# Pentagon issues warning for non-deployable personnel: 'Deploy or be removed'



## AWP (Feb 15, 2018)

This is a hot topic in our shop this morning. Everyone who was in the service over the last decade is saying this is a huge problem. Thoughts?

Pentagon issues warning for non-deployable personnel: 'Deploy or be removed'



> The Pentagon on Wednesday announced a new “deploy or be removed” policy that could affect up to nearly 300,000 service members who have been non-deployable for the past 12 months.
> 
> “This new policy is a 12-month deploy or be removed policy,” Robert Wilkie, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and readiness on Wednesday.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 15, 2018)

AWP said:


> Everyone who was in the service over the last decade is saying this is a huge problem.



That there's so many non deployable people? I can imagine is a pretty big problem for readiness.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 16, 2018)

I agree with it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 16, 2018)

This will get interesting fast.

Similar to my prior restaurant days when I would have employees brag that they got pregnant "again" to keep their state financial assistance, I could point you to more than one female Marine who got herself knocked up to get herself out of upcoming deployments.  It became a joke to us that when we'd go somewhere, we'd leave the "womenfolk" back at the shop until we'd get back....it was always nice to see them get promoted and the best gigs while we were gone though.  

And the dudes who would keep blowing off dental appointments...man-oh-man.

Unfortunately according to the article pregnancy is an exception and I doubt there will be any adjustments made for serial pregnancies.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 16, 2018)

I thought the job of our military was to fight wars?  And since we haven't used the military to fight on American soil since 1864 (exceptions: used against the Bonus Army and Mexicans on the border), is it a reasonable assumption that it will be deployed OUTCONUS?

Non-deployable people are a burden.  Excise the dead flesh and drive on.

I have been out for a few years now, but when I was in it was just shocking to see how many people would get out of deployments.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 16, 2018)

They need to be careful, we have guys and gals on profile who can't get the treatment because the PA tries a slew of meds, then tries OT and Phys Therapy, and finally, grudgingly, sends them to a surgeon who tries injections before grudgingly scheduling surgery.
I've had it take 18 plus months before getting cut.

I'd dump the serial preggers, or make deployments worth promotion points and slowly freeze the preggers out.

Wonder if the transgender crew gets an exemption?


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 16, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> They need to be careful, we have guys and gals on profile who can't get the treatment because the PA tries a slew of meds, then tries OT and Phys Therapy, and finally, grudgingly, sends them to a surgeon who tries injections before grudgingly scheduling surgery.
> I've had it take 18 plus months before getting cut.
> 
> I'd dump the serial preggers, or make deployments worth promotion points and slowly freeze the preggers out.
> ...



RE: Transgender, great question, I had thought of it as well.

To your first point, agreed.  Some people on profile, their medical conditions take multiple steps over a period of time before being deemed salvageable or not.  In our practice I have dealt with 1 CTT dude, 1 F-15 driver from SJAFB, and a handful of SOF guys from Bragg.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 16, 2018)

If you are holding a deployable position and you are unemployable due to a health, civil or criminal issue, you should be moved. Free up the position, free up the promotion potential and keep the machine working.


----------



## CDG (Feb 16, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This will get interesting fast.
> 
> Similar to my prior restaurant days when I would have employees brag that they got pregnant "again" to keep their state financial assistance, I could point you to more than one female Marine who got herself knocked up to get herself out of upcoming deployments.  It became a joke to us that when we'd go somewhere, we'd leave the "womenfolk" back at the shop until we'd get back....it was always nice to see them get promoted and the best gigs while we were gone though.
> 
> ...



I knew one girl when I was in the Navy who intentionally got pregnant multiple times to avoid deployment.  She then would go get an abortion as soon as we were far enough into the deployment for her to not have to fly out to meet the ship.  Happened 3 times that I knew of, but she had been in for something like 8 years when she showed up at our boat, so who knows how many times total she did that.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 16, 2018)

CDG said:


> I knew one girl when I was in the Navy who intentionally got pregnant multiple times to avoid deployment.  She then would go get an abortion as soon as we were far enough into the deployment for her to not have to fly out to meet the ship.  Happened 3 times that I knew of, but she had been in for something like 8 years when she showed up at our boat, so who knows how many times total she did that.



That is disgusting!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2018)

This is an interesting development, but we need to be careful with this one.  "Non-deployable" doesn't necessarily mean "not useful."  And some people are non-deployable because of combat or other causes directly related to their service.  I've heard both GEN McChrystal and ADM McRaven say "don't judge your value to the fight by your proximity to the battlefield" and I agree with this sentiment completely.  In my experience, there are plenty of things we can have non-deployable people do back here that could help us/them up there.

My wife got involuntarily recalled to Active Duty to serve on rear-d as a backfill for a key position in a division that went downrange.  It would have saved the Army a lot of money, I think, and my family a lot of hassle, if they could have found a non-deployable Soldier to fill the position.  But people didn't want to move non-deployables around to different divisions/brigades.

On a related note, it's not like people are beating down recruiters' doors to join up.  We're having trouble meeting our recruiting goals, and the military is poised to increase its overall numbers.  Further complicating the situation, something like 70% of the military-aged civilian workforce is not even eligible to enlist.  It takes a ridiculous amount of money to recruit, train, equip, and field a member of the modern military.  We might be throwing away good money, and good people, by simply booting them out in a blanket policy instead of boarding them and repurposing the good ones.  

I'm personally more concerned with all of the senior officers and NCOs who could have deployed, but never did.  IMO we should focus on them.  We should also take a look at all of the ridiculous stuff people are allowed to do while taking up space on the Army's roles, things like "Athletic interns" or coaches at the Service Academies, Congressional Liaisons, World Class Athlete program, scholarships and fellowships, etc.

^from a guy who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq seven times and is not "non-deployable."


----------



## Poccington (Feb 16, 2018)

CDG said:


> I knew one girl when I was in the Navy who intentionally got pregnant multiple times to avoid deployment.  She then would go get an abortion as soon as we were far enough into the deployment for her to not have to fly out to meet the ship.  Happened 3 times that I knew of, but she had been in for something like 8 years when she showed up at our boat, so who knows how many times total she did that.



Holy shit.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 16, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> your post



True, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water; there are mitigating circumstances for a lot of people.  Given that there are people who are non-deployable but still productive members of military society, then perhaps the question the JCS needs to ask is, how do we restructure so that the personnel who are deployable can be deployed while the ones who cannot can fill state-side billets?


----------



## DC (Feb 16, 2018)

Take those that earn good evals off deployment status and get them in another NEC/MOS.
All NPQ get fit quick or gone.
As for med issues get care evaluate individually.
The goldbrickers get GDs and gone.
If managed correctly it could be a good thing. But as historical usual it will be FUBAR within minutes.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 16, 2018)

_"...nearly 100,000 are non-deployable because of administrative reasons like not having all their immunizations or their medical exams..."_

This ^^^ is an easy fix: get them to sickbay, take care of business and the 100K are once again deployable.

Some of the other problems are endemic of the times: women serving alongside men in units/ships that used to be men-only; and waivers issued to  potential recruits with medical issues or injuries to reach quota, or whatever. 

Combat wounded service members with continuing wound-related problems or complications who still want to serve are a different story. BTDT and they deserve some slack.

As far as goldbricks/skaters/shitbirds...well, they're always around, aren't they. Yeah, GD and a 10r boot in the ass.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 16, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> _"...nearly 100,000 are non-deployable because of administrative reasons like not having all their immunizations or their medical exams..."_
> 
> This ^^^ is an easy fix: get them to sickbay, take care of business and the 100K are once again deployable.



We had medical stand-downs to do this very thing, this is a _very_ easy fix.


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2018)

Take away some pay from the offenders, kill a commander's career, and watch how many people beg for immunizations.


----------



## Johca (Feb 19, 2018)

New Pentagon Separation Policy on Non-Deployable Service Members   has the actual interim policy implemented 14 Feb 2018


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 19, 2018)

Oh Linda.....


----------



## CDG (Feb 20, 2018)

Jesus christ.  Linda Pierce, you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Feb 20, 2018)

Linda is probably on the bottom of the Atlantic by now.....X-D


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2018)

Knife hand == force choke.


----------



## 256 (Feb 20, 2018)

Hopefully, for her sake, General Mattis hasn't heard about this. I just read an article about General Mattis' motorcade getting stuck in traffic and he made his staff hump it a mile to the meeting so they weren't late.

Mattis Was Late For A Speech, His Solution Will Make All Service Members Cheer


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 20, 2018)

I kind of wonder what kind of numbers we're talking about here.

The article says that 200,000 are non-deployable.  Of those, 100,000 are for easily-remedied petty bullshit like Dental CAT IV.  Another 20k are preggers.  So that leaves what 80K, from which you subtract those who got sick or wounded in combat, and what are you left with?  Something like 5% non-deployable?  That doesn't seem like an unreasonable number to me, especially when you consider what those individuals might be able to contribute to the fight, the high cost of recruiting and training, and the fact that people aren't beating down the doors to join the service.

Again, I'm much more concerned with those who can deploy and haven't than the ones who can't deploy, especially if they've already gone downrange at least once.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 20, 2018)

One in five Army generals could not deploy for medical reasons in 2016, data show

I understand most were for dental exams but still, what happened to leading from the front?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 20, 2018)

BloodStripe said:


> One in five Army generals could not deploy for medical reasons in 2016, data show
> 
> I understand most were for dental exams but still, what happened to leading from the front?



I sort of dealt with this kind of thing at a lower level, my SCO was dental cat 3 once and would not go to the dentist...considering USR is done monthly...finally got him to go but I had to schedule his appointment...Part of it has to do with the fact that these guys are either chained to a desk or in conference rooms chained to a chair as they die listening to a briefing.  And generals have aids for this crap.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 20, 2018)

BloodStripe said:


> One in five Army generals could not deploy for medical reasons in 2016, data show
> 
> I understand most were for dental exams but still, what happened to leading from the front?



The Army has too many bullshit training and readiness requirements.  There is literally more time required than time available.  So leaders have to do time triage.  "If I go to transgender training, or get a dental checkup, or this ridiculous online SERE course, what's NOT going to get done at the strategic leader level?"  The Army has been steadily peeling away stupid requirements, but it has a long way to go.


----------



## 4859 (Nov 20, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Oh Linda.....
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 21557



Hmmmmm.....

I think I saw him around Fallujah a bit when he was commanding operation phantom fury. Must have been a coincidence. Maybe it was a different James Mattis. Ours looked about 14 years younger.

*Looks in mirror* holy shit who the fuck is that old bastard?




I'm sure this takes certain mos's and conditions into account.

Sounds like to me this is adressing the deployment Dodgers, who circle around tradoc and korea rotations.


Personally I deployed when I was told, where I was told, and won where I was told to go. Won so hard a metal band in another country wrote a song about how hard I won. (And others, about a battalions worth, but mostly me). Feels good having a theme song.

And when my shit started to fall apart and I couldn't move mountains no more I was medically retired.

Army been good to me. Twice.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 24, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> The Army has too many bullshit training and readiness requirements.  There is literally more time required than time available.  So leaders have to do time triage.  "If I go to transgender training, or get a dental checkup, or this ridiculous online SERE course, what's NOT going to get done at the strategic leader level?"  The Army has been steadily peeling away stupid requirements, but it has a long way to go.



Totally agree. It isn't just the Army that has alot of readiness requirements. The DoD headshed level talks about "velocity and lethality" but I'm not seeing how all these requirements make us any more of either.


----------



## DocCallahan (Nov 29, 2018)

Pls deploy me. Though everybody I know that’s not SF is bored to tears. 

From what I see from Corpsmen, half of them want to go shore to shore duty (non operational commands) and get fat and a quarter just here for dat der TA and would rather claim psychological issues then to deploy. And the other third is rah kill. 

Though the Navy has a great knack at sending the motivated dudes to a command where they’ll never deploy and send the ones who don’t wanna go straight to grunt units. Back in A school the only kid that got grunt orders in my class was on FEP, meaning he couldn’t maintain the PT standard...


----------



## Gunz (Nov 29, 2018)

DocCallahan said:


> *Pls deploy me. Though everybody I know that’s not SF is bored to tears.*
> 
> From what I see from Corpsmen, half of them want to go shore to shore duty (non operational commands) and get fat and a quarter just here for dat der TA and would rather claim psychological issues then to deploy. And the other third is rah kill.
> 
> Though the Navy has a great knack at sending the motivated dudes to a command where they’ll never deploy and send the ones who don’t wanna go straight to grunt units. Back in A school the only kid that got grunt orders in my class was on FEP, meaning he couldn’t maintain the PT standard...




For trigger-pullers and other motivated types, the great killer of proficiency and morale is boredom. Worst situation is to be in garrison and have a command that likes frequent  inspections, cleaning the shitters and other bullshit details...instead of keeping you busy training in your MOS, i.e., range time, working with helos, armor, amtracs, field exercises, amphib ops etc. Yeah,_ please deploy me_ is right. 

There are enough alcoholics in Fayetteville and Jacksonville...don't need to create any new ones.


----------



## DocCallahan (Nov 29, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> For trigger-pullers and other motivated types, the great killer of proficiency and morale is boredom. Worst situation is to be in garrison and have a command that likes frequent  inspections, cleaning the shitters and other bullshit details...instead of keeping you busy training in your MOS, i.e., range time, working with helos, armor, amtracs, field exercises, amphib ops etc. Yeah,_ please deploy me_ is right.
> 
> There are enough alcoholics in Fayetteville and Jacksonville...don't need to create any new ones.



One hundred percent of my range time is personal time and I pay out of pocket. I’m the only person on my team that works out regularly and 3 people can’t pass the navy’s easy PT test. I offer to PT them but they don’t want to. 

I can bitch all day but it’s up to me to maintain the standard. I’m slated to go to a grunt unit in a few months, we will see what happen. I just pray it’s a good command and they’ll let me go train and TDY/TAD to some good trainings.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 29, 2018)

DocCallahan said:


> One hundred percent of my range time is personal time and I pay out of pocket. I’m the only person on my team that works out regularly and 3 people can’t pass the navy’s easy PT test. I offer to PT them but they don’t want to.
> 
> I can bitch all day but it’s up to me to maintain the standard. I’m slated to go to a grunt unit in a few months, we will see what happen. I just pray it’s a good command and they’ll let me go train and TDY/TAD to some good trainings.



I have been on both ends of the extremes.  90s, no money for anything extra, but with infantry units, we still trained like mad, PTd, etc.  Post-9/11, FSSG unit, money coming out the ass, no one did anything: fat Marines, pregnant, non-deployable WMs, lazy.  Sad.  Post-9/11 infantry?  Holy hell...money, money, money, everyone was studs, we pulled bad teeth so everyone was deployable (and everyone wanted to deploy!).  I would take every cent I had--mine or Uncle Sugar's--to train me, my Sailors, and/or my Marines.

Some of the medical standards that DoD used to deem one "non-deployable" was horseshit, but some were legit.  But if someone is non-deployable, they are part of the landscape and need to be excised from the body.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 29, 2018)

DocCallahan said:


> One hundred percent of my range time is personal time and I pay out of pocket. I’m the only person on my team that works out regularly and 3 people can’t pass the navy’s easy PT test. I offer to PT them but they don’t want to.
> 
> I can bitch all day but it’s up to me to maintain the standard. I’m slated to go to a grunt unit in a few months, we will see what happen. I just pray it’s a good command and they’ll let me go train and TDY/TAD to some good trainings.




Training, a few TDY assignments, a Carib MEU, Jungle Warfare School -- all that and field exercises saved my sorry ass post Vietnam. If they hadn't kept me busy with training and deployments, I would've been getting hammered every night in J-Town.

And even then, there was downtime. I took MCI courses and bought books and read in my rack. You can't let yourself stagnate.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 22, 2018)

HIV-positive airmen sue Pentagon, Air Force to stop their discharges

If this gains any traction, the implications will spread wide.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 23, 2018)

BloodStripe said:


> HIV-positive airmen sue Pentagon, Air Force to stop their discharges
> 
> If this gains any traction, the implications will spread wide.


Never realized that being HIV positive was acceptable in any service branch. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I remember everyone having to maintain a certain level of health to enlist/reenlist. Did things go wonky somewhere? It just seems weird that chicks are green lighted to take testosterone and dudes are okayed to chop off their nads.

Add on: Just curious to see if anyone has any information on this. It just looks like things have gotten super weird in the service.


----------



## LimaPanther (Dec 23, 2018)

I remember when my youngest daughter was in and came down with asthma, she was a crew chief on hueys, they grounded her and said she would have to get out because she was nondeployable. That was before Iraq got started. She was told that by going overseas she might not be able to get her inhalers. On another subject, never did understand why my 2 girls and son went into the military after traveling around so many years with the old man.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 23, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Never realized that being HIV positive was acceptable in any service branch. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I remember everyone having to maintain a certain level of health to enlist/reenlist. Did things go wonky somewhere? It just seems weird that chicks are green lighted to take testosterone and dudes are okayed to chop off their nads.
> 
> Add on: Just curious to see if anyone has any information on this. It just looks like things have gotten super weird in the service.


Well, with it being cool for the DoD to pay for gender re-assignment to make the soldier non-deployable...I ain't surprised by this. I never met anyone that tested positive for HIV/AIDS.  But supposedly they get reassigned on post and sit in a room where they can't injure themselves and possibly expose others? (Or so the story went at BOLC).


----------



## DocCallahan (Dec 23, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Never realized that being HIV positive was acceptable in any service branch. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I remember everyone having to maintain a certain level of health to enlist/reenlist. Did things go wonky somewhere? It just seems weird that chicks are green lighted to take testosterone and dudes are okayed to chop off their nads.
> 
> Add on: Just curious to see if anyone has any information on this. It just looks like things have gotten super weird in the service.



I don’t know what the rules are for HIV pos service members as far as assignments. But I have treated a few of them. There’s a certain demographic of males where it’s more prevalent. I don’t think they’re easily deployable though. 

I’ve been told in the Navy they can only be stationed at San D or Virginia but I don’t have the NavAdmin on that though, I’m sure I could get some information when I get back from leave.


----------



## GOTWA (Dec 23, 2018)

BloodStripe said:


> ...the implications will spread wide.


I see what you did there...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 23, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well, with it being cool for the DoD to pay for gender re-assignment to make the soldier non-deployable...I ain't surprised by this. I never met anyone that tested positive for HIV/AIDS.  But supposedly they get reassigned on post and sit in a room where they can't injure themselves and possibly expose others? (Or so the story went at BOLC).


Well that sounds about right, or as close to making sense from a big army liability standpoint. I remember guys that got injured during jumps being assigned to 'bitchwork' at the company as punishment. Would have thought someone testing positive for HIV/AIDS in an Infantry battalion would have been grounds for separation.

I remember guys being booted after the surge, for no other reason than having had a criminal record prior to enlisting. It just seems counterproductive that the branches would keep some one with an illness such as HIV/AIDS. Maybe combat arms is different or used to be different, though I don't even know what goes on the support side.



DocCallahan said:


> I don’t know what the rules are for HIV pos service members as far as assignments. But I have treated a few of them. There’s a certain demographic of males where it’s more prevalent. I don’t think they’re easily deployable though.
> 
> I’ve been told in the Navy they can only be stationed at San D or Virginia but I don’t have the NavAdmin on that though, I’m sure I could get some information when I get back from leave.


I'm probably going to sound like a troglodyte, but bear with me. Are service members with HIV open about their status or do they keep it hidden? It just seems like a service member being HIV positive is akin to playing with fire, from a personnel standpoint.


----------



## Bunsickle (Dec 23, 2018)

Testing positive for HIV is an automatic permanent DQ for new recruits/applicants at MEPS. Not sure what the rules are for AD/Current Guard already in. All I know is i would not want a blood transfusion on the battle field with a red tagged donor, I’d rather die...


----------



## Bunsickle (Dec 23, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I remember guys being booted after the surge, for no other reason than having had a criminal record prior to enlisting.



Wait...Not wanting to drift off thread, but this sparks my interest. ...How is that so? In an SF unit or in general?. During the surge they needed every swinging dick. Why would they do a background check on every person on orders? That makes no sense.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 23, 2018)

Bunsickle said:


> Testing positive for HIV is an automatic permanent DQ for new recruits/applicants at MEPS. Not sure what the rules are for AD/Current Guard already in. All I know is i would not want a blood transfusion on the battle field with a red tagged donor, I’d rather die...



Everyone says that until they’re bleeding to death.

If you were injured badly enough in an austere enough location that your doc had to initiate a walking blood bank to do a fresh whole blood transfusion, you should take it and be thankful. The alternative is death.  Blood transfusions are risky animals, particularly from a walking blood bank, but HIV is the least of my concerns.

It’s like the argument about not using host nation medical facilities or host nation blood supplies when nothing else is available and the alternative is death.  Smart medics disagree, especially as the ability to provide rapid MEDEVAC decreases exponentially in current and future theaters.

Use what ya got, stay alive to get to the CONUS and we can manage your HIV.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 23, 2018)

Yeah I was going to say, HIV these days is very manageable and rarely turns to AIDS unless the patient is slack.


----------



## DocCallahan (Dec 24, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I'm probably going to sound like a troglodyte, but bear with me. Are service members with HIV open about their status or do they keep it hidden? It just seems like a service member being HIV positive is akin to playing with fire, from a personnel standpoint.



I’m sure they’re private about it. 

However I am need to know of pertinent medical/surgical history. 

I do know the member unfortunately won’t be able to serve overseas in any capacity for any duration of time. 

This may change in the coming years, but I’m sure manpower see’s certain flags for restrictions of assignment for any given member.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 24, 2018)

It's the policy of the DOD to deny enlistment or pre-appointment to all people who have lab evidence showing HIV infection.  So for Enlisted Service-members that's a denial for re-enlistment.  I suppose for Officers you'd get a flag that makes you non-promotable when boards come up.

So manageable vs. deployable are two different things.  All blood in the ASBP is screened just like the Red Cross blood program.  The person is informed and then the batch is destroyed. What you can't screen of course are supplies in foreign hospitals when its STHF.  If the blood comes from the Red Crescent Blood Program it has been tested under the same protocols that the Red Cross adheres to from the IFRC.

We have a lot of health disqualifiers for Military Service.  HIV, Asthma, Diabetes...this isn't about manageability on the individual, this is about supply train logistics.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 24, 2018)

It's stupid this would even have to be a debate. HIV positive service members in the fucking military, how goddamn dumb has this country become...


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 24, 2018)

What's the problem if they get it after enlisting and don't work in a frontline combat role? Shit happens and if they're a good serviceman why lose them?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 24, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> What's the problem if they get it after enlisting and don't work in a frontline combat role? Shit happens and if they're a good serviceman why lose them?



What is not front line now, medical field, recruiter maybe? And the problem is pretty fucking obvious, other service members being exposed to the HIV viruses, how about not occurring the cost of treating them for HIV. Shit happens is right,  getting the HIV viruses is a show stopper for serving in the United States military as it very obviously should be.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 24, 2018)

Easy on. I'm thinking work like intel or operations centres where it's basically office based. There's very little chance of exposure to the virus unless there's  unprotected sex involved so why not keep a good soldier that does a good job and has time and money invested in them.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 24, 2018)

Where would it benefit the military? We boot lots of people with tons of experience for things that are not medical related. Maybe it makes sense at the time,  maybe it doesn't. But the reason is always for the greater good of the military and not the individuals wants or desire.

In no way,  does it benefit any branch of service to enlist, commission or retain someone with HIV.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 24, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> What's the problem if they get it after enlisting and don't work in a frontline combat role? Shit happens and if they're a good serviceman why lose them?


We kick out plenty of "good" servicemen everyday for less.


----------



## medicchick (Dec 24, 2018)

So tattoos would get you booted but HIV lets you stay in?

Just pointing out the stupidity as I see it.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 24, 2018)

I'll reply to you guys when I get home to a PC but in the meantime...



ThunderHorse said:


> We kick out plenty of "good" servicemen everyday for less.



I'll start replying to you when you can actually reply to followup posts.


----------



## digrar (Dec 24, 2018)

People with HIV who are squared away with their medical treatment, are presenting with undetectable viral loads. A 2014 study found that 28,000 hetrosexual sexual encounters and 16,400 homosexual sexual encounters, with a HIV infected partner with undetectable HIV viral loads, produced no HIV transmissions. 
 2 or 3 pills a day and a viral load test a couple of times a year is the only impact the virus has on them. 

In saying that, when you're binning people for tattoos and asthma, it stands to reason that having HIV will be a condition that would lead to a medical separation.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 24, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Where would it benefit the military? We boot lots of people with tons of experience for things that are not medical related. Maybe it makes sense at the time,  maybe it doesn't. But the reason is always for the greater good of the military and not the individuals wants or desire.
> 
> In no way,  does it benefit any branch of service to enlist, commission or retain someone with HIV.



Lots of ways, actually. You've already spent money on the person and made them asset, so if they are in a career field that doesn't require you to deploy as often or to austere environments, such as cyber, acquisitions, certain intelligence billets, etc, maybe it's time we reevaluate the disease and our perceptions of it. 

I'd rather take a 500lb slob who is the world's best cyber defense person than a 200lb 3% jacked cyber dude who can't do half the shit the other cyber dude can.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 24, 2018)

DocCallahan said:


> I’m sure they’re private about it.
> 
> However I am need to know of pertinent medical/surgical history.
> 
> ...


Well shoot, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification Doc.


----------

