Talk:Section 8 (military)

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Section 8 (military) is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The article currently describes Section 8 as being an "undesirable" discharge, but this is not one of the four types listed in the military discharge article. What is the exact type of discharge that Section 8 produces? --137.22.3.33 14:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a dishonorable discharge. --Victor 03:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Infoplease, there is a term undesirable discharge but it merely refers to a discharge that is not honorable. It has no specific meaning. Superm401 - Talk 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a dishonorable discharge. A dishonorable discharge can only be imposed by a General Court Martial as a punishment for a crime and it is the civilian equivalent of a felony conviction. Does a Section 8 Discharge even exist anymore? Rws1 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this applies to the U.S. military. A Section 8 is a type of dishonorable discharge granted for sexual deviancy, and was normally used to discharge homosexuals from the military. It hasn't been used much since the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy came into effect during the Clinton administration.

Section of what?[edit]

One thing that needs to be included is what statutory or other compilation section 8 was part of i.e. was it a particular statute, a list of rules, a manual, etc.? For example an "Article 15", "Article 32" etc. refers to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Where can someone look up the famed section 8? Ellsworth 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need to cite the exact source of the term, and quote it as appropriate if possible. The Max Klinger article claims a Section 8 was considered a medical discharge and not a dishonorable discharge, which differs from the content in this article. Tempshill 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't say positively enough to add it, I'd guess it's S.8 of the Army code of law under which courts martial & other disciplinary measures were conducted prior to the introduction of the UCMJ. Which raises another issue, when the UCMJ replaced the old Civil War-era (earlier?) code. (A side note: the Confederate army used the exact same manual...) Trekphiler 09:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0208600.html says "Section VIII of U.S. Army Regulation 615-360, which provided for the discharge of those deemed unfit for military service." R.615 will be a subsection (I'd guess) of the manual. 09:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.section-eight.net dates 615-360 in effect December 1922 to July 1944, calling it "a discharge based on military assessment of psychological unfitness" 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary dates 615-360 in effect December 1922 to July 1944, also. 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection; relevance?[edit]

Can someone explain to me how the paragraph about the videogame is relevant at all? I see the connection; a member of a pseudo-military organisation is implied to be homosexual. What I don't see is how that actually pertains to Section 8 in any way at all. The name is an obvious reference, but it doesn't seem to bring anything of note to article. Perhaps it the reference is of note for an article about the game, but not an article about the actual Section 8.MVMosin 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AR 40-501[edit]

I think it should be mentioned that not all personality disorders/mental disorders result in what can be characterized as an Administrative Separation (as far as AR 635-200 is concerned). In fact, AR 40-501 classifies several mental conditions as "failing retention standards" and immediate referral to a Medical Evaluation Board. There would have been many cases in the past (such as with Jim Garrison), he would have been medically discharge IAW with AR 40-501 rather than a negative connotation under Section 8. Just my thoughts, I will not add/edit to the article until further discussion occurs. Cheers. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

What was the process for discharging someone under this classification? Was there a stay in a psychiatric observation hospital involved, or were they just escorted off base after the base doctor made the assessment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.157.220 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware if there was any specific process. It might have depended on the situation.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]