MOD accused of humiliating veterans as it faces High Court battle over compensation
The Ministry of Defence has been accused of humiliating veterans by denying them access to a Financial Recognition Scheme designed to compensate for the loss of military careers under old rules banning homosexuality.
Steven Stewart and Mark Shephard were investigated by military police officers and say they were forced to quit their careers because of their perceived sexualities in the 1990s.
But under eligibility rules to the scheme, the men have been denied awards because the MOD views their discharges from the Armed Forces as being voluntary in nature.
The men have now engaged lawyers to challenge this in the High Court.
One of the two men, Steven Stewart, told BFBS Forces News that following an "intrusive" investigation by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB), his Officer Commanding gave him two choices: face a court martial and potential imprisonment, or quit his career in the Royal Military Police.
Up until that moment, Steve, as he goes by, had served in the Royal Military Police for seven years.
During that time, he had served in the Gulf War and for three years in Northern Ireland – all of which counted towards what his records show as "exemplary" service.
Yet, before being forced to quit – as Steve puts it – his Officer Commanding told him that he "disgusted" him.
Alleged disgraceful conduct
BFBS Forces News has seen the original documents written up by officers from the SIB who were leading the investigation into Steve.
They show he was held under suspicion of "disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind" and that a disclosure of homosexuality had been made.
As a professional military policeman himself, he recalls being troubled by the lack of independent legal advice he was offered during the investigation.
"I asked for legal representation. That was difficult because an officer from the Army Legal Corps came and told me they couldn't represent me because of what the allegations were," he explained.
Steve ultimately signed paperwork bringing about his discharge from the Army and even had to pay a fee of £300 to be released from his contract.
It is for this reason the MOD has refused him a payment under the Financial Recognition Scheme.
"I didn't leave of my own accord. I didn't want to leave," he said.
"In that final interview, it was 'there's two doors – one is leaving and the other one is leaving.
"'Go through that one and it's prison and humiliation; go through that one and we'll give you a nice write-up'."
Feeing rejected and humiliated all over again
The Financial Recognition Scheme was announced by Defence Secretary John Healey in 2024 following an earlier apology on behalf of the British state, made by then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
The scheme is one of 49 recommendations made by the judge-led independent inquiry into the ban on homosexuality in Britain's Armed Forces, known as the Etherton Review.
Under the Financial Recognition Scheme, two separate payments can be made to veterans; one is comprised of a flat-rate £50,000 payable to those dismissed or discharged under the ban, while another pays up to £20,000 based on the psychological impact the ban had on an individual.
It is the first scheme under which Steve and his co-claimant against the MOD have been refused payments.
Law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing Steve and Mr Shephard, will now ask the High Court to determine if the decision by the MOD not to award the payments was fair.
Additionally, in what is an intriguing quirk in the eligibility rules for payments under the Financial Recognition Scheme, former commissioned officers who were ordered to resign from their careers because of investigations into alleged homosexuality are deemed eligible for payments.
Yet those who served as "other ranks", like Steve, are not.
This factor of the eligibility rules into the Financial Recognition Scheme will also be examined by the High Court.
Steve said that the decision not to award him a payout and the MOD's apparent willingness to defend it in the courts has left him feeling humiliated "all over again".
"I don't think the whole thing was set up to humiliate us all over again, which is what's happening. And I'm not the only one," said Steve.
"We feel completely rejected and humiliated all over again."
The MOD responds
Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard told BFBS Forces News he had empathy for veterans impacted by the ban on LGBT people serving in the Armed Forces.
Mr Pollard pointed out that he was himself a gay man who had campaigned for LGBT veterans.
"I'm really proud that, as a government, we are implementing the Etherton Review, that we have made a clear apology to those people who were so wronged by the Ministry of Defence in the past," he said.
"There's more work to do here, but we need to make the case that regardless of your sexuality, regardless of your background, there should be a place for you in our Armed Forces. And that's the message this Government is sending strongly."
The charity Fighting with Pride accused the MOD of wasting taxpayers' money in its apparent willingness to fight the legal challenge brought by Steve and Mr Shephard.
"We consider this a grossly unfair gap in the rules," said Peter Gibson, the chief executive of Fighting with Pride.
"We know there is £75m of money [available to LGBT veterans]; a small drop in the ocean in comparison to the cost of the wasted lives and challenge to our LGBT veterans.
"In my view, there is a much simpler solution which is to meet those claims of those people whose [discharge or dismissal] claims have been rejected."
The MOD said it did not comment on individual cases or legal proceedings.
Join Our Newsletter
