View Full Version : Moral decline?
U.S. Military Letting in More Recruits With Criminal Records
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
WASHINGTON —
The Army and Marine Corps are letting in more recruits with criminal records, including some with felony convictions, reflecting the increased pressure of five years of war and its mounting casualties
Story here
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,251878,00.html
Kyobanim
02-14-2007, 05:47
IMO, it's entirely possible for someone with a felony conviction to be rehabilitated. Everyone isn't a child molester/rapist/etc. That's what the waver system is for.
If they can prove to the enlistment board that they're fit for duty then who cares?
If congress is worried about 'low morals' they never should have let me in. :eek:
incommin
02-14-2007, 05:59
Same thing happened during the Vietnam era......standards on education/mental requirements and criminal activity were lowered. The Army paid the price for it years down the road.....
Jim
Jack Moroney (RIP)
02-14-2007, 06:02
IMO,
If congress is worried about 'low morals' they never should have let me in. :eek:
Congress needs to get its own house in order before they worry about the caliber of the patriots that they are willing to send in harms way to further their own self-serving agendas.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
02-14-2007, 06:08
Same thing happened during the Vietnam era......standards on education/mental requirements and criminal activity were lowered. The Army paid the price for it years down the road.....Jim
True, but that was also the result of the draft where we hauled in a bunch of folks kicking and screaming. While I am sure we will get some "undesireables" the kids that join today seem, for the most part, to be joining to actually serve their country.
The majority of the military is under 6 years service. A private is a private and does a private's job. It is during that time that an individual is judged and makes a judgement about military life. They will chaptered, re-up bar, get out or re-up.
I think the military does a good job, for the most part, in weeding out the chaff.
On Macnamara's 100,000. It was real easy to know them when you ran into them. The problem with them was they were promoted wayyyy above their paygrade by the late 70's. It was a joke at the time "He's one of Mac's 100,000."
incommin
02-14-2007, 06:12
I don't think congress sets enlistment standards.....However, I think congress should raise theirs.......the standards to be an American serviceman or woman is more stringent than getting into congress....
Jim
82ndtrooper
02-14-2007, 06:21
"More than half the Marine recruits required a waiver in 2006" Guess that gives new meaning to a "Few good men" In all fairness, minor traffic offenses, and having written a bad check are hardly what I'd call a "CRIME" I'd be willing to bet that almost every house hold has had a returned check at one time or another. As for minor traffic offenses, why even mention them? unless it's a charge of aggravated driving under the influence. Aggravated being that special circumstances occured, such as an accident, injurious to others, or a second or subsequent charge for driving under the influence. Is this normally a deal breaker for SOF service ?
"Moral decline" ? Thats funny coming from a democrat in this current day and age. :rolleyes:
Eagle5US
02-14-2007, 06:34
Sorry folks-
All against this one. This recruit population has a stated and demonstrated problem with authority. Why can't that be recognized??? The standards are too low as it is, not mentioning the current state of accellerated, and automatic, promotion. Promo is utilized as a retention tool, not as a grooming of future leadership for the betterment of the service. Where before we could usually count on these bozos being bounced...no longer. They get multiple tries at Basic, even ALLOWABLE AWOL with re-insertion and no prosecution. Numbers drive the train. Numbers ONLY. Most AIT programs are not only "will not fail"s, but are "CANNOT FAIL"s, with the reasoning that "your NCO's will teach you that when you get there and we can't show a negative number on the training vs graduation slide in TRADOC. Not in a time of war. Trouble begets trouble...and it moves it's sorry performing ass right on up the NCO support channel.
I am currently living this nightmare and it sickens me to see what "my Army" has "evolved into" over the past 23 years. Though I am sure that there were Vietnam Veteran CSM's who said the same thing when I was a PV1 and they were at their 20+ time frame-sadly, I now feel their pain.
Already we are inundated with a culture of kids who joined up to get their college bankroll and who know that they are getting out as soon as they get back from deployment. As a result, they stay on sick call, in trouble, on the FOB (because they did not care to participate in ANYTHING outside the gate) and could care less if they are on the 1SG's hit list, because it means nothing. He is generally as big a turd as they are and HE made it.
These recruits aren't going into the MOS's to fight and die for their country either-they are primarily (from my experience) flooding the support functions and rolls where they can skim off the system for various freebies, stay locked as far away from harm as is possible in this arena, and stay clean, dry, fed, around the proverbial (and ever present) "tail", and yet STILL find crap to complain about because they aren't being treated right by "the man". Big Army OWES ME for signing up. Sure he does-here is your E-4 in 18 months and promotion to E-5 in 30. Please stay in the Army-we are short :rolleyes:
I would rather have 10 quality dudes than 100 low end duds.
Lower the standards....yet one more idiotic idea from people who obviously won't have to deal with these clowns.
Five more years.....just 5 more years. Lord please grant me the strength.
Eagle
incommin
02-14-2007, 06:39
Sorry folks-
All against this one. This recruit population has a stated and demonstrated problem with authority. Why can't that be recognized??? The standards are too low as it is, not mentioning the current state of accellerated, and automatic, promotion. Promo is utilized as a retention tool, not as a grooming of future leadership for the betterment of the service. Where before we could usually count on these bozos being bounced...no longer. They get multiple tries at Basic, even ALLOWABLE AWOL with re-insertion and no prosecution. Numbers drive the train. Numbers ONLY. Most AIT programs are not only "will not fail"s, but are "CANNOT FAIL"s, with the reasoning that "your NCO's will teach you that when you get there and we can't show a negative number on the training vs graduation slide in TRADOC. Not in a time of war. Trouble begets trouble...and it moves it's sorry performing ass right on up the NCO support channel.
I am currently living this nightmare and it sickens me to see what "my Army" has "evolved into" over the past 23 years. Though I am sure that there were Vietnam Veteran CSM's who said the same thing when I was a PV1 and they were at their 20+ time frame-sadly, I now feel their pain.
Already we are inundated with a culture of kids who joined up to get their college bankroll and who know that they are getting out as soon as they get back from deployment. As a result, they stay on sick call, in trouble, on the FOB (because they did not care to participate in ANYTHING outside the gate) and could care less if they are on the 1SG's hit list, because it means nothing. He is generally as big a turd as they are and HE made it.
These recruits aren't going into the MOS's to fight and die for their country either-they are primarily (from my experience) flooding the support functions and rolls where they can skim off the system for various freebies, stay locked as far away from harm as is possible in this arena, and stay clean, dry, fed, around the proverbial (and ever present) "tail", and yet STILL find crap to complain about because they aren't being treated right by "the man". Big Army OWES ME for signing up. Sure he does-here is your E-4 in 18 months and promotion to E-5 in 30. Please stay in the Army-we are short :rolleyes:
I would rather have 10 quality dudes than 100 low end duds.
Lower the standards....yet one more idiotic idea from people who obviously won't have to deal with these clowns.
Five more years.....just 5 more years. Lord please grant me the strength.
Eagle
Eagle, I have felt your pain........ 20 years ago!
Jim
I have to agree with Eagle5US on this one...with one exception. But IMHO the biggest issue that some (not all) of these troops can be turned around through "Strong NCO" leadership ie:'a good kick in the ass' never hurt anybody.
There are many weak NCOs in many of the units that the problem children tend to go to. Without discipline even good units go to hell, now imagain a CS or CSS with weak NCO CoC and a whole bunch of these kids......you have a unit of shitbags!
The discipline has to start at BCT with hard charging DS who are allowed to do their job with the support of their Cmdrs. All that BS "touchyfeely TRADOC" crap need to go out the window. All soldiers need discipline and role models. The NCOs who train and lead the kids must have a low BS tolerance and maybe a copy of "Wall to wall Consuling for Beginers".
I wonder if we could get "The Purd" to come back on active duty????:D
Back to lurking.
Sionnach
02-14-2007, 08:46
I have mixed feelings about this, and I can see both sides.
I was a young punk who did stupid things. I barely managed to get into the Army. Moral waiver? Yep, I needed that. The Army, along with good, old-fashioned introspection, helped me become who I am today. If you lower the standards, you're sure to get some duds. On the other hand, you can get some guys who shine. Is a worthless slug with a clean record worth more than a guy who stepped on his crank and later determines to square himself away?
I'm more concerned about relaxed training standards than I am about relaxed admittance standards. BCT needs to be toughened up to allow civillians to be broken down and remade into soldiers. Letting troublemakers enlist probably makes this job more difficult, but I'd be more inclined to fully endorse it if 1SGs and COs had the authority to "square away or chapter" asshats without a lot of political consequences.
$0.02
The Reaper
02-14-2007, 09:29
On Macnamara's 100,000. It was real easy to know them when you ran into them. The problem with them was they were promoted wayyyy above their paygrade by the late 70's. It was a joke at the time "He's one of Mac's 100,000."
We had a Battalion CSM in 2/7 who was one of that august group.
He had the second lowest GT score in the Battalion (right after one of the 76Ys in the Supply Room).
So many troops came by the Battalion S-1 Shop to take out his records and see for themselves that the CSM pulled his own records and locked them up in his desk.
Then you had to be on SDNCO and have graduated Locks and Seals to view them.
Or so I heard.:D
TR
CPTAUSRET
02-14-2007, 12:17
We had a Battalion CSM in 2/7 who was one of that august group.
He had the second lowest GT score in the Battalion (right after one of the 76Ys in the Supply Room).
So many troops came by the Battalion S-1 Shop to take out his records and see for themselves that the CSM pulled his own records and locked them up in his desk.
Then you had to be on SDNCO and have graduated Locks and Seals to view them.
Or so I heard.:D
TR
Sad state of affairs!
I wonder if we could get "The Purd" to come back on active duty????:D
That would DAMN sure do it!!!!!
Sad state of affairs!
There are some here who were in SF prior to it becoming a branch and then after serving as 18 series.
Prior to the SF Branch there were no positions above E-7 for the Engineers. What, 1 slot at Group HQ? Commo and Medics were looking at the very few Bn and Gp slots. In the 70s, to make MSG, you were looking at a trip down the road to a conventional unit.
With hope, luck and hard service a guy could make 1SG then SGM and return as a Company SGM. With bad luck a guy departed Group as a SSG and returned as some crusty, old fart CSM with 670-1 for brains. The young stud muffins were going "Just what graveyard did they dig this old dinosaur from."
Branch came with it's own can of worms.
Pete
Retired before I became a dinosaur
BMT (RIP)
02-14-2007, 13:49
Damn!!! I glad I made E-8 in '67. I don't fit Pete's description.
BMT
incommin
02-14-2007, 14:04
What would be worse? Being a senior NCO in SF with everyone knowing you have a very low GT score or being a senior NCO in SF without a CIB?
Jim
Damn!!! I glad I made E-8 in '67. I don't fit Pete's description.
BMT
Most didn't but we can all remember somebody who drifted off while they were fairly young and only returned when they were a CSM. "You've got an "S" from when you were an E-5 commo SGT in Group. You can go back as a Bn CSM."
I can remember at least one CSMs where everybody was wondering where he came from. Checking with the S-1 on past assignments, putting out feelers to everybody who was somebody asking if they knew him, phone calls to buddies in other groups who might have known him way back when.
I'm trying to recall the Bn CSM we had around the time of Brown and before Luthy (CRS on this one). He was a commo guy who went to conventional land around 65/66 and returned around 1980 +/- as a CSM. He drifted in and out and everybody forgot his name. But when he first showed up it was funny at first how many of the guys were spending so much time tracking down his background. Much time could have been saved by pooling the effort but doing that is like trying to herd cats.
I know recruiting duty got a number of good senior E-6s who only returned when they made the 8 list. Mike W, the crazy Indian, was one and last time I saw him he was a 1SG with an office in Moon/Hardy Hall around 1988.
Yeah, days before Branch had some interesting moments.
Pete
What would be worse? Being a senior NCO in SF with everyone knowing you have a very low GT score or being a senior NCO in SF without a CIB?
Jim
Depends on how the individual performs. Having a low GT score can lead to poor performance in many areas that require lots of brain work.
CIB? Since I retired in 95 I'll let the ones one active duty answer that. I would think that by now it would be hard to find a senior NCO without some time in the box.
Between 1973 and 2001 there were very few SF guys who got CIBs. 7th Group did some heavy lifting down south but got very little notice. We had Grenada and Panama, very limited SF numbers. First Gulf war, again limited numbers of total SF involved. Somalia, again limited numbers. Guys on the teams knew who were working with the indig and who got CIBs while assigned to Bn/Group Staff and higher.
Boil it all down and the guys on the teams know who are doers and who has been hanging around. As the average SF guy you will still get more respect for what you do now than what you did before. The above average guys? Man, they will always be top of the list.
Everyday you pitch up in the right uniform and work your butt off to be the best. Your peers view your actions every day.
Pete
As a result, they stay on sick call...
Until you make a new rule that every sick call admission includes a daily two-finger poke from your gorilla mitts! :eek:
incommin
02-14-2007, 19:05
Until you make a new rule that every sick call admission includes a daily two-finger poke from your gorilla mitts! :eek:
Or 10cc cold water in the butt cheek!
Jim
Monsoon65
02-14-2007, 21:30
Until you make a new rule that every sick call admission includes a daily two-finger poke from your gorilla mitts! :eek:
Yeppers, the threat of a "hover check" will get them off sick call quick. I had a kid on AD that would go on sick call far too much, so I had them send him to the butt doc (easy to do when you know the hospital staff!).
My dad was a doctor in one of the ARVN airborne battalions. Around 1960, fresh out of the military med school, he eagerly reported to his first assignment where one of his duties was administering morning sick call. Apparently, word had gotten out that a cherry doc had arrived at battalion. His very first sick call was filled with soldiers complaining of a multitude of ailments. My dad duly examined them and wrote passes excusing them from duty for the day. The next morning, sick call was again packed, and the pattern repeated for a couple of days.
Towards the end of the week, the very pissed off BC showed up at morning sick call. He ordered the soldiers to line up, then walked up to the first soldier. He asked the soldier what his problem was. After the soldier replied, the BC slapped him hard across the face with an open hand. He then moved to the next soldier. SLAP. All the way down the line.
When he was finished, he walked over to my dad and said, "You see Doc? I'm not a doctor, but I just cured all of these soldiers." The next morning, there was a dramatic decrease in the number of soldiers reporting for morning sick call.
While deployed to FYROM, we had a change of docs mid-stay. The new doc, a young, fairly attractive female (remember, I said it was half-way through a 6month deployment :boohoo ) was the replacement. The first week of sick call, the number of young troops checking in from HHD skyrocketed. The following week, she actually did put up a sign like I described above. The catch was her fingernails...they had to be at least a half-inch beyond her fingertips. Surprisingly, sick call numbers quickly fell to low single-digits (no pun intended...well, maybe just a little). So I admit the above posted idea was not original, but obviously effective through a different mode of 'ouch'.