I seem to recall this dude from my tour in '94. He was a Reserve Medic with us and IIRC, was tasked as the Padres' driver. We had a messed up tour with a lot of tooling around in minefields, with the resultant casualties that comes from those activities, as well as unwanted baggage (I'm no better off).
My take on things - at risk of getting flamed - is that they've got a chronic condition that can be, and often is, exacerbated by conditions of service, especially on deployment. From an occupational medicine standpoint, why would/should we risk the possibility of losing someone to a pre-existing condition that can be exacerbated by what they're supposed to to do for a living AND exposing the organization to potential further liability in forms of sick leave, time lost, having to replace, pensions, outside medical costs, etc, when someone else can be hired that has a lower potential risk?
This is an unfortunate thing I used to see a lot in the Recruiting realm - folks thinking that we owed them a job, physically/mentally fit or not. There are limited number of positions and the people that are going to get hired should be the ones that are (hopefully) healthy and the right fit for the job. There always has to be a line drawn in the sand as to what is and isn't permissible, and the Supreme Court has upheld many challenges in this regard. These lines get revised often, sometimes as the moon phases shift, in keeping with current therapy guidelines and research into disease progression. Things don't always seem fair when you're on the receiving end, but at the end of the day, it's not personal, it's business.
As much as I thought Josh was a good guy and hope he continues to succeed, fact is, just because someone goes to the press, doesn't always mean they should get a pass...there are always three sides to a story - his side, her side, and the what really happened side. We're not really hearing the whole thing I think.