John, I'm not an expert on apa6, for sure. However, it seems to me that the behavior you are seeing is the exact behavior intended by the author of the apacite package. You can see the apacite manual for more on this http://mirror.utexas.edu/ctan/biblio/bibtex/contrib/apacite/apacite.pdf
The author explains that the month field is not generally used with articles, but support is present because it is necessary to put month in for magazines, which is currently equivalent to article. A little bit of searching reveals that this issue has come up before. For example, see http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/74036/suppress-field-using-chicago-bibliography-style http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/65296/apacite-displays-month-in-references The solution suggested in the second link was to use apalike as opposed to apacite (leave the module the same, just select a different bibliography style). This seems to work, but I'm not sure what other differences it introduces. I hope this helps, Jacob
