I'd buy the defense argument, assuming the IQ and the diagnosis panned out, and weren't hyperbolic assessments or claims in an effort to get this kid off. I'd probably be as popular as a fart in church for saying so in a military setting, though, because the military wants to retain jurisdiction over who is, and is not, qualified.
Thing is, I've filled out enough of those Low Quality Recruit/Low Quality Officer reports to know that if you don't get it right from the git-go, you end up with a problem on your hands that someone else has to deal with. The government, and by that I mean the people responsible for enlistment and initial entry training, need to do a better job of weeding out, no matter how painful it might be. "Fuck Up, Move Up" should not be the mantra.
For the government, the case is important in part because of the precedent it will set for future cases in which recruits challenge the validity of their enlistments. The Pentagon wants to ensure that military officials, not state courts, determine enlistment eligibility.
In Fry's case, a California court had concluded that he had developmental disabilities, but the Marines found him competent.
"Congress did not cede determination of the validity of an enlistment contract to a state court's conclusion as to 'capacity' to contract, but rather retained the authority to set its own definition of 'capacity' to enlist," the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals agreed last year in siding with the government
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/28/128612/was-autistic-man-really-a-marine.html#ixzz1cB2X8EPO