit poll results.
The state of democracy prevailed narrowly as the most important issue to voters out of five tested in the exit poll.
The country and democracy
Voters broadly express more negative than positive views about the country’s direction: Just 26% are enthusiastic or satisfied with the way things are going, versus 72% dissatisfied or angry.
More voters see American democracy as threatened than say it’s secure, 73% to 25%. Still, about six in 10 in these preliminary exit poll results say the country’s best days are ahead of it, versus about a third who say the country’s best days are in the past.
Extremism and candidate favorability
Fifty-five percent call Trump’s views “too extreme,” and he’s underwater in personal favorability, 44%-55%. Fewer call Harris’ views too extreme (46%), though she’s also underwater in personal favorability, albeit slightly, 48%-50%.
Favorability isn’t determinative: Just 40% saw Trump favorably in 2016, when he won the Electoral College (albeit not the popular vote). One reason is that almost as few, 43%, had a favorable view of his opponent that year, Hillary Clinton. (In 2020, Trump’s favorability rating was 46%; Joe Biden’s was 52%.)
Underscoring the emotion associated with the contest, preliminarily 36% of voters say they’d be “scared” if Trump were elected, while 29% would be scared by a Harris win.
The economy and Biden
The economy remains a key irritant. Voters say it’s in bad shape by 67%-32%. And 45% say their own financial situation is worse now than four years ago, versus 30% the same, with just 24% doing better. The “worse off” number exceeds its 2008 level, then 42%, and far outpaces its shares in 2020 (20%) and 2016 (28%).
Biden takes the heat, with just a 41% job approval rating (58% disapprove). It’s been a challenge for Harris to persuade voters she’s taking a new direction from Biden’s. (Biden’s approval rating is the lowest for an incumbent president in exit polls since George W. Bush’s 27% as he left office in 2008. Trump managed 50% job approval in 2020, yet Biden beat him anyway).
