The American Military Partner Association 1725 I Street NW Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006 March 17, 2015 The Adjutant General, Texas Military Forces, Major General Jake Berry P.O. Box 5218, Building 10, Austin, TX, 78703 Dear Major General Berry, I am writing to you on behalf of our members who recently experienced an unfortunate situation of blatant discrimination at the Camp Mabry DEERS/ID Card section. On Friday, March 13, 2015, three legally married, samesex military families (military member and spouse) attempted to register for benefits and obtain services pursuant to the Department of Defense (DoD) Memorandum, “Extending Benefits to the SameSex Spouses of Military Members”, dated August 13, 2013. In accordance with the ALARACT 212/2013, the couples were prepared to present the required supporting documentation to the desk clerk at Camp Mabry. Unfortunately, the desk clerk informed the couples that she would not be able to assist them and directed the couples to other federal facilities in order to obtain services. The first couple, a retiree and her wife, were turned away after the desk clerk told them she would not enroll the wife in DEERS because “this is a state facility.” The second couple, an active duty soldier and his new husband, were also turned away. When they questioned the desk clerk as to why they could not obtain the services they needed, the clerk stated that she could not enroll the samesex spouse in DEERS or issue a military dependent ID card because their marriage was not recognized in the state of Texas. The third couple, another active duty soldier and her wife, were also told they could not be served, even after showing the employee the Texas Military Forces media advisory, dated November 26, 2013, which stated that services would now be provided. They were eventually assisted, but only after the soldier insisted and explained that all they needed was to update the rank on her and her spouse’s ID cards. Again, the clerk had stated that their marriage was not recognized in the state of Texas, therefore they could not be served. The employee even went so far as to tell this third couple fabricated reasons why the first two couples were turned away, unaware that both earlier interactions had been overheard.