Mattis and the non-deployable policy
The Military Times reports on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ comments on the DoD policy to eliminate from the services folks who remain non-deployable for more than twelve consecutive months;
“You’re either deployable, or you need to find something else to do. I’m not going have some people deploying constantly and then other people, who seem to not pay that price, in the U.S. military,” Mattis told reporters Feb. 17 in his first comments on the issue since the new policy was formally introduced.
“If you can’t go overseas [and] carry a combat load, then obviously someone else has got to go. I want this spread fairly and expertly across the force.”
It only makes sense – the job of the military is to fight our wars and if you’re incapable of that, why would you even want to stick around?
I’d take it a step further and boot anyone who turns down a leadership position. A master sergeant who turns down a first sergeant job, or a staff sergeant major who turns down a command sergeant major position should find themselves on the street the next day.
But, tiny steps, I guess.
USNI published the guidance from the Deputy Secretary of Defense;
Service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months, for any reason, will be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI)1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, or Instruction 1332.30, Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers, or will be referred into the Disability Evaluation System in accordance with 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES). Pregnant and post-partum Service members are the only group automatically excepted from this policy.
I anticipate many people coming off a medical profile becoming pregnant. Half of our Support Battalion’s ambulance platoon were pregnant by the time we deployed to Desert Storm.
Category: Big Pentagon
…unless you’re transgendering, then take all the time you need.
Butt of course…
Bah-duh-bing! 😉
I said in an earlier post about this, could be a back door way to solve the transgender issue.
Isn’t the “backdoor” how the transgenders started on their new chosen path?
Saw a headline on Drudge this past weekend that a Doctor has successfully induced lactation in a transgender. I can hear it now:
“First Sergeant! I can’t possibly pump breast milk in the field!”
Males and females both have breast tissue. Males generally not enough to provide enough milk production, even if they develop a tumor that produces lactation as it does in women.
They loaded that guy with about half a dozen hormones and induced stress on the glands by subjecting them to pumping. In the end that was still not enough to produce enough milk for normal breast feeding. Fukking Frankentits fail.
It’s Not a Tumah! It’s NOT!
Hey, that breast feeding thing may be of value. Imagine a self supporting unit on extended ops behind the lines. No chow resupply necessary.
Hey, Joe, my cereal’s a little dry, can you hook me up?
That’s “Josephine”
Only quibble I’d have would be the blanket nature of the policy, Jonn. Some surgical procedures require more than 1 year for full recovery – but full recovery is indeed possible.
Example: as I recall, full recovery from ACL surgery is typically 9 to 18 months (at least, it was a few decades ago). Someone whose ACL rehab takes 13 or 14 months would be kicked to the curb under this policy, while someone who takes 11 would not. Not sure that’s wise.
ACL recovery with full integration of the graft is now 6-8 weeks in a healthy patient followed by 1-2 months of PT. Back to 100%. One of my former soldiers, a drill sergeant, went to DS school 4 months post-op
That’s very much the short end of the spectrum, SSG D. This source says typical is anywhere from 3 to 10 months. (That’s also consistent with news accounts I’ve read of recent ACL reconstruction recovery times for professional athletes, with most in the 6-9 mo range.)
http://share.upmc.com/2015/04/recovery-time-for-acl-reconstruction-surgery/
Add in even one minor setback, and someone who requires 9 mo rehab can be looking at a recovery time approaching 12 mo. That’s better than the 9 to 18 mo typical from years ago, but ACL reconstruction surgery still has a long recovery period for many people.
Other sources also recommend continuing to use a brace during athletic events for 1-2 years post-surgery.
I’m glad things worked out for your former soldier. But I hardly think his case represents the typical case.
I know you do your research hondo. However things have changed in recent years with updates in surgical techniques and implants. I work in the OR at a Level 1 trauma center. Nowadays, you have 3-4 small incisions, we tend to use cadaver graft( which reduces recovery time due to lack of having to harvest autograft, speeds recovery time greatly) the article you posted, neglected to mention autograft vs allograft. Most of our patients, after just speaking to one of my ortho docs, are at 100% within 6 months post-op. Again those are healthy patients, which one would hope and pray is what our current servicemen are
Not doubting what your docs say regarding ACL recovery – though the NIH recently studied the 4 most common techniques and concluded that using cadaver grafts doesn’t speed return to high-level athletic performance. Further, the timeline I referenced above appears to be dated 2015, so it’s also based on recent medical data regarding ACL reconstructive surgery.
Bottom line: not everyone recovers from ACL surgery as quickly as your former solder did, even given today’s improved ACL reconstruction techniques. And with even a minor setback during recovery, some will take close to the 12 mo deadline imposed by the new policy and still make a near-total recovery.
Wouldn’t know, however, my wife has torn her’s twice. After 34 years Rheumatoid Arthritis, she was back at work within a week. I blame her Marine Corps upbringing.
If you don’t show your profile to the 1SG, are you on profile? Asking for a friend…LOL
Indeed this is always the problem, how do we make a rule that keeps the good guys who just need a bit more time but get rid of the turds without seeming biased.
I’m glad my business is large enough now to remain successful in less than full capacity times, but relieved it’s also small enough that if I think someone is a turd I can just let them go due to “work slowdowns” and not deal with all the bullshit that goes along with firing for cause. Some people are such good rules lawyers they walk the edge between doing just enough that they remain employed versus being fired. Layoffs cost me a few bucks because I pay the unemployment but it’s become far cheaper than keeping someone that pisses everyone else off.
The military is far too large an organization for such things on a global scale, although each unit often has a way of pushing the turds out of the way.
Give waivers based on EPRs?
Lets see 11 months on profile one month off and back on for another 11 (repeat as needed). It should include that’s if you have over twenty years as non-deployable status you are gone also (Vermont NG full timers).
What you say is true. There is no accounting for an aggregate of 12 or months, say, in a 13 month period. The way the policy reads, it’s 12 consecutive months period.
Waivers may be granted but none are necessary for pregnant and postpartum women. They will be retained, despite their being nondeployable, according to the interim policy guidance published 14 February by the undersecretary of defense. The guidance memo makes clear that the 12 consecutive months period does not have to be met to separate the service member if the service member will be non-deployable for the 12-month period.
The other troublesome aspect is the level of approval for any waiver. The policy sets waiver approve at the Service HQ level – e.g., DA/DON/AFHQ. That won’t be a quick process.
Couple that with the mandatory kick to the curb at 12 mo, and I foresee many good troops rushing rehab to ensure they don’t get kicked out. Not a good idea at all for many joint injuries.
“Doc, give me more motrin, I’ll just take 4 a day instead of two. If I have to, I’ll up it to 8 a day, it’ll make me live longer I hear.”
How many people already do this after years of abuse the service puts on the body? I knew guys that’d take four IB every morning just to function.
Yep, I got to the point where I stopped and just dealt with the pain because it wasn’t as bad as some others.
At the same time, my joints aren’t “bad enough” for them to do any real fixing of. Probably in my 60s they’ll want to do a bunch of surgeries.
Here is a thought on women and pregnancy. A lot of us considered it a self inflicted wound in the first place. Given that a woman gets on average over a year of slack time when she gets preggers, that is counted as bad time and added back onto the back end of their enlistment. That would greatly curtail the knocked up to avoid deployment syndrome.
NOT a bad idea at all!!
No doubt there will be waivers available to cover those isolated cases of surgical recovery and such.
Certainly agree with this concept. And have no idea how to address those magically timed pregnancies. Can’t just say that all women of child bearing age cannot be assigned to deploying units, but also can’t run an Army without expecting nearly all its members be available to deploy at any time. (There will always be a few off injured, etc.)
It still irritates me no end that some women expect everyone else to do their jobs while they do the family thing. In my head, it really is so simple – if you can’t or won’t do your job, then find another one.
See my comment above, OWB. With Service HQ the approval authority, I’d guess waivers of any type may end up being both hard to come by and taking a long time to process.
The concept is a good one. But I think the implementation is going to need a serious tweak or two to avoid losing a lot of good troops who get injured LOD and could otherwise return to full duty.
True, all true, Hondo. Just thinking here that the adults will successfully make the case that a guy needing just one more month of therapy prior to going back on full duty is worthy of a waiver. Those who are milking the system will become pretty obvious.
Yes, additional injury to those not fully healed prior to going back to full duty is an argument that the adults should listen to. There are stix out there which prove the negative impact across the country in fire & police depts. (esp fire) when these recovery times are tinkered with.
One would hope. But I’m not that confident the initial mindset won’t be a default of “disapproved” – or that each case will get decent scrutiny. I suspect none of the service HQs are staffed to evaluate a bunch of such cases adequately, and they might get hit with a bunch right off the bat.
My take: tweak the process by allowing a ONE-TIME extension by local medical authorities NTE 6 months. Couple that with counseling the individual – with a copy signed by the individual and retained in his/her medical records indicating he/she has been counseled – indicating that they understand that this is a one-time extension. If they’re not ready afterwards, their options will be separation or to request a waiver from service HQ.
Make the local approval authority the nearest O6 medical activity commander and make reporting to Service HQ mandatory, and you’ll cut way down on automatic approval of extensions for malingerers. And this will avoid extension requests for an additional 60 or 90 days going to service HQs, leaving them only the true hard cases to consider.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Absolutely agree, Hondo. My assumption was that medical folks must be involved with issuing a waiver for medical reasons. The rest of us simply cannot make such a determination intelligently.
Would guess that the NGB would never go along with a plan which does not afford them some flexbilty in this regard.
It isn’t the concept and waiver I have an issue with, same as Hondo. It is the “bureaucracy” that will go into overdrive because that’s what they do. Personnel bureaucracies like Army “High Royalty Command” (HRC) work hard to kick people out, using every devious and vile tactic they can to reduce numbers, forgetting that the H in HRC actually stands for ‘Human’.
The same bureaucracy that’ll provide you recompense when “the system updates”, but within 8 hours take something from you that you owe.
“Oh you’ve submit a waiver? Okay, we’ll get to that within the next 6-12 months. Good luck!”
“But I only have 3 more months before I get separated.”
“Well, you can request an expedite, that request will take 6 months though.”
“I’ll go to my Congressman!”
“Yeah we don’t really care about Congressional Inquiries, we’ll just blow them off and they won’t care, even in an election year.”
Sounds like a good first step in getting rid of game players, especially the Sick Call Rangers who play “Ride ’em Profile”.
Not really. As 2/17 AC observed above, there’s no provision to catch someone who goes on profile for 60 days, comes off for a week, then goes back on profile for 90 days, etc . . . . My experience was that “profile riders” did that vice getting a 12+mo or permanent profile that disqualified them from deployment. Maybe things have changed.
I remember seeing WAY too many E6’s and E7’s (At LEAST 75% of the Cadre)with smooth right sleeves talking down to me and my fellow Students in NCO School while at least 80% of the Students sported legit Combat Patches.
That’s the way it was in HI in ‘06. This guy being a SGT(P), CIB, EIB, with some other schooling and a crap load of field time; at WLC gave a peer POG SL a suggestion to set up a local support by fire to bust a gulch instead of using the road, saving time and it was better utilization of terrain. The SGL said we ain’t doing it, I then gave the suggestion to the peer to bound in over watch (as we were about to go thru a wide open HLZ) SGL again said no. I turned to the slick sleeve E-7 SGL and said something to the effect that she likes writing letters to families of deacesed Soliders. Needless to say when I had to talk to the 1SG, a fellow Infantryman, after the ass chew with SFC Knownothingoftactics in room, we had a closed door session…
Ft McCoy 2014. Day one, we all get called in and get the rah rah rah briefing about how great the training we are about to get is. Then all those with CIB’s, CAB’s, EIB’s, or a “shoulder sleeve insignia” to stand. We were then given the a choice, humble ourselves and take that stuff off, or take a counciling removing ourselves from the honor role and honor grad compitition.
Do what???
My comments after WLC were almost word for exactly that. Except I called out the the three slick sleved (two E-6’s and an E-7) instructors and the CSM (also a slick sleeve, but with deployments to Germany! Horn of Africa! Japan! And just ask for the rest of places she’d been) for bolo’ing me on my leadership final (flash TCP that stopped a van, the driver of which got out and started running yelling allahu akbar and so I shot him. Turns out the van was loaded with explosives and the fleeing driver had a detonator on him. I got told I had no way of knowing he was a real threat and put through a mock 15-6 investigation where I lost my shit and told them all how stupid they were and apparently no idea what combat was really like. Got called a CAB stroker (a phrase I’d never heard before) and theatened with expulsion from the course if I wasn’t willing to retrain and retest.
My retest was a mounted supply patrol with such an extensive ROE that it made the one I had in Iraq look simple. We took sniper fire, and I said fuck it and we pushed on because our mission wasn’t to engage, but to escort the supplies from point a to point b. Found out from another instructor later that they’d planned on us stopping and had a huge ambush planned.
*twitch*. I get angry just remembering it.
Funny thing, there was one mission I was on in Afghanistan where we had a potential ambush coming for us. We were told by locals that we’d be getting ambushed at a certain point. So, the PL just pushed through at a higher rate of speed than our normal SOP was (That they knew too well).
I think we ended up shocking them into dumbfoundedness because they didn’t even fire one shot.
There are a lot of other details to it, but that was the best choice for that situation.
I hear the VA will give you some money for having anger issues because of Army stuff, so you’ve got that going for you.
I keep hearing about this VA money. Haven’t tried them since I made my therapist cry and the VA doctor told me I should wrap the knee I fractured in iraqi in a flannel shirt soaked in warm linseed oil…
I was lucky enough to deal with a VSO type rep to do the submission and that was quite helpful. The right person can make things right if you are getting a raw deal, even after the initial submission.
I’ve reached that point actually. 14 years in the Reserves (13 good ones, apparently I came up short the year I moved from CA to NH) and my shoulder of all things is starting to go.
I’m just so close to 20, it makes me want to just tough it out, and I’m afraid meeting with the VA will put an end to that.
FFS.
Remember when NCOs were actual Leaders and not Blue Falcons with fat wallets?
Thats also one of the things that killed me about WLC. Before I got out in 1995, I was an E-4 getting ready for PLDC. From everyone who’d been through it and all the study material I’d been given it was a real Leaders Course. You planned and led missions, you conducted inspections of personnel and equipment, you used that knowledge to improve your mission preformance (knowing your grear and people)…
WLC was all about “Here’s how you do your NCOER and SHARP”. It wasn’t leadership. The cadre gave out tag sheets that said “Here’s what you’ll be evaluated on, don’t deviate from this list”.
Gah, I’m turning into that guy…you know the one “Things were better in my day…”
Now they call it “Basic Leadership Course” BLC. There was nothing wrong with calling it PLDC and they should’ve gone back to calling it that.
It is the primary school to teach you leadership skills, taught by leaders.
So how did you like working for Patton, old man?
It was called BLC way back when I went through it at Fort Bliss in 1972.
Even got to have Omar Bradley shake my hand on graduation day.
So who’s this Patton guy you’re talking about? Oh, Yeah, he worked for Bradley. Now I remember./smile
Funny enough, my Grandfather met Patton in Germany (his engineering company was attached to 3rd Army). He said he was a hell of General, but an asshole of a person. Said he wanted to keep attacking SS positions even after it was clear the war in Europe was over (ie they are just waiting for the formal surrender).
I’d have loved to have served under Patton, (or even Rommel for that matter.
Being on profile does not make you automatically non-deployable nor do you need perfect 1s on your PHULES. This policy mainly affects those who dodge keeping their MEDPROS up to date (a big part of the (200k + figure) and those who have a non-deployable issue who perenially end up in the rear with the gear.
We all know these people this is targeted toward and I say it is about time. The old saw “I can still be contributing and doing my part in CONUS” is coming to an end.
As for pregnancy, once a unit is set to deploy ( even for non combat deployments like force and readiness projection) and the female gets pregnant – discharge her. Its no different than a male having some sort of elective surgery right before a deployment.
Oh, and now days there is no such thing as a “non-deployable MOS). We had sand sailors riding gun trucks in OIF….fresh of a ship and given a crash course in SECFOR.
One of the worst mistakes the military ever made was the maternity uniform. You expecting, you nondeployable, you gone. I did two tours in Nam and was primed for third (all voluntary) when it ended. I was amazed afterwards how many in uniform did not go.
It’s simple. If you can’t deploy, you’re filling a slot that someone deployable should fill. BTDT. I was non-deployable, set to retire. I was asked to stick around as rear D 1SG, so I did. Unit came home, I went home. Retired earlier than I wanted, but I was not gonna be that guy that stuck around at the party too long. When it’s time to go, you get the hell out of the way. You might not deploy. You might not be in a deployable unit. BUT you have to be able to deploy or you’re just dead wood that needs to be pruned.
We had an aviation maintenance LDO* in my squadron for my first cruise that couldn’t go. It seems he developed a sleep walking habit during workups.
Not exactly something you want on an aircraft carrier…
*Limited Duty Officer, Mustang
Here’s an idea: those girls who view pregnancy as a means of avoiding deployment could be taken off AD and sent to the reserves, and they stay there. Then you can find out quickly how devoted they are.
I still say that recalling a bunch of prior service people like me to do the ‘in the rear with the gear’ thing, which is light duty now, makes some sense. The military always needs people back at the bases, so why not?
The reserves and guard are deployed as well now days so that is a no-go. They are already filled up with sick bay commandos…no need to add to their woes.
Uhmmm. No.
The reserve components did their time taking the misfits the active services couldn’t be bothered with. No more, please.
BTDT. I only had 16 hours per month to train my folks. It’s almost impossible on a good day. Why expect me to also deal with some folks who don’t want to be there and who I may or may not even be able to find? My job was to train my people, not to train fools somebody else didn’t want to train.
Awww, you’re only saying that because they’ve added another 185 hours of training requirements each year to the Reserve Component.
“Dishonesty in the Army Profession” comes to mind.
I really have no business in this conversation, but I do have a question about the up-or-out rule.
If an NCO is at a level where (s)he works very well, and does a good job, but if they move up will have reached their personal level of incompetence, would it not be best for the sake of the forces to keep them where they’ll do a good job?
I know it probably involves some means of evaluating whether they would really be incompetent at the next level, and whether they are really doing a great job at their current level. And may be more problem than it is worth.
Feel free to tell me I’m ignorant and need to go hide in the corner and be quiet…
Mandatory “up or out” is a completely different subject than the discussion at hand, Graybeard. Worth discussing, but different enough that this thread might not be the best time/place to discuss it. Just my opinion.
OK, Hondo. Did I misunderstand what Jonn said, above?
“I’d take it a step further and boot anyone who turns down a leadership position. A master sergeant who turns down a first sergeant job, or a staff sergeant major who turns down a command sergeant major position should find themselves on the street the next day.”
It is that comment which triggered my question – for it sounds like an “up-or-out” concept to my feeble brain.
You were not alone in stumbling over that comment. Chalked it up to something specific to the Army.
Perhaps you did misunderstand. So let me try to explain.
Turning down a leadership position isn’t a “up or out” issue. Rather, much like avoiding deployment it’s more of an “avoiding hard jobs/responsibility” issue.
In the Army (and USMC, as I recall), both Master Sergeant and First Sergeant ranks are E8s. Ditto for Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major, except those ranks are E9s (I believe the USMC calls their E9 equivalents Master Gunnery Sergeant and Sergeant Major). There’s no additional pay associated with either of the E8 or E9 ranks; but there’s a helluva lot of added responsibility, difficulty, and headaches associated with two of them.
At each rank, the former is typically a staff position – e.g., the incumbent performs a staff job and provides leadership only to a small team of personnel working directly for him/her. An Army First Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major (or USMC Sergeant Major), on the other hand, works hand-in-hand with their unit Commander to provide leadership and guidance for the entire unit. (Well, that’s the theory at least. I believe Jonn’s made it clear he’s seen a few Command Sergeant Majors of whose leadership abilities he wasn’t a fan. [smile])
The same is true at lower enlisted levels as well. Some E5/E6/E7 billets are on staffs, and some are troop leadership positions in units.
I believe Jonn’s point was that in his opinion anyone who turned down a leadership billet should be shown the door. Leadership billets are essential, must-fill vacancies. But they’re also damned hard jobs, with potential to end a career if you screw up. Some people seem to avoid taking them.
Jonn, please correct me if I didn’t correctly capture your intent above.
Sounds correct to me, except for “Command SergeantS Major”. 😉
This is the truth. Even in Civil Affairs there are officers who avoid company or even battalion command because they know they can still make O5 and even O6 without having to do the hard job, but still get promoted. (And its not even the worry about getting fired, its not wanting to have to do the tough job.)
Granted, there are a lot of extra BS requirements put onto command teams by higher levels (especially in reserve component units) that shouldn’t be there, but some are still making the climb without having to do leadership jobs.
Even as an E7 I was a company 1SG because the position needed to be covered. I’ve seen E8s who were happy to get promoted that cried about having to do the 1SG job. They were fine with an E7 stepping up to do the job so that they wouldn’t have to. That is the kind of bullshit Jonn was referring to.
GB, I get it. I was very happy and content at the SFC/E7 level, loved being a Platoon Sergeant and even liked S3 OPS. What I hated was the politics, backstabbing, and bullshit at the E8 level and above. Too damn many E8’s and E9’s and not nearly enough NCO’s. I did the jobs at that level, but it was misery. That’s what I experienced in Signal, and there are exceptions (one of whom comments here). The Peter Principle is factual.
The hard part of the Signal Corps is that far too many of my peers were neither technical experts nor leaders….
It hurts me to say so. It isn’t the rank or position, its the culture….
EO promotions.
There. I said it.
I had a good S3 ops sgt who couldn’t make E8; he was good at what he was doing. I had two SGMs, an E8 former MP 1SG, and other NCOs, so the S3 shop was rather top-heavy. Anyway, Army tried to kick out my E7 just before he hit 18 years and that really upset me — if you’re gonna put someone out, don’t wait 6 months before he hits 18 years! I was able to get him extended until he hit 18 and grandfathered, so he was able to retire at 20.
That’s called taking care of your people – which I wish more leaders in all areas would do.
Hear, hear.
Reminds me of something that I wish I had told when asked at a job interview “What did you learn in the Army?” Write someone’s boss a letter when they do a good job and really help you out. A Reserve NCO came in with his guys and used the land nav course at Ft. McClellan when I was in what was kinda of PLDC pre-school. She helped them out. He got her info so he could write her boss an “atta gal” letter.
CCO sez: “… Write someone’s boss a letter when they do a good job and really help you out…..”
Amen to that!
During the last reduction of force King Barry implemented, Army HRC worked OT to kick people out in the 14-16 year range before they hit sanctuary for any and every reason possible.
Just vile and deceitful bullshit being pulled by bureaucrats because they know it doesn’t effect them. Even if it might effect them, they are in the bureaucracy and work in ways to exempt themselves.
That’s what I hear from every navy person I know. They make E-6 and don’t want to deal with the politics of the CPO mess to get promoted.
What I saw in the AF was that to be a chief you had to be tongue darting the fart hole of the O-5s and O-6s. So you had guys go through the ranks as real leaders, make it to E-7 and then learn the rules of the game. They’d start playing by the “rules” and would go from taking care of their troops to taking care of themselves.
Saw a lot of dramatic personality/leadership style changes when Os went from O-3 to O-4. It was like getting oak leaves made one an instant a-hole.
I suppose once you get past the “automatic” promotion potential in your career field it becomes dog eat dog as there are fewer and fewer available positions at the top.
My only quibble; “leadership” positions include staff and enabling positions. The wreath and diamond are not indicators of leadership, but of titled positions.
Many SFC, MSG and SGM are leading hundreds or thousands of soldiers without diamonds and wreaths.
A hard lesson learned by being on both sides of the deal…leaders lead always and followers do not. Get rid of followers, don’t focus on obsolete rank structures.
I saw a lot of motivation to get a lozenge or a star not in wanting to be leaders of men but to get the status, the nicer billeting, the added power, and all that.
Question: Does the military have only one standard of what constitutes “deployable” vs. “nondeployable?”
Because it seems to me there’s a difference between an infantry squad leader humping a 100lb ruck in the Hindu Kush and a PLL clerk at Bagram dispatching HMMWVs. Both are “deployed” but there’s no reason that, for example, a soldier recovering from knee or shoulder surgery couldn’t do the PLL clerk job.
The stress of deployment is not necessarily just the stress of combat. I don’t know what percentage of deployed soldiers actually engage in combat with the enemy but I’ll bet it’s below 50% and probably way lower. For most soldiers, a deployment is just being away from home, being on-duty 24/7, and living in shitty conditions with stupid, arbitrary rules and hours of mindless boredom.
You don’t need to be in 100% perfect physical condition to do that job so maybe the military needs to evaluate what criteria service members need to meet in order to deploy.
I deployed in 2007 with a P3 profile for degenerative disc disease. I was completely deployable. However… 2 years later, same P3, but rotten discs prohibited body armor and Kevlar. So, non-deployable. Situations change.
I’m really surprised you were allowed to deploy with a 3 code in any PULHES element. I though anyone with a 3 code anywhere on PULHES was non-deployable – but as your example shows I guess not.
With a P3 for a back issue, I’d have thought you’d have been either MRC3B (>30 days to correct medical issues) or MRC4 (indeterminate). That said, the Army really needed troops to deploy in 2007 – so many medical folks and/or units may have “not looked too hard” at that stuff.
Good on ya for deploying, SFC D. You’re smart enough to know you probably could have gotten out of deployment for legitimate medical reasons, but you obviously chose to go anyway. Kudos.
For our sister-service folks who might not use PULHES: PULHES is a quick numerical rating of a soldier’s Pulmonary, Upper Body, Lower Body, Hearing, Eyesight, and Psychological medical condition. Scoring for each element runs from 1 (AOK) to 4 (medically unqualified for retention). A 3 code on any PULHES element signifies a condition that would normally be disqualifying for entry into the military (the individual may or may not be able to stay in, depending on MOS, but assignments and duties might be limited).
I had a guy in my unit who had 3 mild heart attacks in about a 4 month period before we deployed. He still got on the plane, though he was sent to Qatar so he wouldn’t die in Baghdad from it. That was in 2005.
In 2011, we had a guy who had a mild allergy to honeybees and they pulled him off the roster at the deployment platform. When I went through, I didn’t say crap about anything being wrong with me.
In 2005 we were struggling to deploy units at 70%, in 2011 we had people begging to deploy.
I got a funny profile once when we were at Bragg for, I think it was, a brigade FTX. I had to have an ingrown toenail removed towards the end of our field time. I was put on profile “no walking, no running, no standing more than 10 minutes an hour, no airborne ops.” I’m a leg, and we were a leg outfit; but hey, Bragg, eh?
Kicking out nondeployables sure, but those who don’t want to be 1stSgts or SgtsMaj? Not everybody can or should be in a unit leadership position. There are plenty of people who find themselves to be more useful as experts in their specialty and they should be valued. This concept that “everybody needs to be a leader” is only an American one. In some military forces, you can be a LCpl grunt for 20 years if you wish because the pay and bennies aren’t too different from being a commissioned O.
It is one thing to now want to be put into the position, but it is another when the position is offered and you turn it down after accepting promotion.
If you’re an E8 you should expect to pull 1SG duty. If you accept E9, you should expect to get tagged for a CSM job. (I’ve done the CSM job even as an E8.) As I mentioned above, I know of E8s who were more than happy to get the promotion and bigger paycheck, but when it came down to having to put an E8 into an E8 position (1SG), they’d whine and bitch about having to do the job.
“No no no, I don’t want the extra responsibility, I just want the bigger paycheck and higher rank. The bigger pension and more perks for being a higher rank will be a plus too. But you can keep the responsibility and stress.”
I don’t disagree that not everyone should be a leader, absolutely. Some people suck balls at leadership, whether they realize it or not. But needs of the Army will sometimes expect you to pick up a position even if you don’t “want” it. I’d be fine with having career corporals again. I’d be fine with the Army letting people retire at E4, E5, or E6.
“It” is getting real now.
https://www.duffelblog.com/2018/02/deploy-or-get-out-results-in-closure-of-pentagon/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Duffel%20Blog&utm_content=%27Deploy%20or%20get%20out%27%20policy%20results%20in%20closure%20of%20Pentagon
Now that’s funny.
I remember on particular sergeant I had, a real garrison warrior. Always so “hardcore” about everything (except his own PT), but when it came time to deploy for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, he “couldn’t go because he has problems” … obviously, the first time he tried to get in someone’s face over his usual chickens*** while we were preparing to deploy, he got his feelings hurt. He got transferred to a REMF company soon afterwards.