Wow, AFA Losing Cadets!

AlexT said:
skismuggs said:
This issue always begs the question. "What in the world did the kid do or not do to get that special attention???" It must have been something, yes? There are 1200 basics and the kid gets singled out?? S(he) must have stood out or drawn enough attention for them to take the time and effort to give him/her a hard time. We are hearing one side of this story and not the other side which in my opinion is unfair. It would be nice to hear the side of the accused before making all these judgments (which will never happen, I know.) I feel for the parents of this cadet but I have a strong feeling there is more to this story than the information given.
Click to expand...

This is not a trial. My posts were merely to address assertions that Freda's Mom's observation that unscrupulous Cadre can act as gatekeepers and have techniques in order to do so was ridiculous. Now, your question seems to be what did the trainee do to deserve this punishment. At least it's progress. We're seeing some acknowledgement that this "gatekeeping" activity takes place. We're now moving beyond this to the question of what precipitated the gatekeeping behavior. It apparently is an acknowledgement that such gatekeeping exists. Good.

Just to be clear, in the example I provided, the technique was used on three trainees that I was aware of. Two dropped, one did not. The one that remained only did so because the trainee's squadmates defied the Cadre and communicated surreptitiously with the targeted trainee with notes of encouragement left in discreet locations and also letters written and mailed to the targetted trainee (the squadmates can easily find anybody's PO Box No. in the mail room). But again, this is another indication of just how far Cadre went to isolate the targetted trainee. It also is a testament to the quality and character of the trainee's squad mates.
Click to expand...

The comments on here certainly feels like the court of public opinion. Gatekeepers and gatekeeping?? Now you are putting words in my mouth.

The question is being asked because nobody has answered it. Or offered to answer it.

Since you seem to have first hand knowledge of your example, would you mind sharing why those "three trainees were targeted by the "unscrupulous" cadre?" What did they do or did not do, NOT what was done to them.
 
As usual, I’m with LITS on this one. Far more often than you think, the kid doesn’t give their family the full story upon departure. We were sponsors and saw some stuff go down. We always respected the explanation handed to the families, as each family situation and dynamics were unique. It was not our place to intercede so we kept out of it. And agreed, if a cadet really wanted to stay and graduate, they would.

You want cadet isolation…….Google up Henry O. Flipper. He graduated.
 
Admittedly I have not read this entire thread but from skimming it everything described up to this point would be considered an easy and normal day at MCRD San Diego and MCRD Parris Island ( the less harder of the 2 ,That was for you USMC Grunt ;)) back in the 80's. I can only imagine what takes place at Marine TBS.... Back when I as 17-18 years old I feared few people ( more balls than brains I guess), there was a fellow recruit in my platoon who scared the hell out me! Total, real deal hardcore LA Crip gangbanger! He was a monster of a man and had the attitude to go with is size. The first time he needed some "extra instruction/motivation" he melted down!!! The Drill Instructor said things to him that make me shutter 30 years later.... As for physical punishment, suffice to say our Drill Instructor was correct when he said " you wanna play??? Good, I have more games than f#$%^&g Milton Bradly and Parker Brothers combined"..... and then he proved it! When my recruiter dropped me off at the airport for my flight to MCRD San Diego he said " no matter what they can't eat you and they can't beat you"..... He lied about the beating part. My point is while physical abuse and sexual harassment has NO place in the training of our miltary, verbal and emotional torment and intense additional physical training is in my opinion warranted at times as needed.
 
That's a very important point you make Skismuggs. With very few exceptions; e.g. an incoming appointee who received a lot media attention or social media attention and the cadre know about him/her; the 99.9998495% of cadets entering BCT, no one knows them from adam or eve. There is absolutely no reason in the world for a cadre member, to have it out for any one trainee in particular. There is absolutely no pre-judged opinions happening.

Now, as Skismuggs points out, the "Individual Trainee" must be doing something; or not doing something; to get the attention of the cadre. Attention at a level that is being argued, "Is Different, Discriminant, above and beyond, etc." from all the other trainees. The cadre member didn't simply pick a name out of the hat arbitrarily. It's not like the cadre knew this kid was coming. Its not like the individual physically stood out. (The academy wouldn't allow an overweight, too tall, amputee, etc. in the academy. Most of the individuals all look the same. Especially after that 1st haircut and the BCG's (Birth Control Glasses). So WHY is this individual being "Recognized"? At least 90%+ of the trainees will be talked to DIRECTLY during the first week about SOMETHING they are doing wrong. Something that needs improvement.

So what was it about the different example trainees in this thread that made them get "MORE" individual attention than anyone else? Was it their attitude? Was it that they never improved? Was it that they wouldn't take the direction given by the cadre? The cadre are use to correcting ALL of the trainees. Some more than others. But ALL of the trainees will get some individual contact with a cadre member while at BCT. But apparently, these example trainees, had extra attention given to them. Apparently, so much attention, that it discouraged them; intimidated them; made them feel that their only legitimate option was to quit. I too would like to know what it was that was so different about these trainees, that got them all this extra attention that was providing an environment that was not the same as everyone else? Especially when a particular cadre, (Individual Cadet), isn't with the trainees 24/7? If there's an individual cadre who is a "Bad Apple", they are only with the cadet a few hours a day. There is also a completely different set of cadre personnel during the 2nd part of BCT (Jack's).

So, the reality is, the individual having a problem with a particular Cadre member, had a problem dealing with this cadres for a "FEW" hours per day, for a MAXIMUM of 3 weeks. (Actually, closer to 17-18 days. And that was enough to make them quit? Again, I have to ask, why would a cadre member, spend all this extra time "Picking on" an individual trainee? The trainee had to do something, or NOT be able to do something, to get this extra attention. And for the individual trainee, they only had to deal with this particular cadre member for a few hours a day, for about 2 and half weeks.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm??????
 
To add to my previous post. If you want an accurate picture of what Marine boot camp is like watch Full Metal Jacket. Most of the boot camp scenes are spot on and may even be sugarcoated in some cases but overall very accurate. Keep in mind Marine boot camp is 13 weeks in duration and there is option to drop on request and leave.
 
sheriff3 said:
To add to my previous post. If you want an accurate picture of what Marine boot camp is like watch Full Metal Jacket. Most of the boot camp scenes are spot on and may even be sugarcoated in some cases but overall very accurate. Keep in mind Marine boot camp is 13 weeks in duration and there is option to drop on request and leave.
Click to expand...

Maybe what it was like...

I think a DI hitting a recruit would be a UCMJ offense these days. And I doubt they use racial or sexual orientation slurs anymore.
 
Christcorp said:
That's a very important point you make Skismuggs. With very few exceptions; e.g. an incoming appointee who received a lot media attention or social media attention and the cadre know about him/her; the 99.9998495% of cadets entering BCT, no one knows them from adam or eve. There is absolutely no reason in the world for a cadre member, to have it out for any one trainee in particular. There is absolutely no pre-judged opinions happening.

Now, as Skismuggs points out, the "Individual Trainee" must be doing something; or not doing something; to get the attention of the cadre. Attention at a level that is being argued, "Is Different, Discriminant, above and beyond, etc." from all the other trainees. The cadre member didn't simply pick a name out of the hat arbitrarily. It's not like the cadre knew this kid was coming. Its not like the individual physically stood out. (The academy wouldn't allow an overweight, too tall, amputee, etc. in the academy. Most of the individuals all look the same. Especially after that 1st haircut and the BCG's (Birth Control Glasses). So WHY is this individual being "Recognized"? At least 90%+ of the trainees will be talked to DIRECTLY during the first week about SOMETHING they are doing wrong. Something that needs improvement.

So what was it about the different example trainees in this thread that made them get "MORE" individual attention than anyone else? Was it their attitude? Was it that they never improved? Was it that they wouldn't take the direction given by the cadre? The cadre are use to correcting ALL of the trainees. Some more than others. But ALL of the trainees will get some individual contact with a cadre member while at BCT. But apparently, these example trainees, had extra attention given to them. Apparently, so much attention, that it discouraged them; intimidated them; made them feel that their only legitimate option was to quit. I too would like to know what it was that was so different about these trainees, that got them all this extra attention that was providing an environment that was not the same as everyone else? Especially when a particular cadre, (Individual Cadet), isn't with the trainees 24/7? If there's an individual cadre who is a "Bad Apple", they are only with the cadet a few hours a day. There is also a completely different set of cadre personnel during the 2nd part of BCT (Jack's).

So, the reality is, the individual having a problem with a particular Cadre member, had a problem dealing with this cadres for a "FEW" hours per day, for a MAXIMUM of 3 weeks. (Actually, closer to 17-18 days. And that was enough to make them quit? Again, I have to ask, why would a cadre member, spend all this extra time "Picking on" an individual trainee? The trainee had to do something, or NOT be able to do something, to get this extra attention. And for the individual trainee, they only had to deal with this particular cadre member for a few hours a day, for about 2 and half weeks.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm??????
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't know why you're beating this dead horse. You've asserted that the vast majority of cadets who quit during BCT/Plebe Summer/Beast do so because they find it's not for them/not what they expected/etc. I agree. Now, let's get to the nub. Do you deny the existence of cadets who separate due to actions of cadre with personal agendas? This was the issue Freda's Mom raised for which l she was unfairly rebuked in my opinion. It was these rebukes that prompted me to join the discussion. Pounding the table that the vast majority leave for other reasons does not address the question of whether cadre have the power to act as gatekeepers and whether cadets separate due to the actions of cadre with these personal agendas. I'll grant you, the vast majority of swans are white. Every now and then you come across one that's black.
 
I would say cadets who leave for this reason (a cadre with an agenda) are extremely rare... As in I know of none. I do know cadets who think they were picked on... And they tend to have thin skin and issues wherever they go.
 
AlexT said:
Do you deny the existence of cadets who separate due to actions of cadre with personal agendas?
Click to expand...

No

AlexT said:
This was the issue Freda's Mom raised for which l she was unfairly rebuked in my opinion.
Click to expand...

We will never know because some cadets separated due to actions of cadre with personal agendas that Freda separated due to actions of cadre with personal agendas. The "rebuke" was more about other possibilities why Freda separated.

AlexT said:
Pounding the table that the vast majority leave for other reasons does not address the question of whether cadre have the power to act as gatekeepers and whether cadets separate due to the actions of cadre with these personal agendas.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that there might be a cadre that has the power to act as gatekeeper or cadets separate due the actions of cadres with these personal agendas, but on average NO. Is one too many, especially, that cadet is my child, no as we don't live in a perfect world.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I would say cadets who leave for this reason (a cadre with an agenda) are extremely rare... As in I know of none. I do know cadets who think they were picked on... And they tend to have thin skin and issues wherever they go.
Click to expand...

This is perfectly fair and I agree. My posts here do not derive merely from actions that occurred during BCT/Beast/Plebe Summer. As I've said earlier, I am aware of one cadet targeted who did not drop out, due largely to the actions of fellow cadets who surreptitiously provided encouragement. Because this cadet stayed, the cadet was able to piece together what happened with discussions with other cadets as well as discussions with upperclassmen that became aware of what was going on during the school year. Some upperclassmen even sought this cadet out to pass this information on. The cadet was told unequivocally by both upper classmen and fellow cadets that the cadet's cadre wanted the cadet out. The actions taken by the cadre weren't taken to correct problems. They were taken specifically with the goal of having the cadet DOR.
 
Christcorp said:
Its not like the individual physically stood out. (The academy wouldn't allow an overweight, too tall, amputee, etc. in the academy. Most of the individuals all look the same.
Click to expand...

I don't know, man. I saw some official USAFA FB pictures on I-day that made me think exactly that they might get a little extra attention.
 
AlexT said:
This is perfectly fair and I agree. My posts here do not derive merely from actions that occurred during BCT/Beast/Plebe Summer. As I've said earlier, I am aware of one cadet targeted who did not drop out, due largely to the actions of fellow cadets who surreptitiously provided encouragement. Because this cadet stayed, the cadet was able to piece together what happened with discussions with other cadets as well as discussions with upperclassmen that became aware of what was going on during the school year. Some upperclassmen even sought this cadet out to pass this information on. The cadet was told unequivocally by both upper classmen and fellow cadets that the cadet's cadre wanted the cadet out. The actions taken by the cadre weren't taken to correct problems. They were taken specifically with the goal of having the cadet DOR.
Click to expand...

This is truly disconcerting. Why didn't the other upperclassmen report the problem? Why would they put up with that? No one said anything? That makes them just as guilty. I'm truly baffled by this.

The only point of reference I have, beyond my DD's experience, is the story my DH told me when he was a cadre. He knew of a few guys that thought a basic "didn't belong" so they started hazing him. It didn't take long before they were reported and spent many, many hours practicing their marching skills around the tzo, carrying along with a few extra demerits.
 
Most of the upper class only became aware after summer training was over. At the time, there were six cadre responsible for this group of cadets. Two were the ringleaders. While the other four did not participate they didn't intervene, either. At some level, I can understand this. The Cadre are all classmates and most are friends. The new cadets are, well new cadets. It's not as easy as it sounds to stick your neck out for the "new kids" and risk alienating existing relationships, not only with the targetting cadre, but also all of their friends. The non-cadre upperclassmen really only became aware of the situation after the entire Corps returned to campus after the summer training period ended. Upon their return, they learned that their new recruit company finished at the bottom of all companies in the intercompany competition which ended summer training. The gap between this company and the one finishing next to last was quite large. Once the corps returned, the obvious question was asked: What happened? I think it was here that the non-cadre upperclassmen became aware of what occurred during the summer.

It's funny...maybe these actions ultimately had their desired effect. The targeted cadet survived and for a short time become a minor celebrity. The cadet is now and exemplary upper classman. The cadet's cadre, meanwhile, became pariahs to some extent. Whether it was because of their specific behavior towards the cadet or the fact that their company performed so dismally at the summer finale, I can't say. Everyone has since moved on.
 
I will respond to your direct question. "Do I deny the existence of cadets who drop out because of the actions of a cadre with a personal agenda"?

Unfortunately, that is not a question that has a direct yes or no answer. If you asked if a cadet had been kicked out because of the actions of a cadre with a personal agenda, I would say it's possible. Very unlikely, put possible. Just like it's possible that I could win the powerball, receive a $10 million inheritance, or become president of the USA. It's possible, but extremely unlikely. Why? Because the cadre doesn't decide if an individual is kicked out. An active duty officer does. And that's after a lot of investigating. They don't just have an arbitrary number of cadets that they will intentionally kick out.

But for your question regarding the cadet trainee that quits. That's a horse of a different color. That trainee made the decision 100% on their own. The academy wasn't forcing them out. Whether or not a cadre member had a personal agenda, is irrelevant. The individual trainee made the decision. But there are 2 truths/facts about your scenario. 1) In the end, it was the individual who decided that THEY didn't WANT to stay any longer. They weren't FORCED to quit. 2) I will bet my yearly salary, that whatever it was that made that trainee decide to quit, was not the worse thing that was ever put on to a trainee in the history of the academy, and others DIDN'T quit.

So, it boils down to what the individual could handle, and more importantly what they wanted to or were willing to handle. Bottom line, which probably should be truth/fact #3. 3) No cadre member can FORCE you to quit. That is totally your decision.

Now, you may argue that it shouldn't get to the point where a trainee would want to quit because of a cadre member. I call BS on that. Academy BCT, enlisted basic. Army, navy, Air Force, marines, coast guard, or merchant marine basic training is a method that more than 50,000 Air Force officers, and probably 350,000+ from the army and navy, has gone through before. The training is always improving and evolving. (Especially for the kinder gentler) military today. An individual who voluntarily quits, can have all the reasons, excuses, and rationalization they want. But in the end, NO ONE FORCED them to quit. They simply decided that they could handle it or didn't WANT to handle it any longer. It really doesn't matter if a cadre had a personal agenda or not. They can't force you to quit.

Movie example: watch Mayo in "Officer and a Gentleman". Yes, it's a movie, but the principle applies. The individual had to be the one who QUIT. They can't throw you out if you're performing satisfactorily. And apparently the individuals who quit, examples in this thread, were performing to the bare minimum because they weren't being kicked out. They may not have been performing to the expectation of the cadre based on perceived capabilities, but they weren't being kicked out. So that alone, speaks volumes. It says the individual trainee made the ultimate decision. Not the cadre.
 
I am not ever one to stifle healthy dialogue, but we may have gotten off track here. This thread started off with a simple comment about attrition in CO 2019, which I think has proven now to be right in line with an "average" year, if there ever is one of those. This is a bit longer than most m posts, but, for what they are worth, I will leave these as my parting words for this thread:

From my personal knowledge, including talking to Basics and Cadre is that nothing out of bounds occurred -- at least to their knowledge. BCT is hard. BCT exposes the average 18 year old to a level of discipline, verbal correction (harassment, abuse, depending on vantage point), sleep deprivation, exhaustion, extreme physical challenges -- to which few if any o them have ever experienced. All of this serves a purpose. No, it is not easy, and it is certainly not Friday Morning study hall at State U.

Those Basics that did drop, are now back home, or off to ROTC/College plan B, and I think we all wish them well. Those that survived BCT are into their academic year. All is good.

I have a limited perspective and admittedly cannot tell you if any Cadre ever crossed the line this year. I would not speculate one way or the other. What I do know is that there is a process and a channel to report those things. If you know of a basic that was treated in a manner contrary to established rules and practices, you and they have an obligation to report to those channels -- this forum is a good place to get advice and share ideas, it cannot dispense military justice.

The few cadre members that I know are remarkably mature, professional and do want every Basic to succeed. Are they easy going and quick to let things slide -- absolutely not. That would be contrary to their purpose -- to prepare teenagers fresh off of high school grad parties for life in the military, and specifically, USAFA.

Again, limited perspective -- but the Cadre I do know would feel obligated to report any egregious conduct. It is a small community, and it would have to be behind closed doors and a lot of really credible, responsible people turning a blind eye for something really bad to go unnoticed and unreported.

My C4C aspires to be part of the Cadre in coming years. Not because she has any type of power trip -- but specifically because her Cadre did such a remarkable job of helping her prepare and survive BCT. She wants to help mentor others in the same fashion.

In sum --

*Congratulations 2019 Cadets.
*Thank you 2019 Cadre for preparing our 2019 Cadets.
*For those Basics that turned back on a medical -- Heal up, stay in shape and we'll see you as part of CO2020.
*For those that left for other reasons -- you must have outstanding qualifications to have received an appointment. Those talents will allow you to go as far as you want in life. We wish you well in all endeavors.
*If anyone directly witnessed any conduct outside of established regulations or protocol, please report this to the Commandant's office.
 
Christcorp said:
I will respond to your direct question. "Do I deny the existence of cadets who drop out because of the actions of a cadre with a personal agenda"?

Unfortunately, that is not a question that has a direct yes or no answer. If you asked if a cadet had been kicked out because of the actions of a cadre with a personal agenda, I would say it's possible. Very unlikely, put possible. Just like it's possible that I could win the powerball, receive a $10 million inheritance, or become president of the USA. It's possible, but extremely unlikely. Why? Because the cadre doesn't decide if an individual is kicked out. An active duty officer does. And that's after a lot of investigating. They don't just have an arbitrary number of cadets that they will intentionally kick out.

But for your question regarding the cadet trainee that quits. That's a horse of a different color. That trainee made the decision 100% on their own. The academy wasn't forcing them out. Whether or not a cadre member had a personal agenda, is irrelevant. The individual trainee made the decision. But there are 2 truths/facts about your scenario. 1) In the end, it was the individual who decided that THEY didn't WANT to stay any longer. They weren't FORCED to quit. 2) I will bet my yearly salary, that whatever it was that made that trainee decide to quit, was not the worse thing that was ever put on to a trainee in the history of the academy, and others DIDN'T quit.

So, it boils down to what the individual could handle, and more importantly what they wanted to or were willing to handle. Bottom line, which probably should be truth/fact #3. 3) No cadre member can FORCE you to quit. That is totally your decision.

Now, you may argue that it shouldn't get to the point where a trainee would want to quit because of a cadre member. I call BS on that. Academy BCT, enlisted basic. Army, navy, Air Force, marines, coast guard, or merchant marine basic training is a method that more than 50,000 Air Force officers, and probably 350,000+ from the army and navy, has gone through before. The training is always improving and evolving. (Especially for the kinder gentler) military today. An individual who voluntarily quits, can have all the reasons, excuses, and rationalization they want. But in the end, NO ONE FORCED them to quit. They simply decided that they could handle it or didn't WANT to handle it any longer. It really doesn't matter if a cadre had a personal agenda or not. They can't force you to quit.

Movie example: watch Mayo in "Officer and a Gentleman". Yes, it's a movie, but the principle applies. The individual had to be the one who QUIT. They can't throw you out if you're performing satisfactorily. And apparently the individuals who quit, examples in this thread, were performing to the bare minimum because they weren't being kicked out. They may not have been performing to the expectation of the cadre based on perceived capabilities, but they weren't being kicked out. So that alone, speaks volumes. It says the individual trainee made the ultimate decision. Not the cadre.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree
 
AlexT said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. No person can be forced to quit. It's their choice. If a trainee was being treated to the point of physical or mental health issues, then they knew how to report that. If they didn't report it, then I can't accept there was any. And unless there is some proof that an individual was being treated differently than the other trainees, then I can't accept that either. As I said in a previous post, when a person quits, we can never know the full truth. We only get one side of the story. And that side is biased by human nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top