Basic training attrition rates.

[tacticalcity]

Hell man, I would finish the degree. Life is better, especially if you end up stuck at a training base where everything is spit and polish 24-7. Life is just a tad easier in general with that little peice of paper. Nothing wrong with a shiny chunk of metal on your collar at all.

And people that say life has to be as hard as possible or you haven't lived are just trying to make themselves feel better about how crappy it has gone. Not bashing enlisted at all. I was enlisted. I am just saying, nothing wrong with being the guy in charge - though I am sure somebody here will post the usual "officers suck" comment.

Enlisted that bash officers is about as cheesy and serious as bashing each other's service. Only the real idiots actually mean it. Most of us are just joking around just to have something to joking around about. Overwelming majority of us woulld have jumped at the opportunity to attend OCS if it came up. Some no, most yes. We would need to be really attached to what we were doing to not want to get the pay bump and added responsibiliy. Winners always want the ball. Only reason not to take the opportunity is you feel you already have the ball and don't want to put it down.

It would be one thing if they were going to let you be Delta, and you craved the rush of being a shooter, and getting bars meant you would be back at base camp instead. But since that's an unlikely career path given the past injuries, then all I see is an upside to being an officer vs. enlisted.

It's a no brainer man. They made the choice very easy for you. Get the degree, go for the bars. I'd sell you your first salute, but my saluting days are done!

[johnthomas]

Yes, but at the same time you have thousands upon thousands of willing recruits who are disqualifed from service because of things like asthma, knee surgeries, criminal records, age and more.

In my case I've had a knee surgery, eye surgery and went through some therapy when I was younger for a brothers death. I'm disqualified and need 3 waivers. Yet I can run (not great), shoot, climb, jump, read, write, etc. While I'd love a combat arms position, I'd be happy working in transport (88M), being a load master, or some other non-combat position.

You have people like my cousin who have 1 non-violent felony, who'd love to straighten out their life and serve their country, but they can't because of one mistake they made when they were a dumb kid.

You have plenty of supply and clerk jobs, people with asthma or older people could and would happily work.

How many 40 and 50 year olds were trying to enlist when we invaded Iraq? I remember the news doing several articles and segments on it. You mean to tell me there weren't any jobs for them. The Army, Navy, Marines and Airforce doesn't need cooks? quartermasters? mechanics? carpenters? etc etc

Or does everyone who fills those jobs really need to be 18-20 years old and capable of running a mile in under 8 minutes?

The people are more then willing, those in charges are just to god damn picky. Lower the standard? What is the standard for serving in the military.


How the hell can this guy keep serving our country (not saying he's a bad guy, but he has no leg!)

http://www.emilitary.org/article.php?aid=14343

Yet, if I want to serve my country the closest I'll ever get again is hasseling bums downtown?

Like any employer, once they hire you, hey are responsible for your injuries.
A guy I worked with had to get a waiver for his ankles, got in, served his time and got out, years later, he went to the VA and now is on disablility for injuries worsened in the Army, ankles. There are thousands of low life people that take advantage of the system like this, is it any wonder they would be careful when recruiting someone with past injuries. You can still serve your country, just in a different way, Hospitals, Old folk's home's. You don't have to be military to be a hero. Stop messing with the bums.

[Bizcuits]

I've tried numerous army, national guard, airforce, airforce reserve and even 1coast guard recruiter.

The over all (synopsis)... I was told, due to the economy and end of the school year every branch was sitting (and I quote the Airforce) fat dumb and happy. Their enlistments are way up. Two different national guard recruiters including a friend of a friend, told me it was a no go on waivers for enlisted. But the guard was and still is hurting for Officers, so they're getting waivers left and right for anyone who qualifies for a Commission. Both of them told me to get my units up and come back, otherwise trying for waivers right down as enlisted would just disqualify me and ruin a future opportunity.

The story is the same with every other branch I contacted. The Airforce though actually wanted a 4th waiver for my tattoo's. Which the recruiter was very confident wouldn't get approved.

Long story short,

Every branch and every recruiter has said, I can either;

A) Try now and they'll do their damniest, but odds are I'll get denied on 1 of the 3 (4 if I go airforce) waivers, because the system isn't as generous as it was when recruiting was slow. Every recruiter has urged me not to try right now, because I'd probably get disqualified.

B) I can wait until recruiting dies down, (In June I was told try October, now I'm told try Oct 2010).

C) I can finish up my degree while I wait and if the door doesn't open for Enlisted, it'll always be open for a state commission.


So in essence, I'm kinda still in the Army, because they've got me waiting...


I don't think the recruiters are in the wrong or being dicks, every single one of them as been sincere and understood my situation. Almost all of them have offered to submit my packet and get the ball rolling. Only 1 Army recruiter and 1 of the Guard recruiters flat out said no. The rest, explained if I wanted in, rushing it would only hurt my chances. The fact is they almost all say the exact same thing.

[dwa]

#1 - I am aware of the recent combat jumps by army soldiers, I did not question the usefulness of airborne troops. I questioned the number of army soldiers sent to airborne school who are not in units where they will ever have a chance for the army to utilize their airborne training.

#2 - I do NOT have a problem with the army training every single soldier to jump out of a plane, but I DO have a problem with someone saying that army soldiers are better trained because they have gone to army airborne school.

#3 - The difference between army airborne school and training Marines to "hit a defended beach" as you say, is that the only Marines trained to "hit a defended beach" are those who will be on/are on an LHD/LHA. We do not send Marines from their unit to a "hit a defended beach" school, the training is done with their unit. Marines are ONLY trained to "hit a defended beach" when they are with a unit that has the possibility of actually doing so.
why again do you have aavs and are hoping to acquire the efv? why do your lpd/lha have the capability to launch amphibious forces? all of that equipment seems to have a certain intent behind it. why do you have doctrine out about a 30nm limit for launching an amphibious assault and that your new amphibious assault vehicle must be able to launch from that distance?
#4 - When Marines need to get from ship to shore how would you suggest they do it? One method is "hit a defended beach," we also have helicopters if you haden't noticed, we don't spend all day training to "hit a defended beach." If you have another way to get Marines from ship to shore please share it.
the use of helicopters is irrelevant i merely pointed out you questioning the utility of airborne forces and pointed out a parallel, assaulting a beach and apparently hit a nerve
#5 - Why does it matter if the beach is defended or not? Does the army only drop soldiers into defended areas?
how would one assault an undefended beach, i would hope have i assume been trained in at least some elements of amphibious doctrine you asked this in jest
#6 - Here's a quick little history review since you seem to have forgotten (I'll go from Grenada to Iraq since that's what you mentioned) :

2003: Royal Marines, U.S. Marines and Polish special forces conduct amphibious assault on the al-Faw peninsula

2001: Marines launched from ships, via helicopter into Afghanistan
not a beach not was i was talking about
1993: Operation Restore Hope - Marines land at beaches on Somalia
but did they assault it?
1983: Marines launched from ships, via helicopter into Grenada

not a beach not what i was talking about.

if the marine corps has no intent on assaulting beaches, which has not been done for quite some time why are they trying to buy hundreds of these

obviously they will do more that assault beaches but they specifically have that ability. why because the marines train to assault beaches and procure equipment with that specific intent. how many of these vehicles that will cost millions of dollars will actually assault a beach? how many aavs actually assaulted a beach and how much money ws spent procuring them?

so in fact the marine corps has not assaulted a beach in some time which is what i said minus one joint op. so then why does the marine corps maintain such a large focus on landing forces under fire? probably for the same reason the army sends personnel to airborne school.

this this obviously struck a nerve ill go one step further, how many marines who will not enter combat receive combat focused training, that must be a huge waste of resources.

[svsrider]

Yet you felt the need to respond!

Seriously though, please point out what "misinformation" I have posted, If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected.

Thank you.

Do you always disappear after you call someone out? I only ask because I noticed you posted on another thread, should I assume that you concede all my corrections?

[svsrider]

when was the last time you (the marines) hit a defended beach? there were combat jumps into Iraq, grenada off the top of my head. I'm not saying that since there hasn't been an assault on a defended beach in a while that training to do so is a waste of time but using your criteria you are.

#1 - I am aware of the recent combat jumps by army soldiers, I did not question the usefulness of airborne troops. I questioned the number of army soldiers sent to airborne school who are not in units where they will ever have a chance for the army to utilize their airborne training.

#2 - I do NOT have a problem with the army training every single soldier to jump out of a plane, but I DO have a problem with someone saying that army soldiers are better trained because they have gone to army airborne school.

#3 - The difference between army airborne school and training Marines to "hit a defended beach" as you say, is that the only Marines trained to "hit a defended beach" are those who will be on/are on an LHD/LHA. We do not send Marines from their unit to a "hit a defended beach" school, the training is done with their unit. Marines are ONLY trained to "hit a defended beach" when they are with a unit that has the possibility of actually doing so.

#4 - When Marines need to get from ship to shore how would you suggest they do it? One method is "hit a defended beach," we also have helicopters if you haden't noticed, we don't spend all day training to "hit a defended beach." If you have another way to get Marines from ship to shore please share it.

#5 - Why does it matter if the beach is defended or not? Does the army only drop soldiers into defended areas?

#6 - Here's a quick little history review since you seem to have forgotten (I'll go from Grenada to Iraq since that's what you mentioned) :

2003: Royal Marines, U.S. Marines and Polish special forces conduct amphibious assault on the al-Faw peninsula

2001: Marines launched from ships, via helicopter into Afghanistan

1993: Operation Restore Hope - Marines land at beaches on Somalia

1983: Marines launched from ships, via helicopter into Grenada

[tacticalcity]

Did you try every service or just one? If one service says no, or does not have a spot, or just can't do a waiver, maybe one of the other services can.

Did you try going and talking to a different recruiter, and explaining whats going on and how much you want to serve and how your current recruiter just doesn't seem to be doing enough to assist you in getting in and tell him just how grateful you will be if HE can find a waiver for you? His alpha male ego may kick and he'll want to do what the other recruiter couldn't. These guys are very competitive about their recruiting numbers. Especially if their numbers are low at that moment. These guys to be thought of as the good guy. If he can help you fullfil your dream, he's gonna feel good about that. If they guy are working with doesn't, odds are they next guy will.

Maybe you tried all that already. I am just saying, if it means that much to you, don't let one recruiter or one branch of service stop you from serving. Try them all. Keep trying. Don’t let this guy jerk you around. Try another branch of the service, or try the recruiter in another county and let him know you’re being a jerked around. Odds are he’ll bend over backwards to get you in.

[Bizcuits]

So what about those who have tattoo's or criminal records? They carry no medical liability. The medical liability could also be an easy fix, contracts protecting the respected branch from supporting the existing injury.

Sure there is always the risk of an asthma attack, but there are also non-combat jobs. Your friend may not of wanted a non-combat job such as a mechanic etc, but many others with asthma would.

I think the issue is liability. They become responsible for your health the moment they accept you (if you earn under a certain amount) for the rest of your life. At any point if your income drops below that level (you loose your job) they provide you with health care. Lots of conditions are progressive, or can lead to other conditions.

Hey, I agree that it sucks. My father was a pilot all his life. Starting flying crop dusters at 16. Builds his own planes and does exhibition flying and stunts. He would have made an outstanding combat pilot. He was rejected due a bad back. In there defense, he has had at least $500,000 worth of back surgeries and shoulder surgeries that were caused by the bad back over the years. The would have assumed liability for that. Instead he became a succesful businessman in order to fund his love of flying and care for his family. Man does he love to up there.

What if my buddy actually did have an asthma attack in combat? Not only could he get himself killed, but others as well. His SWAT team is willing to assume that risk, because it has been so long since the last attack and because he is such a stud. The military wasn't.

For the person denied the ability to serve, it seriously sucks.

There are some loop holes it just pisses me off I have to play this game. Instead of getting a chance now, I have to jump through hoops and loops, so I can have a better chance in 2-3 years. The idea of getting in at 26 or 27 instead of 24 is aggravating. How many windows will close by then due to other restrictions and cut offs...

[tacticalcity]

I think the issue is liability. They become responsible for your health the moment they accept you (if you earn under a certain amount) for the rest of your life. At any point if your income drops below that level (you loose your job) they provide you with health care. Lots of conditions are progressive, or can lead to other conditions.

Hey, I agree that it sucks. My father was a pilot all his life. Starting flying crop dusters at 16. Builds his own planes and does exhibition flying and stunts. He would have made an outstanding combat pilot. He was rejected due a bad back. In there defense, he has had at least $500,000 worth of back surgeries and shoulder surgeries that were caused by the bad back over the years. The would have assumed liability for that. Instead he became a succesful businessman in order to fund his love of flying and care for his family. Man does he love to up there.

What if my buddy actually did have an asthma attack in combat? Not only could he get himself killed, but others as well. His SWAT team is willing to assume that risk, because it has been so long since the last attack and because he is such a stud. The military wasn't.

For the person denied the ability to serve, it seriously sucks.

[Bizcuits]

I agree with everything that you said, and yes there are many people who are more than capable of serving in non-combat arms roles. Just very recently the army raised its maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42. That is great, but it was about damn time! This isn't the 1910's where the average lifespan of a human was 50 or 60. I have met many senior sergeants and officers in their early 40's who could smoke us green 18yo recruits at PT.

But my point was that while there are many people answering the call to service who can't get in, there are hundreds of thousands more people who dismiss joining the army as beneath them. My dad always told me that he believed in the draft because it taught a young man to respect and serve his country.

I'm not 100% with him on that. But I do think the point he was trying to make was that back in his day the average young man knew that he, whether he wanted to or not, had an obligation to serve his country. All an army really is is just an armed force of people who have been drawn from the general population. Thus an army is just reflection or representation of that society.

Chances are if you ask any man from my dad's generation, you'll probably find a uniform jacket, a pair of boots, or a picture from their "stint" in the army. When you have an all-volunteer force, the general population is less "connected" with what the army is or what or what it really does. Subsequently, a separate "military-class" emerges and usually does not interact with the general population.

Am I advocating conscription? No, not really. Unwilling conscripts are more trouble than they're worth. But it would be nice to see more people my age who respect the army and feel that joining is an honorable pursuit.

I'm picking up what your putting down and I agree.

Exactly my point! How many able bodied men and women have been rejected for things that never have and never will be a real problem.

[tacticalcity]

I'm sorry to hear they wouldn't take you. Don’t feel too bad. I have buddy with asthma that is a SWAT team member for his police department. Guy could always keep up with me in sports as a kid (we were co-captains of our wrestling team) and now he can run laps around me. It's like he never aged. The military really missed out on him. He is one of those guys who seems to be able to do anything. It is just when he was a really little kid he needed an inhaler. If they had let him serve I am convinced he could have gone Spec Ops. The guy feels no pain, never quits, and never stops. Go figure. If I were him, I would have kept it to myself and not told them. It had been 10 years since he had an attack, now its been 30...its no longer an issue.

I was transportation...spent the first two years bouncing from one country to another collecting hazardous duty pay. They can and do tap people from ordinary career fields to do extraordinary things. A lot of people spend their entire careers pushing paper or pallets, others are supposed to be slotted for that and end up in the field with a rifle in their hands instead. You never know. Its just not that clear cut. On paper you’re one thing, in reality you do something completely different. So they treat everybody like they might need to drop them in the middle of nowhere with a rifle in their hands. Or so the theory goes. Still…sucks. Sorry.

And for the retirement home mentor program...I'm not that old! ;-)

[professionalcoyotehunter]

There is a place for them called a retirement home. LOL J/K.

[socaldsal]

My uncle wished there was a force as part of the military for those who can no longer serve physically to instruct, and pass on lessons as mentors. There's a lot of knowledge that many former military members could be able to pass on, along with a personal story and examples gained from real life experience.

[Army GI]

Yes, but at the same time you have thousands upon thousands of willing recruits who are disqualifed from service because of things like asthma, knee surgeries, criminal records, age and more.

In my case I've had a knee surgery, eye surgery and went through some therapy when I was younger for a brothers death. I'm disqualified and need 3 waivers. Yet I can run (not great), shoot, climb, jump, read, write, etc. While I'd love a combat arms position, I'd be happy working in transport (88M), being a load master, or some other non-combat position.

You have people like my cousin who have 1 non-violent felony, who'd love to straighten out their life and serve their country, but they can't because of one mistake they made when they were a dumb kid.

You have plenty of supply and clerk jobs, people with asthma or older people could and would happily work.

How many 40 and 50 year olds were trying to enlist when we invaded Iraq? I remember the news doing several articles and segments on it. You mean to tell me there weren't any jobs for them. The Army, Navy, Marines and Airforce doesn't need cooks? quartermasters? mechanics? carpenters? etc etc

Or does everyone who fills those jobs really need to be 18-20 years old and capable of running a mile in under 8 minutes?

The people are more then willing, those in charges are just to god damn picky. Lower the standard? What is the standard for serving in the military.


How the hell can this guy keep serving our country (not saying he's a bad guy, but he has no leg!)

http://www.emilitary.org/article.php?aid=14343

Yet, if I want to serve my country the closest I'll ever get again is hasseling bums downtown?

I agree with everything that you said, and yes there are many people who are more than capable of serving in non-combat arms roles. Just very recently the army raised its maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42. That is great, but it was about damn time! This isn't the 1910's where the average lifespan of a human was 50 or 60. I have met many senior sergeants and officers in their early 40's who could smoke us green 18yo recruits at PT.

But my point was that while there are many people answering the call to service who can't get in, there are hundreds of thousands more people who dismiss joining the army as beneath them. My dad always told me that he believed in the draft because it taught a young man to respect and serve his country.

I'm not 100% with him on that. But I do think the point he was trying to make was that back in his day the average young man knew that he, whether he wanted to or not, had an obligation to serve his country. All an army really is is just an armed force of people who have been drawn from the general population. Thus an army is just reflection or representation of that society.

Chances are if you ask any man from my dad's generation, you'll probably find a uniform jacket, a pair of boots, or a picture from their "stint" in the army. When you have an all-volunteer force, the general population is less "connected" with what the army is or what or what it really does. Subsequently, a separate "military-class" emerges and usually does not interact with the general population.

Am I advocating conscription? No, not really. Unwilling conscripts are more trouble than they're worth. But it would be nice to see more people my age who respect the army and feel that joining is an honorable pursuit.

[Bizcuits]

I believe read somewhere (might have been a book on the Roman Empire, dunno) that a country's right to exist is directly related to how willing it's citizens are to fight in it's armies.

We need to teach more pride and duty to country. The last thing we need is to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits which is only one notch above conscription.

Yes, but at the same time you have thousands upon thousands of willing recruits who are disqualifed from service because of things like asthma, knee surgeries, criminal records, age and more.

In my case I've had a knee surgery, eye surgery and went through some therapy when I was younger for a brothers death. I'm disqualified and need 3 waivers. Yet I can run (not great), shoot, climb, jump, read, write, etc. While I'd love a combat arms position, I'd be happy working in transport (88M), being a load master, or some other non-combat position.

You have people like my cousin who have 1 non-violent felony, who'd love to straighten out their life and serve their country, but they can't because of one mistake they made when they were a dumb kid.

You have plenty of supply and clerk jobs, people with asthma or older people could and would happily work.

How many 40 and 50 year olds were trying to enlist when we invaded Iraq? I remember the news doing several articles and segments on it. You mean to tell me there weren't any jobs for them. The Army, Navy, Marines and Airforce doesn't need cooks? quartermasters? mechanics? carpenters? etc etc

Or does everyone who fills those jobs really need to be 18-20 years old and capable of running a mile in under 8 minutes?

The people are more then willing, those in charges are just to god damn picky. Lower the standard? What is the standard for serving in the military.


How the hell can this guy keep serving our country (not saying he's a bad guy, but he has no leg!)

http://www.emilitary.org/article.php?aid=14343

Yet, if I want to serve my country the closest I'll ever get again is hasseling bums downtown?