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

[R.Caerbannog]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DocCallahan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Just pointing out the stupidity as I see it.

 

[SpitfireV]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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