This U.S. Army Court of Military Review decision affirmed the convictions of an HIV positive Sergeant in the U.S. Army of willful disobedience of a "safe-sex" order issued by his commander to disclose his HIV status to and wear condoms with sexual partners. The court rejected Sargeant's argument that the safe-sex order was an excessive intrusion on his right to privacy.
On appeal, he argued that the safe-sex order was unlawful because it excessively intruded on his right to privacy. The court reviewed the record of trial and rejected the claim that the safe-sex order was unlawful, citing Roe v. Wade as an example of permissible constitutional regulation of a private activity, and declaring that the order had the valid military purpose of maintaining "the health and welfare of the unit." The court also cited Womack, pointing out in a footnote that even if Sargeant's sexual partners had not also been enlisted, "the military has a proper interest in taking reasonable steps to ensure that its soldiers who have the AIDS virus do not infect their sexual partners, regardless of their status.