“We the People” are not merely the opening words of our Constitution. They are a declaration that government derives its authority from those it serves, and that no institution, however powerful, stands above the law.

For generations, Americans have answered their nation’s call to service. They have surrendered freedoms, endured hardship, and placed their bodies and lives at the disposal of the United States. In return, our nation has made a solemn promise: those injured or made ill in its service will not be abandoned.

Today, that promise is in jeopardy.

In Watts v. Meink, a federal court found that the United States Air Force unlawfully used its own preliminary medical screening process to deny servicemembers access to the disability evaluation system established to protect them.

Most Americans, and even many servicemembers, have never heard of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). Yet its purpose is fundamental.

When a servicemember develops a serious medical or psychological condition that may prevent continued military service, this system provides a formal process to determine whether that individual can continue serving, whether military service contributed to their disability, and whether they qualify for disability separation or retirement.

It provides access to medical and physical evaluation boards, representation, hearings, and appeals.

It is the difference between being properly evaluated for a service-connected disability and potentially being discharged without ever receiving that determination.

The Air Force established preliminary screening procedures, including the Initial Review in Lieu Of (IRILO), that could prevent servicemembers from ever reaching this formal evaluation system. In Watts v. Meink, the court determined that the challenged screening practices violated federal law.

Yet service members affected by these practices remain on active duty today, caught between an unlawful process and an uncertain remedy.

Some face administrative separation. Others remain in medical limbo, unable to obtain a definitive determination of their rights. All face the possibility that their military careers will end before the government corrects the process that denied them lawful consideration.

A remedy delivered after a servicemember has lost their career, income, medical coverage, or opportunity for disability retirement is not equivalent to protecting those rights before separation.

Our Founders understood the danger of allowing government power to operate without meaningful accountability.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that governments are instituted to secure rights, not dispense them at their convenience. The Constitution entrusted Congress with the authority to raise and support armies, establish rules governing the armed forces, and provide for the common defense. The Federalist Papers recognized that constitutional government requires checks upon the exercise of power.

That responsibility does not end when the government itself becomes the source of an injustice.

George Washington, addressing the Continental Army’s officers at Newburgh in 1783, appealed to the nation’s obligation to honor the sacrifices of those who had served. The principle remains unchanged: a republic that depends upon its servicemembers must not disregard them when their service leaves them wounded.

Military service is not a waiver of the rule of law.

And disability is not a forfeiture of dignity.

We do not ask Congress to guarantee disability retirement to every affected servicemember. We ask that every eligible servicemember receive the lawful evaluation necessary to determine whether that retirement, or another disability disposition, is warranted.

We therefore petition Congress to enact immediate, enforceable protections requiring the Department of the Air Force to:

 

 1. Preserve their rights before separation. Prohibit involuntary administrative separation of potentially affected members until an independent, documented determination establishes whether they are entitled to corrective disability evaluation, subject to narrowly defined exceptions and appropriate judicial safeguards.

 2. Provide access to lawful disability evaluation. Require prompt referral of eligible members into the appropriate disability evaluation process, with the procedural rights, representation, hearings, and appeals provided by law.

 3. Prevent retaliation and procedural circumvention. Prohibit adverse treatment for asserting rights under Watts v. Meink, and prevent administrative procedures from being used to evade disability evaluation obligations.

 4. Establish independent oversight and accountability. Require the Air Force to report to Congress on affected members, pending separations, corrective referrals, implementation timelines, and compliance, with meaningful remedies for violations.

These demands are neither partisan nor radical. They are an appeal to the foundational principle that government must obey the laws it imposes upon others.

A servicemember should not need to sue the nation they swore to defend merely to obtain the process Congress intended them to receive.

Nor should the government be permitted to exhaust the careers, resources, and health of those awaiting justice, only to offer them the possibility of relief years after their separation.

The United States has long professed that it leaves no one behind. That commitment cannot apply only to the battlefield. It must also extend to those whose injuries make them inconvenient to the institutions they served.

Congress must act before these service members are separated, not merely investigate what happened after they are gone.

We call upon our elected representatives to exercise their constitutional authority, preserve the rights of affected service members, and ensure that the Air Force provides the lawful disability evaluations these men and women were denied.

A nation that asks its servicemembers to sacrifice everything must not ask them to sacrifice their rights as well.