WSJ article

[FW]

OMG!! I wonder how true this is.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/recruits-ineligibility-tests-the-military-1403909945?mobile=y

[Flying Pig]

I was reading these articles 20yrs ago when I went in.  The military hasn't had an issue recruiting for a couple decades.  When I joined the Marines in 93 it was 10 month wait to get into the INFANTRY!  The sad fact is that the vast majority of Americans have never been fit for modern military service throughout history.  Unlike other nations, the US doesn't buy off on the quantity vs quality.  Training with foreign nations its pretty evident that their idea is to throw massive numbers of under trained and ill-equipped troops at a problem.  Just look at Russia and Ukraine, middle east countries.  Then compare that to the British, the US, Australia to name a few that Ive worked with specifically.   

Im not sweating it. 

[PHall]

It's a "non-issue". Like Rob said, it's been this way for years. It was that way when I enlisted in 1974.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Unlike other nations, the US doesn't buy off on the quantity vs quality.  Training with foreign nations its pretty evident that their idea is to throw massive numbers of under trained and ill-equipped troops at a problem.  Just look at Russia and Ukraine, middle east countries.  Then compare that to the British, the US, Australia to name a few that Ive worked with specifically.   

Those poorer-quality troops are usually conscripts, which most of NATO has done away with.  Even Germany kiboshed it in 2012, and they were always professional (at least the Bundesluftwaffe types I interacted with).  The UK and Australia did away with conscription decades ago.

[Flying Pig]

It's a "non-issue". Like Rob said, it's been this way for years. It was that way when I enlisted in 1974.

Yeah, but in 74 you guys were still following each other around on the battle field with bugles and flags. 

[Angus]

It is a shame though that we are turning away so many.  Now I'm not saying let's let everybody in, but I will take one subset listed in the article, those on medications for Attention Deficit Hyper-Activity Disorder.  Twenty years ago I could understand the hesitation as we were still learning about the medications that help those of us with either ADD/ADHD (some medical professionals says it's the same while others say they're separate but that's for another board). But now we know more about these medications and their effects.  I think by now we can let groups like this serve.

On a side rant I've been having for 15 years, even those with Neurological Disorders should be allowed to serve.  I myself have one and because of it I'm disqualified to serve based on this condition.  I go with the same argument we know more about it than we did say 40 years ago when my father tried to serve.  And rant done.

[Tim Medeiros]

Why bring in more than we're getting now, when we're kicking out a sizable chunk already? (at least on the AF side)

[Eclipse]

It is a shame though that we are turning away so many.  Now I'm not saying let's let everybody in, but I will take one subset listed in the article, those on medications for Attention Deficit Hyper-Activity Disorder.  Twenty years ago I could understand the hesitation as we were still learning about the medications that help those of us with either ADD/ADHD (some medical professionals says it's the same while others say they're separate but that's for another board). But now we know more about these medications and their effects.  I think by now we can let groups like this serve.

And what do you do for these folks when those meds are not available in the field?  Not to mention you'd have to then include an entire
"spectrum evaluation" to the medical evaluations.

While I personally think the majority of the cases of "ADHD" are parents who can't be bothered, I have a couple of kids in the family
that are off-the-charts, legitimate medical cases that can barely contain themselves with full medication administered on schedule.
Bump them off their clocks even a little and it can be days before they are back in synch.

Add external stressors like sleep deprivation, hunger, being shot at, etc., and they can be in real trouble.

My guess would be that in a legitimate WWII "all hands" situation these people would be considered, but in a period of draw-down,
not to mention economic uncertainty, there's plenty in the pool to choose from.

I think the real problem today is that the idea of the military, especially the Army, being the "last resort" for a lot of people to turn their lives
around is all but gone because of the entry requirements, so the Joe-Average high school slacker with nothing on the horizon finds himself
locked out of even that option.

[JeffDG]

On a side rant I've been having for 15 years, even those with Neurological Disorders should be allowed to serve.  I myself have one and because of it I'm disqualified to serve based on this condition.  I go with the same argument we know more about it than we did say 40 years ago when my father tried to serve.  And rant done.

I was DQ'd from the Canadian Forces Regular Officer Training Program (Canadian equivalent of a Service Academy) due to migraine headaches back when dinosaurs roamed the earth...would've been easier for me to take if they had told me up front, instead of after several weeks of tests, and hundreds of miles of driving to tests, that something on my initial application was disqualifying...but that's a rant for another day!

[Private Investigator]

I went with one of my daughters to MEPS and it was a mess there. I have nothing else to add 

[RiverAux]

At a time when you do hear periodic wailing about how the military has become a separate subculture that has declining linkages to most Americans, and the implications that may have for support for maintaining military readiness, it doesn't help things that so many who want to serve are turned away. 

This is really where the military auxiliaries could play a role, and historically have, as a place where those who can't serve in the military still are able to participate in a military-style program and provide some level of support to the military.

I just don't understand why there have never been significant efforts to get CAP and CG Aux integrated into the recruiting systems of the AF and CG so that those that are turned away from joining are seriously pointed at joining these organizations.  Sure, the vast majority wouldn't be interested in volunteering, but I bet enough would be so that we would have significant jumps in membership. 

[Eclipse]

I just don't understand why there have never been significant efforts to get CAP and CG Aux integrated into the recruiting systems of the AF and CG so that those that are turned away from joining are seriously pointed at joining these organizations.  Sure, the vast majority wouldn't be interested in volunteering, but I bet enough would be so that we would have significant jumps in membership.

That's a good idea, but why would recruiters care one way or another?  "Total Force" etc., etc.  but once you can't sign his form,
he's pretty much done with you.

[SARDOC]

Why bring in more than we're getting now, when we're kicking out a sizable chunk already? (at least on the AF side)

I agree.  The downsizing of military is in the down trend as it is after every conflict.  Enlistment/reenlistment standards will become more stringent until they start to need more troops again...then you'll see things like the National Guard going back to the Forty Year Old No Prior Service Enlistee.

[SARDOC]

I just don't understand why there have never been significant efforts to get CAP and CG Aux integrated into the recruiting systems of the AF and CG so that those that are turned away from joining are seriously pointed at joining these organizations.  Sure, the vast majority wouldn't be interested in volunteering, but I bet enough would be so that we would have significant jumps in membership.

That's a good idea, but why would recruiters care one way or another?  "Total Force" etc., etc.  but once you can't sign his form,
he's pretty much done with you.

I know that Army National Guard recruiters steer people towards the State Defense Force in my state.  There is a little POC note for the prospective member contact card.  The SDF has had mixed results...but than so does the Guard.

[MSG Mac]

The problem with taking those people who have medical problems is that once you've  allowed them to enlist you are responsible for that medical condition-FOR LIFE. The recruiters do tell them to get it fixed and come back later, but for chronic and/or permenant cases why bother, they'll be out of the service  in Six months or less, with a now service connected disability.

[lordmonar]

Well....here's the thing.

70+% of the population today do not meet the military's CURRENT standards.

As it has been pointed out.....we are in a draw down....while I don't know if our aquisition numbers have been cut....if we are meeting our recruiting quotas, then what's the problem?

If the services find that their current policies are getting in the way of meeting their goals....they will change the policies.

I know from a former cadet the USMC will not look at anyone who is NOT currently in High School for enlistment.   They don't want to deal with anyone who has already been on their own.

My cadet went to college for a semester, dropped out and then tried to enlist in the USMC....and none of the recruiters were able to talk to him.   It was policy.

So...yeah.....the services can be selective if they want to be.   If we ever get a Ronny Raygun in Officer....I'm sure that will change.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I know that Army National Guard recruiters steer people towards the State Defense Force in my state.  There is a little POC note for the prospective member contact card.  The SDF has had mixed results...but than so does the Guard.

My state SDF hews very close to Army guidelines (except for age) for enlistment/appointment.

And if you've gotten a medical discharge (no matter under what condition) from the military, they won't take you.

When I was in the CGAUX, I was on recruiting duty at a local airshow.  I ended up talking to a Lieutenant Commander from the USNR and she said she was unaware that the CG had a civilian Auxiliary, and that it would be possibly a good thing to direct those who didn't qualify for the USNR our way.  However, when I talked to my Flotilla Commander about it, he huffed "We don't want the Navy's rejects!"

[RRLE]

I just don't understand why there have never been significant efforts to get CAP and CG Aux integrated into the recruiting systems of the AF and CG so that those that are turned away from joining are seriously pointed at joining these organizations.

The CG Aux has a policy, probably honored more in the breach, that members should present a "trim, military appearance". They also have a tattoo policy that is not as restrictive as the USCG but it is there. From reading this board for several years, CAP also has appearance requirement, at least to wear an AF style uniform.

Those rules would put most of the obese and tattooed military rejects out of the running for CAP and the USCGAux. Part of the USCGAUX application process is a security check that requires an applicant to list all medical conditions. The USCGAUX has never publicly stated if any of those are disqualifying but some might be.

[Eclipse]

The CG Aux has a policy, probably honored more in the breach, that members should present a "trim, military appearance".

OK, maybe so, but has anyone read it to the membership?

I've run into more then a few up this way that make our guys look chiseled - like monkey-barrel-guts in their blues for a base change of command.

This was the first time I'd seen any of them in uniform and was like "WTH?"

Those rules would put most of the obese and tattooed military rejects out of the running for CAP and the USCGAux.

Since when?

You just can't show them, cover them and no one cares, at least in CAP.

No one is being refused membership in CAP for anything in regards to physical appearance or medical history.

[SARDOC]

I know that Army National Guard recruiters steer people towards the State Defense Force in my state.  There is a little POC note for the prospective member contact card.  The SDF has had mixed results...but than so does the Guard.

My state SDF hews very close to Army guidelines (except for age) for enlistment/appointment.

And if you've gotten a medical discharge (no matter under what condition) from the military, they won't take you.

When I was in the CGAUX, I was on recruiting duty at a local airshow.  I ended up talking to a Lieutenant Commander from the USNR and she said she was unaware that the CG had a civilian Auxiliary, and that it would be possibly a good thing to direct those who didn't qualify for the USNR our way.  However, when I talked to my Flotilla Commander about it, he huffed "We don't want the Navy's rejects!"

The SDF in my state says No Physical, No Height/Weight, must just be able to physically perform assigned tasks.  By looking at some of them...they don't get assigned much.  They've got a bunch of Retired RealMilitary© that all have Service Connected disabilities.

I didn't think Military retirees were even eligible to be a member of the SDF.  SDF Requirement says you cannot be a reservist.  Are Retiree's Ready Reservists until something like 65...which by the way is the age limit on SDF membership.

I think your Flotilla Commander did a great disservice to your unit.  The Navy rejects a lot of people who would be great CGAUX or CAP members.  "Oh...you take ADHD meds...I'm sorry you can't conduct a Marine Vessel Safety Check. "  Not sure if I see his logic.