Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Just_A_Mom, Aug 10, 2007.
Can this possibly be true????? 74% of all 17-24 year olds are NOT qualified for Military Service.
Probably. My guess would be that the vast majority would be for marijuana use. The military has various standards for experimental, occassional, and chronic usage. But most services will allow enlistment if the potential enlistee avows that he has not used it within the recent past, depending on the service and usage, six months or a year. While 74% or ineligible today, within 6 months or a year, the majority, with a little effort by themselves, could become qualified.
The Army is granting more waivers too.
Thats not a suprise and its not really a bad thing either since most of it is waiverable. I dont like how the news is degrading the army by saying the army is lowering its standards, no it is just adapting. Getting into a little trouble with a silly misdemeanor does not make you a bad person and should not prohibit you from serving. Everyone makes mistakes. With the weight thing, I believe most recruiters would give the potential enlistee some sort of workout regimen before s/he is sent to basic if their just slightly overweight. And one more point id like to make of the 25% of people who are qualified what percentage of them have done things that would require a waiver but just have not been caught. I'm sure they wont disclose that. Take the good with the bad, and another example of BS corporate media.
Chip, the "BS corporate media" in the initial post was the House Armed Services Committee.
Chip, are you saying that virtually all of our young people out there are dope smoking, felony committing criminals, some who just haven't been caught yet? Pretty ugly picture.
Just to be clear, I wasn't implying that waivers were a bad thing. I was just pointing out that some of the percentage that is disqualified could be qualified with a waiver.
I do think they need to watch closely what they are waiving. A conviction of a non-violent crime is one thing, but a violent crime should never be waived.
Exactly how do they gauge a recruits "aptitude"?
Oh and getting into a scuffle at a bar would technically be a "violent" crime and I am sure the military has had its fare share of bar fights. So the sailor who throws the other sailor onto the ground should get the boot? Cmon now, shades of gray. I understand the spirit of your statement, but that sorta all encompassing wording will have many a good servicemen out of jobs right now.
Separate names with a comma.