The Army is reportedly editing a personnel policy to allow soldiers to request reassignment if they believe state or local laws discriminate against them.
What are the details?
The proposed policy would allow soldiers to request reassignment if they believe local laws discriminate against them on the basis of “gender, sex, religion, race or pregnancy,” according to Military.com.
The news outlet described the policy as one of the “most progressive policies” under consideration by the military, which would essentially allow “soldiers to declare that certain states are too racist, too homophobic, too sexist or otherwise discriminatory to be able to live there safely and comfortably,” Military.com noted.
If adopted, the policy would change under which circumstances soldiers can be granted a “compassionate reassignment.” Army guidelines explain compassionate requests are granted for matters that “cannot be resolved through the use of leave, correspondence, power of attorney, or the help of Family members or other parties.”
Senior Army leaders have not yet been briefed about the proposed policy change.
Lindsay Church of Minority Veterans of America praised the proposal as being necessary because of alleged anti-LGBT environments.
“Some states are becoming untenable to live in; there’s a rise in hate crimes and rise in LGBT discrimination,” Church told Military.com. “In order to serve this country, people need to be able to do their job and know their families are safe. All of these states get billions for bases but barely tolerate a lot of the service members.”
What did the Army say?
“The Army does not comment on leaked draft documents,” said Army spokeswoman Angel Tomko. “AR 600-100 and 600-200 establish the criteria for which soldiers may request for a compassionate reassignment. The chain of command is responsible for ensuring Soldiers and Families’ needs are supported and maintain a high quality of life.”
The proposal was reportedly dispatched through military wires before the leak of a Supreme Court opinion draft indicating the court had voted to overturn abortion precedents.
Whether the policy proposal would apply to so-called “reproductive health care,” i.e., the ability of women to obtain an abortion, is not clear.