What do you think about the new proposed policy to discharge those that have been non-deployable for over 12 months?

2018-02-16T20:38:48-05:00

Response by SGT Aric Lier made Feb 16 at 2018 8:55 PM

2018-02-16T20:55:46-05:00

bye

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2018 9:58 PM

2018-02-16T21:58:47-05:00

Hmmm, I have a mixed opinion on this topic, because there are soldiers that gave legit issues and of course many that are milking a profile until they can get out and claim disability for a non permanent or even made up injury. There is no way to really tell who is truly honest, so there is some conflicting areas here. I think if a Soldier is short of retirement, like five or less years, then let them finish and continue to place these types of soldiers in jobs where deployments are required. Anybody under say, 10 years, they gotta go. Too much money and training wasted to keep them in. I dunno, I could be way off here.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2018 11:10 PM

2018-02-16T23:10:40-05:00

IMO, they should go to an evaluation board. Every case is different and there should be some rules or criteria that needs to be accomplished for the soldier to stay in the military or leave. There's a lot of civilian positions and training positions that can be filled with good soldiers that for some reason can't deploy. So, for example, a good option could be offering/suggesting the soldier to study certain topic (like accounting or programming) so that he can successfully transfer into a civilian position while he still a service member or depending on their capabilities, transferring this personnel to training areas. On the other hand we need to set some standards to know if a soldier is putting effort in their recovery or if there's no room for a successful recovery. A final note, if you are lying about a condition, remember that Facebook and social media could be used to prove you are fit to do some tasks.

Response by SGT Eric Davis made Feb 17 at 2018 2:50 AM

2018-02-17T02:50:45-05:00

It depends on the soldier and case by case. If you been in the military for 3 years and are non deployable then you need Discharge cause you are a brand new soldier and fresh so nothing should be wrong with you.

If you have 10years experience or been deployed one or more times then you have valuable experience that can be used somewhere else.

Also just don’t discharge everyone maybe put them where units can’t deploy or on training installations.

I feel like you shouldn’t just waste the experience that soldiers have but if you are a new soldier then kick them out for they can stop wasting out time and tax payers money!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2018 6:32 PM

2018-02-17T18:32:19-05:00

Look it seems like 80% of the army hasn’t been deployed. Honestly not all soldiers should. But when it could mess down to it I can’t kick someone For not passing a protest in 9 months. I’d also like to be able to drop people off the books that don’t show up for duty too. If they can get this idea passed; I’d like to see how they institute the policy when generals arnt willing to back it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2018 8:56 AM

2018-02-19T08:56:15-05:00

Respectfully, I believe it is a "good idea" that could easily be poorly brought to fruition. In general, I would hope that requiring a 100% deployment capable force will not only strengthen our military...but make way for further advancement and retention for those who currently are deployable. However, I also see that on a case-by-case basis, good members could be lost without much chance for an objective review...or at least a suitable kick in the six towards achieving readiness. They need to (and hopefully will or already have) set a drop-dead date and give people the opportunity to get there. Beyond that, I have less sympathy...other than I concur with other statements here regarding those VERY close to retirement who shouldn't lose their hard-earned security just because a well-meaning COC let them get a "sunset" tour.

Response by SMSgt Roy Dowdy made Feb 19 at 2018 1:10 PM

2018-02-19T13:10:24-05:00

Major positive! Eliminates the professional deployment dodgers who curiously become unable to deploy when a downrange mission (i.e. Middle East) comes up, but are somehow always able to deploy to locations in Europe and other exotic good deal destinations that randomly appear.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2018 11:34 PM

2018-02-24T23:34:07-05:00

As a blanket policy this could likely decimate manning for Pilots/Aircrew. I imagine diver qualified jobs would experience the same thing. Flight physicals are extremely stringent, and waivers can take a very long time to process. Some aviators have totally waiver-eligible medical conditions that simply have mandatory minimum time constraints. Aviators would not be deployable during that time, but could continue simulator training and/or fill roles in critical shore based (Navy) support billets. I have known plenty of guys that went Flight Down for well over a year, recovered, and went on to deploy many more times.

Aviators are difficult enough to retain. Attrition is high and retention is dropping. But such a blanket policy would crush special programs if an exception was not considered.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Feb 27 at 2018 11:15 AM

2018-02-27T11:15:24-05:00

It depends on the situation. Some are milking the situation and those should be singled out and terminated from the service for the leeches they are. But others, the ones that are not milking the system should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Not everyone heals at the same rate. Reclass these into something that still utilizes the service member so that the skills and leadership are not lost while slotting a member that is deployable into the previous slot. It avoids cutting a valuably trained and otherwise good member while keeping the force fit and strong.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2018 11:22 AM

2018-02-27T11:22:09-05:00

I like it. There's a difference between having a condition but still being able to do your job, and not being able to do the job because of it. We have a PULHES for every MOS, and you must have the corresponding PULHES to be qualified in the MOS. If someone is unqualified, they can't join. So why would we let them take up precious space in a branch. We have overstrength MOS' that have slots filled by physically unqualified SMs. Make room. Allow growth, allow the Army to become better. It is a job that has requirements, if a SM can't make those requirements, they're out.
We don't lower standards, a standard is a standard.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Feb 27 at 2018 2:22 PM

2018-02-27T14:22:33-05:00

It would be my opinion that each one is different how ever the Job for Soldiers is to be combat ready and if your not within 12 month time frame and possibly longer your not fulfilling your Contract. So Get Deployable or take the out. Bottom line if it was a civilian Job and you can't do your Job they send you home. The one exception I can think of is Combat Wounded, they would have reasonable recovery time then. If they can not Deploy Send them to a position where they can finish or let them out. IMHO

Response by SGM Billy Herrington made Apr 30 at 2018 7:02 PM

2018-04-30T19:02:53-04:00

From what I've read and heard most have heartburn about those milking physical injury. I can't agree more.

I wonder about the small percentage in the services that have an illness. HBV, HIV, diabetes etc. come to mind. They are qualified in their MOS and can do the job stateside; they just can't go OCONUS.

That will be interesting to see.