66,000 Troops Non-Deployable Due to Illness or Injury as of 2018—What That Really Means

In 2018, the Department of Defense released a staggering figure: approximately 66,000 active duty service members were classified as non-deployable due to illness or injury. That’s not a small number—it represented roughly 13–14% of the total U.S. military force at the time. But what does this actually mean for the military, for the service members affected, and for the future of how we treat our troops?

🚨 The Non-Deployable Label: More Than a Classification

Being labeled “non-deployable” doesn’t necessarily mean a service member is unfit to serve. In many cases, it means they’re temporarily or permanently unable to deploy overseas due to medical, administrative, or psychological conditions.

These include:

• Combat-related injuries

• Training accidents

• Chronic conditions (e.g., back injuries, sleep apnea)

• Mental health conditions like PTSD

• Recovering from surgery or awaiting disability evaluations

Some troops bounce back. Others—despite their skills and dedication—face administrative discharge simply for not meeting the strict deployability standard, even if they could still serve effectively in cyber, logistics, training, or administrative roles.

🛡️ Who Are These 66,000?

According to DoD policy, anyone who is non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months is subject to separation or medical retirement unless they receive a waiver. This disproportionately affects:

• Injured combat veterans

• Service members recovering from surgery

• Those undergoing evaluation for service-connected disabilities

• Troops dealing with Military Sexual Trauma (MST) or mental health challenges

In many cases, these individuals still have valuable contributions to make. Their careers—and lives—are disrupted not because of misconduct or refusal to serve, but because the system lacks flexibility.

⚖️ The Policy: DoD Instruction 1332.45

The underlying regulation, DoD Instruction 1332.45, mandates strict timelines for deployability and prescribes administrative separation for those who exceed them. While well-intended as a readiness measure, critics argue the policy fails to account for modern warfare needs and the human cost of discharging experienced troops.

💔 The Human Impact

• Loss of purpose: Many medically discharged veterans report feeling discarded and betrayed by the very institution they served.

• Financial insecurity: Early discharge often cuts off stable income, healthcare, and retirement benefits.

• Mental health strain: Feelings of guilt, shame, and depression are common among those discharged for injuries.

💡 The Path Forward

Advocates are calling for:

• Reassignment options for non-deployable but capable troops

• Expanded support roles within the military structure

• Policy reform to make separation a last resort, not the default

• Recognition that recovery is service too

✊ Why It Matters

The 66,000 figure isn’t just a statistic—it’s a warning sign. If we continue down a path of one-size-fits-all discharge policies, we risk losing valuable personnel and failing those who were willing to risk everything for this country.

It’s time for a more compassionate, strategic approach—one that understands service doesn’t end at injury, and readiness must include how we care for our own.

🔗 Support the #ReasonableRanks campaign for reassignment options and policy reform:

Sign the Petition

🌐 Learn more: www.covenantofcourage.com/reasonableranks-action

#VeteransDeserveBetter #ReasonableRanks #SupportOurTroops #MilitaryReform #InjuredNotInvalid