Waivers for criminals & felons?!

[Just_A_Mom]

maybe DOD should be honest about why they are not meeting their recruitment goal and why they need to give waivers when the AF is meeting theirs. What is the real reason they have a shortage, is it that the pay is too low, is it due to the war, is it due to benefits, or is it societal reasons

I think the DOD knows why they can't meet their recruitment goal without considering those who need conduct waivers.
First, there is a War on. Parents don't want their children to enlist they want them to go to college.
The pay is the same for all services based on rank. The Air Force is a much smaller organization than the Army and has fewer personnel needs. The Army is trying to grow while the AF is trying to shrink.
In our city the Armed Forces recruiting center is in the mall. It has the recruiters for Army, AF, Navy and Marines all in one office. One stop shopping. Why would anyone who wants to enlist pick Army and the very likely chance of a trip to Iraq or Afghanistan when the AF is right next door? The AF can afford to be picky.

difference of 608 more goodguys out of 276,231 getting dismissed for unsat is not worth having to bring 6,630 more up for court martials

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers here.

If 276231 enlisted and 18,000 had conduct waivers. This means that 258231 came in clean. 1% of the 18,000 with conduct waivers were court martialed or 180 soldiers.
If the control group had .71% go to court martial then .07% of 18,000 is 128. The increase in the number of courts martial was 52 cases. I am not a statistician and didn't do the study but that difference may not even be significant. Keeping in mind that not every court martial results in a guilty verdict or prison time. Many soldiers are given a dishonorable discharge the increase is rather small.

The Army has for generations given conduct waivers but not lightly. There is a rigid screening process and I certainly hope that those who are receiving conduct waivers are screened properly.
I understand your concern for your son being exposed to criminals while he is in a foxhole fighting for our country's freedom. I think the article and the study attempted to show that your son's risks are rather small, indeed.

The Army has always given conduct waivers - and those are screened carefully. We have no way of knowing the specifics in any of these cases but there are many instances where kids and young adults are being charged with felonies and as adults when 20 years ago they would have been given community service.

The study does show that many soldiers who enlist with a conduct waiver do end up turning their life around while they are in the service. They fight honorably and with courage and much of that is probably due to the great leadership they are given by our fine officers. Officers like those your son wishes to emulate.

 

[cadet candidate]

how bout some of you guys actually fight along side some of these people before judging them. not all "bad" recruits make the turn around, but the majority do and end up serving their country honorably. I had to get a moral waiver to go on active duty, not for a felony, but a waiver none-the-less. No one on active duty looks at that as a stigma, I had a chance to start over and that's how most of these recruits see it.
"Judge not, Lest you be judged."

 

[mom3boys]

There's a quote I like that's posted online, and I think it fits well here: "If you can't stand behind the troops, how about standing in front of them?"

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Medal of Honor to be given to ‘natural’ soldier

Ross McGinnis to be posthumously presented with highest military award

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24926786/

............
Tom McGinnis believes his son’s story must be told truthfully, rough patches and all.
“He wasn’t the hero in the sense that a lot of people that think of heroes,” his father said. “He made some bad decisions, but he still turned out to be a good person ... And that’s really the message that I’m trying to get across by pointing out his faults. Not that I’m trying to disparage him in some way.”
So he tells of his son’s arrest for being caught with marijuana in school, at age 14, and of getting expelled for the rest of eighth grade. He finished at an alternative school that he liked so much he didn’t want to return to regular school.
“He didn’t pick up things at school like he should, for whatever reason. And his grades always suffered,” his father said.
Eventually, Ross McGinnis decided the Army could provide him training as an automotive technician. He enlisted on his 17th birthday, June 14, 2004. “When he told us that he was going to enlist, we didn’t discourage him, because we knew he wasn’t college material,” his father said.
.......................

From a drug arrest at age 14 to a posthumous MOH winner.
Who would have thunk it?

RIP.

 

[Zaphod]

Maybe they meant the "bad ones" remain bad; i.e. go AWOL, etc. But those who reallly wanted to change their lives work really hard, make excellent soldiers, and are therefore promoted. Maybe the "good" ex-cons work harder than the average soldier, while the "bad" ex-cons make poorer choices than the average.

That's my guess.

Some will never change. Others think, "Holy crap! Here's my chance! I better not screw THIS up!", and off they go...

Meh. Dump the bad ones and promote the good ones.

 

[Zaphod]

how bout some of you guys actually fight along side some of these people before judging them.

Ahem.... We HAVE.

I did it for five years. True, there wasn't a (convenient) war going on, but the perspective is the same. Pima's husband has done so for far longer, AND with a war on.

not all "bad" recruits make the turn around, but the majority do and end up serving their country honorably.

No, not all do. We understand that. However, just because some (most?) do doesn't mean we're not going to worry about those who don't. I've seen first-hand what a rotten apple does to the barrel known as a Division Afloat. It's not pretty.

I had to get a moral waiver to go on active duty, not for a felony, but a waiver none-the-less.

And whose fault is that? You make your choices and deal with the consequences...

No one on active duty looks at that as a stigma

Don't be too sure about that. While they may give you a chance to redeem yourself, you will NOT be looked upon initially the same way as a guy who kept his nose clean.

I had a chance to start over and that's how most of these recruits see it.

And I wholeheartedly salute those who take advantage of the opportunity and serve honorably and well. I kinda miss the old days when the judge would lean across the bench and say, "Son, you're either going into the Army or into jail. Decide right now." LOTS of good soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen lived that. Doesn't mean I'm not going to have a healthy bit of skepticism until they've PROVEN they've changed.

"Judge not, Lest you be judged."

Don't leave out the rest. "For the measure with which you judge shall be the measure by which you are judged."

Since I've never broken the law and joined the military under a waiver, and since I was an officer over those who did, I can judge all I want.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Don't be too sure about that. While they may give you a chance to redeem yourself, you will NOT be looked upon initially the same way as a guy who kept his nose clean.

Really? Does one who gets in on a conduct waiver walk around branded with a Scarlet "W"?

From a drug arrest at age 14 to a posthumous MOH winner.
Who would have thunk it?

Obviously - not Zaphod!

 

[Zaphod]

Really? Does one who gets in on a conduct waiver walk around branded with a Scarlet "W"?

No, but if the word DOES get out, you WILL be looked at differently. A lot will depend on what you did. DWI as a teen? Probably no big deal. Burglary? Probably a bigger deal. etc.

Obviously - not Zaphod!

Wow. So you cite ONE example of something I've already said I support as an example of my NOT supporting it?

Besides, you make my point: In this case, his earning the MOH more than wipes clean his issues as a kid. However, since I can't look into the future and see that the kid coming in tomorrow will also earn the MOH in 10 years, I'm going to see if he proves he ISN'T a sleazeball before I start treating him as an integral member of my unit. That assertation can take less than a few days to made.

Nice try, though.

 

[LineInTheSand]

That Scarlet "W" is in their record. It will come up when they begin their paper work for any kind of security clearance, will rear its ugly head again as the member attempts to get that clearance, and should the member "stumble" along that road, a "what did you think would happen" might come up.

People make mistakes, yes, often even, but a waiver won't mean it's all better, it won't mean that you've got SECRET or TOP SECRET writen all over you. A condition is "waived", that doesn't mean forgotten.

On top of that, even people without any prior history on the wrong side of the law will find themselves in a bad place. It is unfortunate for those members, but they are held accountable, even at their cost of their careers.

While I understand that some members, even most who have a criminal history, would like to make that turn down the right path, it will not change the fact that a need for a waiver was there.

So, no, you will not see a member in a uniform wearing a scarlet W, but you can assume that scarlet W is as good as there for the person processing their security package, whether they like it or not.

 

[Zaphod]

Forget it, LITS. We've mearly been officers in the Services. What the hell do we know about this sort of thing?

 

[bruno]

I don't much care for the idea of most waivers either and the exception does not prove the rule here any more than it normally does. However it seems somehow important to get past all of this and remember that this soldier is getting the MOH posthumously for THROWING HIMSELF ON A GRENADE and we ought to be just honoring him for what he did without making points for or against this policy. This whole line of argument on the subject seems distasteful to me.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Bruno - I agree with you - but read the article, it is his dad who wanted to stress that it was being in the Army that allowed his son to turn his life around.

McGinnis only came home twice on leave before he was killed, the last time for a couple of weeks in the spring of 2006. His family noticed how he matured since enlisting.“He was more reserved and more confident and seemed to stand a lot taller, although he didn’t grow any while he was in the Army,” his father said. “He was a man. Unfortunately, we never really got to know him as a man. He was a child when he left, he got to visit with us a couple times, then he was gone.”

Before he gave the Ultimate Sacrifice to save his fellow soldiers, he had already become a good soldier and a better man.

I don't think this is an isolated example nor do I think that everyone who gets a waiver turns their life around. I never made that claim at all.
There are those who do and plenty of them. If somehow we could look into that crystal ball and see who will turn out honorably and who will not that certainly will make the decision much clearer.
I didn't post the article merely because of his selfless sacrifice but to show that he overcame adversity and was successful(according to the article) as a soldier. If he had won the Purple Heart I would have posted it as well.

A lot will depend on what you did. DWI as a teen? Probably no big deal. Burglary? Probably a bigger deal. etc.

I agree that a lot depends on what the infraction was. DWI - no big deal? Heck that can get you jail time. These days it IS a big deal.


Zaphod - I would be interested in hearing your personal experience of working along side of sailors who had committed a youthful indiscretion (illegal act) and required a conduct waiver to enlist in the Navy.

LITS - I never claimed that one with a record should have or will have the slate wiped clean with a waiver. I know very well that it is difficult to overcome bad decisions. What I am hearing from you and Zaphod is that one bad decision should ruin your life. That no one should be given a waiver - they are all sleezebags who don't deserve a second chance.

Zaphod -

Forget it, LITS. We've mearly been officers in the Services. What the hell do we know about this sort of thing?

Go ahead and make fun of me......I simply asked the question - you know, I DON'T know and this remark is hurtful and rude to me. I hope that other people on this forum don't hesitate to ask questions lest they be berated by you in this way.

 

[Zaphod]

Go ahead and make fun of me......I simply asked the question - you know, I DON'T know and this remark is hurtful and rude to me. I hope that other people on this forum don't hesitate to ask questions lest they be berated by you in this way.

And yours was rude to me. I simply replied in kind. If I misread your tone, then I apologize.

I have seen plenty of examples where sailors came in with records. Back then the term "waiver" wasn't used. Some guys simply had records and some didn't. Normally, by the time it was found out, the guy had either earned a reputation as a dirtbag (in which case, the revelation came as no surprise) or as a star (in which case, no one cared about the infraction). You were judged by what you had done aboard ship.

HOWEVER, there were also cases where a sailor (and even one officer) came aboard with a reputation from another command. Just or not, they were judged by that until proven otherwise. It would be no different than the cases being discussed here.

I will reiterate: I have only concerns with the "new" policy. I do not oppose it completely. My reasons are simply because, as already mentioned, many former screwups (or guys who made mistakes) turn out to be really good people who seize the opportunity the military gives them and run with it. Others, sadly don't. Hell, we had guys with NO record REALLY screw up, so all is fair the other way, too.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I want to make it clear what I'm saying, because it's a little obvious that I wasn't as clear as I thought I was.

I am happy that people with troubled backgrounds feel a need to serve, even if it's to get them back on track. I have a classmate in high school who stumbled along the way our junior and senior years and had some troubles. He enlisted in the Air Force I believe, and it did him good. He came back to visit the school and I heard only good things.

That being said, I was responding to the comment that members would not have a scarlet W. For the most part, especially in large commands, the only ones who would probably know about it would be in the member's chain of command and those dealing with admin/security clearances.

While they may have slipped up (and we're talking felonies here), a waiver won't make all that disappear. Also, if problems do arrise, and there is a history of past problems, that won't look great for shipmates (or comrades) or his command.

Some people fall into a slippery slope, once they screw up, it becomes this up hill battle and they seemingly can do nothing right. You don't have to have a record to quickly become the unit's "sandbag".

Should people be able to serve dispite police records? Sure, especially showing good behavior and a change in their ways.

Should people be able to serve having committed felonies? Maybe, I'm not as confident to say yes. Again, what did they do? Murder? Rape? Assault with a deadly weapon? These aren't getting waivers anyway. But if this guy becomes the problem child of the unit, what do you tell his shipmates? Sorry? On the other hand, he could save all of their lives. It's a gamble, which is why they are evaluated for waivers in the first place.



On a side note, I had no idea this conversation was about an Medal of Honor recipient, nor would I in anyway attempt to ever minimize the actions of a hero like that. My comments are my own OPINIONS about the +/- of it, and that is all.

 

[Bullet]

I am proud of the fact that serving your country is one of the few professions that will give someone their "second chance". Granted, we are a little more willing to look beyond past indiscretions than the average civilian job because we have ranks to fill. Very few banks, law firms, and other areas in civilian life would look beyond the record and see the potential. On the other hand, we allow young men and women to prove the world wrong and try to turn their lives around.

Private McGinnis is a perfect example. Problems in his youth, and given the opportunity to go beyond his past, he took the steps to make something out of his life. I proudly salute this young man's sacrifice, and will be honored to someday visit the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes to view his name displayed with so many other fine Americans.

But the key word in my opening paragraph's last sentence is "try". I'm sure other members of this forum have seen the bad apples, and know the impacts they have on a unit. We DO KNOW (especially those in leadership positions) when a potential troublemaker is on the way-- we have to in order protect the entire unit and ensure the mission stays on track. But that doesn't mean we immediately place a guard around the individual. My philosophy, especially in these scenarios, is "Trust, but verify". Granted, there is a part of me that focuses the microscope a little longer on these people, but I guess that is just human nature.

Nothing makes me prouder than watching a young man or woman labeled earlier in their career as "an issue" turn around and become a valuable contributor to the unit. But my bet: it is only half the pride they have in themselves. Allow for waivers for some past indescretions? Certainly, but understand that there is the potential for "further issues". A good leader helps them get on the right path....

 

[Zaphod]

Amen, Bullet.

 

[WAMom68]

"Suspect soldiers: Did crimes in U.S. foretell violence in Iraq?"

Another article about this topic.

"Suspect soldiers: Did crimes in U.S. foretell violence in Iraq?"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/43999.html