I don't imagine there are many protections for active duty folks that are designed purely to protect the individual. I suspect the primary motivation to get most of these types of laws passed is to protect the government.
On the contrary, for reasons political ('everyone loves the troops'), administrative (Congress in many ways writes the 'Employee Handbook' for military personnel), and logistical (the military is heavily made up of people straight out of high school), there are several protections in law designed to protect military on active duty.
We can cancel leases with landlords with nothing more than valid assignment orders, at any time. We can vote in elections using the easiest process there is, including instant registration and the ability to fax the vote over. And, yes, there are restrictions on lending to those on active duty to try to keep us out of trouble.
Even though active duty personnel do make convenient targets of political affection, it's not all done out of a sense to protect the individual. Active duty personnel have clearances, access to government facilities, and so on. Protecting them from getting into stupid situations is to the government's benefit.
But that all said, we get a lot of protections that exceed what the government deems necessary for its benefit. Just look at the differential treatment provided to military and government civilians (who also have clearances, access, etc etc) if you want to see.
I pointed out how the risk is different than the assumed free for all that is the free market. I will not potentially get thrown in the brig for defaulting on a payment. A private could be.