The Pentagon is being sued for allegedly discriminating against people living with HIV

It is a, so far, incurable infectious blood born disease. Besides the threat to th others the battlefield poses a threat even to the person infected, battlefield are known for getting bloody

So lemme see if I got this correct.... Goober with a serious medical condition wants to joint up where he can put more people at risk of contracting his condition because, gosh darn it, he's always wanted to be in the military. Is that about the gist of it? In the words of COL Sherman T Potter, Commander M*A*S*H 4077, "Mule Muffins!"

First, I have serious concerns about his judgement. The article doesn't elaborate but I'm going to assume he didn't become HIV positive through contaminated blood/blood product transfusion. That leaves the two most common routes of exposure of IV drug abuse and unprotected sexual activity. Given the high risk of STD's in today's society, it calls into question his ability to apply critical thinking and risk avoidance. Both are traits needed for leaders in the military. He appears to have neither. He poses a risk to fellow service members even at garrison. Combatives training (and sometimes even normal PT events) can be bloody affairs. I've walked away from Combatives with a bloody nose by virtue of participation (I shoulda ducked instead of weaving! lol) Hell, even a paper cut in the office could potentially expose others to a health risk. We're not exactly talking a case of the "cooties" here. He states he was an NCO before leaving the service to pursue a law degree. Apparently he did not learn the lesson of putting his Soldier's and the Army's needs before his own.

Second, assuming he is allowed to join, he would be permanently prohibited from deploying and most likely prohibited from assignment at certain overseas locations. The ever shrinking military only has so many billets for personnel. The more non-deployables we have, the more burden is placed on a shrinking pool of eligible members for deployments. With heavy ops tempos and back to back deployments being cited as reasons valuable soldiers are choosing to ETS, placing an ever higher likelihood of deployment doesn't pass muster.

Third, how the hell did we ever get to a point where the courts are dictating law and policy to the nation? I thought that was the purview of the Executive Branch (POTUS) and the Legislative Branch (Congress) to enact laws with the Judicial Branch (SCOTUS) having the burden of making sure they meet Constitutional validity. Pretty sure I learned that in Civics class in high school. By resorting to having the courts bully DoD to make exception for one spoiled entitled brat, it sets a bad and potentially dangerous precedent to allow other medically unfit individuals to join. The US military is the World's premier fighting force primarily due to its adherence to higher standards. Lowering those standards puts the very safety of the Nation at risk.

DoD has not, nor should it ever be, an equal opportunity employer. Having Asthma, diabetes, gout, flat foot, sleep apnea, ADHD, hypertension, COPD, and epilepsy are all conditions that could bar enlistment. I feel bad for this individual. HIV is a devastating disease that often eventually proves fatal (usually due to other complications). Why should one person be granted an exception because of selfish reasoning?

So I'm still very ignorant of this specific issue, and a little knowledgeable of those who live with HIV. From what I'm understanding you can remain in uniform in your specific rank structure if you contract HIV while in service. Regardless how it's contracted, you can serve but highly limiting since you're none deployable in the Army. Recently the Navy allowed HIV Sailors and Marines additional duty arraignments (https://www.stripes.com/news/navy-opens-more-assignments-to-hiv-positive-sailors-marines-1.250403) but unsure of its effects or level of care required to continue service with the medical condition.

I will say under personal opinion as someone who doesn't have HIV, the same situation could've applied to my soldiers who decided to have back to back pregnancies without a record apft when they're trying to reenlist. I understand wanting a family, most of us do. But the army is fairly strict on readiness when my CO back in 2013 told one of the soldiers in helping their renlistment packet said that she can't legally continue service since she never had a record apft for nearly two years (after she completed post-partum recovery) and her window for reenlist would be closed before she completed all medical care. Should she sue the DoD for not being made aware of these rules (benefit of the doubt), or forgoing the rules at the time knowing it would've risked her chance to remain in service (possibility)? Was this soldier given ample reasoning to not go into the Officer Corps? The need to be more information on this case.