Below are some facts on genetic discrimination by the United States Armed Forces. I'm an Army Brat and, in most cases, have always been proud of it. However how our Armed Forces are allowed to have policies that differ from Federal employees or any U.S. Citizens other then in the interest of 'national security' totally escapes me!
According to the information I found this morning, the US Armed forces takes a DNA sample from every incoming recruit. Failure to allow them to take your DNA could subject you to a court-martial.
I'd suggested anyone considering enlisting read the below two articles "Genes in Uniform: Don't Test, Don't Tell" and
"Genetic Discrimination in the Military". Based on what I learned, I think I'd tell any young person at-risk to avoid enlisting in our armes services, period!
Love
Jean
Genetic Discrimination and the Department of Defense Armed Forces
GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT
H.R. 493 of 2007 - Still waiting for Senate vote then Presidential approval. Also known as ?GINA,?, this Act is to protect to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. Even if it becomes law, it will NOT apply to military personnel.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENETIC DISCRIMINATION POLICY
Department of Defense (DoD) policy contains a significant exclusion for genetic diseases, stating, ?Any injury or disease discovered after a Service member enters active duty ? with the exception of congenital and hereditary conditions ? is presumed to have been incurred in the line of duty? (DoD Instruction 1332.38, section E.3.P.4.5.2.2.2). Genetic predispositions are often completely asymptomatic and usually unknown to the person who has them, although they do increase the likelihood of a disease state. In circumstances in which an active duty service member develops a disease and has been found to have a genetic predisposition to this disease, the armed forces have considered genetic predisposition to disease to be equivalent to genetic disease existing prior to service. This has caused service members who have been discharged from the military because of a medical condition to be denied benefits by medical and disability evaluation boards.
EXCEPTION - 8 YEAR RULE
Upon entering active duty, service members are presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition, except for any medical defects and physical disabilities noted at the time of entrance. After active duty commences, any injury or disease discovered ?is presumed to have been incurred in the line of duty,? unless it results from the enlistee's misconduct or negligence. When injury or disease renders service members unfit for duty, they receive a medical discharge and disability benefits, regardless of their length of service. An exception to the policy may be possible if the genetic disorder was aggravated by military service.
Another exception, instituted in 1999, grants benefits to personnel who have served eight years. This was done by the Office of Management and Budget who decided on the longer, 8-year term to grant benefits to personnel to conform with other military health and retirement guidelines, according to an OMB official. The DoD established a policy that supports disability benefits, even in cases of diseases which have a genetic predisposition,IF a service member has completed at least eight years of active duty. Whether eight years ? two complete tours of duty ? is an appropriate baseline to qualify for health care and disability benefits is questionable.
DISCHARGED WITHOUT BENEFITS
Those medically discharged with genetic diseases from the U.S. Armed Forces are left without disability or retirement benefits.
DOCTOR'S ADVISE MILIARY PATIENTS NOT TO TEST
August 30, 2007 [
www.eyeondna.com] - To keep their military patients from being denied health benefits, doctors are now advising their patients to avoid genetic testing of all forms, including private testing. Dr. Mark Nunes, who headed the Air Force Genetics Center?s DNA diagnostic laboratory at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi: If someone called me up with regard to genetic testing, I had to say, ?That might not be something you want to pursue.? You could get court-martialed if it were revealed that you had sought medical treatment or testing outside the system.
US DEPT. OF DEFENSE AUTOMATICALLY TESTS FOR DNA
On Dec. 16, 1991, the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense quietly issued an obscure memo that opened the largest DNA bank in the world. The directive required that every member of the U.S. armed forces and all new recruits provide the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology with a DNA sample, which would be maintained on file for 75 years. The goal of this ongoing program is to obtain specimens for all active and reserve personnel by 2001 for a very simple reason: to make it easier to identify battlefield dead. [2 men challedged the DNA testing] In September 1995, a federal court ruled in favor of the government in Mayfield vs. Dalton (901 F. Supp.300), holding that its interest in accounting for the fate of soldiers and assuring peace of mind to next of kin overrode the constitutional interest of individual service personnel in being free from searches and seizures. The military's policy of requiring DNA testing of its members has not changed.
RISK OF COURT MARTIAL FOR TESTING OUTSIDE OF THE MILITARY
The direction to a soldier, sailor, airman,or marine to contribute a DNA sample is a lawful order which, if disobeyed, subjects the service member to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If convicted at court-martial for the offense of violating a lawful general order, the service member carries the lifelong stigma of a federal felony conviction, and faces a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for two years, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
Getting genetic tests through civilian channels is not an option because it would violate the uniform code of military justice. "You could get court-martialed if it were revealed that you had sought medical treatment or testing outside the system," Nunes said. Most soldiers have no idea about the genetic rule, much less have a reason to challenge it. For those who choose to fight, it can be arduous process.
REFERENCED SOURCES;
H.R. 493: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act [GINA] of 2007
To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
[
www.govtrack.us]
Introduced - Jan 16, 2007
Scheduled for Debate - Feb 14, 2007
Passed House [details] - Apr 25, 2007
Voted on in Senate - TBD
Signed by President - TBD
Note: This bill is identical to S. 358 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007
Genetics & Public Policy Center
[
www.dnapolicy.org]
Genetic Discrimination in the Military
May 2007 - Genetics & Public Policy
[
www.dnapolicy.org]
Genes in Uniform: Don't Test, Don't Tell
January 10, 2006 Genetics Perspectives on Policy Seminar
[
www.dnapolicy.org]
US Military Practices Genetic Discrimination in Denying Benefits
Full article: [
www.truthout.org]
By Karen Kaplan The Los Angeles Times Saturday 18 August 2007
United States Military Right to Collect DNA
Full artice mentioned above: NY Times: April 13, 1996 [
query.nytimes.com]
The United States military maintains the world's largest repository of DNA samples in Gaithersburg, Md. Its principal purpose, Pentagon officials say, is to help identify service members in difficult cases when their bodies are mutilated. But the Pentagon has also listed other circumstances in which the genetic indicators might be used, including some criminal investigations. The Pentagon established the policy in 1991 and began collecting tissue samples in June 1992. Pentagon officials said the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Gaithersburg had more than a million samples and the goal was to have a complete record of the genes of active service members by 1999. There are about 1.5 million people in uniform. In addition to body identification, Pentagon regulations allow samples to be used by a donor or surviving next-of-kin; by judicial order, or for investigation of a crime punishable by a year or more in confinement
The Army Lawyer - [
www.loc.gov]
Headquarters, Department of Army -Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-363 July/August 2003
The Department of Defense (DOD) began to use DNA samples to identify the remains of service members during the first Gulf War in 1991.?Because of problems with obtaining reliable DNA samples during the Gulf War, the DOD began a program to collect and store reference specimens of DNA from members of the active duty and reserve forces.? What was then called the ?DOD DNA Registry,? a program within the Armed Forces Institute of pathology, was established pursuant to a December 16, 1991 memorandum of the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Under this program, DNA specimens are collected from active duty and reserve military personnel upon their enlistment, reenlistment, or preparation for operational deployment.
As of December 2002, the Repository, now known as the ?Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains,?contained the DNA of approximately 3.2 million service members. According to a recent DOD directive, the ?provision of specimen samples by military members shall be mandatory.? The direction to a soldier, sailor, airman,or marine to contribute a DNA sample is a lawful order which, if disobeyed, subjects the service member to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If convicted at court-martial for the offense of violating a lawful general order, the service member carries the lifelong stigma of a federal felony conviction, and faces a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for two years, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
Does the 2002 change pass constitutional muster?
Document Conclusion - The DOD Repository continues to have a special need apart from general, ordinary, or normal law enforcement as its primary and immediate purpose?the identification of remains of fallen service members. As long as that is the case, the mandatory collection of samples for the Repository does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is true despite the fact that the Repository is accessible for investigative or prosecutorial purposes (and has been accessible for those purposes since shortly after its inception) and, as such, has an ultimate purpose that is not separate from general, ordinary, or normal law enforcement. If the Repository is accessed for law enforcement purposes so often that the purpose actually served by the Repository becomes primarily and immediately law enforcement rather than remains identification, it will lose its constitutional legitimacy regardless of the beneficent purpose for which it was founded. The special need justifying the DOD Repository?s establishment in the first place will evaporate, leaving only an unconstitutional search and seizure in its place.