Can you be denied assignment based on Medical status?

SSG Justin Patterson — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:11:53 -0400

I have a friend in the officer ranks who said that her initial unit diverted her via branch to another unit because she was pregnant (medically non-deployable) and that her unit was in the process of deploying. She claims EO. I tried to tell her that if she was supposed to be the PA and they only had room on the MTOE for one PA, they wouldn't take someone that wasn't fit to leave. Am I right or does she have a EO complaint?
Also, if you know of an Army or DD reg that can back up either stance, that would be great.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Oct 11 at 2015 2:18 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:18:45 -0400

SSG Justin Patterson I don't see it as EO, and you nailed it with your advice. Its based on manpower nor the definition of EO. She can always go to her local JAG or use IG if she felt obligated to do so!

Response by TSgt Erica Claus-numsali made Oct 11 at 2015 2:20 PM

TSgt Erica Claus-numsali — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:20:21 -0400

It wouldn't be a good idea to send her when she's pregnant because what if there were complications during her term? There isn't a prenatal clinic available out there.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 11 at 2015 2:37 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:37:37 -0400

It may or may not be EO, depending on the specifications of the billet or unit, and what her actual deployability status is.

If the billet is designated as "deployable" and she is designated as "non-deployable" for a medical condition, it's not EO. If the billet has no designation, or the unit itself has no designation you get a lot trickier.

You cannot "discriminate" based on pregnancy, that's a valid EO complaint. You can discriminate, if someone is unable to meet essential job requirements, like deployability.

But back to your initial question: "Can you be denied assignment based on Medical status?" I assume you mean Medical Deployability Status? If so, yes. Everything from Braces (on teeth) all the way to Pregnancy, because of things like specialized care and potential of complications. It changes your deployability status, which in turn forces the unit to request a replacement.

However, the unit can't assume they need a replacement until the status officially chances. That's the tricky part.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Oct 11 at 2015 2:44 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:44:51 -0400

The U.S military absolutely has the right to discriminate against just about anything. We discriminate against citizens who cannot meet medical, physical, and mental health standards, and we do for entrance into service, continued service, deployments, and reassignment. We all make sacrifices to our personal lives for the service, and this case is no different. DoDD 1020.02E would apply if the member were discriminated against for promotion, but in the case of reassignment or deployment it would not--this does not directly affect pay and other factors that would give a strong case for EO. I would be curious what her argument would be. Furthermore, officers are not treated like enlisted--I can tell you from personal experience. Based on limited information, and because this is the Internet, I would say that your officer friend needs to suck it up and be happy she has a job, because as a commissioned officer she serves as the convenience of the President.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 11 at 2015 2:48 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:48:32 -0400

You provided her sound counsel SSG Justin Patterson. It might be difficult to execute her duties with the unit if she cannot deploy. For what it's worth, here is the oath which she acknowledged when commissioned, I suggest looking at the big picture first (as you suggested) before assuming there is an EO issue....especially if the unit is deploying.

If she has more concerns, please remind her of this:
"I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

http://armypubs.army.mil/eforms/pdf/A71.PDF

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 11 at 2015 3:01 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:01:53 -0400

Units that are deploying should be full staffed to rock n roll when they hit the ground.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 11 at 2015 3:56 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:56:59 -0400

That is a laughable claim of EO for a unit that is heading into combat. There is either much more to the story that you were kept from knowing or that soldier was off her rocker. No time for shipping a pregnant soldier back and forth to CONUS for appointments. She is non-deployable; period. A unit is going out manned for their combat mission. A soldier like that is keeping the CoC from getting a replacement in time to head out. Her position is critical to the success of the mission and must be filled by someone who is able to see the mission thru to the end. It is incredibly selfish and self-serving for her to think otherwise.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Oct 11 at 2015 4:23 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:23:00 -0400

I don't think this EO complaint is going to go very far. It kind of sounds like this PA was supposed to go to an installation that she wanted and is now pissed because her orders were changed. Remember every action has an equal or greater reaction.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 11 at 2015 4:31 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:31:53 -0400

As a former Physical Exams and Standards guy, I have diverted many pregnancies from deployment, and I have sent many home from a deployed location because they somehow magically became pregnant in country (this could also be an LOR/A15 action depending on circumstance)... Pregnancy is not compatible with world wide/deployment/combat duties and you are considered non OCONUS deployable (Alaska/Hawaii/a few others excluded) until some months AFTER the pregnancy. What you told her is correct, and there is no EO complaint here. My branch is AF (AFI 48-123), but I worked for all branches in joint ops, and all reg were the same as it pertained to pregnancy, which is a 4T (Physical) Profile under PULHES.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Oct 11 at 2015 4:32 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:32:09 -0400

I had a Lt friend who was Pg and still smoked most 22 year old males with a pt up to her 8th month of pregnancy. I dont believe that being pregnant means your sick nor should it hamper your ability to perform your duties. I find this very funny coming at the time we all are having to hear that females are able to perform combat duties.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2015 8:11 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:11:29 -0400

The Navy diverts pregnant and injured people all the time. If you can't deploy why would you be in a deploying unit? Her EO claim doesn't make sense.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 3:58 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:58:53 -0400

Your advise was right on. HRC has an obligation to fill a deploying unit with deployable personnel. Medical reassignments and realignments happen all the time and quite frankly, necessary!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 7:49 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:49:26 -0400

Who in their right mind, while pregnant would want to deploy? If she is that stupid, then she needs to be put out, let alone raise a child

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 14 at 2015 4:55 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:55:44 -0400

I'm a little late to this party and you've already gotten spot-on advice so I'll just give my opinion.

Your friend is selfish, plain and simple. She has to think about the health of her baby first, it's not about her anymore.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 5:52 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 05:52:42 -0400

This isn't an EO situation. Especially if the unit was deploying to combat theater, or similar locations with limited medical coverage.

The SM is pregnant, now what happens when/if she's working somewhere and complications arise? Not only his her unit going to be left a SM down, they also must emergency evac, since most forward medical do not carry the necessary equipment to treat a full pregnancy emergency it's more likely than not she'll die enroute