Article on moral waivers

[bravo22b]

Interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/military.waivers.ap/index.html

I'm not sure exactly what to make of it, since clearly there are variables that are not mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, just goes to show there are two sides to every over-hyped news story.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Just my thinking, but this typifies the old misfit concept. We QP's know that most of our ranks are full of misfits of a sort. Many don't fit the mold, but that's what makes us Special. Maybe the new emphasis is on well behaved automatons. But typically that individual makes a better Marine. No offense to the Corps. It's the quick, free thinking tap dancer that makes it in our business. Never something the bureaucrats care to admit. But we all know this story. The new army is a bunch of momma's boys ( mostly). Sorry, i have seen a lot of change in the army since 1967. Dave

[JJ_BPK]

It makes sense,,

risk takers
type A's
people the think outside the box
innovative
ingenious
quick to act
irrational logic
fearless
wacko
problem solver


I'd use these adjectives to explain both the leaders of industry, most every QP I ever knew, and those troubled teens that are always in hot water.

And in most instances,, if those troubled teens don't get caught in our criminal justice system with more than a slap on the wrist,, They will stand better than average chances of turning into the leaders of industry..

Look around you, how many QP's have wussy(that's a "W") as their team nick-name??

With the possible exception of Bill Gates, I know of no successful business person that weren't a little wild as youths..

I know I was,, and I was lucky...

[The Reaper]

I guess I will be the odd man out here.

This is not the Army, or the SF, of 30 years ago.

My opinion, based on 20 years in SF and 4 years sitting in on SFAS, Phase II and Robin Sage boards is that you need to be a good soldier in order to be a good SF soldier.

If you are the sort of anti-social, sociopathic person who consistently defies authority, ignores the rules, breaks laws, can't tell right from wrong, and who has little regard for other people and their property, I do not want to serve with you.

People who come to SF to get away with misconduct, to grow their hair long, or to dress differently are not normally good SF soldiers, and tend to be disciplinary distractors.

I saw gang bangers trying to get into SF, and I always recommended against them, unless they had a pattern of good military service for at least one enlistment.

There were serious alcoholics, substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic violence, and child abusers trying to get into as well. Anyone who has been in leadership positions knows how corrosive this behavior can become, and how much fun these soldiers are to have on our teams or in our units. We have to be pretty desperate to take a chance on the long shot that these people can shake off their problems, straighten themselves out, and become good SF soldiers. FWIW, the psychs tended to agree with me.

I could understand giving someone who made a single mistake an exception to policy to come into the service (note that I did not say directly into SF). I would not say the same for people with a pattern of misconduct, or those who demonstrate a lack of integrity.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[SF_BHT]

I guess I will be the odd man out here.

This is not the Army, or the SF, of 30 years ago.

My opinion, based on 20 years in SF and 4 years sitting in on SFAS, Phase II and Robin Sage boards is that you need to be a good soldier in order to be a good SF soldier.

If you are the sort of anti-social, sociopathic person who consistently defies authority, ignores the rules, breaks laws, can't tell right from wrong, and who has little regard for other people and their property, I do not want to serve with you.

People who come to SF to get away with misconduct, to grow their hair long, or to dress differently are not normally good SF soldiers, and tend to be disciplinary distractors.

I saw gang bangers trying to get into SF, and I always recommended against them, unless they had a pattern of good military service for at least one enlistment.

There were serious alcoholics, substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic violence, and child abusers trying to get into as well. Anyone who has been in leadership positions knows how corrosive this behavior can become, and how much fun these soldiers are to have on our teams or in our units. We have to be pretty desperate to take a chance on the long shot that these people can shake off their problems, straighten themselves out, and become good SF soldiers. FWIW, the psychs tended to agree with me.

I could understand giving someone who made a single mistake an exception to policy to come into the service (note that I did not say directly into SF). I would not say the same for people with a pattern of misconduct, or those who demonstrate a lack of integrity.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

I agree completely TR. If those who are old enough to remember during the Vietnam days the GOV started waiving many restricted things and we had a lot of Civ Criminals in the military and there was a lot of problems. YES I KNOW THE DRAFT WAS IN PLACE.
It took a long time to change out a lot of those adverse effects, perceptions etc... SF needs diverse people that think outside the box but we do not need street crooks in our ranks. Remember US Military people shipping Drugs in Coffins on AF planes? We have screened out many of those over the years and we do not need to go back to those days. We will never be able to screen out everyone but we should keep trying.
Just my 2 cents

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I also am in complete agreement with TR and have had to deal with the bending of the rules from the days of old. It takes only takes one idiot to queer the entire operation and when we have folks that are sent on their own with broad mission guidance and no supervision we have to know that, regardless of how innovative or flexible he is, he will make the right choice. While many will have to operate with what they have when they get to their unit, some of you, like me, may be able to pick and choose from the rolls of the military folks upon which you and your country will depend to do it right the first time. While I am an adherent of act first and ask for foregiveness later I would only accord that priviledge to those in whom I have the utmost faith, respect and trust. While there are folks that make poor choices along the way and are redeemable there are just some choices for which redemption will never come and overlooking that for numbers sake will cost lives. I hate to think of those whom I have had to hammer who but for all their skills and potential just could not, or would not, exercise the appropriate level of maturity to make the right decision. This is not about being a boy scout, this is about the right person, committed for the right reasons to needs of his buddies, team, unit, and country, possessing the requisite qualities of selfless devotion to men and mission and those folks are rare and in deed special.

[Philkilla]

With my limited experience as an NCO during my first tenure, I (along with a fair amount of other NCO's) was lucky enough to be granted leadership over a very "special" soldier.

He was a great worker, but discipline meant absolutely nothing to him. No matter how much PT, counseling, and face time we put in with him, nothing worked. He was promoted to Specialist one day, but he kept it a whole two weeks, even after we told him, " Don't **** up".

Maybe this article is half right; Leadership will always something to do with it, but if a soldier is screwed up, I sure as hell don't want to be on the ground with him if he can't even follow a simple order.

[JJ_BPK]

I guess I will be the odd man out here.

anti-social, sociopathic person who consistently defies authority, ignores the rules, breaks laws, can't tell right from wrong, and who has little regard for other people and their property, gang bangers, serious alcoholics, substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic violence, and child abusers

I do not want to serve with you.



TR, et all

Nobody would disagree with you,,
You are not the odd man out,,
You are 100% right..

The soldiers that WANTED to be in Special Forces 40 years ago were every bit as good as those today,, given there were some lone rangers.

It is the Qualification system, The filter, that's vastly different.

The education ladder to full MOS qualification, you and others developed, is so much more rigorous as to be un-comparable with the course of instruction 40 year ago..

The current process does not allow for the rogue lone range,, but there is still room for people that are: risk takers, type A's, people who think outside the box, that are innovative and ingenious..

And I also don't think the article was in any fashion, talking to SF..

When I stated I was lucky, I didn't tell the complete story, probably never will. Suffice to say, I got turned around by Larry "Haus" N. and other QP's I had the honor to be associated with, fixed my act,, well enough to retire young, and only work a couple days a week at the local dive shop,, for free air...