Thanks for the response, guys, good stuff.
x/S: That's a good heads up on the stability contract. I hadn't even heard of such a thing, but I'll certainly look into it now.
koz & craig: I agree on the soldiering experience, which is why I was surprised initially that JAGs could attend SFAS at all, particularly since Army, Navy, and AF JAGs are restricted line officers. The reason I had planned on Marine JAG was precisely because their lawyers are unrestricted line officers - they get the entire OCS and TBS along with everyone else. Part of that whole "every Marine is a rifleman" thing. Obviously not the same as actually leading an infantry unit downrange, but perhaps better than nothing. If considering this route would going outside the Army to be a Marine JAG, with the consideration of coming back to SF when eligible, be more of a burden than its worth?
TR: I agree, the Army has an interest in ensuring their personnel are physically capable of performing the function they join for. Conversely, this interest is balanced against the interest in recruiting folks who have valuable life experience and skills to bring to the table. There will always be benefits and detriments to such a tension; hopefully it works to their benefit more than the latter from a holistic standpoint. All I can say is from my own anecdotal experience, and that of a few peers, these strict regulations are costing our military some individuals who bring not only potential but the aforementioned skills and experience. It seems that in its present state the military would prefer a chubby 18 year old kid who never strayed from the couch to a more seasoned guy who has done some things at the cost of a few bumps and bruises.
There will always be pros and cons to any policy, and striking the proper balance is a terribly difficult thing. Perhaps the current system does strike the optimal balance. All I can say is I know a number of very capable men who would like to serve their country but whose efforts have been frustrated by the medical process.
|