Yes, a military attorney can appeal a removal from a security access role that is based solely on a language barrier, arguing that the removal is a disproportionate and potentially discriminatory action. While English proficiency can be a valid operational requirement for many roles, a language barrier should, in many cases, be treated as a training and development issue rather than an immediate, disqualifying condition, especially for a soldier who is otherwise trustworthy and performing well.
The attorney’s appeal would first establish that their client meets all other security requirements and has a record of trustworthy conduct. The appeal would then argue that the removal is an overly harsh response. The attorney would propose less drastic, more reasonable accommodations. This could include requesting that the command provide the soldier with formal English language training or reassigning them to a role where their language skills are less critical, rather than removing their security access altogether.
Furthermore, if the policy is applied inconsistently, the attorney could raise an Equal Opportunity complaint, arguing that the soldier is being unfairly singled out. The goal of the appeal is to show the review authority that the command’s decision was not a reasonable solution to a manageable problem, but was an extreme measure that unfairly penalizes the service member. This can lead to the decision being overturned in favor of a more reasonable accommodation.