Congressman submits "age waiver" bill for active duty members

[Christcorp]

I think it's important to realize that no matter how much we would like it differently, there are going to be some who enlist, go ROTC, got OTS, or go to the academy, strictly for the free education, job security, or other benefits. But until these individuals graduate and actually start active duty, the majority of them have no real idea what they got themselves into. Not even those who came it with a calling to serve. Once they are active duty and performing their jobs, then the clock starts in my book. If they perform honorably and admirably, then they are an asset and should be retained. If they don't perform, then they should be let go.

We haven't had a draft since the 70's. As such, there's no excuse for someone no performing. And it's quite easy to determine a person's motive for joining the military; whatever branch or method. And with MORE THAN ENOUGH applicants, I believe we can be choosy. I'd rather have an academy, ROTC force, officer corp, and enlisted corp made up of motivated and service before self individuals. And whenever we can recognize an individual applicant without these attributes, we should turn them down. But no matter how hard we try, there will always be some that are simply playing the game. To them, it's about the education and benefits, and they're paying back the government for providing that education.

 

[scoutpilot]

You are 100% correct regarding retaining. Yes, some go for the free education and find out through their own experience that this is their path that they were meant to be on.

I hope you also realize that your comment of Is again offensive...what is so horrible of pining to serve in the military?

Great, you found the military, but sorry, as a military spouse and mom, free education is not worth someones life...take loans for college instead.



DON'T PLAY THAT CARD!

I saw up front and personal how the military kicks the dependents out quickly. Shortly before Bullet went to FTU at Mt. Home, they too had a crash. The talk was the widow had 30 days to vacate base housing. When she did Housing had the gall (we were there when this occurred) to charge her $7 for the missing house key. The Commander came into housing and handed them a heap of metal...his key from the crash.

When I was 9 months pregnant with our DS1, Capt Cliff Massegill (AFA 80) went down over the wash in the UK. He was Bullet's primary crewmate. Capt (posthumously) Dorset died with him on that February day. For 2 days they were not declared dead because they could not get to the bodies. Tom Dorset was single, Cliffy was married with a 6 week old baby. He had only signed his separation papers 3 days earlier. He was the Wing Safety Officer, and they died on a training mission.

I lived on a base(base housing) in England where the 111 did cartwheels and the crew died at the end of the runway. For months when driving to the squadron to pick up Bullet, I had the reminder that even training can kill because I had to see the scorched ground.

I was 8 months pregnant with DS2 when my DH was on the GREEN RAMP for the 82nd disaster. The community was devastated.

I was OWC president at RAF Upper Heyford when the EF-111 went down during Gulf I, the surviving spouse served on my board, and was widowed with 3 children, the youngest was not even a toddler.

I lifted my glass at the 1st anniversary death of boots, and not only knew him, but his wife, and her brother (another strike eagle driver).

Bullet attended the funeral at Arlington for his brethren that died this past summer. They were with our sister squadron. He also attended Boots at Arlington.

AGAIN, DON'T...DON'T ...DON'T....play that card. I have attended too many funerals. I have made the condolence meals. I have watched the wives crawl into their husbands arms as the flyby occurs or the flag is handed in honor of their country. DON'T, DON'T, DON'T GO THERE. Sorry, but anyone who has ever endured it would never bring that up like you did..."I can happily take you to Arlington"! Nobody wants to visit Arlington, and nobody wants to use that as one upmanship!

OBTW, since you are new here, I am under the assumption that you do not realize I am BULLET'S DW and we live 30 miles from Arlington.

Now you know how many funerals I attended and their stories do you still want to go down the road that I don't get life and death when it comes to the military.

Would you like me to tell you about Bullet getting a phone call on Sunday morning from the 3rd Brigade for the 82nd and being in lock down by Saturday to jump into Haiti?

It is important to me that we show the underbelly of the real military. I never expected what I endured, but it happened. Cadets who think this is a free education, need to understand what the true cost is.

We all know you're bullet's wife. You can't go three posts without mentioning it. It's your stock in trade.

It's funny that you tell someone not to play a card, and then play all of yours. And yet you still didn't address the point. You have no right to pass judgment, especially on those who've served. And that's exactly what you did.

I would take you to Arlington happily. I am proud to have known such warriors. Those men lie in honored glory for the selflessness of their sacrifice, regardless of your thoughts on whether they were worthy of being retained.

And you better believe I'll bring up their solemn sacrifice when someone trashes them and all others like them for the reasons that brought them to serve.

 

[Zaphod]

Nobody wants to visit Arlington

Two weeks ago I DROVE PAST Arlington, and it gave both my wife and I chills.

I am BULLET'S DW and we live 30 miles from Arlington.

Had I known, I would have dropped in to say hello!

Cadets who think this is a free education, need to understand what the true cost is.

Agreed.

I often wonder if ROTC should be reserved for the kids coming out of High School, and USNA reserved for those who have served a stint in the Fleet already and are prepared for a War College Lite....

 

[Zaphod]

And you better believe I'll bring up their solemn sacrifice when someone trashes them and all others like them for the reasons that brought them to serve.

Whoa, brother.... slow down. I don't think anyone here is "trashing" the service of anyone else.

We all need to step back and remember we're on the same side here.

 

[scoutpilot]

I often wonder if ROTC should be reserved for the kids coming out of High School, and USNA reserved for those who have served a stint in the Fleet already and are prepared for a War College Lite....

or vice versa?

 

[scoutpilot]

Whoa, brother.... slow down. I don't think anyone here is "trashing" the service of anyone else.

We all need to step back and remember we're on the same side here.

Sorry boss, I get a bit fired up when someone tries to say that my buddies and those like them weren't pure enough in their motivations.

 

[Zaphod]

or vice versa?

No. The Academy is more suitable both in ability as well as tradition to fill that role.

Sorry boss, I get a bit fired up when someone tries to say that my buddies and those like them weren't pure enough in their motivations.

I highly doubt that's what they meant. The internet can often be a lousy way to communicate.

 

[scoutpilot]

No. The Academy is more suitable both in ability as well as tradition to fill that role.




I highly doubt that's what they meant. The internet can often be a lousy way to communicate.

Well, let's hope not. But when I read "If attending only an SA to become an officer is your make or break, than I think they already broke the cardinal rule...SERVICE BEFORE SELF and not worth retaining" it sure says that to me. I agree with Christcorp. I don't really care what brought you to the academy. I care about what you do when you put that uniform on as an officer. If you're out there, making the donuts, working your ass off, bleeding like everyone else, you're good to go in my book. I don't care if you went to WP to be president or an astronaut. I want to know where you are when the brown hits the fan. If you're standing tall, what the hell does it matter what you thought at 18? It doesn't. It's just a way for people to feel superior to one another.

As to the other point,

I would argue that the Academies might be better tuned to indoctrinating high school kids to the military with the type of heavy discipline that enlisted SMs receive in basic training, and ROTC would be better for prior enlisted since it would a) allow them to have a nice "break" from the rigors of military duties at a civilian school and b) be able to start things at a more advanced level.

Either, it's probably a moot point and we're suddenly headed back to talking about that damn Major's article!

 

[Christcorp]

And back on the original topic, this is why I am totally against changing the age requirements for the academies. There are too many things about the academy that are centered around late/post teens growing up, maturing, becoming self sufficient, independent, etc... A 25-26 year old enlisted who wants to become an officer has 3 other methods of doing so. They don't have to have the academy. If they really care about being an officer and serving their country as such; being they're prior enlisted, they already know WHY they are making such decisions, they don't need to CHANGE the CORE OBJECTIVE of the academy. These individuals can go ROTC, OTS if they finish their schooling on their own, or the Bootstrap (Old term) program. That's 3 ways for them to get commissioned. Leave the academy alone. The academy has as one of it's core principles to help young people to become leaders. An enlisted person, at 25 years old, has about 7 years in the military. They've already become accustomed to some leadership roles. Their experiences at that age and time in service are actually a detriment to the academy and the cadet corp.

 

[Luigi59]

Lots of red herrings and spurrious arguments against the waiver for a 23 year old combat veteran.

He's not 25 or 26, he's 23. He's only missing the cutoff date by a few months.

The occasional waiver for a combat vet candidate who is just missing the date by a few months is fine with me.

Think about this......

Candidate A, enlisted combat vet who spent the last 4 years on active duty, turns 23 on March 5 - ineligible to apply.

Candidate B, turns 23 on July 5 (22 on R-Day) - eligible to apply.

Nothing wrong with that, huh?

Waive the rigid age restriction and judge each case on its merits.

 

[Mongo]

The provision also states that no more than five members of the military can be on an age waiver at each of the academies at any time.

What's the big deal? We're only talking one per year. So the individual services would have to monitor it closely to ensure that only those individuals who, as scout pointed out, were truly unable to apply successfully earlier, utilized the quota, it would be worthwhile.

What no one has mentioned is the value that the prior enlisted bring to the Corps/Brigade. Being around those who have 'been there, done that' is an important part of the growth of these 'immature' 18 yr olds'. They are an invaluable part of the makeup. If one a year or so older wants to do it, more power to him.

 

[Christcorp]

They already have approximately 50 per year prior-enlisted in each class. The one person isn't going to add any extra benefit because they are prior enlisted.

Next, when you set out to make an exception, and a waiver, another waiver will come to follow. It ALWAYS DOES. "You did it for him, why not me?" And of course, it backfires when you say: "We have to have a cutoff some place". Once you make an exception or a waiver, there is no more cutoff. The cutoff potentially is waivered from that point on.

Finally, unless this individual was 21-22 when they came into the military, and even then, he's had 5 years to decide he wanted to go to the academy. He hasn't been deployed for 5 years. Not going to happen. If he wants to become a commissioned officer, good for him. Go to ROTC, OTS, or ELA (Educational Leave of Absense) program. That's 3 ways he can become commissioned. DON'T change the academy. Waivers are NOT temporary. They become precedence.

 

[Luigi59]

Waivers are NOT temporary. They become precedence.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Waivers do not establish precedence, every situation is different and needs to be examined individually.

Ask Larry Mullen.

 

[scoutpilot]

The one person isn't going to add any extra benefit because they are prior enlisted.

Well, this guy might. Not a lot of Special Forces soldiers go to WP. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this guy might be the first.

 

[Mongo]

Another thing we are forgetting, is that a lot of these priors could use a year of prep school. Enlist at nineteen, a year or two of basic and initial training, a year in an operational outfit proving themselves, a year of prep school. Too old. I have seen several instances where it would have been nice if the age limit had applied to NAPS instead of the Academy.

 

[Mongo]

If attending only an SA to become an officer is your make or break, than I think they already broke the cardinal rule...SERVICE BEFORE SELF and not worth retaining………………………………...Additionally, I have to say that I believe 99% of candidates on this forum do the plan B option...ROTC.

Everyone has their pet peeves. Mine is people, especially those who have never been to an Academy, telling candidates that there is only one “proper” reason to attend, service to ones country. I have always said, 1200 candidates on I-Day, 1200 reasons for being there. Some more noble than others, some less so. But it doesn’t matter what the reason is, so long as in their deepest darkest hour, they can look to it for strength and help them pull through.

I suppose those who feel that they only reason to attend a SA is to serve ones country and must feel that way completely before attending are also the ones who think that leaders are born that way not made and the Academy does nothing to their leadership skills. Reality is that the atmosphere of the S As will breed service. Get them in the door anyway that they feel comfortable and work on the real reasons once they get there.

In my experience, probably only slightly more than half will consider ROTC as a plan B. Perhaps those on this forum have been browbeat to death. Reality is that “immature 18 yr olds” are looking for a college experience. They buy into the whole SA lifestyle and, as scout points out, see a payback as reasonable for a quality prestigious free education (pick one, two, or three in varying orders). A college experience does not mean dressing up in a uniform once a week and playing soldier. They are smart enough to realize that once a week does not equate to a SA 24/7. I would never have gone ROTC, my son was vehemently opposed to ROTC.

For us who have ‘been there and done that’, and know the inner thoughts and workings of our forty or so best friends, service to their country didn’t get them to a SA. It might have been a free education, a quality education, the overall experience, the prestige, heck, maybe even Div I football. However, hopefully, over the four years, it did become important though.

 

[sprog]

In my experience, probably only slightly more than half will consider ROTC as a plan B. Perhaps those on this forum have been browbeat to death. Reality is that “immature 18 yr olds” are looking for a college experience. They buy into the whole SA lifestyle and, as scout points out, see a payback as reasonable for a quality prestigious free education (pick one, two, or three in varying orders). A college experience does not mean dressing up in a uniform once a week and playing soldier. They are smart enough to realize that once a week does not equate to a SA 24/7. I would never have gone ROTC, my son was vehemently opposed to ROTC.

.

A couple of things-

I agree that there is no one correct reason for attending any college. On that we should all agree. Certainly, a prospective SA cadet/mid should realize that they will have to serve on active duty, and should have no issue with that; however, I agree that there are as many reasons for going to a college as there are applicants.

On the ROTC vs. SA debate (which is certainly not the point of the thread, but Pandora's Box was opened):

I think you'll find that a lot of people in ROTC did not apply to an SA, specifically because they do not believe that the "college experience" should include learning meals in advance, having daily formation, going through room inspections, and dealing with everything else that is part of life at an academy. To each their own.

Also, keep in mind that not all ROTC units are treated equally. I like to say that I went through a hybrid commissioning source. That is, I did ROTC at one of the SMCs (VMI). I had most of the crap of the SA, and also had to do all the ROTC BS (like AFROTC Field Training). . I wouldn't trade it, either. I think it ended up being a "best of both worlds" experience. While VMI is a state school (commissioning is not required ), it sort of felt like a joint-services military school (ROTC classes were required for everyone). Active duty military officers from each branch (except the USCG) were actively involved in campus. I do mean actively involved, in that they were not just teaching ROTC stuff. They were tactical officers, club advisors, you name it. It was great to get exposure to the Army, Navy, and USMC (as well as my own Air Force people) while I was a cadet there.

Obviously, the military has needs for officers from all commissioning sources, be they SAs, ROTC ("regular college" and SMC), OTS/OCS, and PLC or whatever else. I don't think anyone was putting down one source of officers over the other, and we should probably do our best to ensure that it stays that way on the forum.

 

[scoutpilot]

Excellent points by Mongo and sprog. Beware though, as there are some who can't get over the SA/ROTC debate.

Anyhow...99% huh? So out of 100 candidates who register on this forum, only one will go to a SA? Somebody better go break the news to the candidates that many will have to turn down their appointments to make the data fit.

 

[Christcorp]

Definitely some interesting perspectives. However, there hasn't been one thing that was said that would convince me to allow an age waiver to attend the academy. There are other means of receiving a commission, and there isn't one that that happened that prevented this individual from applying to the academy. He's had 7 years to apply. He didn't. Oh well, so sorry. Now, go one of the other 3 methods of obtaining a commission. It's not like there aren't other means. And this guy isn't going to be paraded around West Point. That is totally contrary to the whole team concept of the academy. It's all about breaking individuality, to build a team, then using individuality later to become better. His individual experience as a SF is irrelevant. Same with the other prior enlisted; the all state football player; the eagle scout; etc... No, don't change the exiting rules, they work fine the way they are.

 

[Zaphod]

Well, I'm one of those people who believe that unless your PRIMARY reason for attending USNA is anything other than, "I want to be the finest Officer in the Naval Service I can be!", then you should be looking elsewhere.

Notice I said PRIMARY, not ONLY.

That doesn't mean that you are QUALIFIED to be that Naval Officer when you get in, of course. That's USNA's job: to give you the tools, knowledge, and framework you need to make YOURSELF into that great Officer.