previous post next post  

On the taking of "criminals" into the Services.

Well, of course it's a bad idea, right?

Hmmm. Mebbe not. At least, not as bad as those who look for bad things want to spin it to be.

Gosh, maybe there was some utility, in years gone by, when Judges told young offenders - "Enlist or go to jail."

Mind you, it's a delicate balancing act. The services really don't want, nor need, hard-core cases.

But a lot of kids get in trouble because they have poor self-discipline, are too smart, and don't take direction well, because the direction is oft-times applied badly. This is even more true as we as a society seem bent on criminalizing more and more trivial putative "precursor" behaviors, because 1 out of a thousand or so who offend in certain ways go on to offend in more serious, sometimes spectacularly so, ways.

So, the Army did a study on the impact of lowering some of the enlistment standards.

The AP got ahold of a copy of an internal Army study not yet released to the public (I'm trying to get a copy now, via PAO channels). According to the AP, the study found that -


WASHINGTON (AP) - Soldiers who need special waivers to get into the Army because of bad behavior go AWOL more often and face more courts-martial. But they also get promoted faster and re-enlist at a higher rate, according to an internal military study obtained by The Associated Press.
The Army study late last year concluded that taking a chance on a well-screened applicant with a criminal, bad driving or drug record usually pays off. And both the Army and the Marines have been bringing in more recruits with blemished records. Still, senior leaders have called for additional studies, to help determine the impact of the waivers on the Army.

"We believe that so far the return outweighs the risk," said Army Col. Kent M. Miller, who headed the team that conducted the study.

Such soldiers are a leadership challenge. Ones that good leaders relish, because there's material there you can really mold and shape. Weak leaders hate that kind of soldier. And you can't handle too many of them at once.

But many of the better NCO's I served with during the early years of my career had come to the Army with checkered pasts. But they would freely admit that the Army, by giving them structure, goals, and setting limits, had gotten them through their wild phases and had molded them into leaders who could lead - and lead the troublemakers.

They were also invaluable because they could really help you winnow the salvageable from the un-salvageable, and guide a young Lieutenant through those early minefields, where my mostly-among-officers upbringing had left me some rather large gaps in my understanding of soldiers - and saved me from trying to rescue the terminally self-destructive, and take chances on soldiers who simply infuriated me. How dare they challenge by Lieutenant-level wisdom, after all?

No, it doesn't always work - but for the nonce, at least, it appears to work more often than it fails, and is worth the paperwork and dollar costs of booting the incorrigibles.



6 Comments

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed by all the lack of reality in these news papers caterwauling about the influx of "bad seeds" and the "lowering of standards". If I had time, I'd go back and quote from the Revolution forward all of the interesting scalawags who both caused pain and performed beyond all expectations. Further, that the only reason that the "heightened" standards were put in place (regardless of any marketing otherwise) was a good way to reduce the armed forces in size by making it more difficult to get in. Thus, using work force attrition tactics (normally seen in the public sector) to reduce the size to plan and necessity without causing traumatic shortages. Of course it raised the standards, but I doubt seriously that anyone intended that the Army of citizen soldiers be made up of only the perfect without any real representation of the US citizenry, including its less educated, poor, or legally challenged. That was a short term solution. One might also remember that, if the selected service was enacted and draft ensued, those standards would be dropped even more. We are not the Third Reich, contrary to popular belief, and these men are not Himmler's SS "perfect". This is a citizens army and may it ever remain so.
 
I'm waiting for the outcry over taking the poor and disadvantaged (because that's why they're criminals, ya know) and kicking them while they're down by preying upon them--I mean, recruiting them...
 
I would like to say 2 things: 1. That the services have always used these markers, as well as other (e.g. weight, aptitude, etc.) as force management tools. 2. I was told by an AF recruiter that this is a more criminalized and documented civilian environment than my generation faced. When I was a teenager in small town southern America, if you were caught with a case of beer, the officer would confiscate your beer and, maybe, call your father. Now days, everything is on the dash cam and the police no longer have that discretion...
 
Kids make mistakes growing up...sometimes even felonious ones. The military is a great place to turn your life around and redeem yourself to society. Thank you for understanding this (I think most people in the military do). I know I do, since I am multiple-waiver guy myself.
 
30 years ago (my how time flies) my Signal training company at Ft Gordon was getting our payday "talking to" by the Field First Sergeant - a crazy E-7 who wore 1SG stripes with the bottom rocker clipped off, an SFC with a Diamond! His little spiel was mostly routine, but one part stuck in my head throughout my whole career - "You will Never make First Sergeant or SGM if you don't have an Article 15. Just be sure is is for something minor" Ahh for the army of the 80s when I as a young Buck Sgt CQ would have to go retrieve the 1SG and a few Platoon Sgts from the drunk tank in Camp Long ROK.... Or the time my CO (1LTPromotable) was a bit miffed that he had to share a holding cell with 4 rowdy NCOs! Bad enough he was busted with us while storming the gate after the Cinderella curfew, but spending the night in a cell with us was too close to fraternization for him ;) My old first shirts both made CSM, the LT retired as LTC, and I quit early as an SSG
 
Having served with a few enlisted Marines, with checkered backgrounds, that were given the choice by a judge. I must agree with John. They are certainly worth the risk. The point about the young officers leaning on the SNCOs for advice is right on target. The company First SGTs I knew where very good at spotting the ones worth saving.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.