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.

[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.

[lordmonar]

It's not an equal opportunity employer.

It is as far as the Equal Opportuntiy Employment Law is concerned.

But that is just a quibble

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.

All the rest I agree with you.   Every now and again some law maker spouts up about how we should start a mandatory draft again "It turned my life around".   I cringe every time I hear that old saw.  We are here to defend American and her interests......not be a jobs program.   

[Eclipse]

National service of some kind >should< be a mandate, especially with the high number of
directionless young people we have these days.

The military could be just one of a list of organizations which would benefit from this mandate,
but some sort of exposure to the real world within a few years of graduating high school
is good for everyone, whether that's the military, a charity, some NGO, or whatever.

A mass of working hands is just what this country could use right about now.

Every few years the idea of forgiving some or all student loan debt in exchange for public service is
floated and is shot down by some special interest group or another.

[PHall]

A mass of unskilled working hands is pretty much useless.

Now help them get the job skills you need today to get and keep a good paying job. That would be a public service.

[lordmonar]

If we wanted to reserve public service jobs for anyone.....let's hold them for only vets.   Serve your country for X years and you get priority placement in the GS jobs.

You can't "make" people do public "service" it is contrary to the whole idea of "service" as I was taught it.  (not saying those who got drafted are not up standing citizens who did not do an outstanding job!)

That's why I have always laughed at schools and such who try to teach a sense of volunteer community service by forcing their students to do XX hours to graduate.

[Eclipse]

Agreed - the only way to get people skills is to get them working or learning or preferably both.

[RRLE]

Every now and again some law maker spouts up about how we should start a mandatory draft again "It turned my life around".

If they say that and they are under 60 years old, they are lying. The last draft call possible was for the birth year 1953. The volunteer army came into being and the draft ended in June or July of 1973. To avoid any problems the military did not call up anyone in 1973, so the last year with an actual call-up was 1972, birth year 1952.

National service of some kind >should< be a mandate, especially with the high number of directionless young people we have these days.

Heinlein said it better than I can. I would just add in any mandatory "public" service to his quote.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the [darn]ed thing go down the drain!

Guest of Honor Speech at the 29th World Science Fiction Convention, Seattle, Washington (1961)

If we wanted to reserve public service jobs for anyone.....let's hold them for only vets.   Serve your country for X years and you get priority placement in the GS jobs.

That is already true and has been for a long time. Vets get a certain number of points added to their score. I don't know what it is now but in 1977 it was 10. In 1977, with a federal hiring freeze that was just about enough to keep all the jobs for the vets who weren't disabled. Disabled vets, I forget what percentage disability got them this "benefit", went right to the top of any hiring list they were qualified for.

I also think that forcing high school kids to perform community service would make them less inclined to volunteer in the future. For some the mandatory service is a joke, they get credit for anything they were already doing so they had no extra effort required.

[Flying Pig]

As a former Sq Leader and Plt Sgt myself, mandatory service would be miserable.  People whined and complained enough as it was... I couldn't imagine the American culture of teens being forced to serve.   If the youth of America need discipline, don't mix them in with those of us who actually wanted to live the life. 

[flyboy53]

National service of some kind >should< be a mandate, especially with the high number of
directionless young people we have these days.

The military could be just one of a list of organizations which would benefit from this mandate,
but some sort of exposure to the real world within a few years of graduating high school
is good for everyone, whether that's the military, a charity, some NGO, or whatever.

A mass of working hands is just what this country could use right about now.

Every few years the idea of forgiving some or all student loan debt in exchange for public service is
floated and is shot down by some special interest group or another.

I couldn't agree with you more. However, I don't believe "national service" should construed as military service only.

I'm of that era in the Air Force when there were still a number of "Category 4"s in the service. I was a junior airman then and didn't understand why someone with 14+ years in the service would only be an E-3 or airman first class until I learned about this project. I've even met a career E-4 once in the Navy who really did have about 30 years service when you included the 10 years he served in the Fleet Reserve. But I also don't believe in propaganda that says the program was a dismal failure -- after all, so many of those individuals performed their duties without question until some other program like rank/service ceilings forced them out and they did end up working menial jobs or on welfare.

I also don't believe they were dis-proportionately lost in Vietnam when most of those who served there were volunteers.

Consider this, do you really think that unqualified individuals have not fought in all of our Nations wars? Would Sgt. Alvin York have qualified for military service had he enlisted and had not been drafted. He only went to school for nine months before being pulled from school to work on the family farm.

I believe that national service should include things like the U.S. Job Corps or VISTA, AmeriCorps or other avenues such as the old Civilian Conservation Corps. We as a Congressionally Chartered organization have to follow EEO practices, so special standards are in place to assist those individuals with various handicaps. Imagine how CAP would change if someone could join to satisfy a national service requirement.

[Flying Pig]

I think one issue is that service like that has almost become regulated out of existence.  Pay, Medical, retirement, other benefits to include housing and transportation.    In todays day and age, could you imagine the US government requiring someone to leave home and perform a service?  You think people are conspiracy theorists now?!!   And can you imagine when someone gets hurt during their mandated national service?  We would own that person and their injury forever.   Mandatory "civilian" volunteer service is no longer compatible with the American culture or legal system. 

As far as CAP.... it would be complete drain on CAP.  because the people joining would not be the type of people we need.  In all seriousness, they show up, hang out and at the end of their 2 yrs, they would be gone.   Could you imagine being a Sq Commander having to manage hoards of 18-24yr olds beating down your door trying to get into CAP?  You would have 100,000 people just trying to get their ticket punched.  The record keeping that would be involved and not even going into the enforcement side of the house when they don't show up, or are being a discipline issue.

As much as I hate to say it... American culture no longer supports mandatory national service.

[JeffDG]

Mandatory "civilian" volunteer service is no longer compatible with the American culture or legal system. 
...
As much as I hate to say it... American culture no longer supports mandatory national service.

With the narrow exception of military draft, "mandatory volunteer service" would be suspect on 13th Amendment grounds.

[Flying Pig]

Cold you imagine the Youtube hysteria and the stories of people volunteering for mandatory service actually being herded off to FEMA concentration camps  

In all seriousness, if the US government tried to institute mandatory government service, with enforceable consequences if you didnt comply, people would be dying in the streets.  I can tell you for one.... I would not be the guy going to enforce it!  Bad enough that people already think cops are part of the new world order!

[Eclipse]

Then like I said, offer relief of student loans or other debt to those who "can" be bothered.
Maybe limit access to certain resources if you can't.  I don't know, "you're not allowed to ever use the express
lane at the Whole Foods unless you did your CS hours..."

My school district requires community service hours starting in 6th grade, all the way through high school.

Yes, there are more then a few kids whose parent game the system, or 3 weeks before the end of the school
year are desperately dragging old ladies across the street to make their hours, but on the whole its viewed
as a "good thing" by the community and is a practice that has been in pace for years.

[Tim Medeiros]

Then like I said, offer relief of student loans or other debt to those who "can" be bothered.

This already exists for federal student loans (not private), if you are in certain jobs (military, local/state/fed, non-profits etc) for 10 years, have made 120 months of payments, and are on an income based repayment plan.  You can apply for forgiveness once those conditions are met.  https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/charts/public-service#what-must-i-do

[Flying Pig]

They offer similar programs to LEOs in exchange for buying a house in certain areas.  No thanks... Id rather be $60K in debt. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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. 

I never heard of anyone being forced to wear an "alternative" uniform during my time in the Aux, nor anyone even attempting to define "a trim, military appearance," and I saw quite a few people who were not "trim" wearing it...in the main correctly WRT proper insignia placement, cleaning, etc.

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 only time I've actually heard of that happening is in the immediate post-9/11 period.  A retired Army Chief Warrant Officer in his late 60's was apparently recalled...and it was decided he had to go through Basic again!  His Drill Sergeant was in a quandary about what to do.  He said "The exercises we have for recruits would probably seriously injure a 60-year-old.  Plus, this guy was in the Army long before I was born and probably knows more about the Army than I do.  And he's an officer that I have to salute, so I sure can't treat him like a new recruit!"

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).

Some take it further than that.  An SDF tried to recruit me around the same time I joined CAP, and the recruiter told me that I had to choose between one or the other, that "you can't have both."

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.

SF-85/86 are the forms that the Auxiliary uses (I checked).  I did an SF-85 some years ago when I rejoined the Auxiliary; relatively painless, but it's the "low-tier" ("Operational Support") membership.

SF-86 is the one where they ask how many times a day you've taken a dump, who your first crush was in grade school, did you fart in class in high school, did you ever tell an employer to get bent...and things like mental illnesses ("Direct Operations").  I don't hide from the fact that I suffer from severe depression and PTSD, severe enough for it to be a disabling condition.  What I consider an affront is that the PTB would consider, in the 21st century, the anachronistic view that those of us with such issues are somehow a "risk" to volunteer operations supporting the United States Coast Guard.

But the Commandant instituted it in '03, and it's here to stay.

The people skills of some of the investigators do need some work.   

Understatement of the day!

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. 

He actually didn't lose his clearance.  As I said, they called him back into the room and he vented his spleen at them, telling them, among other things, that he had enough time in for retirement, and if they wanted to lose an officer commissioned from the ranks with commendations and combat decorations (Vietnam) up the wazoo (I remember seeing his ribbon rack) over something that trivial, that he didn't need that.  He kept his clearance and retired a few years later.

The Questions they ask are literally scripted. 

Then they need to revise their script.  This one isn't going to win any Academy Awards.

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. 

I have Canadian relatives and distant relatives in Alsace-Lorraine.  They'd be concerned about that?

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)

It's not, but it is a fact of my daily life.  It's already caused some aggro (at the local level) as to what I can/can't do for CAP.

You are an obvious exception to the rule of many, many daft gits over the years I have encountered who have thought they are self-appointed Freud/Jung clones qualified to "diagnose" or judge me, when they are not.  I have set many of them back on their ear (or other things) when they have tried to preach what my "real problems" are to me and their "solutions." 

I can see going through such a comprehensive investigation for the RealMilitary (I still have my ancient SF-86), but not to be able to clean the head at the local CG Station.

[RRLE]

As much as I hate to say it... American culture no longer supports mandatory national service.

America has never supported mandatory national service for adults, except for the draft in war time. Even the last must be taken with a barrel of salt - research the Civil War Draft Riots and the anti-draft movement that was a sub-set of the Vietnam War protests.

What America has supported, somewhat, was programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and other New Deal Work Progress Administration programs. You volunteered for those programs, no one forced anyone into them. As soon as WWII ended the Great Depression and the draft was reinstated, those programs went by the boards.

[Luis R. Ramos]

From RRLE
As soon as WWII ended the Great Depression...

You should edit your words...

The Civilian Conservation Corps operated from 1933 to 1942. The draft started in 1940. World War II ended in 1945.

The Great Depression started in 1929 or so...

So, it was the start not the end of WWII that killed the program. So did the draft, but the draft had started two years before the CCC died.

The Great Depression did not kill the CCC as the CCC was a response, as well as other New Deal programs, to the Great Depression...

[Johnny Yuma]

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.

The only problem is that our enemies are still at war with us and we see old enemies flexing their muscles again 

Meanwhile we're purging the ranks of warriors in every branch and replacing them with Pretty People.