2025:
"The Board reasonably rejected this contention as well. It explained that “the medical standards for enlistment into the military are very different and far more restrictive than are the medical standards for retention in the military.” AR 2294.3 "
Why does the court say something that is not even in the instructions they are discussing?
DOD INSTRUCTION 6130.03, VOLUME 1
MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR MILITARY SERVICE:
APPOINTMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR INDUCTION
or
DOD INSTRUCTION 6130.03, VOLUME 2
MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR MILITARY SERVICE: RETENTION
Volume 1 actually states this.
b. The medical standards in this volume do not apply to the following:
(1) For medical conditions or defects that predate the current enlistment and were
aggravated in the line of duty refer to Volume 2.
(2) For medical conditions or defects that did not predate the current enlistment or
appointment, but that occurred during the initial period of active duty refer to Volume 2.
(3) For Service members currently serving in the Individual Ready Reserves refer to
Volume 2.
----
They, with these adversarial, quotes, made out of thin air, would attempt to keep service members away from care and entitlement and benefit for injuries that are 100 Percent LOD Line of Duty
--
There are so many contradictory, terrible, detrimental statements by government officials, to limit and keep a service member from protection, it is astounding. Every instruction, all evidence, is interpreted to be meaningless, as into getting care in the military.
There is no baseline or concept that medical care is ever rendered before and up to the point of a fitness for duty determination.
----
You have to imagine a young kid in a terrible military command that the branch is actively shutting down, and attempts a patriotic branch transfer, that the DOD Medical Examination stops permanently medically. You would think logically that needs to be followed up on, with treatment, and identifying the military stressors that are causing the conditions. You could still retain the member who is patriotic. But to ignore him and then hold his records in another data base, and send him back to the same command, is contrary to what is correct and proper, breaks all common sense and military ethics.
If a judge can not see themselves going through a similar situation as proper, then why allow it on a young service member?
"The Board reasonably rejected this contention as well. It explained that “the medical standards for enlistment into the military are very different and far more restrictive than are the medical standards for retention in the military.” AR 2294.3 "
Why does the court say something that is not even in the instructions they are discussing?
DOD INSTRUCTION 6130.03, VOLUME 1
MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR MILITARY SERVICE:
APPOINTMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR INDUCTION
or
DOD INSTRUCTION 6130.03, VOLUME 2
MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR MILITARY SERVICE: RETENTION
Volume 1 actually states this.
b. The medical standards in this volume do not apply to the following:
(1) For medical conditions or defects that predate the current enlistment and were
aggravated in the line of duty refer to Volume 2.
(2) For medical conditions or defects that did not predate the current enlistment or
appointment, but that occurred during the initial period of active duty refer to Volume 2.
(3) For Service members currently serving in the Individual Ready Reserves refer to
Volume 2.
----
They, with these adversarial, quotes, made out of thin air, would attempt to keep service members away from care and entitlement and benefit for injuries that are 100 Percent LOD Line of Duty
--
There are so many contradictory, terrible, detrimental statements by government officials, to limit and keep a service member from protection, it is astounding. Every instruction, all evidence, is interpreted to be meaningless, as into getting care in the military.
There is no baseline or concept that medical care is ever rendered before and up to the point of a fitness for duty determination.
----
You have to imagine a young kid in a terrible military command that the branch is actively shutting down, and attempts a patriotic branch transfer, that the DOD Medical Examination stops permanently medically. You would think logically that needs to be followed up on, with treatment, and identifying the military stressors that are causing the conditions. You could still retain the member who is patriotic. But to ignore him and then hold his records in another data base, and send him back to the same command, is contrary to what is correct and proper, breaks all common sense and military ethics.
If a judge can not see themselves going through a similar situation as proper, then why allow it on a young service member?
-
Image 7-28-25 at 5.20 PM.jpeg -
Image 7-28-25 at 5.18 PM.jpeg -
IMG_3893.jpeg -
IMG_3892.jpeg -
Image 7-28-25 at 5.25 PM.jpeg