HIV-1/AIDS and Military Manpower Policy (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (25 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Nov. 28, 2000 |
| Report Number |
RL30761 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
David Burrelli and Marte Wenaas, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
In October 1985, the Department of Defense (DOD) began screening all applicants for military
service for Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 or HIV-1. Such screening was controversial. Since
then, DOD has taken other actions and issued guidlelines on various aspects of its AIDS policy
which have been carefully watched and scrutinized by Congress, and other Federal and State
agencies because of their ground-breaking nature.
This report examines aspects of DOD policy on HIV-1/AIDS and legislation introduced to
modify this policy. Under current DOD policy, applicants who test positive for HIV-1 infection are
not eligible for enlistment or appointment to the military. This policy also sets guidelines on the
assignment of military personnel with HIV-1 infection, disease surveillance and health education,
retention, separation, safety of the blood supply, and limitations on the use of information.
In recent years, legislation has been introduced calling for the military separation of HIV-1-
positive personnel. However, these efforts have not been successful. The most recent
development
is that legislation in the FY2001 Defense Appropriations Act earmarks $10 million in defense
funding to help address the problem of HIV-1/AIDS in Africa.
The ongoing debate on HIV-1/AIDS and military manpower policy includes the following
issues. First, although HIV-1 testing procedures have remained largely the same, opponents have
suggested that the President should terminate testing. Second, concerns exist over the career
implications for personnel who test positive for HIV-1. These include providing information
concerning the source of the infection, assignment limitations, and the separation or retention of
service members who test positive for HIV-1. Third, AIDS could be expected to strain the military
health care system only if the rate of infection significantly increases. AIDS is an expensive illness
to treat; however, so far, the services have not incurred major economic impacts from the disease.
Fourth, although DOD took an early lead in medical research on AIDS, this role has been questioned.
Proponents of a continued DOD role cite DOD's ability to conduct extensive and controlled tests.
But, opponents argue that DOD clinical studies are redundant and wasteful. Fifth, DOD works to
protect military personnel and dependents from HIV-1 infection through testing, screening blood
supplies, and developing educational initiatives. If, in the future, DOD approaches this issue from
simply a readiness perspective, protection of personnel might include the separation of infected
service members. Such separations may have an effect on the member's access to health care and
future income. Sixth, current policy states that HIV-1-positive service members are not deployable
overseas. Were proposed legislation enacted to separate HIV-1-positive personnel, it would only
marginally affect the number available for deployment.
