WSJ article

[SARDOC]

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.

I've experienced the same.  I would think that if someone with the Mike Tyson Face Tattoo on that you might just let them know they can't wear the Air Force Style uniform.  It does actually fall under the AFI for "Grooming and Appearance Standards"

No such rule for Corporate uniforms.

[Flying Pig]

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.

I talked to a friend of mine about that.  He said its usually an office-by-office directive.  If you are in an area saturated by fresh meat (High Schools) there is absolutely NO reason to chase "adults" around, bend over backwards trying to accommodate their work schedules, answer 1000 highly detailed questions about every aspect of military life......  just hang out at the local H.S. and herd them in like cattle with little to no effort.   Makes sense from a business stand point.  The Marines need people, no need to exert any extra effort.  The Marines have always been in a position of people coming to them.  They don't need to go track people down.   Perhaps your cadet just needs to go to another office?  Or at the very least, just hit up another service. 

[Garibaldi]

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.

I talked to a friend of mine about that.  He said its usually an office-by-office directive.  If you are in an area saturated by fresh meat (High Schools) there is absolutely NO reason to chase "adults" around, bend over backwards trying to accommodate their work schedules, answer 1000 highly detailed questions about every aspect of military life......  just hang out at the local H.S. and herd them in like cattle with little to no effort.   Makes sense from a business stand point.  The Marines need people, no need to exert any extra effort.  The Marines have always been in a position of people coming to them.  They don't need to go track people down.   Perhaps your cadet just needs to go to another office?  Or at the very least, just hit up another service.

Just a quick question...has he taken the ASVAB? I did so well on it, I had to figuratively beat the recruiters away with a stick. They called day and night, left messages, sent mail, came to my school...

[RogueLeader]

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.

I have to call this into question.  I have a genetic disorder, prior to entry, and got a waiver for it.  Down the road, a CIVILIAN doctor on Ft Bragg found out about (and without even examining me) got me discharged from the Army.  I was not given ANY service connected disability as it was classed as "existed prior to service."  Which it was, and it was not aggravated by military service, so it did, and should, stand.  That does not mean that if there is an issue; that the military will cover every condition that existed prior to service.

[Salty]

Just a quick question...has he taken the ASVAB? I did so well on it, I had to figuratively beat the recruiters away with a stick. They called day and night, left messages, sent mail, came to my school...

I had the same issue after I took the ASVAB.  I continued to get recruiting pamphlets, letters, etc. from the other branches even after I was active duty USAF.

I'm not sure if it's still policy but when I was trying to enlist I had to draft a formal letter explaining why I wanted to go to a recruiter out of my area.  The one in my area was a known jackwagon so a lot of us chose to go to a different recruiter who had a sterling reputation.

[Private Investigator]

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.

I talked to a friend of mine about that.  He said its usually an office-by-office directive.  If you are in an area saturated by fresh meat (High Schools) there is absolutely NO reason to chase "adults" around, bend over backwards trying to accommodate their work schedules, answer 1000 highly detailed questions about every aspect of military life......  just hang out at the local H.S. and herd them in like cattle with little to no effort.   Makes sense from a business stand point.  The Marines need people, no need to exert any extra effort.  The Marines have always been in a position of people coming to them.  They don't need to go track people down.   Perhaps your cadet just needs to go to another office?  Or at the very least, just hit up another service.

Just a quick question...has he taken the ASVAB? I did so well on it, I had to figuratively beat the recruiters away with a stick. They called day and night, left messages, sent mail, came to my school...

It really depends on where you are at. The average H.S. grad has not had a chance to get arrested, offensively inked up or other dumb things young adults do. 

[RRLE]

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?

It is in the Auxiliary Manual, very early on, and it is pointed out as part of the applicants on-boarding/orienting process. No applicant has any excuse for not knowing what the rule is.

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.

As the article pointed out, the problem with tats started with the ones on the hands, face and neck. That is a problem for the military, the Aux and I thought (including your comment above) CAP. For the most part those cannot be covered up.

The obsess present a different problem. They want to join and wear the uniform and they will wear it. Both organizations prohibit but apparently do not enforce to any large degree a prohibition on obese persons wearing the uniform. But should either organization make an already bad situation worse?

So as I stated the military rejects for most tats and obesity would not fit in with the Aux or CAP - if the appearance regulations were enforced.

[SARDOC]

As the article pointed out, the problem with tats started with the ones on the hands, face and neck. That is a problem for the military, the Aux and I thought (including your comment above) CAP. For the most part those cannot be covered up.

The obsess present a different problem. They want to join and wear the uniform and they will wear it. Both organizations prohibit but apparently do not enforce to any large degree a prohibition on obese persons wearing the uniform. But should either organization make an already bad situation worse?

So as I stated the military rejects for most tats and obesity would not fit in with the Aux or CAP - if the appearance regulations were enforced.

Visible Tattoos really started receiving a lot of military interest not just because of the "display of professionalism" but with increases in Gang Violence even in the Military.  There are gang law enforcement groups that identify gang members and try to flag the military as a warning.  Some of the visible tattoos are sometimes a result of gang affiliation.  Gangs for the last few years would encourage younger members to join the military to receive professional military instruction so that these strategies and tactics can be used in Criminal Enterprise.

See Prospective employers sometimes really do value the military skills that you bring to the table.

[Flying Pig]

I think its just more of a way to curb an unprofessional look appearance and not have the US military running around looking like French Foreign Legionnaires.  I had a chance to train with some and it looked like i was on the main yard at Chino State Prison   Great soldiers though....

The concept of gang members joining the military to learn tactics, at least from my experience in dealing with gangs, was pretty much a non-event.  Although dirtbags did manage to get into the military, I doubt a traceable number actually joined to receive the training to take it back to the streets.  Id say more like they joined for a job and decided to being the hood with them and couldn't let it go. 

The tat thing is just another way to trim the numbers.  Gang tats are usually pretty identifiable.  Any local LEO could look at a tat that a recruiter had an issue with and in pretty short order, be able to find out if its gang affiliated.

[SARDOC]

This is just presented to us by the State Gang Task Force  when I was a Law Enforcement Officer.  They had some examples...but I agree.  This is more the exception than the rule.

I had a fellow Soldier in my National Guard unit that had the Telephone Area Code and a very well known gang Tattoo on his neck.

There was discussion about it than but he was allowed to enlist in the Army National Guard after the Army rejected him for the Tattoo because the ArNG was taking everybody it could get it's hand on with the deployment tempo of 2003-2004.

He Never admitted to Gang Affiliation and his conduct demonstrated that he was trying to escape the lifestyle and the Area.  Fine Soldier I never had issues with him when he worked for me.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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 they're in the Retired Reserve, which is different from the Individual Ready Reserve.

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.

He wasn't a very good commander to begin with.  When I became Vice-Flotilla Commander he transferred to another flotilla because he seemed concerned I was after his job.

As I understand the Auxiliary these days, there are two levels of membership/background check/form to fill out.

Form "Lite" - Cursory background investigation, not too different from CAP, minimum headache.

Form "Heavy" - Have to do if you want to augment on CG station/vessel/aircraft.  Reminds me of the old DD398 I had to fill out for Top Secret clearance.  Quite a headache, as I understand it incorporates the same kind of personal interviews with Federal investigators that SSBI's require.  They do ask about your health history, especially mental health.  I said "to Hades with it" on that, as I am disabled due to severe depression/PTSD and I didn't want some investigator type who quite possibly knew nothing about mental health issues other than using them to disqualify you picking me apart only to very, very possibly DQ me anyway.

I've seen these investigators operate AND heard other stories...a former supervisor almost lost his clearance simply because he was married to a Thai woman who had not become a U.S. citizen.  He actually said "I've had quite enough of this" and started to walk out on the interviewer and they called him back and changed their tone considerably.

It's bloody ludicrous to think that just because someone has depression, PTSD, or, as you said, ADHD, to think that somehow you would be a "risk" doing actual CG augmentation.

I know of a lot of people who left the Auxiliary after this two-tier membership was instituted.

[RiverAux]

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

Actually, no.  You can weigh 500 pounds and still join both CAP or the CG Aux.

In CAP, you can still be roughly 10% over military standards and wear the AF-style uniforms.  Using generally accepted BMI interpretations you can still be "overweight" and meet CAP standards.  Now, if you are actually "obese", you are probably not going to meet CAP's height/weight requirements, but you can still participate.

In CG Aux, even if you couldn't "legally" wear the CG Aux's CG-style uniforms, you well know that there are alternatives that can be worn that would still let you participate in some CG Aux programs.  Now, there isn't an official definition of what a "trim, military appearance" is, but if you're overweight, but not obese, you're probably not going to have any real hassles. 

So, there is no reason that those that are rejected by the military just for weight issues couldn't participate and no reason not to push for such people to be guided towards the auxs.

Now, how to do it?  Well, I assume the military recruiters are tracking everyone in a database and it could be as simple as having someone send out a postcard promoting the Aux's to anyone rejected or who doesn't end up enlisting for some reason or another within a reasonable period of time. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^^WIWITAux, I saw some quite rotund individuals wearing the CGAux uniform and nobody raised a peep.

[RRLE]

^^^WIWITAux, I saw some quite rotund individuals wearing the CGAux uniform and nobody raised a peep.

The issue, including RiverAux's comment above, isn't whether it raises a peep or not in the Aux. The standard, again despite RiverAux's comment, is "a trim, military appearance". The CGAux may not define it, but like pornography, you know it when you see it. The problem for the Aux and maybe CAP is that members join and violate the standard. Yes, there are alternatives but the heavy weights wear the uniform anyway. Follow some Auxie forums and you will see it is a problem. The Aux should either enforce the reg or drop it. Allowing members to join and wear the uniform in violation of an easily understood reg breeds disrespect for all the regs.

FWIW - in days gone by, the Nat Aux used to publish articles in the national publication about wearing the uniform properly, including not wearing it when you did not meet the "trim, military appearance" standard. I would counter-post articles linking to elected and appointed national staff members who were pictured in national pubs and didn't meet the standard. My point was - don't go after the membership until the national and district officers meet the standard. Since that time Nat Aux has stopped publishing those articles. I guess it was easier to stop trying to enforce a standard that your own appointees and elected officers didn't meet.

[SARDOC]

I think they're in the Retired Reserve, which is different from the Individual Ready Reserve.

Are they still subject to being recalled to Active Duty in the event that they are needed?  It's not a "pension" until they are "retired" until then it's classified as "retainer pay".  It's considered a Pay Status according to the DoD and DFAS.

I don't recall what the Army and Air Force call it.  After 20 years of Active Military Service the Navy and Marine Corps call it the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve respectively.  Depending on the conditions in effect at retirement some can transfer to the retired list after completing after completing a Combination of 30 years.  Thirty active duty or twenty active and ten in the Fleet Reserve.

Some references state that they are subject to recall up to 60 years of age unless they volunteer to be recalled up to 70 years of age.  Some specific Specialties may be subject to recall indefinitely.

The criteria for the SDF is that they can not be subject to recall to any U.S. Military organization.  (Can't serve two masters).

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.

He wasn't a very good commander to begin with.  When I became Vice-Flotilla Commander he transferred to another flotilla because he seemed concerned I was after his job.

As I understand the Auxiliary these days, there are two levels of membership/background check/form to fill out.

Form "Lite" - Cursory background investigation, not too different from CAP, minimum headache.

Form "Heavy" - Have to do if you want to augment on CG station/vessel/aircraft.  Reminds me of the old DD398 I had to fill out for Top Secret clearance.  Quite a headache, as I understand it incorporates the same kind of personal interviews with Federal investigators that SSBI's require.  They do ask about your health history, especially mental health.  I said "to Hades with it" on that, as I am disabled due to severe depression/PTSD and I didn't want some investigator type who quite possibly knew nothing about mental health issues other than using them to disqualify you picking me apart only to very, very possibly DQ me anyway.

I've seen these investigators operate AND heard other stories...a former supervisor almost lost his clearance simply because he was married to a Thai woman who had not become a U.S. citizen.  He actually said "I've had quite enough of this" and started to walk out on the interviewer and they called him back and changed their tone considerably.

It's bloody ludicrous to think that just because someone has depression, PTSD, or, as you said, ADHD, to think that somehow you would be a "risk" doing actual CG augmentation.

I know of a lot of people who left the Auxiliary after this two-tier membership was instituted.

I've been a Contract Background Investigator for the Office of Personnel Management.  I can't imagine the CGAUX doing a full scale SSBI type investigation.  It would be extremely cost prohibitive.  I do understand that even for the MBI you would have to do a Complete Background Investigation form (SF85 or SF86) depending on the investigation type but the threshold limits for that investigation are really established by the Coast Guard.  My district covered a Coast Guard Fleet Headquarters and the Coast Guard Finance Center.  I can tell you that only very rarely did the Coast Guard background investigations for even full time employees ever really result in any specific field work (requiring my Investigator type work).  I can honestly attest that I've never done any work concerning a CGAUX member.

The people skills of some of the investigators do need some work.   Your Boss may have lost his clearance by walking out of the interview not because of his wife (unless her Father worked for a Foreign Intelligence Service).   If she's not an American Citizen they just want to know why not?  A lot of times because it's too expensive or just haven't gotten around to it.  The Questions they ask are literally scripted.  If you have a Foreign National with whom you have a Close relationship...I'm sorry but that is a security flag that the investigator needs to clarify some potential issues.  The investigator provides the information that the subject provides.  I told people all the time when they start getting that I'm not getting this clearance feeling that this is their opportunity to explain things.  The Investigator doesn't make the clearance decision...that goes to an adjudicator who makes a recommendation to YOUR AGENCY.  Your Agency makes the determination to grant the clearance.  make your case.

Don't let your PTSD disability be what defines you.  Report it.  An Investigator will meet with you and depending on the Case Type, They may ask you some very basic questions and ask you to sign a medical release form and maybe a Followup Release form.  (believe me it's not as invasive as they make it sound)

Don't think that the information you provide is negative and will result in Disqualification.  My thing is JUST TELL THE TRUTH.  The integrity issue is the only surefire way out of getting your agency approval.  Where there is a will there is a Waiver.

I've come into the conclusion that everyone has something in their background.  I was really surprised how many Senior Military Leaders...some you may heave heard of...have issues in their Background (Sorry No Specifics).

It seems like a big hassle...but let them tell you no. (it doesn't happen, that often)  TELL THE TRUTH and most of the other issues will be resolved.  I can't provide investigative process details...but who cares if you have an investigator do their job.  I'm betting for the CGAUX you would provide your questionnaire and most of your "investigation" will be done electronically...credit report, NCIC/State, Local check...not even requiring a field  investigator.

[Shuman 14]

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.

I've experienced the same.  I would think that if someone with the Mike Tyson Face Tattoo on that you might just let them know they can't wear the Air Force Style uniform.  It does actually fall under the AFI for "Grooming and Appearance Standards"

No such rule for Corporate uniforms.

[Garibaldi]

Or this guy:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg

[RNOfficer]

I'm certain it's quite true.

Anyone old enough to remember Project 100,000 (also known as the "Moron Corps") remembers what a disaster that was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000

The modern military is not a suitable environment for remedial education. It makes for an undisciplined, poorly functioning military and does not even seem to benefit the recruits

[lordmonar]

There are stories and then there are stories.

Rules change from time to time.

So yes I know people who BITD married a foreign national and lost their clearance....but I'm married to a foreign national and I got a clearance.

My point is....if you don't fill out your EPSQ you can't get a clearance.  If you feel uncomfortable of people digging into your background......you may just not want to have a clearance......especially one that requires a Poly. 

 

[Pylon]

Exclusion makes good sense when you approach the issue with the viewpoint in mind of what the military is and does.  The military ultimately has been to decisively win on the battlefield. Every time.  And we need fewer and fewer people to do that well. 


The military isn't a job. It's not an equal opportunity employer.  Everybody doesn't "deserve" a chance at serving in it.  It's not an entitlement to be able to serve.  It's not a career stepping stone or resume builder.  It doesn't exist so people can feel better about themselves or feel fulfilled or to pursue their lifelong dreams.  It exists to win on the battlefield (whether that battlefield be in the land, sea, air, space, or in the cyber world) decisively, every time, and with minimal losses.


Enlisting people who have indicators that they might be less than ideal is not a solid strategy for being effective at their main purpose. But even more especially when the military has more applicants than it has spaces for recruits, like we do right now.