Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on February 13, 2007, 07:45:56 PM
-
Military grants more waivers to recruits
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Army and Marine Corps are letting in more recruits with criminal records, including some with felony convictions, reflecting the increased pressure of five years of war and its mounting casualties.
According to data compiled by the Defense Department, the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.
The military routinely grants waivers to admit recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Overall the majority are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.
The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the
Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors, which could be petty theft, writing a bad check or some assaults, jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006. The minor crimes represented more than three-quarters of the moral waivers granted by the Army in 2006, up from more than half in 2003.
Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who may have made a mistake early in life but have overcome past behavior. And they said about two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Marines are for drug use, because they — unlike the other services — require a waiver if someone has been convicted once for marijuana use.
Lawmakers and other observers say they are concerned that the struggle to fill the military ranks in this time of war has forced the services to lower their moral standards.
"The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. "By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country."
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday he is concerned because the Pentagon data differs from Army numbers. But overall, he said, "anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review."
"Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies," Boyce said.
The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues.
"The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.
Belkin said a new study commissioned by the center also concludes that the military does not have any programs that help convicted felons adjust to military life.
In recent years, as the
Iraq and
Afghanistan wars have dragged on, the military has also relaxed some standards in order to meet recruitment demands. The Army, for example, increased its age limit for recruits from 35 to 42, and is accepting more people whose scores on a standardized aptitude test are at the lower end of the acceptable range.
In its report, the Pentagon said, "The waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military."
According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of new military recruits needed some type of waiver in 2006, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.
The military in its report divides moral waivers into six categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses. Because many states have different crimes categorized as a felony or misdemeanor, the groupings are more general.
About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver to enlist in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003. In addition, the report showed that the Army granted substantially fewer waivers for drug use and serious traffic violations last year than in 2003.
More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements. Felony waivers made up about 2 percent of the Marine waivers, while other lesser crimes made up about 25 percent, both up slightly from 2003.
About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up only slightly from 2003. Two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Navy were for misdemeanor-type crimes and about 5 percent were for felonies.
Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003. Nearly all of the waivers were for the misdemeanor-type crimes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruits_waivers
-
They tried to talk me out of finishing school and the contracts are up big time. More signing bonuses and guaranteed contracts to ensure enlistments.
-
So they are now letting criminals into the military? Looks like they're desperate... :-X
-
i don't think anyone here has recently said that recruiting isn't in trouble, it's kinda common knowledge.
nobody is that dumb.
-
i don't think anyone here has recently said that recruiting isn't in trouble, it's kinda common knowledge.
nobody is that dumb.
Are you sure about that? I thought I read a couple of posts where people stated there were no issues with getting new recruits? I don't remember exactly though so I'm not stating it as fact.
-
Are you sure about that? I thought I read a couple of posts where people stated there were no issues with getting new recruits? I don't remember exactly though so I'm not stating it as fact.
No, I would bet $5 internet dollars on it.
No one here at getbig has been so blind to say that. it's common knowledge that they're dropping standards to get new people. No one here is that incredibly stupid and unattractive.
-
No one here at getbig has been so blind to say that.... No one here is that incredibly stupid and unattractive.
"enlistment and retention is great in the military" - militarymuscle69
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=113451.msg1784644#msg1784644
-
No, I would bet $5 internet dollars on it.
No one here at getbig has been so blind to say that. it's common knowledge that they're dropping standards to get new people. No one here is that incredibly stupid and unattractive.
;)
It took me a minute to figure that one out.
-
;)
It took me a minute to figure that one out.
it's the classic getbig T-ball pitch. ribo smelled it and smacked it over the fence.
military muscle will log on tomorrow and annouce this "Associated Press" is nothing but a liberal rag.
-
it's the classic getbig T-ball pitch. ribo smelled it and smacked it over the fence.
military muscle will log on tomorrow and annouce this "Associated Press" is nothing but a liberal rag.
I hate being predictable. :)
Look, for all I know, MM's anecdotal experience is just what he says. And since I have none of my own, I wasn't going to argue with him.
But this story seems to speak for itself. They're not going to let in more felons if they have enough non-felons to fill the boots.
-
perhaps they feel the felonious element will provide US forces with more streed cred.
Or in the words of Castor Troy... "When all else fails... Fresh tactics!"
I"m sure militarymuscle will clarify that for us.
-
it's the classic getbig T-ball pitch. ribo smelled it and smacked it over the fence.
military muscle will log on tomorrow and annouce this "Associated Press" is nothing but a liberal rag.
Nah, it'll be the "YOU HATE OUR MILITARY CARD" ;)
-
Nah, it'll be the "YOU HATE OUR MILITARY CARD" ;)
Didn't someone get called a commie? LOL
That's some funny schit dredging up the commie quip. ;D
-
Didn't someone get called a commie? LOL
That's some funny schit dredging up the commie quip. ;D
Guess someone decided to bust out the McCarthyism, now that's old school. ;)
-
Guess someone decided to bust out the McCarthyism, now that's old school. ;)
Rumor has it the "commie" was so shamed by his outing that he deleted his account and is now ghost writing for other Getbig members. ;D
-
Recruiting down during time of war? No way. Must be the first time in U.S. history. ::)
-
There are a lot of servicemembers - both officer and enlisted - that you wouldn't want to have any association with.
-
There isa war on so of course recruiting is going to suffer. I would rather play the "Ribo" is a piece of shit card myself.
-
All I will say is this, standards were dropped A LONG TIME before the war. I remember hearing about the lower ASVAB score requirements back in 98-99 time frame. Even when I came in many or the Army and Marines I was training with didn't have high school diplomas. This is nothing new, the military has been a less attractive option for many years and they have tried everything to improve the incentives. My little brother joined in 99 and recieved 30K + to do so. When I reinlisted in 2000 I got a bonus. I couldn't get that today because retention rates are better since the war started. The army is sturggling because people are catching on to their quality of life issues. I am Air Force and stationed at an Army post. It is like 2 different cultures. But we won't take these same kids into the Air Force. Short and Simple...This is not a new issue.
-
There isa war on so of course recruiting is going to suffer. I would rather play the "Ribo" is a piece of shit card myself.
Yep. Personal attacks are WAY easier than coming up with relevant data.
Call his mother a whore! DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Recruiting down during time of war? No way. Must be the first time in U.S. history. ::)
Why now that you mention it, Bum, this is the first prolonged war we've fought since the draft was ended. So yes, this is a first in US history. :)
But your rationalization is beyond feeble, of course. After Pearl Harbor, people were lying about their age to get into the service. People seemed to feel that war was worth fighting.
This one... apparently not so much. :)
-
Why now that you mention it, Bum, this is the first prolonged war we've fought since the draft was ended. So yes, this is a first in US history. :)
But your rationalization is beyond feeble, of course. After Pearl Harbor, people were lying about their age to get into the service. People seemed to feel that war was worth fighting.
This one... apparently not so much. :)
I see. So there were no speed bums in recruiting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm? I'll believe that when I see the numbers.
And to say people were ever falling over themselves to go die in a war is a stretch. I don't know if there was a small bump right after Pearl Harbor (maybe, maybe not), but I doubt recruiting increased during WWII.
-
Why now that you mention it, Bum, this is the first prolonged war we've fought since the draft was ended. So yes, this is a first in US history. :)
But your rationalization is beyond feeble, of course. After Pearl Harbor, people were lying about their age to get into the service. People seemed to feel that war was worth fighting.
This one... apparently not so much. :)
Weren't those times great, when people wanted to go to war because they didn't take for granted their "rights." If only Americ was still like that. Instead people want to stay here, abuse their "rights" and never consider fighting themselves for it. Back in WWI, WWII, Korea.... a man like Clinton never would have been voted as pres.
-
Weren't those times great, when people wanted to go to war because they didn't take for granted their "rights." If only Americ was still like that. Instead people want to stay here, abuse their "rights" and never consider fighting themselves for it. Back in WWI, WWII, Korea.... a man like Clinton never would have been voted as pres.
Interesting that you didn't mention our current President when you mentioned Clinton. You must have forgotten that he got out of serving in Vietnam.
-
Interesting that you didn't mention our current President when you mentioned Clinton. You must have forgotten that he got out of serving in Vietnam.
How did he get "out" of it. Not everyone in the military deploys to every war. You know only 45% of the active duty air force has spent time in Afghanistan/Iraq? Clinton left the country
-
How did he get "out" of it. Not everyone in the military deploys to every war. You know only 45% of the active duty air force has spent time in Afghanistan/Iraq? Clinton left the country
So you're saying Bush didn't get out of serving? You're saying no strings were pulled so that Bush wouldn't have to go fight in Vietnam?
-
So you're saying Bush didn't get out of serving? You're saying no strings were pulled so that Bush wouldn't have to go fight in Vietnam?
I'm saying 50% + of the active duty today hasn't gone. Have strings been pulled? excuses made? I don't worry about them, I serve my time and don't make excuses to stay home. What proof do you have Bush had strings pulled?
-
I'm saying 50% + of the active duty today hasn't gone. Have strings been pulled? excuses made? I don't worry about them, I serve my time and don't make excuses to stay home. What proof do you have Bush had strings pulled?
You do realize of course that Clinton was studying at Oxford don't you and that he was never drafted? I'm not defending Clinton but you can't criticize one guy for not fighting and not criticize the other. It's hypocritical.
On one hand you say you don't care about strings being pulled and on the other you want proof. You couldn't be more ridiculously partisan if you tried. What proof do you have Clinton got out of fighting? ::)
-
You do realize of course that Clinton was studying at Oxford don't you and that he was never drafted? I'm not defending Clinton but you can't criticize one guy for not fighting and not criticize the other. It's hypocritical.
On one hand you say you don't care about strings being pulled and on the other you want proof. You couldn't be more ridiculously partisan if you tried.
I'm not partisan, I liked clinton as a president, he was good to the military which is rare for a dem, but it is true that in the early 1900s the fact that he decided to be abroad during vietnam would have been held agianst him...my original argument
-
clinton was not good for the military, and bush was not good for different reasons
-
I'm not partisan, I liked clinton as a president, he was good to the military which is rare for a dem, but it is true that in the early 1900s the fact that he decided to be abroad during vietnam would have been held agianst him...my original argument
I voted for the man, but I guess you weren't in when he decided not give us our little cost of living raise one year? There was almost a mutiny. :) And remember one of his first attempted acts as president was an attempt to force open homosexuality on the military, which eventually resulted in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He later came around, but he had a very rocky start.
-
I voted for the man, but I guess you weren't in when he decided not give us our little cost of living raise one year? There was almost a mutiny. :) And remember one of his first attempted acts as president was an attempt to force open homosexuality on the military, which eventually resulted in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He later came around, but he had a very rocky start.
I came in in 97, all I know is we had the #s to do our job then. Since Rumsfeld came in we have cut nearly 50,000 AF.
-
I'm not partisan, I liked clinton as a president, he was good to the military which is rare for a dem, but it is true that in the early 1900s the fact that he decided to be abroad during vietnam would have been held agianst him...my original argument
You did mention WWII and Korea and I don't think during those wars that it would have been an issue if a Presidential candidate studied at Oxford and wasn't drafted. Well, at least not enough of an issue to keep him from being elected.
I don't believe you're not partisan, you clearly have a distaste for Liberals, as do many people. Since Kerry actually fought in Vietnam do you think more of him than Bush?
-
I came in in 97, all I know is we had the #s to do our job then. Since Rumsfeld came in we have cut nearly 50,000 AF.
Ah so. You came in after he cut his teeth on me and my fellow service members. :) The RIF started during my time and they did a good job of cutting a lot of the fat out of the Army (for example, E5s with 15-17 years in service).
-
You did mention WWII and Korea and I don't think during those wars that it would have been an issue if a Presidential candidate studied at Oxford and wasn't drafted. Well, at least not enough of an issue to keep him from being elected.
I don't believe you're not partisan, you clearly have a distaste for Liberals, as do many people. Since Kerry actually fought in Vietnam do you think more of him than Bush?
I admire Kerry for serving, however I don't care for his actions post war and his trying to use his paper cut purple hearts to win an election. I am not Republican, I don't vote party lines. Hell right now the only reason I would vote GOP is to help control the ultra lib congress/senate
-
I admire Kerry for serving, however I don't care for his actions post war and his trying to use his paper cut purple hearts to win an election. I am not Republican, I don't vote party lines. Hell right now the only reason I would vote GOP is to help control the ultra lib congress/senate
what ever became of moderate democrates?
do they even exsist anymore?
Eveything seems to be Extreme lib...
-
what ever became of moderate democrates?
do they even exsist anymore?
Eveything seems to be Extreme lib...
there are moderates, they just don't happen to be running the government (ie.. pelosi, clinton, obama, murtha etc..) that is why I propose at least 1 new party
-
what ever became of moderate democrates?
do they even exsist anymore?
Eveything seems to be Extreme lib...
Clinton was a moderate, but his wife sure isn't, and she will apparently be the Democrat standard bearer.
-
there are moderates, they just don't happen to be running the government (ie.. pelosi, clinton, obama, murtha etc..) that is why I propose at least 1 new party
Start it and I'll join!
-
Clinton was a moderate, but his wife sure isn't, and she will apparently be the Democrat standard bearer.
I hope not. I relly do, becuase all that will do is give more power to the extreme conservatives.
We need balance from the middle int he USA right now. Not over reaction in the form of electing the opposite extremety
-
there are moderates, they just don't happen to be running the government (ie.. pelosi, clinton, obama, murtha etc..) that is why I propose at least 1 new party
Or how about we do away with the party system all together? As it is the two major parties do nothing but battle one another.
-
Start it and I'll join!
I remember back during Ross Perot's first run I was actually going to vote for him, till he turned out to be a little crazy (the Bush tried to ruin my daughter's wedding and "you people" things).
-
I remember back during Ross Perot's first run I was actually going to vote for him, till he turned out to be a little crazy (the Bush tried to ruin my daughter's wedding and "you people" things).
The problem with the new party deal is a guy like Perot only takes votes away form others because out of tradition people vote dem or repub. but I bet if you consistently put quality candidates up for a new party you would see a swing in 20-30 years
-
I hope not. I relly do, becuase all that will do is give more power to the extreme conservatives.
We need balance from the middle int he USA right now. Not over reaction in the form of electing the opposite extremety
I see bad precedent for Democrats: Mondale, Dukakis, an exception with Clinton, then Gore, Kerry, and Hillary. Just terrible. Too bad Bill Richardson, Edwards, and candidates like them don't get more support from Democrats. They seem intent on putting duds at the top of the ticket.
I'm actually willing to take a hard look at Obama.
-
I see bad precedent for Democrats: Mondale, Dukakis, an exception with Clinton, then Gore, Kerry, and Hillary. Just terrible. Too bad Bill Richardson, Edwards, and candidates like them don't get more support from Democrats. They seem intent on putting duds at the top of the ticket.
I'm actually willing to take a hard look at Obama.
Whoa whoa whoa beach, you are my only brother in here!! Obama? did you catch his 60 minutes and hear him and his wife playing the race card already?
-
I see bad precedent for Democrats: Mondale, Dukakis, an exception with Clinton, then Gore, Kerry, and Hillary. Just terrible. Too bad Bill Richardson, Edwards, and candidates like them don't get more support from Democrats. They seem intent on putting duds at the top of the ticket.
I'm actually willing to take a hard look at Obama.
Hmmm, Obama...... I just don;t see it happening.
But what i do see happening is me voting for someone who i don't like, to prevent someone from winning i don;t want. :'(
-
I hope not. I relly do, becuase all that will do is give more power to the extreme conservatives.
We need balance from the middle int he USA right now. Not over reaction in the form of electing the opposite extremety
You would think moderates would rule considering they garner support from both parties. Perhaps war forces both extremes to the forefront.
-
Whoa whoa whoa beach, you are my only brother in here!! Obama? did you catch his 60 minutes and hear him and his wife playing the race card already?
LOL. ;D I didn't see it. What did he say?
I guess part of my problem is I'm not very excited about any of the candidates in the race so far. I wish someone like Colin Powell were still in the conversation. :'(
-
Hmmm, Obama...... I just don;t see it happening.
But what i do see happening is me voting for someone who i don't like, to prevent someone from winning i don;t want. :'(
I think a lot of people did that the past two presidential elections. :) Why aren't the best and brightest at the top of the ticket? Sort of a rhetorical question. I think it's partly because money and other unimportant factors (like geography) play such a huge role. For example, I would vote for Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle in a New York minute over every candidate in the race right now. Brilliant woman. Just an outstanding leader. But because she is from little old Hawaii, and a woman, she wouldn't get out of the batter's box.
-
LOL. ;D I didn't see it. What did he say?
I guess part of my problem is I'm not very excited about any of the candidates in the race so far. I wish someone like Colin Powell were still in the conversation. :'(
She was asked if she worried about an assasination attempt on Barrack if he ran and her answer was "being a black man Barrack could get shot just as easy going to the gas station" and then he was asked if he thought he was "black enough" to win the black vote. He made a comment that he must be black enough because he has trouble flagging down a taxi in chicago...
-
She was asked if she worried about an assasination attempt on Barrack if he ran and her answer was "being a black man Barrack could get shot just as easy going to the gas station" and then he was asked if he thought he was "black enough" to win the black vote. He made a comment that he must be black enough because he has trouble flagging down a taxi in chicago...
Well . . . . :-\ She could have been talking about "black on black crime." If she wasn't, then she was clearly playing the race card. And the taxi reference might actually be true, but sounds like a joke to me.
I have been critical of his failure to talk about the issues, but comments from a liberal has me taking a closer look at him. The comments were to effect that it's not so much where he stands on issues, it's his intelligence and judgment and whether he uses those qualities to make good decisions. All I'm really saying is I haven't closed the door on him . . . yet.
That said, I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the only candidate in the race.
-
I see. So there were no speed bums in recruiting during WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm? I'll believe that when I see the numbers.
And to say people were ever falling over themselves to go die in a war is a stretch. I don't know if there was a small bump right after Pearl Harbor (maybe, maybe not), but I doubt recruiting increased during WWII.
dude, are you kidding me with this comment? you doubt recruiting increased during wwII...guess again..dudes were shooting themselves for getting 4F'd (disqualified for service)....the day after pearl harbor men were lined up and down the streets to recruiting offices....plus recruitment wasn't needed...there was a national service order law that stated you had to serve at least 12 months in the military...so if you didn't join on your own you were drafted.
-
dude, are you kidding me with this comment? you doubt recruiting increased during wwII...guess again..dudes were shooting themselves for getting 4F'd (disqualified for service)....the day after pearl harbor men were lined up and down the streets to recruiting offices....plus recruitment wasn't needed...there was a national service order law that stated you had to serve at least 12 months in the military...so if you didn't join on your own you were drafted.
Like I said, there may or may not have been a small bump right after Pearl Harbor, but I'm talking about the entire conflict and whether recruiting increased or decreased during the war. You got some numbers?
-
Like I said, there may or may not have been a small bump right after Pearl Harbor, but I'm talking about the entire conflict and whether recruiting increased or decreased during the war. You got some numbers?
The Pearl Harbor attack on 7 December 1941, followed by a declaration of war on Germany and Japan, greatly accelerated the mobilization of U.S. naval forces in the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters. On 30 June 1941, the Marine Corps had 3,642 officers and 41,394 enlisted Marines, and was expanding at the rate of 2,000 enlistments a month. After Pearl Harbor, the enlistments exploded with 8,500 in December 1941, 13,000 in January 1942, and 10,000 in February. By June of that year, the strength of the Marine Corps had more than tripled.
On 5 February 1942, the U.S. Navy established its first base on the European side of the Atlantic, in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, on the banks of the River Foyle. That forward base had become necessary be cause the fleet could not operate efficiently for any length of time more than 2,000 miles from a naval base.
here's the link: http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003125-00/sec4.htm
-
The Pearl Harbor attack on 7 December 1941, followed by a declaration of war on Germany and Japan, greatly accelerated the mobilization of U.S. naval forces in the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters. On 30 June 1941, the Marine Corps had 3,642 officers and 41,394 enlisted Marines, and was expanding at the rate of 2,000 enlistments a month. After Pearl Harbor, the enlistments exploded with 8,500 in December 1941, 13,000 in January 1942, and 10,000 in February. By June of that year, the strength of the Marine Corps had more than tripled.
On 5 February 1942, the U.S. Navy established its first base on the European side of the Atlantic, in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, on the banks of the River Foyle. That forward base had become necessary be cause the fleet could not operate efficiently for any length of time more than 2,000 miles from a naval base.
here's the link: http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003125-00/sec4.htm
Thanks Rocky. Good info. I guess my next question would be what happened from Feb. 42 to 1945 when the war ended? (I'll look that up when I get a chance.) If we are comparing recruiting and retention during times of conflict, then we'd need to look at what happened at the start of the war and about four years in (like the current war in Iraq). I would imagine there was a spike in recruitment right after 911 too. I'll see what I can find on whether recruiting and retention during WWII continued to thrive in 1944 and 1945.
-
Thanks Rocky. Good info. I guess my next question would be what happened from Feb. 42 to 1945 when the war ended? (I'll look that up when I get a chance.) If we are comparing recruiting and retention during times of conflict, then we'd need to look at what happened at the start of the war and about four years in (like the current war in Iraq). I would imagine there was a spike in recruitment right after 911 too. I'll see what I can find on whether recruiting and retention during WWII continued to thrive in 1944 and 1945.
Cav 22 would know. I got a book at home that might have those answers
-
Cav 22 would know. I got a book at home that might have those answers
O.K. I'll wait for your info.
-
I'll see what I can dig up on the Army and AAF...i have a shitload of books at home on it..