Should the Army always maintain the same standards for entry or should they fluctuate with requirements?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:54:54 -0500

I'm surprised this hasn't been on RallyPoint. During the increased requirements for the War on Terror, Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army increased its requirements for recruiting and saw a change in the waivers granted to some recruits. Some say this led to discipline problems throughout the force and some of the war crimes committed by those who were more likely to be mentally unstable in war. Should the Army (and the military in general) maintain a strict set of entrance requirements that cannot be waivered? With the debate about those with mental health issues and gun violence on the front burner...is this the type of recruit we are looking for? ***Look at SSG Aaron Case's rebuttal to this argument below. He sheds some light on the article and talks about the Army's response.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/

Army lifts ban on waivers for recruits with history of some mental health issues

The ban had barred the Army from accepting soldiers with a history of self-mutilation, bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 14 at 2017 1:11 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:11:51 -0500

I think that there might be some wiggle room on height/weight for initial induction, but taking in people with known mental issues should not be waived. High stress jobs dealing with high explosives are no place for the unstable, IMHO.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2017 1:22 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:22:28 -0500

Here is another article on the subject. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article184253728.html

Army lifts ban on recruits with history of self-mutilation, drug and alcohol abuse

People with a history of self-mutilation, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and bipolar disorder can now seek waivers to join the Army, according to USA TODAY.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Nov 14 at 2017 9:15 AM

Maj Walter Kilar — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:15:11 -0500

Each of the services should create their own standards for service, but should never waiver on certain standards. In the case of the Army, perhaps it is time to bring back specialist ranks for Soldiers who "self-mutilate and self-medicate" but are otherwise suitable for service away from combat in jobs such as cyber operations (17C), cyber defense (25D), et cetera.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Nov 14 at 2017 9:17 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:17:56 -0500

Depends on how badly the military needs people; and its always fluctuated. I wouldn't have been allowed entry into the Army if today's standards were in place then (too old). In World War 2, their standards had to be seriously relaxed out of real desperation. Quoting a Navy vet interviewed in a St. Paul Pioneer Press article from Veterans Day, after being turned away after trying to enlist following Pearl Harbor due to high blood pressure, he tried again and “That time, they said, ‘If you’re breathing, you’re in!’ ”.

Not sure if it should ever be "anything goes", but desperate times do call for desperate measures. I hate to think about just how bad the situation must be to take in nearly anybody, and we damn sure ain't anywhere close to that today, thankfully. The military should set the highest bar as (reasonably) possible under normal circumstances, especially when the need for SMs isn't as great. The benefit would be during periods when the needs of the military aren't as great, the quality of what you have in your ranks will be very high--useful anytime, but necessary for training, leadership and mentoring of new SMs when the quality bar for entry will need to be set lower.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2017 11:13 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:13:06 -0500

Should never change standards FOR ANYONE. Regardless of retention issues. That’s why we have the bunch of retards running the joint now.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 14 at 2017 12:47 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:47:44 -0500

Accession standards have changed all the time. The true standard is to obtain a certain number of trained body count. Need a lot of them in a major war; not so many when nothing is going on. If you bring in people with "issues", then you need to overshoot the mark because attrition will be greater. The top brass haven't figured out a better way than to push the problem down to the junior NCO/Officer's back. Yes we bitch about it, but those who bitch the loudest have the least to contribute to a solution other than "Somebody ought to do something." It's the nature of the beast. One thing would be to put emphasis on identifying the "nonworkables" earlier. Save time and money and move on. The last thing we need is more overhead expense taking away from actual warfighting. Bottom line, it's a body count vs. money vs. time quandary. Looking at the recent Army changes, it depends where the druggies and cutters are on the spectrum and have their frontal lobes finally activated. I've been around a number of them. The sweet spot for bringing them in is when they finally GET IT. You'll still have failures, just not as many. BTW for a number of jobs, psych screening is required, hence the full gamut of MOS's won't be available.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Nov 14 at 2017 1:01 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:01:39 -0500

I watched standards change during the Vietnam Era, Cold War, and Wars in Southwest Asia. During Vietnam there was a draft. Most draftees went to the Army, but some to the other Services. The Air Force tried to put limits on the draftees they would accept. This worked for a while, but the DoD mandated each Service would have to accept draftees with lower-than-desired test scores or other capabilities. Each Service subsequently set up remedial math and language classes to bring these service members up to minimum standards. This was one of the early uses of the Services for social engineering.

Fast forward to today with an all-volunteer military. Recruiting for some Services may be down. The Service or DoD then will lower some standards that don't directly impact combat capability to attract more volunteers. Loosening the restriction on tattoos or ethnic dress are examples of how the standards can change. How far a Service can go without adversely impacting its combat capability is a Service call.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2017 1:16 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:16:44 -0500

COL Private RallyPoint Member Sir, Standards should never be lowered. A smaller more cohesive and capable unit will outperform a larger unit with issues.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Nov 14 at 2017 4:56 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:56:28 -0500

The issue here is that the all-volunteer military cannot sustain itself with strict, non-waivering enlistment standards in this day and age. There is simply not enough target age applicants that are both fully qualified AND have a propensity to enlist.

Response by CPO Albert Kennison made Nov 14 at 2017 8:02 PM

CPO Albert Kennison — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:02:14 -0500

Welcome to Vietnam era recruiting. Start drafting again, and the forces will have the quality they need. Soldiers, sailors, and chairman should not have to worry about someone flipping out and shooting or stabbing them. When you are in combat, it's bad enough that the bad guys are trying to kill you.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2017 10:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:14:01 -0500

Firstly, this article is bullshit. It is greatly exaggerating what is actually happening, and insinuating things that will “stir the pot”. If I wasn’t on mobile I would link to the couple articles where the Army responded to this article, and completely refute what it states.

The Army is not lowering any standards. The change is simply the level at which waivers can be approved at. Previously for example if you had an applicant who went to counseling for depression because their parents got divorced, that applicant would technically be disqualfied or would need a waiver from the Deparrment of the Army. Now that waiver can be processed “in-house” at USAREC, and this otherwise qualified person can enlist.

As for the “alcohol and drug abusers”, there have always been waivers for certain things. Weed is becoming much more socially acceptable, and therefore more widely used. Should we continue to disqualify people for having EVER smoked weed? Now we are further restricting the recruitable pool of people. We aren’t talking about drug dealers, or hard drug users.

As for the self-mutilation, nobody with suidcidal tendencies is just going to get in. The new rules allow individual cases to be reviewed on a whole person concept (ie: this person cut themselves when they were younger, but have since grown and are normal responsible adults now, who additionally have been cleared by a psychologist).

If anything the Army is making it harder to get people in. We have not been able to enlist High School Seniors who score less than 50 for the past 6 months. (Unless certain circumstances are met and then only so many can enlist). Enlisting/shipping off Green Card holders has gotten stricter. The only thing that is realitively easier are Prior Service people, and there are still rules to them.

Response by SSG James Behnke made Nov 14 at 2017 11:01 PM

SSG James Behnke — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:01:19 -0500

I believe in rules, laws, regulations, and especially standards. There are hundreds of Army regulations written and published for a reason. That being said, there SHOULD be exceptions made, and waivers granted, within moderation.

There is a difference between saying "We are accepting all applicants regardless of previous mental health issues" and "We are accepting WAIVERS for previous mental health issues". Needing a waiver means it is a case-by-case basis. Referencing the article itself: "For all waivers," one memo states, "the burden of proof is on the applicant to provide a clear and meritorious case for why a waiver should be considered."

So clearly, we are still interested in taking in highly qualified applicants. The Army is just increasing the applicant pool to include potential applicants that were previously automatically disqualified without looking into whether their condition was/is serious enough to affect their service. I.e. in the case of childhood trauma... again, referencing the article: 'Taylor said many “meritorious cases” had been found of highly qualified applicants who had been disqualified because of events that had occurred when they were young children.'

I think this is much ado about nothing. Because "Mental health" is a hot button issue, the Army saying it is allowing waivers suddenly becomes a big deal... when really it is something that should be conducted. We should always evaluate potential applicants fully to determine their suitability. That's exactly what the Army is doing: “With the additional data available, Army officials can now consider applicants as a whole person, allowing a series of Army leaders and medical professionals to review the case fully to assess the applicant’s physical limitations or medical conditions and their possible impact upon the applicant's ability to complete training and finish an Army career,” Taylor said. “These waivers are not considered lightly.”

This is a non-issue.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2017 12:00 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:53 -0500

War is war, if it becomes full blown they will activate the draft! If that happens there are no standards! Just able bodies.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Nov 15 at 2017 12:14 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:14:10 -0500

COL Private RallyPoint Member Real world scenario; put your best foot forward! The military operates with ‘bodies’.

Being able to make the best use of available resources is a commanders best asset!

Regretfully, when all is said and done; those same resources become excess to the force!

Response by SSG John Jensen made Nov 15 at 2017 12:27 AM

SSG John Jensen — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:27:26 -0500

I served with a number of peeps who were told join the army or go to jail - who were wonderful people, allowing those youthful indiscretions can be a good thing, but the serious indiscretions status should stand.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2017 12:44 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:44:44 -0500

I don't think we have a choice. We already face a limited population that even wants to enlist and 10% of that are DQ'd because of lack of general physical fitness. That leaves the option of lowering standards in other areas such as morality and mental fitness (although I question that one with such a large amount of Soldiers that already have issues due to PTSD).

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Nov 15 at 2017 12:51 AM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:51:28 -0500

Do we really want people with serious mental health issues in any of our services? Minor problems OK, kids in trouble but otherwise healthy, OK ... heck some of our people in all the services have come from troubled backgrounds. Violent, abusive or psychotic behavior, and your gonna train them to kill people? Really? Who does that make sense to?

Response by SSgt Julius Bob Midgett made Nov 15 at 2017 1:04 PM

SSgt Julius Bob Midgett — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:04:46 -0500

Back in the day I enlisted you had to have a certain score on the asvab and they allowed persons who had not graduated high school I was one of those who was
Not a hs grad after boot camp my CO called me in and ordered me to attend night classes and graduate which I did my next CO required me to continue my education and I thrived in the Corps so I say ruling out a person because of lack of education is wrong if they have the desire to serve and have high enough scores on the asvab let them enlist

Response by PFC Elijah Rose made Nov 15 at 2017 2:50 PM

PFC Elijah Rose — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:50:13 -0500

There are two underlying assuptions here that are wrong. First that there can be some sort of standard when piority should be winning wars and saving money. Second is that volunteer recruitment is the best way to fill the ranks.
I would insist we adopt Switzerland/South Korea's system of a massed conscript reservist force. The firmly ties the interests of the military to the interests of the nation and creates high levels of camraderie at low cost.

Response by SPC Adam Hamann made Nov 26 at 2017 9:51 AM

SPC Adam Hamann — Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:51:58 -0500

Everyone male and female should be held to the same standard no ands ifs or buts it's bullshit that it does not work that way

Response by PO3 William Carrien made Nov 26 at 2017 10:50 AM

PO3 William Carrien — Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:50:41 -0500

None of the service branches should.