JACK ARMY, scanning my sector!
Any operations analyst with his head halfway screwed on could come up with a cost-benefit table that would revolutionize handling of all those issues. The passing reference to "marginal" rate is actually the key to all of them.
Great post, and I'm too short of time o comment on it in any length. I'll just say that it was hard enough to chapter Soldiers who neded it before, now it'll be next to impossible.
We need some Foreign Legion style units. Citizenship after their tours etc. If the Frogs can get foreigners to fight for them (and fight well)...
...the government is paying hefty finders fee's to find quality soldiers it recruited AND TRAINED in the first place.
After paying to train them it should be a priority to keep them.
Good article, Jack!
Very good post, Jack. Personally, I believe that so long as America's male youth is not willing to enlist and sacrifice for something greater than themselves, then we're going to have to accept the contributions from whomever is willing to provide them. If that means the less qualified or the overweight, then so be it. If that means women or foreigners, then so be it. We don't have the luxury of excluding willing contributors when our traditional warrior class has rejected the call.
Some Soldiers Mom is riled up about recruiters... actually anti-recruiter parents
www.somesoldiersmom.blogspot.com/
Personnel stresses are being felt at the senior officer levels too...
A significant change to the retirement regulation (AR 600-8-24: Officer Transfers and Discharges) has been made. A summary of some of the changes:
Changes the existing retirement authority for voluntary nonwaiver retirements from general court-martial convening authority to Commander, Human Resources Command-Alexandria for officers who have completed 20 but less than 30 years of active Federal service (para 6-14a).
Micromanaging retirements at the highest level...
Changes the language for officers with more than 20 but less than 30 years of active federal service requesting a voluntary retirements to 'eligible but not entitled to retire upon request.'
You can ask to retire but we don't have to say yes...
Changes the minimum time for officers to submit retirement applications from 6 to 9 months before the requested retirement date or beginning date of transition leave, whichever is the earliest (paras 6-14b and 6-20b and c.)
It's pretty hard to find an employer that will save a job for you for 9+ months out.
Clarifies the retirement policy for officers opting to retire in lieu of permanent change of station and the options available to the approval authority (para 6-18a).
Ouch...
Click here to view the entire regulation.
http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffil...s/
r600_8_24.pdf
From https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/act...mis/52/
fa52.htm
I wanted to say here that I don't agree with the statement from military experts. "Military experts warned that the move would make it more difficult to remove poor soldiers and would lower quality in the ranks."
There are a lot of people out there who have been to rehab, to a psychiatric ward (which they are getting help... ), survived a suicide attempt and gotten help for whatever issues -- that want to join the army. They don't, because they don't qualify. They're embarassed about their pasts.
They are not lower quality people simply because they have made a few mistakes in their lives. The whole thing about possibly secruity risks - well I read about soldiers with the highest possible clearances, combat vet (or not) who have fallen for bribes for money, been involved with drug smuggling, domestic violence, DUI's. The Seattle Weekly printed this article all about local area soldiers troubles with the law and it really made the army look... dark. I sent an incredibly defensive letter to the editor.
On a personal note, I have wanted to join the Army since I was 15 years old. It was suggested to me that I would be treated better in the Air Force. I visited an Air Force recruiter more than once (as well as Army, Marine Corps. Navy is incredibly popular here in WA and I haven't been in a while, but when I did go a few years ago, more than once they said they had already reached their cap for the month.) I do not qualify for the Air Force because I have six tattoos, mostly not visible, all in good taste and can be covered with pants. They still don't like tattoos. The AF recruiter said he "did not want me in his Air Force" because I have been on meds for depression, seen a therapist for an extended period of time, and have a prior suicide attempt - underage, supposedly sealed, but I know nothing is sealed when it comes to security clearances. I am in no way intending to speak negatively about the recruiter, he works hard and has every reason to be picky. I had expected a comment like that,also knew being dishonest would only waste my time and his.
I went to the Army recruiters and they didn't look twice when I said I had a few things in my past that might raise some questions - the things I have in my past they have heard a thousand times before. I do find it slightly insulting, though I do know the military has their reasons for being strict. It's not like I was ever in trouble with the law. The recruits who go sign before graduating from high school possibly haven't had enough time to get into any trouble.
Sorry this is a little long. I am about as close to the Army as I can get, volunteering with the Red Cross at Fort Lewis and being an army wife.
If there was a selective service (Pre, or mini) draft, I would sign up in a New York minute.
Commenting by HaloScan
