Armed Liberal at Winds Of Change attended a conference call yesterday with Bill Carr, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, about the recent smears against our military by a few news outlets on recruiting criminals. I noted in my own post that the numbers of those granted waivers equate to one half of one percent of all recruits, not a shocking number and definitely not deserving the hyperbole and spin by the MSM to somehow show that our military is so desperate they are scraping the bottom of the barrel. At least the NYT’s article did a decent job of showing what kind of crimes were talking about here that were granted waivers:
Lt. Col. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, said the waivers had been carefully vetted and were not as serious as they appeared on paper. The kidnapping charge involved a divorced woman who moved out of state with her child without the permission of her former husband, she said. One terroristic threat charge involved a 14-year-old who called in a bomb threat to his school, and the other also involved a minor.
And here is Armed Liberals notes on the conference:
Went from 816 waivers in ’06 to 1077 waivers (assume this is total for all services?)
each is reviewed by general officer – fairly robust review process(RAND?) did study tracking cohort – retention % is the same
tracking effort outside this study? – no DoD tracking, but tracking at service level
army loosened by saying tats that show don’t dq you
historically – tats that show propensity to misbehave were a dq
now there are checks for gang tats (there’s a book…) before tats declaring gang affils was not a dq – when did that change? in past year
Lowering aptitude would have bigger impact
180K recruits last year – 1077 waivers total
60% of recruits from top 50% of aptitude – that’s not been lowered
not relaxing key standard – aptitude, which would be easy dial to change to up recruit #’s
That gang tattoo change is a biggie in my opinion. I’ve run across a few gangsters in the area I patrol who are on active duty and still hanging with the homies while on leave. I had to shake my head on that one. In the vast majority of cases, if your jumped into a gang you WILL have a tattoo showing your hood. Get rid of those guys and do not lower the aptitude research on each recruit and I see no problem with granting these waivers. A great comment at Blackfive illustrated the point that the military can take those who were messing up as a kid, but had great potential, and turn them into productive pillars of our society:
about a friend: long time ago… different war… a 17-yr old punk — smart and a smart a$$ — cigarettes rolled in the sleeve of his t-shirt… petty theft, boosting tires… appearing before a judge on Chicago’s west side for “borrowing” a car for a joy ride… the judge says to the kid with major attitude, “juvi hall or the Corps…” with a nod to the “resident” recruiter at the back of the court room… chose the Corps… a tour in Vietnam… survived a bloody ambush… shot in the knee… stayed in the reserves for a few decades and retired with serious “O” rank — a beloved and trusted leader of men… with a year in a cast and multiple surgeries he used his “down” time after Vietnam to get his college degree… joined a major Midwestern state PD… worked his way through the ranks… headed the security detail for 3 or 4 governors… youngest ever to command his own state police district… just retired. a good man who contributed much to our society.
Hard core guys with hard core records definitely need to be dumped, but those with potential with a little bit of direction thrown their way should not be abandoned because of a minor record.
See author page
Agreed. “Hard core guys with hard core records definitely need to be dumped.”
But while we are not recruiting from the bottom of the barrel, when the proportion of new army recruits with high school diplomas drops from over 90% in 2003 to 71% in 2007 — the lowest levels in at least 25 years– and then stuff like this happens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_D._Green
perhaps it’s worth “a whole article.”
The NYT piece reminded me of this Salon piece:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/print.html
I tend to think not much has changed in the two years when you contrast the NYT piece and the Salon piece.
The Army is still in a very tight fix.
I would venture a wild guess that if one researched the total drop-out rate from 2003 to 2007 one might find an inverse statistic (?).
Tom
MarineBryant is correct that the increase in recruits who have not been graduated may be directly related to national statistics that are increasing for drop outs. In fact, just in the last couple weeks, I heard a talking head report on the worrisome increasing HS drop out rates. Quite timely, when you think of the increased recruitment of those without HS diplomas.
This NEA study for 2008 uses data from 2003-04. Amazing how slow and behind the times our educators are. Takes ’em this long to analyze?? Geez
This NCES study using the period from 1999 to 2003 breaks it down via race/ethnicity.
According to this March 06 study from Silent Epidemic:/
Weird that the top 5 reason percentages add up to more than 100%… must be the new math. LOL Hey… just cutting and pastin’ here. Go now how they come to these figures.
Every study seems to give different results. But most say this is a problem on the increase. Considering public education nowadays, who came blame ’em for not finding it interesting! Milquetoast revisionism that does nothing to encourage an ambitious self-starter.
The high degree of drop outs disinterested in learning, or that played hookey so often they were behind the eight ball, sound like candidates who would benefit greatly from military discipline. And they would end up with a GED – not in jail.
marinetbryant was wondering if there may be an “inverse statistic”[al] relationship between high school drop-outs nationally and their recruitment; that means that while Army recruitment of drop-outs went up 19%, between ’03 and ’07, nationally it may have gone down 19%.
It may have gone down some, but there’s no way of objectively knowing as:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5heUgDfYJ5ytrg1mE6JqQIiCiBXOgD8VOS5RG0
Yet most certainly it didn’t go down 19% in five years. We should assume if there was a decline in graduates nationally, then it was modest.
Therefore, what accounts for the decrease in high school graduate recruitment:
The war:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1004-01.htm
Of course, more incentives for enlistments solved much of the Army’s concerns, as in the past two years there have no goal enlistment shortfalls.