A military attorney can challenge such a disqualification, arguing that it is an arbitrary and capricious action that lacks a factual basis. A decision to disqualify a service member from any program, even a volunteer one, should be based on their specific actions or conduct, not on a leader’s subjective “perception” of their supposed “intent.” The military administrative system is supposed to be based on facts, and punishing a soldier for what a leader thinks they might be thinking is improper.
The attorney would assist the soldier in filing a formal request for reconsideration or an appeal of the disqualification. The legal argument would be that there is no evidence of any actual misconduct, rule violation, or substandard performance by their client. The appeal would state that the decision is based entirely on the leader’s speculation about the soldier’s internal thoughts, which is an unreliable and legally insufficient basis for any adverse administrative action.
The attorney would demand that the command provide a specific, action-based reason for the disqualification. When the command cannot produce any evidence of a wrongful act, it exposes their decision as being based on a personal, subjective bias. This provides strong grounds for a higher authority or an Inspector General to find that the disqualification was an abuse of discretion and to order that the soldier be reinstated in the volunteer program.