Battle Forms Over Military Discharge Provision : AIDS: Disputed Dornan amendment to House bill on defense appropriations calls for the release from service of those infected with HIV or whose duties are limited by other ailments.

A battle is shaping up in the House of Representatives over a provision that would immediately discharge from the military anyone infected with the AIDS virus or whose duties are restricted by other medical ailments, such as heart disease, cancer, asthma and diabetes.

The requirement, included as an amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill, was authored by conservative Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) and approved by the House Armed Services Committee this month in what was described as a hurried vote preceded by little discussion.

If passed by the House and Senate, the provision could lead to the immediate discharge of more than 3,500 members of the military--a fraction of the nation’s 1.7-million-member force--who are classified as “non-worldwide assignable,” meaning their medical conditions restrict where and how they are deployed.

“How can we afford to retain those who cannot perform all military duties?” said Dornan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He contended that in these times of military scale-backs, every soldier and sailor must be fully useful.

The amendment is a long way from becoming law, and formidable opposition is already taking shape.

The Pentagon itself is against it, contending that the number of chronically ill service members with restricted assignments is so small that it poses no threat to military readiness.

Others on record opposing Dornan’s plan are the AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Assn. and the American Cancer Society.

And Rep. Jane Harman (D-Marina del Rey) is prepared to introduce this week language that would undercut the Dornan amendment, while stopping short of killing it outright. The Harman language would give the Pentagon leeway to do what it does now--avoid discharges entirely by concluding that restricted-service members pose no threat to the military’s ability to carry out its mission.

“They may have served ably and may still be fit to serve, and putting them in a desk job where they can use their training seems more appropriate than forcing them out,” said Harman, also an Armed Services Committee member.

Some civil rights groups worry that Harman’s amendment does not go far enough and would like to see any reference to discharges stricken. But House observers said the odds of killing the language outright are slim.

The current practice of finding appropriate jobs for the military’s chronically ill was instituted under President Ronald Reagan, when the advent of AIDS forced the military to forge a policy on what to do with infected service members. It came to include other chronically ill members, officials said.

Dornan’s amendment would require discharge of those service members, unless the condition was contracted in the line of duty or the service member possessed a skill considered of value to the military.

Dornan contends that restricted assignments are unwise when, in an era of dwindling defense resources, every member of the ranks should be ready militarily.

Immediate discharge would save about $3.5 million a year in hospital costs, Dornan estimates. He said it also would relieve healthy service members of the burden of taking assignments that cannot be filled by members with medical ailments.

“By sticking a dirty needle in his arm, he has broken the law,” Dornan said, referring to service members who have tested positive for the AIDS virus.

Critics said the amendment was an attempt to discriminate against the chronically ill--particularly people infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS--and noted that it was brought by a congressman who for years has been harshly critical of gays. About 40% of service members restricted by medical conditions are HIV-positive.

“It’s certainly pure Dornan, someone so obsessed with hatred of gay people he will run roughshod over every principal of fairness . . . even when it means attacking people who are serving their country and who the military itself regards as perfectly fit to serve,” said Evan Wolfson, senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a New York-based gay rights group.

Harman said she was surprised that the idea progressed this far. It was passed by the House Armed Services Committee on a busy May 5. Committee members were being summoned to the House floor for roll call votes that day and were distracted when they approved Dornan’s plan by a voice vote that Harman, also a committee member, believes was ill-considered.