[blindlaw] Update from Senator on my application to serve as a JAG.

[Mike Fry]

Your arguments are well thought out and reasoned.  If you take a step back to look at the bigger picture however it may appear that your request is unreasonable.  Your asking to allow a disabled person to become active duty military.  What would be the ramifications of establishing that kind of precedent?  It seems like a real up hill fight.  Are you sure it's worth it?  I think it is disgusting that some of the most rewarding and easiest professions - like military, cop, firefighter, nurse, etc - are closed off to disabled people.  You have an excellent point - the military is saying that a person who became disabled in service is somehow better than a person with a pre-existing disability even though objectively the ability level of both people is the same.  That's not fair.  Theres so much unfair about being disabled.  Not to be a downer but some times I think disabled people are the last truly unfortunate souls left in the rich world.  I hope you win.  The military shouldn't get away with this unfair practice.  Regrettably the only reasonable equitable outcome is that all the disabled vets should be discharged from active duty.  Applying inequitable subjective standards with tax payer money is not right.  



Sent from my iPad

On May 16, 2012, at 10:21 AM, "Dittman, Robert" <rdittman at stmarytx.edu> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> As many of you are aware, I am taking all steps that I know to apply for a medical waver to serve as a military JAG officer as authorized by title 10, U.S.C sec 12201 paragraph C.
> 
> Senator Cornyn's office forwarded me a response from the adjutant General for the Texas military forces which covers the Texas Army National Guard, and the Texas Air National Guard which stated "There is a difference between the regulations covering persons who are disabled before joining, and those who become disabled while in the military.""  They then gave an example that a person with DM2 cannot join but if they develop the condition while on active duty they may stay.
> 
> When I was teaching leadership at the Coast Guard academy, we would teach that there are three reasons why something does not get done.  They are:
> Ability, I am willing, but unable to do what you ask.
> Clarity, I am willing, but it is unclear what you are asking, so I do not know if I am able.
> Willingness, I am unwilling to do what you ask.
> 
> Regulations are governed by the laws.  Title 10 makes no distinction between service connected physical defects and those who are present at the time the person enters uniformed service.  Therefore the regulation can be waved sighting that the requirement to differentiate between the two and deny the waver is not supported by federal statute.  When it comes down to it, the military has accepted that blindness in certain situations does not make a person unfit for military service.  Therefore I argue that they can and should wave my request to join, or discharge the two members and do not keep any blind people on active duty as the condition clearly in their eyes makes a person unfit.  They should not have it both ways.
> So my question is it Ability, Clarity, Or unwillingness that is the road block.
> 
> The Department of Defense has also been asked for their comment and it will be forwarded to me and I will update.  I also wonder if the request went high enough in the chain of command.  The waver authority rests with the "Secretary concerned." And the request was vetted through the recruiting command.  This means that the person who has statutory authority to grant the waver perhaps has never seen it or is made aware of it, and this is a problem as they alone have the authority to grant the request.  I understand that the request can always be turned down, but in this case I am not getting the full extent of title 10 as the secretary concerned most likely has not had the chance to grant such a waiver.  They do not have to accept me, but they must let me apply to the secretary which they continue to deny me that application of title 10 U.S.C.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Dittman
> Research Fellow, Center for Terrorism Law,
> Jurist Doctor Candidate, St. Mary's University school of law
> EMAIL: rdittman at mail.stmarytx.edu<mailto:rdittman at mail.stmarytx.edu>
> PHONE: (210) 389 - 3388
> "True Justice is blind."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com