Can Entry Level Foreign Service Officers Be Forced to Serve in Dangerous Countries?

Entry-level Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) often face the expectation of serving in challenging and sometimes dangerous postings. They understand that these experiences play a crucial role in their career progression. However, this leads to the question: can an entry-level FSO be sent to a dangerous country even if they do not want to go?

Do You Have to Go Where You Are Sent?

While it might seem obvious that the State Department would not force an unwilling officer to accept an assignment, the reality is more complex. Often, assignments are negotiable, and the State Department is unlikely to compel a reluctant officer to board a plane for a dangerous posting.

Nonetheless, entry-level officers are expected to be willing to go anywhere. Refusing to comply with deployment requests could have significant consequences, such as limiting promotion opportunities or even necessitating early retirement.

Why Serve in a Dangerous Place?

Most entry-level FSOs join the service with the intention of living and working in remote and potentially perilous regions where the majority of Americans have never set foot. They are drawn to these positions because they feel a personal stake in the US's success in these countries. Performing in dangerous places often leads to faster career progression and greater acknowledgment within their ranks.

The Complexity of Being Sent to a Dangerous Country

Whether an entry-level FSO can be sent to a dangerous country even if they do not want to is not a straightforward answer. Many factors come into play, including regulations, legal systems, and personal convictions. Here are some key considerations:

Employer's Duty of Care and Legal Factors

Employers have a duty of care towards their employees. They should provide adequate safety precautions before asking an employee to take on hazardous duties. Sometimes, employers offer additional allowances for working in dangerous areas, making it more challenging to refuse a long-term posting. For shorter trips, the employer might be more lenient.

However, in some cases, an officer's personal beliefs may factor into the decision. If an officer demonstrates a genuine and unique reason for not wanting to go, the employer might be more willing to accept their refusal. For example, consider an officer who is terrified of openly carrying guns. While the lack of civilian unrest might make this a weak argument, if the country is in a civil war with uncertain security, the employer might be more understanding.

Health and Family Concerns

Certain health conditions, young family members, or genetic diseases where the other country cannot provide adequate or affordable healthcare could be significant factors in not wanting to go to a dangerous country. These personal circumstances can make it easier for the employer to accept the refusal.

Conclusion

The decision to send an entry-level FSO to a dangerous country is not absolute. While there are legal and ethical considerations, the officer's reasons for refusing must be compelling and unique. Personal convictions and health concerns can sway an employer's decision. However, the goal is always to maintain the safety and well-being of the officer while supporting their career growth.