The Wilkins v. Austin ruling was a landmark moment. For the first time, a federal court acknowledged that the military’s long-standing restrictions on HIV+ servicemembers were discriminatory and contrary to both science and law. The decision struck down the blanket policies that had kept talented servicemembers sidelined, unable to deploy, promote, or serve on equal terms with their peers. For many, it felt like the door to fairness had finally opened.
But as I have seen firsthand, the fight did not end with a court order. Policies on paper mean little if they are not implemented in practice, and culture within the military often shifts slower than the law. Today, servicemembers living with HIV still face systemic barriers, privacy violations, and administrative hurdles. Even my own case—where the Army Board for Correction of Military Records ruled in my favor on promotions—has been stalled by bureaucratic resistance. That is why the work after Wilkins is just as important as the courtroom victory itself.
Privacy and Command Disclosure
One of the most persistent challenges is medical privacy. The military has historically been poor at protecting sensitive health information, and HIV status is no exception. Too often, servicemembers are led to believe they must disclose their HIV status to their commander directly, when in fact the responsibility lies with the system, not the individual. The truth is simple: it is not a servicemember’s obligation to broadcast their diagnosis. Their duty is to be honest with their medical providers in a private, professional setting. From there, the military has procedures for notifying command.
This distinction matters. Privacy isn’t just a legal principle—it protects dignity and shields servicemembers from stigma and gossip. When I was first diagnosed, I experienced firsthand how quickly sensitive information could be mishandled, from careless conversations in hallways to outdated, stigmatizing views among medical staff. Those experiences reinforced for me that systemic reform is needed. Servicemembers deserve assurance that their medical privacy will be respected and that they will not be pressured into disclosure beyond what is required.
Systemic Reforms Still Needed
Court victories can address discriminatory policies, but they cannot rewrite the culture of an institution as large as the Department of Defense. That is why additional reforms are still essential. Among them:
-
The creation of an HIV Ombudsman within DoD, so servicemembers have a trusted channel for support and accountability.
-
Mandatory training for commanders, readiness officers, and medical staff on HIV, treatment advances, and the U=U principle: once undetectable, HIV cannot be transmitted. This science is clear, but stigma lingers without education.
-
Policy changes to ensure HIV+ servicemembers are not quietly sidelined, flagged as non-deployable, or pushed toward administrative separation without due process.
Without these reforms, the promises of Wilkins remain fragile, and servicemembers are left to fight the same battles over and over again.
The MRC 3 Code Barrier
One glaring example of this problem is the continued use of MRC-3 medical readiness codes. These codes effectively mark HIV+ servicemembers as non-deployable, despite a federal court ruling and a Secretary of Defense memorandum forbidding such blanket exclusions.
In practice, the code means that every time a servicemember applies for a school, an assignment, or a new position, they are forced to argue their eligibility again. They must point to the ruling, cite the memo, and reestablish rights they already won. This endless cycle wears down morale and undermines careers. It also signals a deep resistance within the system to actually comply with the law.
Accessions Blocked by Inaction
The discrimination does not end with those already serving. New applicants living with HIV continue to face barriers to enlistment and commissioning because the services have failed to issue clear accession guidance. Recruiters often do not know what to do and default to denial or indefinite delay. Only the most persistent applicants, those who force the issue up the chain, stand a chance.
This lack of direction leaves capable, qualified Americans sidelined unnecessarily. The science is clear: with modern treatment, HIV is manageable, and servicemembers quickly reach an undetectable status. A single pill a day allows them to live full, healthy lives and to serve without risk to others. Yet without clear policy, myths and stigma still control who gets through the door.
An Appeal That Keeps Progress in Limbo
The government’s decision to appeal the Wilkins ruling adds another layer of delay and uncertainty. Instead of fully embracing the court’s decision and updating policies accordingly, the appeal has given the services cover to drag their feet. Many commanders and administrators are choosing to wait, effectively ignoring a ruling that should already be binding.
For servicemembers living with HIV, that means their status remains precarious. Protections they should enjoy are contested, careers remain in jeopardy, and the fight for equality continues in the shadow of the appellate courts.
Missed Opportunities for Resolution
All of these issues—the stalled implementation of court rulings, the MRC-3 codes, the accession barriers, and the ongoing appeal—could have been resolved administratively. The last Administration had the authority to direct change, to issue binding guidance, and to make the military comply with both science and law. Instead, it chose not to act, leaving servicemembers to navigate a maze of outdated practices and hostile bureaucracy.
This inaction left the burden on the courts and on individual servicemembers to press for their rights. It was a missed opportunity to resolve discrimination with clarity and compassion, and it highlights why continued advocacy is essential.
The Fight Continues
The Wilkins v. Austin decision was historic, but it was never the end of the story. Servicemembers living with HIV still face stigma, privacy violations, bureaucratic obstacles, and systemic resistance. They still see MRC-3 codes on their records, encounter recruiters who do not know the law, and live under the shadow of an appeal that threatens to undo progress.
That is why I continue this work. Even as a JAG officer, where I cannot profit from these cases, I advise members of the D.C. National Guard directly, connect others to pro bono networks, and use my own story to show servicemembers they are not alone. This fight is not about special treatment. It is about fairness, dignity, and the chance to serve openly and equally. The courtroom victory in Wilkins was an important step, but it was only the beginning.
About the Author: Nick Harrison is a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, advocate, and Judge Advocate in the D.C. National Guard. He has been at the forefront of the fight for HIV+ servicemembers, using his legal expertise and personal experience to challenge discrimination, protect privacy, and push for systemic reform within the military.
