Rethinking Risk: Why Military Career Reassignment Is Smarter, Not Softer

In the national conversation around military discharge reform, especially efforts like the #ReasonableRanks campaign, critics often raise a powerful question: “Wouldn’t reassignment open the military up to lawsuits if someone is reinjured?” It’s a fair concern — but also one that misunderstands how civilian and federal systems have already addressed similar challenges with success.

The Myth of Fragility: Lawsuits Are Not New — Or Unmanageable

Let’s start with the core worry: legal risk. The truth is, we already live in a legal environment where workers’ rights, workplace injuries, and disability accommodations are governed by laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Every day, federal employees, police officers, firefighters, and first responders continue working in restructured roles after injury — often without lawsuits or incident.

Why? Because the process is structured, transparent, and grounded in law.

If anything, the military’s current “discharge-by-default” approach increases legal ambiguity and leaves room for inconsistent decisions, wrongful discharges, and potential claims. Building a clear, lawful framework for career reassignment would reduce risk by setting expectations, establishing standards, and protecting both the individual and the institution.

The ADA Works in Civilian Life — Why Not the Military?

The ADA doesn’t require employers to put workers at risk. It requires them to explore reasonable accommodations — like modified duties, reassignment, or adaptive tools — when a worker can still perform meaningful functions. In the military context, this could mean shifting injured service members into instructor, logistics, cyber, medical, or training roles.

If a police officer can continue serving from a desk after a back injury, why must a Marine with the same condition be sent home without a chance to continue?

Fiscal Reality: Discharging Injured Troops Costs More

Reassigning troops isn’t just the moral or legal thing to do — it’s economically smart. When we discharge skilled service members, we pay to separate them, support them through VA compensation, and then recruit and retrain someone new from scratch.

Reassignment, by contrast, allows the military to retain experience, preserve morale, and reduce turnover — all while honoring the investment already made in that individual’s training and leadership.

The “System” Was Built for a Different Era — and It Can Evolve

Some comments argue that the current discharge system exists “for a reason” and was “created by qualified people.” That’s true — but so were segregated barracks and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Systems evolve as our understanding of inclusion, law, and capability grows. Today, the military integrates women, LGBTQ+ personnel, and people with previously disqualifying conditions. Modernizing discharge policies for injured troops is the next step.

This Isn’t About Lowering Standards — It’s About Expanding Opportunity

Critics often ask, “If they get reinjured, who’s responsible?” The answer lies in rigorous fitness evaluations, documented reassignment protocols, and shared accountability — just like in any professional environment. We’re not advocating to keep injured personnel in combat zones. We’re advocating for giving them the chance to serve where they can, not punishing them because of where they can’t.

Final Thought: Keeping the Promise

The nation makes a promise to its troops: that if they raise their hand and serve, they won’t be forgotten. That promise shouldn’t expire if an injury happens before a deployment. It’s time we reframe this debate — not in fear of lawsuits, but in the spirit of duty, justice, and opportunity.

#ReasonableRanks is not about weakening the military. It’s about strengthening it with compassion, efficiency, and legal foresight.